Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
On the second day of her dream vacation on exclusive Bald Head Island, Julie Mall went with her family to the beach to catch the sunset. Her 11-year-old son asked to drive the golf cart back to their $1,000-a-day rented cottage.

It was dusk, no traffic on the path and his father would sit next to him. A two-block, 30-second ride. She said sure. What could go wrong?

In the next four hours, Mall says she was pinned to the ground by police, repeatedly accused of being drunk, frogmarched barefoot aboard a ferry in handcuffs, jailed in leg irons and charged with child abuse.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article78955387.html#storylink=cpy
I'm surprised the dog survivedâ€"seriously.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,951 Posts
"Intoxicated", "uncooperative", and "obstinate" must be the local magic words.
Intoxication is legal. It has to be. Otherwise the government is culpable for allowing the sales of intoxicating agents to the public via the fact that they license the sale and distribution of alcohol and other intoxicants. If being intoxicated is illegal, why is it legal for the government to license businesses to sell a product whose sole purpose is to intoxicate? Catch-22 much?

Also, AFAIK, it's not illegal to be "obstinate" or "uncooperative". If there were, there are a LOT of people who belong in jail on those grounds, from numerous lawyers, to judges, to bureaucrats (Kim Davis?) to police officers, and millions of other people besides.

The people who arrested her over this need to get bent, and booted out of government employment, pronto.

Hugely surprised the dog is still alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
The dog was not being uncooperative, and it probably wasn't intoxicated.

My dog would've been killed, I'm sure. She would have been barking although she would never do anything more than that.

Az
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
From the video shot by her side of the case, she sure seems to be resisting arrest... which version of events is "true" beyond that there is no evidence here of, but resisting arrest is a crime even if you aren't guilty of what you're being arrested for last I heard.

Why this story is "news" now when charges were dropped (due to the arresting officer not showing up in court twice) last year is surprising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
Intoxication is legal. It has to be. Otherwise the government is culpable for allowing the sales of intoxicating agents to the public via the fact that they license the sale and distribution of alcohol and other intoxicants. If being intoxicated is illegal, why is it legal for the government to license businesses to sell a product whose sole purpose is to intoxicate? Catch-22 much?

Also, AFAIK, it's not illegal to be "obstinate" or "uncooperative". If there were, there are a LOT of people who belong in jail on those grounds, from numerous lawyers, to judges, to bureaucrats (Kim Davis?) to police officers, and millions of other people besides.

The people who arrested her over this need to get bent, and booted out of government employment, pronto.

Hugely surprised the dog is still alive.
Last I heard, Hillary Clinton was being uncooperative along with her top aides and wasn't arrested. Privileged class?
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,602 Posts
but resisting arrest is a crime even if you aren't guilty of what you're being arrested for last I heard.
Is it there? As far as I know in Georgia you can legally resist an unlawful arrest but there are many qualifications for meeting that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
Is it there? As far as I know in Georgia you can legally resist an unlawful arrest but there are many qualifications for meeting that.
Just because you are not guilty of the crime you are being arrested for doesn't mean it is an unlawful arrest. You can be completely innocent and still be lawfully arrested.

If there were an "unlawful arrest" in this case, one would logically expect that the outspoken person who has an attorney and was "unlawfully" arrested would have utilized said attorney to pursue action against the department and/or officer involved. I can't say that hasn't happened, but it doesn't seem to be the case. That doesn't mean there was no misconduct on the part of the LEO(s) in this case, but it suggests that the people involved don't think there is evidence to make that case.

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.[13]
The code seems to say that unless your defense can prove the officers actions were unlawful (or prevent the prosecution from showing that they were lawful), then it seems that you can be convicted of resisting arrest regardless of your guilt or innocence on other charges/matters.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
You can be completely innocent and still be lawfully arrested.
Not if the officer has knowledge that you did not commit a crime. That is an unlawful arrest.

That doesn't mean there was no misconduct on the part of the LEO(s) in this case
If the original arrest wasn't lawful, the resisting charge was an act of kidnapping. The grotesque linguistic gymnastics the state engages in to jail a person in spite of their own malfeasance are unethical, immoral, and should result in legislators, judges, and LEO losing their jobs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
Not if the officer has knowledge that you did not commit a crime. That is an unlawful arrest.

If the original arrest wasn't lawful, the resisting charge was an act of kidnapping. The grotesque linguistic gymnastics the state engages in to jail a person in spite of their own malfeasance are unethical, immoral, and should result in legislators, judges, and LEO losing their jobs.
We have no evidence that the officer did not believe this woman committed a crime though. Apparently the defense doesn't either or else the attorney and/or the woman is too stupid to recognize the results of a suit for such an unlawful arrest would likely give them (unlikely).

