Nancy Genovese - Innocent Victim or Right Wing Teabagger?

[Babbylonian]

Why is it unreasonable for a police officer seeing a posted sign, no photography, on a military base to believe such a sign is enforceable?

Because signs don't make laws (I believe I've said that before somewhere). Who put up the sign? Under what authority was the sign placed? Does it apply to the area outside the fence or just past that point? If it applies outside the base, does it mean that one can't take pictures of anything in sight or just anything inside the military base? Does the sign apply to actions taken on public, as opposed to private or military, property?

And these are just the simplest questions that one could reasonably ask before deciding that the sign carries the force of law outside the military base and that disobeying the sign constitutes criminal trespassing.

 

[Xulld]

Why is it unreasonable for a police officer seeing a posted sign, no photography, on a military base to believe such a sign is enforceable?

Because unlike us (civilians) they are expected to understand the law, and when in doubt call in to someone who does before making an arrest which might violate someone rights and bring down a lawsuit against the department.

This is not rocket surgery.

If you're arguing that the police had a reasonable belief that taking pictures of a military base constitutes criminal trespassing, I would humbly suggest that you are bending over backwards to justify this woman's arrest. I further suspect that you're doing so based on your distaste for her [nutty] opinions/beliefs, a distaste I share but which in my case doesn't extend to endorsing state violations of civil rights.

Well said and I agree. I will defend the civil rights of people I might despise becuase at the end of the day when authorities can abuse there authority with impunity it doesn't matter what your political affiliation you could be next. Rights are useless unless they are equally respected.

 

[Meadmaker]

Somewhat of a straw man distortion here given the question is whether the police were acting on reasonable beliefs, not whether the beliefs would stand up to a SCOTUS review of the law.

In the lawsuit that will be argued, the question really is whether those beliefs would stand up to a SCOTUS review of the law. That's kind of the point of having law and SCOTUS.

But the point that I was making is that in this thread, some people have been arguing one position and some have been arguing another. That happens all the time. That's why we have debate, and that's why elections are contested between candidates. There are even certain patterns of positions that are taken, and those patterns occur often enough that they are given labels, including "right wing" and "left wing".

The position that you have taken in this thread is the "right wing" position. If this case were to go to SCOTUS, I am extremely confident that Justice Scalia would take your side of this case.

 

[Meadmaker]

Bump.

I had pretty much forgotten about this case, but was reminded of it, and decided to look up whatever happened to it.

And this is what I found:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/tea-party-mom-wins-1-12m-for-false-prosecution/


The full headline is "Tea Party Mom Wins 1.12 Million for False Prosecution".

 

[Babbylonian]

Bump.

I had pretty much forgotten about this case, but was reminded of it, and decided to look up whatever happened to it.

And this is what I found:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/tea-party-mom-wins-1-12m-for-false-prosecution/


The full headline is "Tea Party Mom Wins 1.12 Million for False Prosecution".

A million-plus seems high but she deserved the win. She was effectively sentenced to time (4 days) in jail with no trial on a BS charge.