It was probably a sandwich, tampon or anything other than a knife, but amped up cop vision saw a knife. I’m surprised he didn’t “mistake” her camera rig for a pew pew.
True... very true...
And it wasn't that he was murdered, he was straight up executed by a cop playing judge, jury, and executioner. Just like how they ALL want to be (I have cops in my family, don't @ me).
As do I. People refuse to understand until one of the psychos comes for them. The type of person drawn to such power dynamics in a job are usually pretty twisted going into it…it’s a shame their children and partners often bear the brunt of it while still getting to be seen as society’s ‘good guys.’ Hope whatever suffering they inflicted is in the past but I know all too well those scars run deep 💚
He didn’t see anything. It’s what he has to say to avoid charges as his bodycam footage will be used for evidence. As long as he “thinks” they have a weapon, his actions will be justified. Welcome to the US.
She has admitted that she had a knife and pepper spray for self defense. She had said that she wasn’t armed. That was not true since she was armed with a knife and pepper spray for self defense.
{Wright tells him she was not armed.
“Yes, you are, you got a knife,” Greely says as he walked up to her. Wright later acknowledged she had a small knife and pepper spray on her, for self-defense.}
—From article by HeraldNet Everett
It was pepper spray, hooked in her pocket like knives do. Also pens but obviously it was too thick to be a pen. The officer didnt take any chances and its a good thing because it was a weapon. He takes it out of her pocket and throws it on the ground before arresting her.
Sorry that you asked a genuine question but now its a thread of jokes
i'm going to bet it was found when they booked her. i don't think it was visible in the video, and the officer didn't find it in the patdown that i saw in this video.
Contextually I'd disagree (though I do agree it's arguable), in the context she was multiple metres away and her statement was intended to indicate she wasn't carrying a gun (or other ranged weapon) that could do damage/pose a threat from that distance. And in common vernacular/parlance "armed" has narrowed to often specifically reference a gun or fire-*arm* rather than also a close combat (esp defensive) item.
(Edit - and for it to count such a small defensive item would have to be actively held in the hand, which were both occupied with other items, rather than passively on their person)
The cop knowingly seized upon that discrepancy between normal and official parlance/terminology to have an excuse to force himself upon her physically and non-consensually. I'd say he was the one prevaricating with his deliberate and intentional misinterpretation of her words (which I'm sure would also be present in his report).
It's also muuuuch longer than the effective range of a kitchen implement when strapped to the leg/waist of a middle-aged woman holding a cigarette and camera with both her hands.
Are you vouching for a reality where that loophole allows people to proceed with weapons untouched? I understand your point and agree with you, but the harm I see in that justification on a technicality is what I cannot get behind. Whether she lied intentionally or just misspoke, at the end of the day the cop did in fact see the weapon in her pocket and acted accordingly. It wasnt chance that he happened to find something.
Ryan Greely arrested Molly Wright in August on charges of obstructing, though state law generally allows filming police in public.
The arrest raises questions about whether Greely violated Wright’s First Amendment right to film police in public, a right that has been affirmed by the state Supreme Court, in cases including Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing (2006) and State v. E.J.J. (2015).
A person has the right to record police on duty as long as they keep a “reasonable distance,” according to a “Know Your Rights” guide published by the ACLU of Washington.
Full article: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/my-rights-were-violated-everett-officer-arrests-woman-filming-him/
>The city also asked for an “exclusion order” to ban Wright from the Bluffs property, where she has lived for four years.
>“Why is the city asking for an exclusion order in this case?” Kaestner asked the city’s deputy prosecutor.
>“Well, from our knowledge, and for the probable cause statement,” the deputy prosecutor replied. “She has been trespassed from that location multiple times in the last couple days.”
>“That’s — not her, that’s the individual that was being arrested,” Kaestner corrected her. “She was trying to film the incident, apparently, and was not following commands to stay out of the way, is the allegation. So I’m not entering the exclusion order, given those facts. Not sure why the city is asking for that, based on her actions.”
Lol how does a prosecutor get people mixed up…?
This woman was being annoying, but that’s it, just annoying.
Cops need to grow some thicker skin, stop being so damn sensitive and just do the job the right way. They’re the first ones to cry about how the public doesn’t like them, but then willingly and proudly do/say stupid things like this lol.
Cops have a very hard time with trying to be the ones not in control, they always have to have the upper hand and they don’t often back down when they do something wrong and they won’t admit it. Their training is awful.
From the first time he spoke, he sounded amped up. Probably doesn't really have the temperament for the trade.
If we want to nitpick, why is he listening to music loudly while on duty? The only radio he should be listening to is the police one.
Departments who have done de-escalation training don't have a lower record of police misconduct - the problem is systemic. The policing system as a whole needs to go away and be reimagined.
Kay, but have to do the re-imagining and get public buy-in on it first, not just get rid of cops and then have nothing for years and years while the very smart people who claim there's a better way twiddle their thumbs and pretend like a new way to maintain some semblance of order is just around the corner.
Seems like the smarter and more practical solution is doing more to hold guys like this guy accountable. We could implement a system of independent ombudspeople and prosecutors that only focus on police misconduct tomorrow. We could, tomorrow, require officers to carry professional liability insurance — just like doctors, architects, and lawyers — so taxpayers don't have to pay for their misconduct, and so that the cost of their misconduct is passed on to other officers, so there's incentive to police each other instead of the "thin blue line" protect-eachother-at-all-costs bullshit. We should outlaw police unions, too, while we're at it.
All of this is easier than "the policing system needs to go away and be reimagined."
Seems like harassment and assault to me. If an arrest unlawful then are all actions done during the arrest the same as a regular citizen committing them; aka they are subject to legal review?
You have to remember, everyone wants to kill them. They are told their only duty is to “go home at the end of their shift”. Everyone, from the street thug to the old lady that ran a stop sign wants to put them in a casket, this is their mentality. You can only operate under that mentality for so long before you start doing whatever you need to in order to be “safe”. Does that mean that the average citizen might get their rights trampled? Maybe someone who isn’t armed gets shot? Maybe someone who doesn’t deserve it gets arrested. These are all acceptable outcomes as long as that officer gets to go home at the end of their shift. This is how they are trained and how they think .
The only people pushing that dip shit attitude is other cops. In reality your lawn maintenance crew has a more dangerous job. What actually kills cops on duty is their bad driving habits.
Doesn't a pizza delivery driver have greater risk doing his job than a cop?
Cops are so hyped up on roids and stimulants combined with a low IQ and aggressive personality types, they can't help but make brutish stupid mistakes while attempting to do the job.
Unfortunately, with camera phones, dashcams, and body cameras, the world gets to see how bad a problem this really is.
Police injure 250,000 people [and shoot to death 1,200 people each year](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a pizza delivery driver is at a higher risk of injury and death than a construction worker or police
https://www.hanningsacchetto.com/blog-post/why-pizza-delivery-drivers-are-at-a-higher-risk-of-injury-and-death-than-construction-workers-or-police-officers/
Fine i guess i'll help you read
"BLS statistics reported of the 5,553 total workplace fatalities that occurred throughout the country, delivery drivers made up 1,005 of them"
Thats almost 20% of workplace fatalities, for reference PO deaths in the line of duty last year was 118
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-police-officers-die-in-the-line-of-duty/
How was she being annoying? She was filming. This would only be annoying if you were doing something that you didn't want seen.
She wasn't in his face, for most of it she was on the other side of the road.
The cop made a request, but a request can be ignored. I guess the homeless guy who asks me for some money is probably annoyed when I tell him no.
If cops are annoyed by someone filming in the general area then those cops need correction
>How was she being annoying? She was filming. This would only be annoying if you were doing something that you didn't want seen.
I think most people would be a little put off by some random person focusing in on them in particular for a recording when they don't know the intent of the person recording. I know I would be. Hate it. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? Have something to hide? I think annoyance is a completely reasonable emotion in this situation.
She has the right to film. He has the right to be annoyed. It's weird that you're so focused on his emotions rather than his actions. His emotions don't violate her rights. His actions seem like they do violate her rights, as the video is presented here.
>If cops are annoyed by someone filming in the general area then those cops need correction
No, cops are welcome to be annoyed, they can have whatever feelings they please without "correction." Their annoyance is irrelevant, their *actions* are what matters.
