Nancy Genovese - Innocent Victim or Right Wing Teabagger?

[mailman]

As for "acting in good faith" that is legal terminology.

Good faith is going to be impossible to prove if the cops in question have a history of intimidation against others OR the police evidence on the memory card PROVES she was only photographing the helicopter.

As for why her Beck fantasy mattered, it merely supports the case that the cops' judgement the woman was acting suspiciously was a correct assessment.

In your opinion...but hang on, didnt you claim that her listening to Beck was nothing more than a strawman? And yet, here you are once again using that strawman to come to the conclusion that she is guilty...never mind the fact that ALL charges against her have been dropped.

The court case will be interesting and if the cops in question of a history of wrongful arrests or initimidation etc, then I dare say the city is in for one hell of a payout to this woman.

Regards

Mailman

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Photographing a tourist magnet helicopter-on-a-stick is now "insane"?

That's a total distortion of the facts and I find it hard to believe your brain can take what happened and turn it into this fantasy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good faith is going to be impossible to prove if the cops in question have a history of intimidation against others OR the police evidence on the memory card PROVES she was only photographing the helicopter.



In your opinion...but hang on, didnt you claim that her listening to Beck was nothing more than a strawman? And yet, here you are once again using that strawman to come to the conclusion that she is guilty...never mind the fact that ALL charges against her have been dropped.

The court case will be interesting and if the cops in question of a history of wrongful arrests or initimidation etc, then I dare say the city is in for one hell of a payout to this woman.

Regards

Mailman

Twist people's words much? For the record, your claim to be paraphrasing my opinion is a complete fraud. You should quote where I've said what you claim so I can correct where your interpretation has gone wrong.

As for the cops, do you have any evidence whatsoever they were out of control here? Any at all?

 

[rwguinn]

That's a total distortion of the facts and I find it hard to believe your brain can take what happened and turn it into this fantasy.

So, what insane fantasy/belief was she acting on-in YOUR opinion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, what insane fantasy/belief was she acting on-in YOUR opinion?

Since it seems people in this thread are conflating multiple issues, you need to clarify your question.

Are you referring to what the police had to go on as revealed in the news accounts?

Or, what we all have to go on given the disclosure of the woman's MySpace and Twitter posts?


As far as Sword of Truth's post, the fact she had been there before and was told not to take pictures then returned to take pictures was the offense. Why she was taking the pictures may or may not have been part of the issue. But nothing about the news account says it mattered why she was taking pictures.

So here you are making an issue of why when it's no more than a red herring.

 

[rwguinn]

Since it seems people in this thread are conflating multiple issues, you need to clarify your question.

post 175. You said

It's a straw man to say anyone in this thread is arguing Genovese's "thoughts" were the issue. She acted on those thoughts and that is the issue....

post 126:

No, this is a straw man. The issue is not who Ms Genovese listens to. It is the fact Genovese WAS ACTING ON THOSE INSANE BELIEFS.

post 127:

She's a concern because she is acting on her Beck fantasy and you all are claiming she's being attacked for having the fantasy

and so on
What is the fantasy she was acting on? or have you lost track of which prevarication you are using now?

Are you referring to what the police had to go on as revealed in the news accounts?

Or, what we all have to go on given the disclosure of the woman's MySpace and Twitter posts?


As far as Sword of Truth's post, the fact she had been there before and was told not to take pictures then returned to take pictures was the offense. Why she was taking the pictures may or may not have been part of the issue. But nothing about the news account says it mattered why she was taking pictures.

So here you are making an issue of why when it's no more than a red herring.

 

[rwguinn]

post 175. You said
post 126:


post 127:

and so on
What is the fantasy she was acting on? or have you lost track of which prevarication you are using now?

crickets

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

post 175. You said
post 126:


post 127:

and so on
What is the fantasy she was acting on? or have you lost track of which prevarication you are using now?

I don't deny saying any of that, nor am I unable to support that conclusion.

But as long as people in the thread keep conflating issues, I want you to spell out your question before I let you distort my answer.

Are you referring to what the police had to go on as revealed in the news accounts?

Or, what we all have to go on given the disclosure of the woman's MySpace and Twitter posts?

Notice how you totally ignored my request you clarify your question and went on just repeating your question instead? Clarify what you are trying to apply my answer to.

 

[Meadmaker]

Good faith is going to be impossible to prove...

More importantly, the "good faith exception" that SG quoted was an exception to the exclusionary rule, and it is a very specific term that has nothing to do with this case. Just because there is a "good faith" exception to one rule doesn't mean there's a good faith exception to other rules.



I'm waiting for the ultimate explanation here, which is,

What is Toronto??????

