fremdfirma

Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 2:04 p.m.

Well others do have lingering questions, jcj - as to whether or not the officers stepped outside their authority or failed to follow proper procedure, that is not for us to decide, and the investigation is for this express purpose, to determine that one way or the other and resolve the issue, as well as prevent future incidents of this nature. Oh, and $250.00 USD cash as bail for someone homeless without five bucks to their name might as well be a million - the purpose of bail is to ensure the accuseds presence at the trial, and if there's sufficient doubt that they will stick around, they should be remanded. As it stands, and in practice, however, the courts have a tendency to set bail far in excess of the entire known assets of the accused in order to force them to sit in prison as leverage to encourage a guilty plea, which is a miscarriage of justice since they are essentially being "sentenced" with no conviction, which the whole mockery of "time served" only shows to highlight in clear relief, as the sentence came before the trial. Tom, an accusation is just that, they were in fact only charged with disturbing the peace, resisting and obstructing, that's it - and the charge of disturbing the peace is an iffy, subjective thing, that is WHY we have courts, to make those decisions, rather than an angry mob with torches, and the commentary I have heard here from the beginning of this makes me thankful we have those courts despite their flaws. None of these things are for us to decide, simply to comment on and offer perspective, and if possible, learn from, and one thing I have certainly learned is that I am very glad we have the rule of law and constitutional protections even if they are flawed, because they sure beat the alternative. As to the snide commentary about preventing future incidents like this, I offer a counter suggestion, why not simply encourage all non-residents to stay out, put up a big wall and a gate and a checkpoint and everything? Ok yes, that is facetious, but it's kind of silly for a city with an economy well-boosted by people who visit to discourage visitors, isn't it?

ShadowManager

Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.

I'm a little tired of hearing about "Witnesses allege officers used racial and homophobic slurs and were overly rough with people taken into custody" when none of these witnesses have come forward or been identified. I have the suspicion most of these "witnesses" were friends of accused and are also now all out of town. Here's a quick conclusion to a by-the-numbers "internal investigation" and complete exoneration of the officers of these unjust accusations (which the A2dotcom should stop repeating without rebuttal, btw...)

Tom

Fri, Sep 3, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.

@fremdfirma Bail was set at $250 cash for these defendants that are all out of town. So your accusations that bail was too high is incorrect as 5 out of the 8 posted bail. Postponements usually happen at the request of defense attorneys and only once in awhile from the prosecutors. The punk 8 plead to the misdemeanor as it was a great deal for them and due to politics of he who whines the most gets what they want. How do you know the request from the police was not legal? It was clear in this article that at least two people were ticketed for being naked. I wish Lee Higgins would write what really happened at the park as he was in court that day and was writing notes on what happened. But he fails to mention what the Judge Morris even said. What if the internal investigation reveals that the police officers acted under their scope of their authority? What will you say then? Fre it is obvious you have not read this article as it does state that two citations were issued because two people were naked. People do have the right to be where they want to be as long as they are not breaking any of the laws that have been enacted. No reason to bring up appearance as appearance did not have anything to do with the matter but you use it as crutch to justify the wrong doing of the people in the park that day.

jcj

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 10:53 p.m.

@fremdfirma You are doing exactly what you are accusing the police of doing! Making unsubstantiated accusations. "since there are lingering questions from the community about whether or not an order to disperse was within the officers authority, since people do have the right to peaceably assemble" I don't have any lingering questions! And I don't think the number of post on this subject indicated any lingering questions! "no public nudity" The evidence say otherwise! There are some in this world that would not recognize the truth if it happened to come out of their own mouth. "The idea here is to prevent incidents like this" Those arrested could have very easily prevented this!

ordmad

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 6:27 p.m.

@ stevek: u miss fremdfirma's point, so much so i wonder if you read the post. there is no "innocent" plea, its not guilty, just as fremdfirma said. and the problem with that is the judge often sets bail and, if like these kids with little resources far away from home, you don't have the money, you spend your time in the washtenaw county jail waiting for your day in court. and, finally, you're lucky not to have lots of run-ins with the police. many, many, innocent people do every day. and here in michigan, in just the last few years, many have been set free based on 100% proof (usually dna) of innocence. the notion that the police always do right and innocent people don't get caught up in bad police work is just plain factually wrong.

stevek

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

@fremdfirma--you only mentioned 2 options. How about the third? Pleading innocent. After all, many lawyers wanted to jump at the chance to defend the "punks" You also seem to know a lot about how pleading "no contest" works. I also tend not to have run-ins with the police. It is also true, like you said "we can all learn from this", normal people behave humanely and don't try to escape from a police car and tend to obey the law.

fremdfirma

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 4:11 p.m.

Oh gee, plead no contest, get time served and walk away... Or, plead no guilty, get some astronomical figure for bail, and get handed as many postponements as possible to keep you locked up till you cave in? Let's please stop pretending we do not know how Wayne/Washtenaw county plays that game, people, it's insulting to us all. (And well worth an investigation of it's own, News Staff take note.) That's how the deal works, either agree to some minor, petty thing, thus insulating police officers from the consequences of their behavior, or rot in jail till eventually they cannot obtain more postponements and they drop the charges. We all know it, lets have the common decency to admit it, please. That said, there does have to be an internal investigation, not over the use of force, but rather the question of probable cause to make an arrest, since there are lingering questions from the community about whether or not an order to disperse was within the officers authority, since people do have the right to peaceably assemble, and so far the charges amount to disturbing the peace, resisting and obstructing officers - no drug possession, no public nudity, simply the understandable outrage at being arrested for exercising their own constitutional rights and being ordered not to without cause, then arrested for that defiance. I ask you, if some officer approached you in a public park and ordered you and your family to leave immediately, then arrested you when you protested that action, if your own reaction would be polite and civil in word and deed, because I rather doubt it. You cannot (legally) arrest someone for refusing an order you have no right to give, nor can you do so for exercising their right to peaceable assemble on public property, nor can you simply arrest everyone standing there simply because they were there, guilt by association is not a crime, nor should it be. Regardless of whether any sanction is delivered to the officers the internal investigation will serve the purpose of clarity for the officers as to when and under what conditions they can specifically arrest someone in a situation like this without exceeding their authority or violating someones rights, because that authority is not infinite, regardless of popular belief. The idea here is to prevent incidents like this, and the potential legal liabilities they raise from happening again, and any progress toward that front is not wasted effort. That said, I would very much like to call into question that initial report since obviously those people were searched when booked, and I see no drug possession charges, nor any charges of lewdness or indecent exposure, which causes me to believe there may have been malicious intent behind that report and it may have been knowingly false, something which SHOULD be addressed because that kind of proxy-harrassment behavior is, in fact, a crime. We can learn from this, but the lesson we might take is very important, and if the lesson people take from this is that people who have every legal right to be there are unwelcome in Ann Arbor due to their appearance or beliefs, I think it's an awful one.

djm12652

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

@zags...good thing they're bbq'in chicken...nothing worse than burned hot dogs...

djm12652

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

stevek...obviously you must not realize that there is a new bandwagon for those defenders of the unjustly accused [even thought they all pled no contest...love that term]by the ever evil, uncaring police force!

zags

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.

They're busy bar-b-queing chicken in the nude. :)

stevek

Thu, Sep 2, 2010 : 2:09 p.m.

I am confused. I thought all these punks were innocent and the police were at fault. The punks pled no contest (guilty). Where are all the posters defending the punks?