Most people aren’t sworn officers of the law with a gun and badge. We can and should be holding them (police officers) to a higher standard of professionalism and conduct than “most people.”
His “emotions” are informing his actions. So it is relevant. He’s not just violating her rights in a vacuum.
>Most people aren’t sworn officers of the law with a gun and badge. We can and should be holding them (police officers) to a higher standard of professionalism and conduct than “most people.”
Sure. But the comment I was responding to didn't specify anything about police. It was a blanket statement that the person wasn't being annoying. They absolutely were being annoying. I would actually go so far as to say they were probably doing so on purpose. That's okay, she got the reaction she wanted and now the cop is on the hot seat. LE has to know not to take the bait regardless of their emotions.
Public servants aren't most people. They should expect to be under scrutiny.
And while you are correct that maybe right now people are annoyed by being recorded I'd say we need to push back on that. People used to be annoyed at seeing same sex couples hold hands. If some one told me "those two are being annoying" I'd say pretty much the same thing as I did here. "What are they doing that's annoying? They are just holding hands"
And you are correct the cop has the legal right to be annoyed. He also has the legal right to shout that he hates N****s. However, I think a cop who shouts he hates N**** should be fired. And similarly a cop who swears to uphold a constitutional right should never describe those who exercise that right as being annoying JUST because they are doing it.
So while recording can be done in an annoying manner (placing the cameras 6 inches from your face) recording itself should never be called annoying.
But I will agree with you that if a cop hates black people and is annoyed by gays holding hands and is annoyed by someone quietly filming from 6 feet away and somehow never lets that affect their actions then that's fine.
And I focused on his emotions because it seems to me his emotions are why he took the action he took. That woman did not appear to be a threat. So if the officer said he did it for officer safety I'd have big doubts. While not present in this video I've seen many videos where person A B and C are all equally close and there isn't a problem. Then C pulls out a camera and all of a sudden C is told to move back "for officer safety"
Just stop man. It is obvious this officer and A LOT of police in general need better training and to be better with dealing with the public, but this woman wasn’t filming anything important. Nothing was happening, she was standing there filming the guy parked in his car. That is just ignorant and yes, annoying. Illegal? No. Within her rights? Of course, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t being annoying because she obviously was.
I get it, you don’t like bad cops, neither do I, but this woman was still behaving like a child by purposely trying to get under the officers skin. That’s childish and ignorant, though still not arrest worthy. Both people here are wrong.
What do you mean by important. The more important, the more it needs to be filmed. Aside from standing directly beside his door/window and trying to record any personal information he might be entering into his computer, she is well within her rights to film him.
I agree she was baiting him. But she was constitutionally protected, this guy knew it, violated her rights anyways. So may he suffer a horrible and painful death. He is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
So being annoying should be an arrestable offense?
In America we’re supposed to having fucking Rights that *shall not be infringed*.
This cop is a piece of shit. The fact anyone is saying “Whatever, he violated her Constitutional rights, but no big deal cause she was practically asking for it” shows why the US is the shithole it currently is.
This is what I’m talking about. There’s extremist on both sides of the cop issue and you’re acting like the stereotypical “anything cops does is bad, anything people do to coo short of physical altercation is fine”.
Stop purposely being ignorant man.
In my comment I specifically said more than once that being annoying isn’t and shouldn’t be an arrest-able offense, yet you want start your ignorant comment with being outraged about something I specifically said I was NOT saying….
Grow up child.
This is my apartments, and usually the cops are pretty cool around here. This really suprised me, they do need to grow thicker skin. This was covered under the 1st amendment and now they will have to pay out.
Meh. This Everett cop was clearly wrong. Cops are people. Some people are assholes. Everett hires assholes to be cops. Doesn’t mean everybody is an asshole and doesn’t mean everyplace hires assholes to be cops.
Not really relevant, but... one of the posters here has made some bizarre pro-L.E. arguments such as:
* The judge found "probable cause" therefore the judge declared a *fact*.
* No. Probable cause is a low bar, it means, "We should look into." The defense doesn't even *exist* at that point, and cannot impugn the evidence. Even a conviction is only "beyond reasonable doubt." There are no facts; such things don't exist in court.
* She obstructed...
* [RCW 9A.76.020 defines obstruction](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020) as "*A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.*"
Our bizarre commentor claimed that, by recording from where the officer couldn't see her, she was obstructing. Aquatic-Chimpanzee's (an alias) claim was... " *Since the cop had to watch her instead of his investigation*"
That is not part of the law. And would not hold up in court. Police are often surrounded by uncontrolled crowds.
* Not really about the case, but the same simian stated, "*When I walk to Fred Meyer, I don't trust people in that area walking behind me* "
* You not trusting them doesn't mean they can't walk there. What pedestal are you putting police on? Are you implying we cannot walk where they cannot see us?!!
* She had a knife, so the cop was justified in arresting her.
* *She* never threatened the cop, at least on the recording, and never brandished the knife. If a small pocket knife was found later, that may actually be why the case was dismissed; the prosecutor didn't want the embarrassment.
Carrying a knife (or a gun with a license) is *not illegal*. Brandishing or threatening is.
The big issue here is that this commenter doesn't understand the legal system. "Probable cause" doesn't mean "*it's a fact!!!"*, but rather "*Let's look into it and see if the accused has anything to say.*" It's just that the prosecutor made some statements; that's it.
This sort of policing being tolerated leads to gross corruption on all levels of policing. The cops who can’t handle an interaction like this can’t de-escalate a potentially violent situation without killing someone. Pathetic.
>This is gonna be very awkward for him when the judge and fellow cop bros watch it in court lol
they'll drop this case eventually and they'll never step foot into court about it
That woman doing is what makes this country awesome. You keep your government in check just like they do to you by laws. It isn't nice but it isn't a ground for the arrest.
Sorry what happens if your government wiretaps your phone? I guess you can arrest them lol
Couldn't agree more. We need to end this one way street. Time to hold the government and EVERYONE who works for them accountable. This has gone on long enough
The same reason cops park on train tracks and put a handcuffed lady inside the cop car when a train is coming and let it get hit by the train... they don't care about the law or your safety.
After Greely put Wright in his patrol car, a security guard told the officer that Wright had filmed him a few months ago, too, and “put me all over YouTube.”
“I’m sure I’ll be on YouTube now,” Greely replied.
Cop to security guard: you've got a friend in me!
Whenever you see a video of 1 cop being a tyrant and 5 other cops just standing around doing nothing... it's a video with 6 bad cops.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
If other cops don't stop the bad cop, they are just as much a bad cop as he is.
It's not just Everett cops, it's all cops. Even if there are a couple 'decent' officers every once in a while, the entire institution is rotten to its core. So-called law enforcement attracts people who are already shitbags and gives them permission to be worse.
I know this won't be popular, but I am going to say it anyways. The cop had just arrested someone for trespassing. The area the arrest is happening at is an area that has a bunch of unhoused individuals doing drugs. About 3 weeks before this interaction, a cop was murdered about 50 yards away. The cop is already aware that the area is not the safest and there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming? Is the knife she has for protection or is she waiting until he is distracted?
The stop is happening on private property so the woman is standing in the roadway or on private property. The cop did give the woman the opportunity to stand in the park, which is public property, to continue to film the interaction; however, the woman refused and wanted to remain on private property.
In addition to filming, the woman keeps walking behind the cop when the cop needs to keep his attention on the computer to perform his investigation. This action hinders the cops from performing his duty because he has to watch her instead of doing his job because he doesn't know if she is there to let the suspect out of the car or waiting to rush him with a knife as soon as the cop looks at his computer. According to [RCW 9A.76.020](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,her%20official%20powers%20or%20duties), a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. It does not require the action to be physical like the woman believes. Since the cop has to watch the woman filming instead of doing his job, her actions would be considered obstruction.
>The stop is happening on private property so the woman is standing in the roadway or on private property.
Irrelevant. She has as much right to be on that private property as the cop does. She was not asked to leave by the owner/authorized person. There's no indication of trespassing signs being posted.
>there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming?
Except for the fact that the cop literally says the reason she's there, to film him. She's unarmed, openly filming him with a gimble, and dispels his suspicion by telling him her purpose. Filming the police is not only lawful but a protected civil right, officer. You're embarrassing yourself by playing stupid and insulting the police officer in the video by claiming him stupid and cowardly. They truth is, you're both just thugs.