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More importantly, the "good faith exception" that SG quoted was an exception to the exclusionary rule, and it is a very specific term that has nothing to do with this case. Just because there is a "good faith" exception to one rule doesn't mean there's a good faith exception to other rules.



I'm waiting for the ultimate explanation here, which is,

What is Toronto??????

You know you could just Google the dang term instead of assuming because you don't know what it means, it must not mean anything.

good faith law definition

A partyÂ’s state of mind in acting or carrying out an action or transaction, evincing honesty, fairness, full communication of any hidden issues or information, and an absence of intent to harm other individuals or parties to the transaction.

If you are going to sue the police for malicious arrest or detainment, you certainly are going to have a hard time if it is clear the police were acting in good faith. So if the notice, "no photos" was not a legal prohibition (and I think it was legal, but say hypothetically it wasn't) but the police in good faith believed the prohibition was legal, then you have no case.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know you could just Google the dang term

Indeed I could, but then I might end up with random articles that happened to include certain search terms.

If you are going to sue the police for malicious arrest or detainment, you certainly are going to have a hard time if it is clear the police were acting in good faith.

No, you won't. Read the articles about false arrest. Their good faith would be a matter of concern when determining punitive damages, but on the core question of whether her rights were violated by false arrest, it really wouldn't matter.

ETA: Slight correction. If you are suing for "malicious" arrest, then good faith is relevant. If you are suing for false arrest, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Why to leftist use sexual terms to demean people?

Ironically, Nancy does not have a teabag to teabag anyone. Maybe you assume she will borrow someone's teabag.

 

[Xulld]

http://www.murthalawfirm.com/updates-nancy-genovese-case
Update, it has been taking a while but the proceedings are finally coming along.

All discovery has been ordered to be complete by March 16, 2012, All dispositive motions filed by March 30, 2012, and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for April 27, 2012. If discovery stays on track and there are no settlements, a trial should be scheduled for this summer.

My own personal interest is as a Civil rights activist. I am a strong proponent for making sure police authority does not over step its bounds and allow bias to effect professionalism.

A person taking photo's is really not grounds for RAS, as such she should not have been even questioned. Even granting RAS, no PC was ever established for an arrest. This ignores the alleged misconduct and lack of professionalism, THAT to me will be the most interesting parts of this case.

I think based ALONE on the fact that PC cannot be shown to have been established she will win something. If they have evidence of the other claims then this ought to be a real interesting event.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.murthalawfirm.com/updates-nancy-genovese-case
Update, it has been taking a while but the proceedings are finally coming along.



My own personal interest is as a Civil rights activist. I am a strong proponent for making sure police authority does not over step its bounds and allow bias to effect professionalism.

A person taking photo's is really not grounds for RAS, as such she should not have been even questioned. Even granting RAS, no PC was ever established for an arrest. This ignores the alleged misconduct and lack of professionalism, THAT to me will be the most interesting parts of this case.

I think based ALONE on the fact that PC cannot be shown to have been established she will win something. If they have evidence of the other claims then this ought to be a real interesting event.

While I would have to review my previous position, I do believe there was a sign that said no photos which prompted me to say this:

So if the notice, "no photos" was not a legal prohibition (and I think it was legal, but say hypothetically it wasn't) but the police in good faith believed the prohibition was legal, then you have no case.

Wasn't she taking photos of a military installation with a sign posted that said, no photos, after being warned at least once not to? If one has a belief one has a right to take photos, wouldn't a civil case be the way to go, not defiance?

 

[fuelair]

Thanks! That helps a helluva lot. Not.

Has it has occured to anybody that I am simply after information here? I do not have any agenda at all, and am simply seeking facts, or as near to facts as can be obtained in this case. And so far, from the "I love Nancy" to the "I hate Nancy" sites, all I have seen is rhetoric. And from the post I quoted here, this seems to be all that anybody is willing to provide.

Norm

Norm: with no offense has it hit you that maybe no one in the real world (the New York Times, Washington Post , San Francisco Chronicle, etc. was interested enough to do the kind of digging it would take to provide the story you want so people are passing on the little they can find. And that really is the bulk of what's out there. It's a local story, No national importance. Very little to care about in the overall scheme of things.

I have also gotten interested in some essentially local stuff(but not local to me) that I wanted to find more about - but it just wasn't there unless I was willing to go to the place and interview people. Not that curious.....

 

[Freddy]

As for "acting in good faith" that is legal terminology.

You don't win a lawsuit over wrongful arrest if the cops, in good faith, believed the restriction on photography at the base was a legal enforceable order even if it wasn't. Of course it was a legal restriction but even if you don't believe that fact, the cops were still right to act on their belief in this kind of case.