In the only evidence we've seen (the video), I've seen no act on the LEO's part that I could identify as unlawful, but the woman appears to be violating the law in resisting arrest.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I think the point is being missed. Is tackling, shackling and jailing a mother who let her 11-year-old son drive a golf cart for couple hundred feet on a remote vacation island an appropriate level of law enforcement response? I think any reasonable person would agree that it was far from appropriate. Put yourselves in that situation. So you let your kid drive a golf cart for a few hundred feet to the driveway, you are pinned down, cuffed, jailed and charged with child abuse. If you don't think that is a disgusting response by the police then you win a Milgram award.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
We have no evidence that the officer did not believe this woman committed a crime though.
You are flip flopping back and forth between the specific incident and the general principle. Speaking generally:

If the police do not have probable cause, they lack the authority for an arrest. This is true whether or not the citizen can prove anything. If the cop did not have probable cause and he manufactures or retroactively constructs a story to make it appear that he did, he is a liar and a criminal.

If a cop has probable cause that a crime has been committed, they should charge the offender.

Based on those two points, I am of the belief that a large percentage of "solo" resisting arrest cases occur when there was no lawful authority to arrest in the first place. The "original" charge is never brought against the citizen because the LEO does not want to have to swear to the facts of that charge in open court.

I am of the belief that resisting arrest, absent arrest for another charge, should never be permitted.

Apparently the defense doesn't either or else the attorney and/or the woman is too stupid to recognize the results of a suit for such an unlawful arrest would likely give them (unlikely).
Speculation and nothing more. I could just as easily postulate that they have a multi-million dollar lawsuit and are playing their cards close to the vest. That would be no more or less valid than your speculation.

In the only evidence we've seen (the video), I've seen no act on the LEO's part that I could identify as unlawful, but the woman appears to be violating the law in resisting arrest.
Have you done anything besides watch the video? Do you have evidence of any charge/action that warranted her being grounded and forcibly arrested?

Almost without fail, you fill in the missing pieces with speculation that favors any action taken by LE. And you presume that any claim of drunk, combative, etc leveled against the citizen are valid. There is nothing even remotely objective about your analysis of cop vs citizen encounters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
I think the point is being missed. Is tackling, shackling and jailing a mother who let her 11-year-old son drive a golf cart for couple hundred feet on a remote vacation island an appropriate level of law enforcement response? I think any reasonable person would agree that it was far from appropriate. Put yourselves in that situation. So you let your kid drive a golf cart for a few hundred feet to the driveway, you are pinned down, cuffed, jailed and charged with child abuse. If you don't think that is a disgusting response by the police then you win a Milgram award.
If we had evidence that was what happened then that might have some relevance here, but all we have is the "innocent" mom's word and her family backing her up which contradicts the police report of her being ""Intoxicated", "uncooperative", and "obstinate" "

The video of her being arrest which we can use to see a snapshot does show a woman that is screaming and resisting arrest. Actions which are more likely to be associated with someone who is "Intoxicated", "uncooperative", and "obstinate" than a "nice mommy doing nothing wrong and being assaulted for it".

IF the real story is "mommy was drunk when the cops stopped the parents for having their kid drive illegally, mom was then confrontational with the police, blocked part of the public road and refused officer's instructions to get off the road, followed by being arrested for failure to follow such lawful instruction and then resisted arrest", then the entire story become less of a "omg, such evil cops" and more of "stupid drunk breaking laws"....

The latter story is more consistent with the police report and stated reason for the arrest, which despite the charges being dropped the woman and her attorney never did anything to seek recourse against "the evil cops"....

Had she sued the department, I'd be inclined to believe her story has some credence. As it is, there's nothing that suggests to me that her version of the events is more credible than the cops (and the video lends credence to the police report imo).

That still doesn't mean the truth is either story though, as I stated earlier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
You are flip flopping back and forth between the specific incident and the general principle. Speaking generally:

If the police do not have probable cause, they lack the authority for an arrest. This is true whether or not the citizen can prove anything. If the cop did not have probable cause and he manufactures or retroactively constructs a story to make it appear that he did, he is a liar and a criminal.

If a cop has probable cause that a crime has been committed, they should charge the offender.

Based on those two points, I am of the belief that a large percentage of "solo" resisting arrest cases occur when there was no lawful authority to arrest in the first place. The "original" charge is never brought against the citizen because the LEO does not want to have to swear to the facts of that charge in open court.