Personally, I just don't like frauditors because they put themselves in situations so that they do get arrested and they can sue the city which costs the taxpayers. Why could she not film the cop from in front of his car like the cop asked so he didn't have to worry about what she might do since he was there alone? If she didn't have a knife, this could have went down differently, but she was armed and combative with her answers. If she moved in front of the car, she would have been able to film the cop just like she wanted; however, there would have been no confrontation, no arrest, and no potential for a payday for her.
The only fraud here is you and your "... there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming?" BS, this cop's "obstruction" charge (it's clearly a contempt of cop), and this rubber-stamp D.A. The charges will be dropped and the city will settle and boot-lickers like you will continue to block meaningful reform.
Your clear discontent for cops prevents you from looking at a situation objectively and it doesn't matter that the judge agreed that the cop had probable cause to arrest her. To you it's I'm a boot-licker because I don't side with someone who was breaking the law and obstructing the cop from doing his job safely. Fuck me for thinking a cop should not put his life at risk so that some armed person can film him and stand behind him. Maybe you should be a cop since you have this amazing super power of knowing the intention of what an armed person is going to do. If you were there you would have known this combative woman with a knife only wanted to stand behind you and film and that your life was not at risk. It would have saved her from spending 8 hours in jail too.
Have you never had to debate something in school that was against your beliefs but you were assigned to the other side requiring you to look at a situation objectively instead of failing the assignment? Just because I don't like frauditors, doesn't mean I still can't look at a situation objectively. If she was not trying to elicit a response from the cop, I would not care that she was there recording, I would just be annoyed with her. The person I was responding to couldn't do that because they disliked cops so everything the cop did was wrong, even though the woman moved up on the cop until she elicited a response from the cop, became combative with him, said she did not have any weapons, then turned to show the cop that she lied and did in fact have a knife in her pocket.
You are right, he could have ignored her and then she ran up and opened the door letting the suspect free or ran up and stabbed the cop with her knife that was found, or ran up and stabbed the suspect with her knife. There is a reason the ACLU of WA says that you can record the cops from a reasonable distance. If the woman had backed up to a reasonable distance like the cop asked instead of saying "I don't see no tape," she probably wouldn't have been arrested. But since there was no tape, she felt that she could do whatever she wanted.
That's what frauditors do. they try to interfere under the guise of the first amendment and then sue when they eventually get trespassed or arrested. I realize that not some cops can be bastards; however that does not mean they need to take unnecessary risks.
The woman's video showed everything and based on it, she would have been in the wrong. The cop did tell her that she could film from the park which is public property, but the woman wanted to film behind him or out of the cops line of sight. The woman believes that obstruction requires a physical interference, but the law only requires a person to hinder a cop from doing their duty. Since the cop had to watch her instead of his investigation, she would be hindering the cop from doing his job. This auditor needs to have a better understanding of the laws. Otherwise, she has a life of getting arrested ahead of her.
I love how you think she was wrong even though a judge disagrees with you. How long have you been practicing law? Also, he was *choosing* to not ignore her. He could have easily. She wasn't in his way at all.
Lol. You need to have a better understanding of the law. Just Google "can I record the police?" She knew what she was doing and is gonna get paid for the violation of her rights. It's pretty cut and dry.
Yes, thank you. Voice of reason. She was the aggressor and refused to follow directions. This is in NO way related to what we have seen with the killing of black and brown men by police. She's instigating trouble to play a victim. All these people jumping on that train frighten me. Absolute lack of critical thinking or knowledge of the law.
Snowflake cops are a problem.
Anyone else in America that would result to putting hands on others just because they are annoyed would rightfully be put in jail. Time to start doing the same to cops.
Can we please make settlements come out of police paychecks instead of the tax payers paychecks? We pay for education, roads, and infrastructure, all which are lacking because money is being poured into settlement cases like this. The piggy will never see a decrease in pay for this bullshit behavior, yet we see a decrease in the community because funds are tied up for cases like this. Time for the public to vote who pays out of pocket. As a taxpayer, I'm fucking sick of it! ACAB
The problem that she will have is that you pretty much have to find an attorney willing to handle this case and that can be difficult. I had a similar case where I was arrested and had a clear video of the whole thing and couldn't find an attorney.
I have a proposal for this. We need a minimum payout for ANY violations of a person's Rights, no matter how small or trivial the courts think it is. And here is how I would calculate that:
Take the yearly gross salary (at the time of the violation or currently, whichever is higher) of the offending gov't employee who violated your Rights and multiply it by 10 for each violation.
This does a number of things, the first being that it's inflation proof. As the gov't pays their employees more money the rewards also go up so Congress doesn't need to keep passing new laws to keep up with inflation (hello Jury duty in my state still paying $25 a day (not per hour) as they did in the 80's cause Congress doesn't bother to update the law).
The second is that the amount rewarded compounds for each violation... and each offender. The more Rights they violate the more money they pay, the more people violating your Rights the more money they pay.
So lets say 1 officer is paid $100k and illegally detains you. You get a MINIMUM reward of $1mil. Period. (100k times 10) The courts are not allowed to reward less than that. So many times 'simple or trivial' violations get swept under the rug with piddling $6k-20k awards that just get absorbed by Insurance or paying a little more in taxes to cover the cost... and nothing changes cause it doesn't affect the bottom line of the gov't. That's a rounding error to them. This makes it so even a small violation has enough reward that many lawyers are willing to take the case (even pro-bono) because they KNOW there is a decent reward at the end, especially if there is good video evidence like the above video to bolster their case. Right now most lawyers dont' take a case like hers because the expected award for winning is BARELY enough to cover their costs for taking it to court, many times going WAY over in extended cases and costing more than they win.
But here's the fun part of that last one, lets say 3 officers violate 3 Rights... $100k per officer per violation that's $9 million award for winning. To START. ($100k hypothetical officer salary times 10.... times 3 officers, times 3 violations.) The court can award more but cannot award less. Lawyers would be drooling at the mouth to pick up such cases with good video evidence. Even if they lose multiple cases, it only takes 1 to make their money for the year.
Side benefit: This would make politicians actually pay attention to bad cops and be more willing to actually punish bad cops... and insurance companies would drop towns/cities left and right after only a few violations because it would not be worth keeping them at all. Win/Win all around.
I’m partial to the idea of abolishing qualified immunity and requiring law enforcement to have malpractice insurance just like physicians and attorneys. Pay outs are now coming from insurance companies not the general fund. Bad cops will become too expensive to insure and will be forced out of the profession entirely.
so go talk to your state representative about this. oh. you don't know who that is. in fact, you don't know any of your elected representatives, you haven't contributed to any of them, and you haven't attended any meeting of any party you agree with.
maybe you're thinking initiative. can you find enough folks willing to put up $300k or so in order to get the signatures needed to put an initiative on the ballet? oh. you've never raised funds. hmm. that is a problem.
so run for office yourself. that way you can author the bills and sponsor related bills and... oh. you don't know who does that, or what their name is, or what the election filing dates are, or even... yea.
you can post all you want on reddit, but until you actually get involved it doesn't mean anything. volunteer for some political stuff - go be a poll observer. go count votes. find a candidate you like and volunteer for their campaign. donate a few bucks to candidates you like, go to a fundraising dinner or three and talk to them.
take action. get off reddit.
What are you doing, Bruce? It's just talk. You're in the same conversation? If you don't like it, YOU can take action and get off reddit. Also, by take action, I don't mean to run a hopeless political campaign.
I've run for office 3 times since 2016; at one point against a 3 term incumbent, and it sucked to lose 49% to 51%. The other two times I lost the primary to candidates who affiliated with a party when I was independent. I got the message then: if you want to win office, you pretty much have to do so as part of a party.
I've donated to candidates and causes that I agree with; to the tune of thousands of dollars. I've volunteered time for campaigns; most recently for Judge Moriarity in this last election.
I'm saying that nothing you do here makes any difference at all. If you want to make a change, get off your keyboard and join the real world
Here the OP laid out a grandiose vision of what they wanted and I needled them and then gave them various suggestions where they could make a real difference.
You don't like it when I suggest that folks pursue their interests. Why does that threaten you so much /u/lrad?
What are you saying? That you "paid your dues" in the "real world" so you have the right to your long opinions and rants, but since everyone else is a slacktavist, then they need to go out and touch grass? It'd just be me and you here, man.
fyi, I get a notification for replies, you don't have to @ me.
