Posted on 01/18/2014 8:15:46 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Unnerved by a chaotic scene that involved a bolting dog, a sick husband and an aggressive police officer who ignored her pleas, it was "hardly surprising" that Suzanne LaFont tried to physically stop the officer from handcuffing her husband, Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Steven Statsinger said....
For 30 to 60 seconds on April 11, 2013, the judge noted, LaFont tried to pull on the arm and shoulder of Officer Anthony Giambra to stop him from restraining her ill husband, Karl Peltomaa, outside their apartment on West 83rd Street....
According to the ruling and LaFont's papers, her husband had only been home from Roosevelt Hospital for one day after surgery for an aortic aneurysm when he began to feel very anxious on April 11, 2013. In two calls to 911, LaFont said her husband had just been in the hospital, was on a "lot of medication" and that he was "freaking out."
LaFont also explained that Peltomaa did not have a "psych history," just a "medical history."
When Giambra and other first responders arrived a short time later, LaFont's dog dashed out the door. After returning the dog to the apartment, LaFont said she found Giambra attempting to subdue her much smaller husband by pressing his chest against a hallway wall.
She said that despite her trying to tell the officer that Peltomaa had just had open-heart surgery, he threw her husband face down onto the floor. According to statements by the couple, Peltomaa was hospitalized for two days following the incident with a cut to his chin and a dislocated thumb....
"Rather than interfering with the responders' task, her providing them with accurate medical information about Peltomaa could have assisted them in managing the situation more effectively," the judge wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at newyorklawjournal.com ...
(I'm going to assume - hope - that you have that opinion, IbJensen, because you aren't aware that the Sheriff is our ultimate protection from those who would usurp our freedoms, not because you would like to see that protection taken from us.)
Our Sheriffs, the only ones elected by the ;local public, are the LAST ones we need to eliminate.
Our Sheriff dept are the LAW OF THE LAND - even over the Feds. They can kick the Feds out of their states. We need to totally be sure we have the right people in office and back them up 200%. They trump all other agencies....and more and more of them are getting educated to that fact.
Check and see if YOUR Sheriff knows this and/or will honor his office.
And educate yourself.
Here's a starter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7aUrtroSk0
Might I humbly suggest that you - and all Freepers - listen to and save the above until you can cite verse an chapter.
and if you really give a damn, do some more research - starting with the following videos - and then checking online to see if YOUR state and local Sheriff departments and see if they are ‘Oath Keepers”.
Sherfidd Mack has done Herculean job since he punched Bubba and the Brady Law in the nose - via the SCOTUS - in educating out sheriff's - Here;s one example: (and there are some really interesting articles listed in the sidebar on that site)
Answer Mack's question at the end of this brief video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvdYy—piaI
and for those who give a damn about being anything but another nattering nabob, here's an in depth primer on our rights - with only the Sheriffs standing between us and feds: (If you don't want to educate yourself on our rights - then skip to minute marker 14:00 and learn how Sheriff Mack slayed Goliath...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ygEk7lvvg
the short version - maybe y’all ahould print out and have handy should you ever need protection from the Jack booted gendarmes - or even to educate your sheriff -
The SHERIFF should be the FIRST you call when you need help...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiBcC8_goVg
“The state-wide speed limit is kept at 65 as more tickets can be written.”
In July, a change kicked in for Ohio motorists when the speed limit on 570 miles of rural interstates rose from 65 mph to 70 mph. Motorists were already legally permitted to drive 70 miles an hour on all 241 miles of the Ohio Turnpike.
“The answer is and always was, pure gospel. The love of God poured out so as to overwhelm the hate of Satan.”
Maybe so, but when you are dealing with Atheist/Marxists, they are not likely to share your enthusiasm for the gospel and therein lies your problem.
THere is no situation that can’t be made worse by adding a cop.
I am an oath keeper who has rethought the pipe dream of the State police being the only force. I have changed that opinion and now understand that the elected sheriff should be any county’s head cop.
:o)
At the same time we err to peg a particular group of unbelievers who, sight unseen, we condemn to eternal hopelessness. Atheists are a mixed bag and so are those who profess Marxism. Having wallowed in either one does not mean the unforgivable sin.
If you talk to actual ex-atheists and ex-marxists, odds are that it is some stellar Christian or Christians in their lives that was the bible they was able to read a convincing story from, when they didn’t read the one on paper.
So please be careful yourself about wallowing into the realm of excuses. Caution yes, excuses never!
was able => were able (nit pick)
Also keep in mind, that not all the habitually poor even ARE marxist or atheist.
However they may be in spiritual doldrums. And careful ministry can help that a great deal, to turn bummer into hallelujah (no, Christianity does not say Thou Shalt Pull Thyself Up By Thine Own Bootstraps). Where are the “Mother Teresas” of American slumdom? Again if you aren’t one or trying to help one with organization, donations, and/or even prayers, is it for the sake of mere excuses, of self fulfilling prophecies of doom?
BTTT!
Until there are civil penalties this stuff will just continue. There are good cops out there, but bad policies.
Sovereign immunity is unconstitutional. It’s judgemade law.
How about ending plea bargaining? If you did the crime, you should do the time. Plea bargaining is a form of selective prosecution and is abused.
Prosecutors are judged by their conviction rates, and plea bargaining is a way to improve conviction rates. If you can offer a mugger a deal where he will serve 6 months instead of risking being found guilty and serving 3 years, he will likely take it. The mugger serves less time and the prosecutor gets another conviction. The public, however, gets more crime committed upon them.
What's needed, instead, is for prosecutors to be judged by recidivism: how much crime is committed by people he let off with plea bargains. Change the incentives he operates under, and the prosecutor will be more likely to spend his time putting away career criminals, and will not spend as much time prosecuting people who unexpectedly had to change planes at a NY airport with a firearm in checked baggage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.