Be careful not to confuse the good faith exception with qualified immunity. The former is an exception to exclusionary rule in a criminal trial. The latter protects police officers from being personally liable for a civil rights violation (including, but not limited to, illegal searches and wrongful arrests). Only the latter is relevant to civil claims such as wrongful arrest.

Also, note that the good faith exception does not apply if the cop knew or should have known that the search was illegal. So the fact that a cop sincerely believed his actions were lawful is not enough, if he should have known they weren't. The good faith belief must be objectively reasonable (with the standard being a reasonable well-trained police officer, rather than just a reasonable person).

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from being personally liable for violating someone's rights. Even if the officer enjoys qualified immunity, the department can still be sued, as can the municipality (though suits against state governments and the federal government may be barred by sovereign immunity). And the officer can still be sued in his professional capacity. To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the police officer's actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The standard is whether a reasonable and well-trained officer would have known the action in question violated the plaintiff's rights.

So while some of the plaintiff's claims might be barred by qualified immunity (I haven't read the complaint), almost certainly she alleged claims against defendants not entitled to qualified immunity.

 

[xterra]

LTC8K6 wrote,

"And these pics don't even show most of the (assault) rifles...or their ammo."

Just for clarification, please say whether these are assault rifles (full auto) or assault weapons (semi-automatic but look like the assault rifles).

Assault rifles are like machine guns or the famous Thompson submachine (Tommy gun). In the United States, a person must have a special Federal license to possess them.

(In some states, notably Nevada, one can rent, and shoot, a machine gun at a range. That's not possession.

The confusion happens too frequently. I just want to be sure we are all talking about the same firearms.

 

[Freddy]

For a different interpretation of laws specifically relating to false arrest, I found this article informative:

http://www.answers.com/topic/false-arrest

I'm sure there are plenty of others available with similar information.

Perhaps the most important point from the link is that malice or ill will is not an element of the tort. That means subjective good faith alone is no defense. A good faith belief that is also objectively reasonable would probably be sufficient, though. Which means that what actually matters is not good faith, but objective reasonableness.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Be careful not to confuse the good faith exception with qualified immunity. The former is an exception to exclusionary rule in a criminal trial. The latter protects police officers from being personally liable for a civil rights violation (including, but not limited to, illegal searches and wrongful arrests). Only the latter is relevant to civil claims such as wrongful arrest.

Also, note that the good faith exception does not apply if the cop knew or should have known that the search was illegal. So the fact that a cop sincerely believed his actions were lawful is not enough, if he should have known they weren't. The good faith belief must be objectively reasonable (with the standard being a reasonable well-trained police officer, rather than just a reasonable person).

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from being personally liable for violating someone's rights. Even if the officer enjoys qualified immunity, the department can still be sued, as can the municipality (though suits against state governments and the federal government may be barred by sovereign immunity). And the officer can still be sued in his professional capacity. To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the police officer's actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The standard is whether a reasonable and well-trained officer would have known the action in question violated the plaintiff's rights.

So while some of the plaintiff's claims might be barred by qualified immunity (I haven't read the complaint), almost certainly she alleged claims against defendants not entitled to qualified immunity.

If you mean they kept her too many days, I'd have to review the thread. The fact is, however, the police did indeed believe the "no photos" posted was legal (and there's evidence in the thread it was legal) and they warned her and she came back and when they arrested her she had an assault rifle in the car (visible on the seat if I recall). This is not even mentioning she professed to believing in a Glenn Beck fantasy that the government was building FEMA prison camps.

So I'm sorry, but I can't believe this woman will come off very well in any civil trial.

 

[Vermonter]

I'm a firearm owner, and even I think she was being suspicious. Taking pictures of a National Guard base in of itself doesn't have to be suspicious, though it's prohibited by visible signs. It's the combination of taking pictures, carrying a rifle (unloaded or not), a shotgun, ammunition for both, and a large amount of cash that would be worrisome. If she in fact lied about going to the gun range, then what was her purpose for bringing the weapons with her? Like I said, I'm a gun owner and I think what she did was at the very least foolish and asking for trouble. Each factor by itself isn't that bad by themselves, but to me, the combination is unusual at least. I'm not even considering her blog post.

Yes, I believe that citizens have the right to carry firearms with them, but for pete's sake, be responsible about it. There seems to be a trend where some firearm owners think that they can carry a weapon around and everyone just has to deal with it. My thought it...don't be a jerk and spoil it for everyone else. Be responsible, and be a model citizen. Others will be more likely to respond favorably than if the same firearm owner carries their piece around in full view and makes a huge deal out of it.

So yes. Mrs. Genovese, in my opinion, was purposefully looking for trouble.