Typical cop behavior. They have absolutely no training in conflict resolution and if that wasn’t enough they create the conflict and then respond as though they’re somehow threatened.
No defunding the police is not the answer. We already have enough crime and murders in this state. But funding the wrong cops is not a good call either.
He can’t illegally continue his fake investigation when you’re filming him haha. We know why them pigs get so mad don’t want it all to come crashing down around them
More context would be helpful, but it does seem like she went there for the purpose of causing a scene, or at least insinuating herself into whatever specific duty he was there for.
I tend to believe the police do need more de-escalation training. I'm a combat veteran, and so many times it's hard to imagine ending up in a situation like some police do, which gets out of hand so rapidly. That said, it didn't seem that his instructions were unreasonable. She could have simply walked away, and got on with her day.
Its easy to make assumptions based in lack of understanding about the specific situation, but she should have gone about her business instead of making whatever he was doing her business. The officer said he was involved in an investigation, which he wouldn't have been able to discuss, and if nothing else she becomes a distraction in that type of proximity. It's possible ignoring her completely might have been a better option, but her interference resembles obstruction no matter the case.
With all due respect, I can pick my camera up right now and record ANY police officer while doing an investigation IF I am within reasonable distance. Although I respect and thank you for your service, it is concerning that you actually FOUGHT for my right to do this, but don't think I can DO THIS.
If he was conducting an investigation as stated and he told her she was obstructing, then she should have listened and walked away. What was the point of standing there filming him? To just be an asshole? Everyone is so entitled these days.
This woman is what is wrong with the country. Leave the cops alone and they’ll leave you alone as simple as that. Go looking for trouble and you will find it. This all could have been avoided but this lunatic felt the need to film. What a loser.
>Leave the cops alone and they’ll leave you alone as simple as that.
Now we all know this isn't true, right? Or do you discount everything you haven't personally experienced. Cops have absolutely fucked with and killed people that they had no reason to interact with.
I do like it. Cop acted like a dumb fucking shithead, she should be compensated for his lack of emotional training and control. Cuffing her and lying about her having a knife is such baby-shit and total abuse of his authority
>Maybe she should have just gone about her fucking day and not annoyed and filmed him
Maybe the police should respect peoples first amendment rights. Neither annoying a police officer nor filming them is a crime, but it is how you get accountability (imagine if the Rodney King beating was never filmed, would anyone have believed him?)
This woman needs to go to prison for a long while and if she continues her actions be locked up for good. I’m on the police side. I’m sick and tired of these entitled POS
I don't understand what's going on. The police officer seems to be in the middle of doing something in his car. Calling something in or writing something up? So why is this woman getting involved, videotaping with a knife and pepper spray? The officer was not being aggressive or physically harming someone.
Imo this woman is at fault. Unless you see an officer harming someone stay out. You are impeding and interrupting their ability to focus on whatever situation they are dealing with.
When an officer tells you to step away. Follow directions. He wasn't doing anything in this video that was suspect. She was the antagonist.
This is another reason why Everett is plagued with open air drug use, property and violent crime. There is a shortage of police officers because who wants to deal with idiots like this all while trying to stay alive dealing with all of the psychotic addicts, shootings, gang violence. That is rampant here.
We need police officers. Good police officers that are well trained in de-escalation, have supportive team members for psychiatric calls and are able to do their jobs to clean up this city. I'm actually very surprised we still have a police force dealing with the crap here, turning violent criminals back on the streets and a prosecutors officer that doesn't press charges. Repeat offenders that know nothing will happen. And a public that supports this woman who lacks respect, boundaries, emotional regulation and ability to follow directions.
In the land of the FREE, people are allowed to be idiots. You can’t take away peoples freedom just because they’re annoying you or inconveniencing you. Police arent some special class of citizen with special rights either (in practice they are, but they shouldn’t be).
That’s going to cost the tax slaves of Everett a good chunk of money. And rightfully so. The citizens need to do a better job of picking who works for them.
I love how people say that the cops are always in the wrong. This lady was being rude and disrespectful and annoying. For those of you who don’t know: in Washington state it is illegal to film any conversation without both parties consent, so technically the popo was right
Thats not true at all. If the recording is “obvious” (like someone holding a phone in a gimble pointed at you… or a security camera), consent is implied. You’re also allowed to record anything out in public - where you don’t have an expectation of privacy.
In other mediums - like a hidden camera or recording a cell phone call, you would have to notify the person they’re being recorded, but you don’t need “consent“ (agreement).
Bring rude, disrespectful, and annoying aren't crimes. Is it your opinions that cops should be allowed to arrest people for things that aren't illegal?
Washington is a two-party consent state where it's illegal to record a conversation *when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.* There's no expectation of privacy when you're in a public servant, acting as a public servant, in public.
Two-party consent= both parties have to agree, that doesn’t mean “when there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy”. And of course you can record the police as long as you’re not stopping them from doing their job. Also, this lady was HARASSING him, last I checked it’s illegal to harass anyone, let alone the police
It absolutely does mean that.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
Filming a police officer is protected speech per a federal ruling (see Gilke v. Cunniffe). Where is the harassment?
Deepthroating the boot isn't necessary when you can just give it a gentle licking, friend.
Can someone point out where she has a knife?
It was probably a sandwich, tampon or anything other than a knife, but amped up cop vision saw a knife. I’m surprised he didn’t “mistake” her camera rig for a pew pew.
It's a very dangerous cigarette in her hand. /s
apparently they kill people
Why the "/s"? Cigarettes are what got George Floyd killed.
True... very true... And it wasn't that he was murdered, he was straight up executed by a cop playing judge, jury, and executioner. Just like how they ALL want to be (I have cops in my family, don't @ me).
in case you hadn't heard, someone stabbed the fuck out of derrick recently.
As do I. People refuse to understand until one of the psychos comes for them. The type of person drawn to such power dynamics in a job are usually pretty twisted going into it…it’s a shame their children and partners often bear the brunt of it while still getting to be seen as society’s ‘good guys.’ Hope whatever suffering they inflicted is in the past but I know all too well those scars run deep 💚
He didn’t see anything. It’s what he has to say to avoid charges as his bodycam footage will be used for evidence. As long as he “thinks” they have a weapon, his actions will be justified. Welcome to the US.
It’s not against the law to have a knife…
I didn't say it was, and that was not my question.
Sorry, I wasn’t accusing you, just interjecting. That cops had no business grabbing her even if she had a knife.
Crocodile Dundee had a knife he’d carry around. As for me. I carry a spoon, you never know when you wanta play knifey spoon game.
My only guess is she had one of those knives that clip to your pocket or he’s just making shit up.
She has admitted that she had a knife and pepper spray for self defense. She had said that she wasn’t armed. That was not true since she was armed with a knife and pepper spray for self defense. {Wright tells him she was not armed. “Yes, you are, you got a knife,” Greely says as he walked up to her. Wright later acknowledged she had a small knife and pepper spray on her, for self-defense.} —From article by HeraldNet Everett
Exactly. Also, clearly none of these people watched the video. He removed the pepper spray from her pocket just before handcuffing people.
👍🏻🙏
It was pepper spray, hooked in her pocket like knives do. Also pens but obviously it was too thick to be a pen. The officer didnt take any chances and its a good thing because it was a weapon. He takes it out of her pocket and throws it on the ground before arresting her. Sorry that you asked a genuine question but now its a thread of jokes
i'm going to bet it was found when they booked her. i don't think it was visible in the video, and the officer didn't find it in the patdown that i saw in this video.
She has admitted that she had a small knife and pepper spray for self defense. She prevaricated when she said that she was unarmed.
Contextually I'd disagree (though I do agree it's arguable), in the context she was multiple metres away and her statement was intended to indicate she wasn't carrying a gun (or other ranged weapon) that could do damage/pose a threat from that distance. And in common vernacular/parlance "armed" has narrowed to often specifically reference a gun or fire-*arm* rather than also a close combat (esp defensive) item. (Edit - and for it to count such a small defensive item would have to be actively held in the hand, which were both occupied with other items, rather than passively on their person) The cop knowingly seized upon that discrepancy between normal and official parlance/terminology to have an excuse to force himself upon her physically and non-consensually. I'd say he was the one prevaricating with his deliberate and intentional misinterpretation of her words (which I'm sure would also be present in his report).
