Refuse picture taking LEO, get arrested, injured and loose your job! [Lancaster, PA]

[Pa. Patriot]

Arrested, injured and lost his job as a result of refusing to allow law enforcement officers to take his picture. The charges were eventually dismissed and a law suit is pending.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/212086

[Philadelphia]

Arrested, injured and lost his job as a result of refusing to allow law enforcement officers to take his picture. The charges were eventually dismissed and a law suit is pending.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/212086

I can't bash the cops on this one. Do what the police order you to do and sue them later if they are wrong.

The dude was on probation so he has a prior and has to expect to take some crap when guns are reported around a guy on probation. He should sue the neighbors too.

[NineseveN]

Those cops and the DA should all be pushing burgers at Wendy's. They have no business being in a position of authority with the public.

[Zef_66]

Sadly (because the kid was carrying a gun at 19) I am on the kid's side here. Reasoning:

A neighbor got into an argument with some of the men, called 911 and complained that someone had a gun at 346 N. Plum St.

Lancaster police entered the home with guns drawn, according to documents, and after a pat-down search produced no weapons, police moved all the men outside.

So on a false tip, they raided a home and searched everyone? What if they had guns? What if they were legal? What if they were carrying openly? What would happen then?

Police should have taken more caution with this to realize a man with a gun is not a crime.

When Corll arrived, the men were on the ground in the driveway and police were checking their IDs to make sure they were valid,

but later said....

During the hearing, Corll testified that because none of the men had picture IDs, police obtained their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and addresses.

"Then we took digital photos of all the subjects in question so that at some point these identifications could be verified as the investigation progressed," Corll testified,

Doesn't make sense to me....

"An arresting officer is not required to have a 100 percent conviction rate in order to avoid civil liability,"

And that is fine if they arrest him for something. But he did not do anything wrong. And to infringe on the privacy rights of a legal, law abiding citizen is wrong.

[brewguy]

seeing stories like this I'm not surprised cops get shot..

so next time you OC down the street and don't show an ID expect to get held on the ground till they prove who you are. If you try and hide your face expect to spend weeks in jail and have your face ground into the street.

Sounds like freedom to me..

I guess I should say the next time you are walking down the street and not carrying.

[Pa. Patriot]

I can't bash the cops on this one. Do what the police order you to do and sue them later if they are wrong.

The dude was on probation so he has a prior and has to expect to take some crap when guns are reported around a guy on probation. He should sue the neighbors too.

I'd say the cops can be bashed based on their inappropriate actions regardless of what dude did.
I agree with you that he should have complied and then sued/complained, etc. BUT, his bad choice does not relive the cops of any of their own wrongdoing, IMO. They should not have been doing what they were doing before he refused to comply.

[Zef_66]

I'd say the cops can be bashed based on their inappropriate actions regardless of what dude did.
I agree with you that he should have complied and then sued/complained, etc. BUT, his bad choice does not relive the cops of any of their own wrongdoing, IMO. They should not have been doing what they were doing before he refused to comply.

The only crime that I see he committed here is that he failed to comply with an officer's request. Not sure of the exact legal term here. But in no way should he have been forced to have his picture taken.

[brewguy]

The only crime that I see he committed here is that he failed to comply with an officer's request. Not sure of the exact legal term here. But in no way should he have been forced to have his picture taken.

They should not have been handcuffed and forced to lay face down on the ground either.

Can you imagine the neighbor reports you have a gun and next thing you know the cops bust into your house and then do all this crap??

[billamj]

My first question would have to be what exactly did the neighbor report? If they reported "man with a gun" its one thing, however if they reported "someone at such and such an address pointed a gun at me," "I was in a fight with so and so at such and such an address and he pulled his gun knowing that I was unarmed," or "someone at such and such address threatened to shoot me" it is a completely different matter. Once again the press strikes by not supplying enough information to make an informed decision about the whole thing. If it is the "man with a gun" scenario then the police over-reacted in a major way but considering the clown was on probation he should have just stood there and "yes, sir" "no, sir" the cops to death and then contacted an attorney. If it is the actual threat scenario then the cops were well within their rights to react as they did. To me it is all a matter of what the neighbor reported.

[XD45]

did they charge him with a crime or just violate him? Was he the only one arrested? the cops and judges where wrong to keep him so long for that. the police may or may not have over reacted when going to the scene but they got a man with a gun fighting with people call its not their fault if they got false info, they still need to go in ready for aything. if it wasnt true the neighbor should be held liable for a good bit of this too because she escalated the situation by lying about a gun. and if your on probation you gotta be smarter than that to give police a hard time, they can violate you for alot of reasons.