Speculation and nothing more. I could just as easily postulate that they have a multi-million dollar lawsuit and are playing their cards close to the vest. That would be no more or less valid than your speculation.

Have you done anything besides watch the video? Do you have evidence of any charge/action that warranted her being grounded and forcibly arrested?

Almost without fail, you fill in the missing pieces with speculation that favors any action taken by LE. And you presume that any claim of drunk, combative, etc leveled against the citizen are valid. There is nothing even remotely objective about your analysis of cop vs citizen encounters.
The police report states that the woman was blocking a road and refused lawful orders to get off it. The woman says that's a lie. If the police aren't lying, which I have no reason to believe they are at this point, then they had probable cause to arrest her. That, paraphrasing your words, would make her a liar and a criminal.

The woman was arrested and booked for crimes by the police (more than a single officer by that time). The woman was then charged with crimes by the prosecutor after the prosecution reviewed the evidence.

Of course the rest of BOTH of our parts of the discussion are speculation as neither of us were there or have the evidence in our possession.

To further paraphrase you:
Almost without fail, you fill in the missing pieces with speculation that opposes any action taken by LE. And you presume that any claim of drunk, combative, etc leveled against the citizen are invalid. There is nothing even remotely objective about your analysis of cop vs citizen encounters.

See, all I have to do is "say the opposite" and your statements work perfectly against you as well.

The primary difference isn't in our opposite approaches, however. It is that I admit that my statements are speculation and/or the conclusions I reach based on the evidence that is available could be wrong, while you come across as if you believe yourself to be an infallible judge of all LEOs (in the damnation direction almost exclusively) regardless of how little evidence you have.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
The police report states that the woman was....
Please see the first sentence of my previous comment, namely
"You are flip flopping back and forth between the specific incident and the general principle. Speaking generally:"

Of course the rest of BOTH of our parts of the discussion are speculation as neither of us were there or have the evidence in our possession.
Correct. But my wild speculation was presented as an example and I never pretended it had any merit.

See, all I have to do is "say the opposite" and your statements work perfectly against you as well.
Because your weren't involved to have a discussion. So you seek out strategies to "win" an argument. SMH..

you believe yourself to be an infallible judge of all LEOs (in the damnation direction almost exclusively) regardless of how little evidence you have.
I would suggest you re-read what I wrote. I neither said or implied anything of the sort. Again, you just want to "win". Ok, you win. Happy now? Good, have a great life...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,951 Posts
Not if the officer has knowledge that you did not commit a crime. That is an unlawful arrest.

If the original arrest wasn't lawful, the resisting charge was an act of kidnapping. The grotesque linguistic gymnastics the state engages in to jail a person in spite of their own malfeasance are unethical, immoral, and should result in legislators, judges, and LEO losing their jobs.
Hightlighted text x 10¹²⁷
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
Please see the first sentence of my previous comment, namely
"You are flip flopping back and forth between the specific incident and the general principle. Speaking generally:"

Correct. But my wild speculation was presented as an example and I never pretended it had any merit.

Because your weren't involved to have a discussion. So you seek out strategies to "win" an argument. SMH..

I would suggest you re-read what I wrote. I neither said or implied anything of the sort. Again, you just want to "win". Ok, you win. Happy now? Good, have a great life...
I "flip flopped" from this incident to generic and back to this incident when this incident (or a generic statement) was made or when logic said returning to the incident at hand (not assuming someone was randomly changing the entire topic of the conversation)... for instance, I went to "generic" when responding to generic statements and then, since this is a thread about a specific incident, returned to the topic of the thread.... the woman's claims vs the police report and the video and other available evidence regarding them.

It sure seems like you're the one "seeking out strategies to win" every time you respond to anything I type in most threads though.... perhaps your statement about winning is just projecting your feelings/motivations onto me??

And again, I'll just rephrase your words again and say "I would suggest you re-read what I wrote. I neither said or implied anything of the sort." regarding your opinion on what my position regarding LEO actions are ;)

Not that any of that contributes to the discussion of this thread, so maybe we can get back to that instead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
p.s. Another potential headline for this article could be "irresponsible woman lets elementary school aged child drive on public roads and resists arrest after being stopped and questioned".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
let's posit for a moment that what the woman did was illegal. how relevant is that?

is legality more important than morality? isn't the supposed purpose of law to protect the good from the bad? how are the actions of the woman bad? how are the actions of the cop not bad?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top