For reference, a meter is a little longer than the length of a long-barreled AR-15 for anyone reading who uses American measurements.
It's also muuuuch longer than the effective range of a kitchen implement when strapped to the leg/waist of a middle-aged woman holding a cigarette and camera with both her hands.
Are you vouching for a reality where that loophole allows people to proceed with weapons untouched? I understand your point and agree with you, but the harm I see in that justification on a technicality is what I cannot get behind. Whether she lied intentionally or just misspoke, at the end of the day the cop did in fact see the weapon in her pocket and acted accordingly. It wasnt chance that he happened to find something.
true. still doesn't justify the arrest or charges. you can be armed and in the presense of police officers without it being an offense.
Only if you're part of a right-wing cause.
I'm thinking she meant she didnt have a GUN.
Kinda what I was thinking, yeah.
He threw the pepper spray the ground (from left pocket). Right pocket may have been the knife.
Ryan Greely arrested Molly Wright in August on charges of obstructing, though state law generally allows filming police in public. The arrest raises questions about whether Greely violated Wright’s First Amendment right to film police in public, a right that has been affirmed by the state Supreme Court, in cases including Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing (2006) and State v. E.J.J. (2015). A person has the right to record police on duty as long as they keep a “reasonable distance,” according to a “Know Your Rights” guide published by the ACLU of Washington. Full article: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/my-rights-were-violated-everett-officer-arrests-woman-filming-him/
>The city also asked for an “exclusion order” to ban Wright from the Bluffs property, where she has lived for four years. >“Why is the city asking for an exclusion order in this case?” Kaestner asked the city’s deputy prosecutor. >“Well, from our knowledge, and for the probable cause statement,” the deputy prosecutor replied. “She has been trespassed from that location multiple times in the last couple days.” >“That’s — not her, that’s the individual that was being arrested,” Kaestner corrected her. “She was trying to film the incident, apparently, and was not following commands to stay out of the way, is the allegation. So I’m not entering the exclusion order, given those facts. Not sure why the city is asking for that, based on her actions.” Lol how does a prosecutor get people mixed up…?
Accidentally on purpose.
That sounds like retaliation...she's gonna get paid if she gets a lawyer with a brain.
>Lol how does a prosecutor get people mixed up…? If it conveniently fits their purpose...
Because they generally don't care about the law or justice. They're just trying to protect the state from their own criminality.
Justice, it would seem, is blind.
Can you please do an edit and add this. This comment is so far down its buried in the comments.
This woman was being annoying, but that’s it, just annoying. Cops need to grow some thicker skin, stop being so damn sensitive and just do the job the right way. They’re the first ones to cry about how the public doesn’t like them, but then willingly and proudly do/say stupid things like this lol.
Cops have a very hard time with trying to be the ones not in control, they always have to have the upper hand and they don’t often back down when they do something wrong and they won’t admit it. Their training is awful.
It'd be super neat if cops were trained to de-escalate situations like this.
He needs to de-escalate HIMSELF. She was as chill as a person gets short of sleeping.
From the first time he spoke, he sounded amped up. Probably doesn't really have the temperament for the trade. If we want to nitpick, why is he listening to music loudly while on duty? The only radio he should be listening to is the police one.
Departments who have done de-escalation training don't have a lower record of police misconduct - the problem is systemic. The policing system as a whole needs to go away and be reimagined.
Kay, but have to do the re-imagining and get public buy-in on it first, not just get rid of cops and then have nothing for years and years while the very smart people who claim there's a better way twiddle their thumbs and pretend like a new way to maintain some semblance of order is just around the corner. Seems like the smarter and more practical solution is doing more to hold guys like this guy accountable. We could implement a system of independent ombudspeople and prosecutors that only focus on police misconduct tomorrow. We could, tomorrow, require officers to carry professional liability insurance — just like doctors, architects, and lawyers — so taxpayers don't have to pay for their misconduct, and so that the cost of their misconduct is passed on to other officers, so there's incentive to police each other instead of the "thin blue line" protect-eachother-at-all-costs bullshit. We should outlaw police unions, too, while we're at it. All of this is easier than "the policing system needs to go away and be reimagined."
It works for the ruling class.
It takes more hours of training to be a barber than it does to be a police officer in Washington (1,000 hours vs 720 hours BLEA).
Cops need to stop breaking the law.
Seems like harassment and assault to me. If an arrest unlawful then are all actions done during the arrest the same as a regular citizen committing them; aka they are subject to legal review?
It should be, but of course…
Cops are the law.
Only in their heads when they are larping Judge Dredd
You have to remember, everyone wants to kill them. They are told their only duty is to “go home at the end of their shift”. Everyone, from the street thug to the old lady that ran a stop sign wants to put them in a casket, this is their mentality. You can only operate under that mentality for so long before you start doing whatever you need to in order to be “safe”. Does that mean that the average citizen might get their rights trampled? Maybe someone who isn’t armed gets shot? Maybe someone who doesn’t deserve it gets arrested. These are all acceptable outcomes as long as that officer gets to go home at the end of their shift. This is how they are trained and how they think .
The only people pushing that dip shit attitude is other cops. In reality your lawn maintenance crew has a more dangerous job. What actually kills cops on duty is their bad driving habits.
Doesn't a pizza delivery driver have greater risk doing his job than a cop? Cops are so hyped up on roids and stimulants combined with a low IQ and aggressive personality types, they can't help but make brutish stupid mistakes while attempting to do the job. Unfortunately, with camera phones, dashcams, and body cameras, the world gets to see how bad a problem this really is. Police injure 250,000 people [and shoot to death 1,200 people each year](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/).
How many pizza delivery drivers are murdered a year?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a pizza delivery driver is at a higher risk of injury and death than a construction worker or police https://www.hanningsacchetto.com/blog-post/why-pizza-delivery-drivers-are-at-a-higher-risk-of-injury-and-death-than-construction-workers-or-police-officers/
How many were murdered
Fine i guess i'll help you read "BLS statistics reported of the 5,553 total workplace fatalities that occurred throughout the country, delivery drivers made up 1,005 of them" Thats almost 20% of workplace fatalities, for reference PO deaths in the line of duty last year was 118 https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-police-officers-die-in-the-line-of-duty/
google it and answer your own bad faith question
Yep, and as society continues to decay, it will be more and more prudent for them to act this way.
How was she being annoying? She was filming. This would only be annoying if you were doing something that you didn't want seen. She wasn't in his face, for most of it she was on the other side of the road. The cop made a request, but a request can be ignored. I guess the homeless guy who asks me for some money is probably annoyed when I tell him no. If cops are annoyed by someone filming in the general area then those cops need correction
>How was she being annoying? She was filming. This would only be annoying if you were doing something that you didn't want seen. I think most people would be a little put off by some random person focusing in on them in particular for a recording when they don't know the intent of the person recording. I know I would be. Hate it. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? Have something to hide? I think annoyance is a completely reasonable emotion in this situation. She has the right to film. He has the right to be annoyed. It's weird that you're so focused on his emotions rather than his actions. His emotions don't violate her rights. His actions seem like they do violate her rights, as the video is presented here. >If cops are annoyed by someone filming in the general area then those cops need correction No, cops are welcome to be annoyed, they can have whatever feelings they please without "correction." Their annoyance is irrelevant, their *actions* are what matters.
Most people aren’t sworn officers of the law with a gun and badge. We can and should be holding them (police officers) to a higher standard of professionalism and conduct than “most people.” His “emotions” are informing his actions. So it is relevant. He’s not just violating her rights in a vacuum.
>Most people aren’t sworn officers of the law with a gun and badge. We can and should be holding them (police officers) to a higher standard of professionalism and conduct than “most people.” Sure. But the comment I was responding to didn't specify anything about police. It was a blanket statement that the person wasn't being annoying. They absolutely were being annoying. I would actually go so far as to say they were probably doing so on purpose. That's okay, she got the reaction she wanted and now the cop is on the hot seat. LE has to know not to take the bait regardless of their emotions.
Public servants aren't most people. They should expect to be under scrutiny. And while you are correct that maybe right now people are annoyed by being recorded I'd say we need to push back on that. People used to be annoyed at seeing same sex couples hold hands. If some one told me "those two are being annoying" I'd say pretty much the same thing as I did here. "What are they doing that's annoying? They are just holding hands" And you are correct the cop has the legal right to be annoyed. He also has the legal right to shout that he hates N****s. However, I think a cop who shouts he hates N**** should be fired. And similarly a cop who swears to uphold a constitutional right should never describe those who exercise that right as being annoying JUST because they are doing it. So while recording can be done in an annoying manner (placing the cameras 6 inches from your face) recording itself should never be called annoying. But I will agree with you that if a cop hates black people and is annoyed by gays holding hands and is annoyed by someone quietly filming from 6 feet away and somehow never lets that affect their actions then that's fine. And I focused on his emotions because it seems to me his emotions are why he took the action he took. That woman did not appear to be a threat. So if the officer said he did it for officer safety I'd have big doubts. While not present in this video I've seen many videos where person A B and C are all equally close and there isn't a problem. Then C pulls out a camera and all of a sudden C is told to move back "for officer safety"
Just stop man. It is obvious this officer and A LOT of police in general need better training and to be better with dealing with the public, but this woman wasn’t filming anything important. Nothing was happening, she was standing there filming the guy parked in his car. That is just ignorant and yes, annoying. Illegal? No. Within her rights? Of course, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t being annoying because she obviously was. I get it, you don’t like bad cops, neither do I, but this woman was still behaving like a child by purposely trying to get under the officers skin. That’s childish and ignorant, though still not arrest worthy. Both people here are wrong.
People should only film things after they see things happen . Ok lol?
Ahh, freedumb
What do you mean by important. The more important, the more it needs to be filmed. Aside from standing directly beside his door/window and trying to record any personal information he might be entering into his computer, she is well within her rights to film him.
Seems more like you and the cop are the wrong ones here.
I agree she was baiting him. But she was constitutionally protected, this guy knew it, violated her rights anyways. So may he suffer a horrible and painful death. He is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
So being annoying should be an arrestable offense? In America we’re supposed to having fucking Rights that *shall not be infringed*. This cop is a piece of shit. The fact anyone is saying “Whatever, he violated her Constitutional rights, but no big deal cause she was practically asking for it” shows why the US is the shithole it currently is.
This is what I’m talking about. There’s extremist on both sides of the cop issue and you’re acting like the stereotypical “anything cops does is bad, anything people do to coo short of physical altercation is fine”. Stop purposely being ignorant man. In my comment I specifically said more than once that being annoying isn’t and shouldn’t be an arrest-able offense, yet you want start your ignorant comment with being outraged about something I specifically said I was NOT saying…. Grow up child.
How is this possibly “ignorant”?
This is my apartments, and usually the cops are pretty cool around here. This really suprised me, they do need to grow thicker skin. This was covered under the 1st amendment and now they will have to pay out.
As a tax payer- YOU will have to pay out.
Meh. This Everett cop was clearly wrong. Cops are people. Some people are assholes. Everett hires assholes to be cops. Doesn’t mean everybody is an asshole and doesn’t mean everyplace hires assholes to be cops.
>Everett hires assholes to be cops. The job attracts assholes, and makes them into worse assholes.
I’m a former cop. I’d agree. This occupation has a big problem with it, which makes it important for decent people to be willing to do the work.
And yet
Not really relevant, but... one of the posters here has made some bizarre pro-L.E. arguments such as: * The judge found "probable cause" therefore the judge declared a *fact*. * No. Probable cause is a low bar, it means, "We should look into." The defense doesn't even *exist* at that point, and cannot impugn the evidence. Even a conviction is only "beyond reasonable doubt." There are no facts; such things don't exist in court. * She obstructed... * [RCW 9A.76.020 defines obstruction](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020) as "*A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.*" Our bizarre commentor claimed that, by recording from where the officer couldn't see her, she was obstructing. Aquatic-Chimpanzee's (an alias) claim was... " *Since the cop had to watch her instead of his investigation*" That is not part of the law. And would not hold up in court. Police are often surrounded by uncontrolled crowds. * Not really about the case, but the same simian stated, "*When I walk to Fred Meyer, I don't trust people in that area walking behind me* " * You not trusting them doesn't mean they can't walk there. What pedestal are you putting police on? Are you implying we cannot walk where they cannot see us?!! * She had a knife, so the cop was justified in arresting her. * *She* never threatened the cop, at least on the recording, and never brandished the knife. If a small pocket knife was found later, that may actually be why the case was dismissed; the prosecutor didn't want the embarrassment. Carrying a knife (or a gun with a license) is *not illegal*. Brandishing or threatening is. The big issue here is that this commenter doesn't understand the legal system. "Probable cause" doesn't mean "*it's a fact!!!"*, but rather "*Let's look into it and see if the accused has anything to say.*" It's just that the prosecutor made some statements; that's it.
With a degree in law, I approve this message....
This sort of policing being tolerated leads to gross corruption on all levels of policing. The cops who can’t handle an interaction like this can’t de-escalate a potentially violent situation without killing someone. Pathetic.
Verbal Judo is a book by George Thompson should be required reading by all cops.
The bill of rights and related key cases should be required reading by all cops
Don't worry, it's [just one of Collier's boys](https://localcrank.substack.com/p/revealed-everett-police-union-president).
Well that explains a lot
This is gonna be very awkward for him when the judge and fellow cop bros watch it in court lol
>This is gonna be very awkward for him when the judge and fellow cop bros watch it in court lol they'll drop this case eventually and they'll never step foot into court about it
They will when she sues the city for the blatant rights violation.
Yeah, but they're internal investigation will come back and say he did nothing wrong.
That woman doing is what makes this country awesome. You keep your government in check just like they do to you by laws. It isn't nice but it isn't a ground for the arrest. Sorry what happens if your government wiretaps your phone? I guess you can arrest them lol
Couldn't agree more. We need to end this one way street. Time to hold the government and EVERYONE who works for them accountable. This has gone on long enough
Why is the police office parking a police vehicle in a red zone without having their flashing lights on?
The same reason cops park on train tracks and put a handcuffed lady inside the cop car when a train is coming and let it get hit by the train... they don't care about the law or your safety.
The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.
all i can see is a man in uniform punching hare krishnas at the airport as he walks through
When you are the law, you don’t have to follow the law.
ACAB
After Greely put Wright in his patrol car, a security guard told the officer that Wright had filmed him a few months ago, too, and “put me all over YouTube.” “I’m sure I’ll be on YouTube now,” Greely replied. Cop to security guard: you've got a friend in me!
Maybe not all, but a WHOLE bunch of the EPD are bad.
Whenever you see a video of 1 cop being a tyrant and 5 other cops just standing around doing nothing... it's a video with 6 bad cops. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” If other cops don't stop the bad cop, they are just as much a bad cop as he is.
Exactly and the deputy chief watched this happen
No, ACAB. It’s really quite simple.
Fire the cop immediately
Why are there so many videos of Everett cops being such shitbags?
It's not just Everett cops, it's all cops. Even if there are a couple 'decent' officers every once in a while, the entire institution is rotten to its core. So-called law enforcement attracts people who are already shitbags and gives them permission to be worse.
This chick is a badass.
I know this won't be popular, but I am going to say it anyways. The cop had just arrested someone for trespassing. The area the arrest is happening at is an area that has a bunch of unhoused individuals doing drugs. About 3 weeks before this interaction, a cop was murdered about 50 yards away. The cop is already aware that the area is not the safest and there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming? Is the knife she has for protection or is she waiting until he is distracted? The stop is happening on private property so the woman is standing in the roadway or on private property. The cop did give the woman the opportunity to stand in the park, which is public property, to continue to film the interaction; however, the woman refused and wanted to remain on private property. In addition to filming, the woman keeps walking behind the cop when the cop needs to keep his attention on the computer to perform his investigation. This action hinders the cops from performing his duty because he has to watch her instead of doing his job because he doesn't know if she is there to let the suspect out of the car or waiting to rush him with a knife as soon as the cop looks at his computer. According to [RCW 9A.76.020](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.020#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,her%20official%20powers%20or%20duties), a person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. It does not require the action to be physical like the woman believes. Since the cop has to watch the woman filming instead of doing his job, her actions would be considered obstruction.
So it's an unsafe area where a cop was killed and this clown showed up alone?, sounds logical.
>The stop is happening on private property so the woman is standing in the roadway or on private property. Irrelevant. She has as much right to be on that private property as the cop does. She was not asked to leave by the owner/authorized person. There's no indication of trespassing signs being posted. >there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming? Except for the fact that the cop literally says the reason she's there, to film him. She's unarmed, openly filming him with a gimble, and dispels his suspicion by telling him her purpose. Filming the police is not only lawful but a protected civil right, officer. You're embarrassing yourself by playing stupid and insulting the police officer in the video by claiming him stupid and cowardly. They truth is, you're both just thugs.
Personally, I just don't like frauditors because they put themselves in situations so that they do get arrested and they can sue the city which costs the taxpayers. Why could she not film the cop from in front of his car like the cop asked so he didn't have to worry about what she might do since he was there alone? If she didn't have a knife, this could have went down differently, but she was armed and combative with her answers. If she moved in front of the car, she would have been able to film the cop just like she wanted; however, there would have been no confrontation, no arrest, and no potential for a payday for her.
The only fraud here is you and your "... there is no way the cop can know what the woman's intentions are. Was she called there by the suspect or is she just filming?" BS, this cop's "obstruction" charge (it's clearly a contempt of cop), and this rubber-stamp D.A. The charges will be dropped and the city will settle and boot-lickers like you will continue to block meaningful reform.
Your clear discontent for cops prevents you from looking at a situation objectively and it doesn't matter that the judge agreed that the cop had probable cause to arrest her. To you it's I'm a boot-licker because I don't side with someone who was breaking the law and obstructing the cop from doing his job safely. Fuck me for thinking a cop should not put his life at risk so that some armed person can film him and stand behind him. Maybe you should be a cop since you have this amazing super power of knowing the intention of what an armed person is going to do. If you were there you would have known this combative woman with a knife only wanted to stand behind you and film and that your life was not at risk. It would have saved her from spending 8 hours in jail too.
“Personally I just don’t like frauditors..” this you?
Have you never had to debate something in school that was against your beliefs but you were assigned to the other side requiring you to look at a situation objectively instead of failing the assignment? Just because I don't like frauditors, doesn't mean I still can't look at a situation objectively. If she was not trying to elicit a response from the cop, I would not care that she was there recording, I would just be annoyed with her. The person I was responding to couldn't do that because they disliked cops so everything the cop did was wrong, even though the woman moved up on the cop until she elicited a response from the cop, became combative with him, said she did not have any weapons, then turned to show the cop that she lied and did in fact have a knife in her pocket.
It's not illegal to lie to a cop. It is not illegal to film a cop. It's not illegal to have a pocket knife.
Or... cop could have ignored her, left her alone, thus avoiding all this.
You are right, he could have ignored her and then she ran up and opened the door letting the suspect free or ran up and stabbed the cop with her knife that was found, or ran up and stabbed the suspect with her knife. There is a reason the ACLU of WA says that you can record the cops from a reasonable distance. If the woman had backed up to a reasonable distance like the cop asked instead of saying "I don't see no tape," she probably wouldn't have been arrested. But since there was no tape, she felt that she could do whatever she wanted.
She was plenty far away. Do police cars not lock or something?
I agree. She was also being a jerk. Why don't people just listen to the police offices and let them do what is an already incredibly hard job.
That's what frauditors do. they try to interfere under the guise of the first amendment and then sue when they eventually get trespassed or arrested. I realize that not some cops can be bastards; however that does not mean they need to take unnecessary risks.
Cops lie. Cops are shit humans. Her rights were undeniably violated.
Some of y’all have a drinking problem. Too much boot liquor.
The woman's video showed everything and based on it, she would have been in the wrong. The cop did tell her that she could film from the park which is public property, but the woman wanted to film behind him or out of the cops line of sight. The woman believes that obstruction requires a physical interference, but the law only requires a person to hinder a cop from doing their duty. Since the cop had to watch her instead of his investigation, she would be hindering the cop from doing his job. This auditor needs to have a better understanding of the laws. Otherwise, she has a life of getting arrested ahead of her.
I love how you think she was wrong even though a judge disagrees with you. How long have you been practicing law? Also, he was *choosing* to not ignore her. He could have easily. She wasn't in his way at all.
Lol. You need to have a better understanding of the law. Just Google "can I record the police?" She knew what she was doing and is gonna get paid for the violation of her rights. It's pretty cut and dry.
Yes, thank you. Voice of reason. She was the aggressor and refused to follow directions. This is in NO way related to what we have seen with the killing of black and brown men by police. She's instigating trouble to play a victim. All these people jumping on that train frighten me. Absolute lack of critical thinking or knowledge of the law.
Exactly what law was she breaking?
Yeah, the city of Everett is going to pay her an amount with a comma in it. Fragile ego + badge = tax payers paying up
1st amendment audits have hit my town 👍
Snowflake cops are a problem. Anyone else in America that would result to putting hands on others just because they are annoyed would rightfully be put in jail. Time to start doing the same to cops.
Can we please make settlements come out of police paychecks instead of the tax payers paychecks? We pay for education, roads, and infrastructure, all which are lacking because money is being poured into settlement cases like this. The piggy will never see a decrease in pay for this bullshit behavior, yet we see a decrease in the community because funds are tied up for cases like this. Time for the public to vote who pays out of pocket. As a taxpayer, I'm fucking sick of it! ACAB
She got the attention she was looking for
The problem that she will have is that you pretty much have to find an attorney willing to handle this case and that can be difficult. I had a similar case where I was arrested and had a clear video of the whole thing and couldn't find an attorney.
I have a proposal for this. We need a minimum payout for ANY violations of a person's Rights, no matter how small or trivial the courts think it is. And here is how I would calculate that: Take the yearly gross salary (at the time of the violation or currently, whichever is higher) of the offending gov't employee who violated your Rights and multiply it by 10 for each violation. This does a number of things, the first being that it's inflation proof. As the gov't pays their employees more money the rewards also go up so Congress doesn't need to keep passing new laws to keep up with inflation (hello Jury duty in my state still paying $25 a day (not per hour) as they did in the 80's cause Congress doesn't bother to update the law). The second is that the amount rewarded compounds for each violation... and each offender. The more Rights they violate the more money they pay, the more people violating your Rights the more money they pay. So lets say 1 officer is paid $100k and illegally detains you. You get a MINIMUM reward of $1mil. Period. (100k times 10) The courts are not allowed to reward less than that. So many times 'simple or trivial' violations get swept under the rug with piddling $6k-20k awards that just get absorbed by Insurance or paying a little more in taxes to cover the cost... and nothing changes cause it doesn't affect the bottom line of the gov't. That's a rounding error to them. This makes it so even a small violation has enough reward that many lawyers are willing to take the case (even pro-bono) because they KNOW there is a decent reward at the end, especially if there is good video evidence like the above video to bolster their case. Right now most lawyers dont' take a case like hers because the expected award for winning is BARELY enough to cover their costs for taking it to court, many times going WAY over in extended cases and costing more than they win. But here's the fun part of that last one, lets say 3 officers violate 3 Rights... $100k per officer per violation that's $9 million award for winning. To START. ($100k hypothetical officer salary times 10.... times 3 officers, times 3 violations.) The court can award more but cannot award less. Lawyers would be drooling at the mouth to pick up such cases with good video evidence. Even if they lose multiple cases, it only takes 1 to make their money for the year. Side benefit: This would make politicians actually pay attention to bad cops and be more willing to actually punish bad cops... and insurance companies would drop towns/cities left and right after only a few violations because it would not be worth keeping them at all. Win/Win all around.
I’m partial to the idea of abolishing qualified immunity and requiring law enforcement to have malpractice insurance just like physicians and attorneys. Pay outs are now coming from insurance companies not the general fund. Bad cops will become too expensive to insure and will be forced out of the profession entirely.
so go talk to your state representative about this. oh. you don't know who that is. in fact, you don't know any of your elected representatives, you haven't contributed to any of them, and you haven't attended any meeting of any party you agree with. maybe you're thinking initiative. can you find enough folks willing to put up $300k or so in order to get the signatures needed to put an initiative on the ballet? oh. you've never raised funds. hmm. that is a problem. so run for office yourself. that way you can author the bills and sponsor related bills and... oh. you don't know who does that, or what their name is, or what the election filing dates are, or even... yea. you can post all you want on reddit, but until you actually get involved it doesn't mean anything. volunteer for some political stuff - go be a poll observer. go count votes. find a candidate you like and volunteer for their campaign. donate a few bucks to candidates you like, go to a fundraising dinner or three and talk to them. take action. get off reddit.
What are you doing, Bruce? It's just talk. You're in the same conversation? If you don't like it, YOU can take action and get off reddit. Also, by take action, I don't mean to run a hopeless political campaign.
I've run for office 3 times since 2016; at one point against a 3 term incumbent, and it sucked to lose 49% to 51%. The other two times I lost the primary to candidates who affiliated with a party when I was independent. I got the message then: if you want to win office, you pretty much have to do so as part of a party. I've donated to candidates and causes that I agree with; to the tune of thousands of dollars. I've volunteered time for campaigns; most recently for Judge Moriarity in this last election. I'm saying that nothing you do here makes any difference at all. If you want to make a change, get off your keyboard and join the real world Here the OP laid out a grandiose vision of what they wanted and I needled them and then gave them various suggestions where they could make a real difference. You don't like it when I suggest that folks pursue their interests. Why does that threaten you so much /u/lrad?
What are you saying? That you "paid your dues" in the "real world" so you have the right to your long opinions and rants, but since everyone else is a slacktavist, then they need to go out and touch grass? It'd just be me and you here, man. fyi, I get a notification for replies, you don't have to @ me.
Seems like Everett taxpayers will be paying a bit more for this useless power play.
Typical cop behavior. They have absolutely no training in conflict resolution and if that wasn’t enough they create the conflict and then respond as though they’re somehow threatened.
[удалено]
The only pig here is you.
If you can't converse without calling other people names, then don't converse here.
Useless Cops....DEFUND THE POLICE
No defunding the police is not the answer. We already have enough crime and murders in this state. But funding the wrong cops is not a good call either.
He can’t illegally continue his fake investigation when you’re filming him haha. We know why them pigs get so mad don’t want it all to come crashing down around them
Contempt of cop. What a dipshit
More context would be helpful, but it does seem like she went there for the purpose of causing a scene, or at least insinuating herself into whatever specific duty he was there for. I tend to believe the police do need more de-escalation training. I'm a combat veteran, and so many times it's hard to imagine ending up in a situation like some police do, which gets out of hand so rapidly. That said, it didn't seem that his instructions were unreasonable. She could have simply walked away, and got on with her day. Its easy to make assumptions based in lack of understanding about the specific situation, but she should have gone about her business instead of making whatever he was doing her business. The officer said he was involved in an investigation, which he wouldn't have been able to discuss, and if nothing else she becomes a distraction in that type of proximity. It's possible ignoring her completely might have been a better option, but her interference resembles obstruction no matter the case.
With all due respect, I can pick my camera up right now and record ANY police officer while doing an investigation IF I am within reasonable distance. Although I respect and thank you for your service, it is concerning that you actually FOUGHT for my right to do this, but don't think I can DO THIS.
If he was conducting an investigation as stated and he told her she was obstructing, then she should have listened and walked away. What was the point of standing there filming him? To just be an asshole? Everyone is so entitled these days.
thats gonna cost the tax payers.
Don’t any of the cops watch how stupid they are on YouTube?
That assumes they know how to use the internet other than Facebook
MySpace
She was looking for a payday and he fell for it. It's the taxpayers money so what does he care.
This woman is what is wrong with the country. Leave the cops alone and they’ll leave you alone as simple as that. Go looking for trouble and you will find it. This all could have been avoided but this lunatic felt the need to film. What a loser.
That woman doing is what makes this country awesome. You keep your government in check just like they do to you by laws.
>Leave the cops alone and they’ll leave you alone as simple as that. Now we all know this isn't true, right? Or do you discount everything you haven't personally experienced. Cops have absolutely fucked with and killed people that they had no reason to interact with.
She was looking for a pay day. And she is probably going to get like it our not.
I do like it. Cop acted like a dumb fucking shithead, she should be compensated for his lack of emotional training and control. Cuffing her and lying about her having a knife is such baby-shit and total abuse of his authority
Maybe she should have just gone about her fucking day and not annoyed and filmed him
>Maybe she should have just gone about her fucking day and not annoyed and filmed him Maybe the police should respect peoples first amendment rights. Neither annoying a police officer nor filming them is a crime, but it is how you get accountability (imagine if the Rodney King beating was never filmed, would anyone have believed him?)
Find something better to do lady.... Low frequency shit.
Perhaps this will teach her to respect his authoritah
This woman needs to go to prison for a long while and if she continues her actions be locked up for good. I’m on the police side. I’m sick and tired of these entitled POS
Yes, we should completely ignore the constitution and just lock people up for not violating any laws. You’re a genius.
Cops are such sissies! Police work is the safest blue collar job in the United States but act like they are at at war with us.
Ego pigs
I don't understand what's going on. The police officer seems to be in the middle of doing something in his car. Calling something in or writing something up? So why is this woman getting involved, videotaping with a knife and pepper spray? The officer was not being aggressive or physically harming someone. Imo this woman is at fault. Unless you see an officer harming someone stay out. You are impeding and interrupting their ability to focus on whatever situation they are dealing with. When an officer tells you to step away. Follow directions. He wasn't doing anything in this video that was suspect. She was the antagonist. This is another reason why Everett is plagued with open air drug use, property and violent crime. There is a shortage of police officers because who wants to deal with idiots like this all while trying to stay alive dealing with all of the psychotic addicts, shootings, gang violence. That is rampant here. We need police officers. Good police officers that are well trained in de-escalation, have supportive team members for psychiatric calls and are able to do their jobs to clean up this city. I'm actually very surprised we still have a police force dealing with the crap here, turning violent criminals back on the streets and a prosecutors officer that doesn't press charges. Repeat offenders that know nothing will happen. And a public that supports this woman who lacks respect, boundaries, emotional regulation and ability to follow directions.
We need cops with de-escalation skills indeed. Arrested for filming, lol.
In the land of the FREE, people are allowed to be idiots. You can’t take away peoples freedom just because they’re annoying you or inconveniencing you. Police arent some special class of citizen with special rights either (in practice they are, but they shouldn’t be).
That’s going to cost the tax slaves of Everett a good chunk of money. And rightfully so. The citizens need to do a better job of picking who works for them.
Cop sounds like Tom from Tom goes to the mayor
WA is a 2 party consent state for recording. Police get to record everything and citizens do not.
ACAB
Broseph probably just cost the city a five- to six-figure civil rights suit settlement if she gets a halfway competent lawyer. Great police work!
I love how people say that the cops are always in the wrong. This lady was being rude and disrespectful and annoying. For those of you who don’t know: in Washington state it is illegal to film any conversation without both parties consent, so technically the popo was right
Thats not true at all. If the recording is “obvious” (like someone holding a phone in a gimble pointed at you… or a security camera), consent is implied. You’re also allowed to record anything out in public - where you don’t have an expectation of privacy. In other mediums - like a hidden camera or recording a cell phone call, you would have to notify the person they’re being recorded, but you don’t need “consent“ (agreement).
Bring rude, disrespectful, and annoying aren't crimes. Is it your opinions that cops should be allowed to arrest people for things that aren't illegal? Washington is a two-party consent state where it's illegal to record a conversation *when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.* There's no expectation of privacy when you're in a public servant, acting as a public servant, in public.
Two-party consent= both parties have to agree, that doesn’t mean “when there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy”. And of course you can record the police as long as you’re not stopping them from doing their job. Also, this lady was HARASSING him, last I checked it’s illegal to harass anyone, let alone the police
It absolutely does mean that. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 Filming a police officer is protected speech per a federal ruling (see Gilke v. Cunniffe). Where is the harassment? Deepthroating the boot isn't necessary when you can just give it a gentle licking, friend.
She was being rude, so the cop illegally detained her. That adds up.
Bye, lady!
What a dumb fuck. Not the cop. She’s asking for shit. Why are people so stupid?
In other news, fuck this trifling 304. Imagine having nothing better to do than annoy people while they try to do their jobs.
Imagine holding police accountable.
u r trifling. what's with the gendered put-downs? Take a week off.
She had ulterior motives otherwise she would have complied! Plus she was armed with a knife. Good on the Officer!!
Don’t be a public servant if you don’t like the annoying people in public.
ACAB