March 8, 2:15 PM Fearing/North Pleasant Street intersection
As the world -- or at least our little part of it -- anxiously awaits the release of the $160,000 Davis Report to ascertain what went wrong with the Blarney Blowout (besides everything), the throng of college aged youth arrested that despicable day are still appearing in Eastern Hampshire District Court, one on Monday and another on Tuesday.
Jared Dawson, left, expensive attorney, right
On Monday Jared Dawson, age 21, had a brief pre-trial hearing with both his dad and a fairly expensive looking lawyer present. Probably because of the severity of his charges: disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault and battery on a police officer, inciting a riot.
His case will go to trial and it's been scheduled for July 30.
Page 2 continues: tucked his arms into his chest so he could not be handcuffed.
On Tuesday Judge Payne disposed of another Blarney Blowout case, that of Samuel Douglas, age 21, in what seems to be usual plea deal: $200 restitution to the town of Amherst, 20 hours community service, $200 probation fee and a letter of apology to APD.
Samuel Douglass, age 21
A pretty good deal considering he was charged with failure to disperse, inciting a riot, and disorderly conduct. But not assault and battery on an officer, which seems to make a major difference -- as well it should.
5 comments:
Excellent choice, go to trial! Maybe one of these animals will finally go to jail. Richard Marsh.
A cake with a file in it might be the perfect gift for his 22nd birthday.
Say what you want about Jared, but he has great hair.
"Self defense" is a defense against A&B on an officer if the officer(s) own use of force was not lawful. I even know of one case where it was used to justify fatally shooting the officer -- and that was where the perp was a fleeing felon and not just a drunken college kid.
And this is particularly true in Massachusetts because we are a "Commonwealth" and not a "State" -- the police officer arrests someone in his/her/own name. (Notice that part where you check of "am a police officer" on a criminal complaint?)
Larry, this is as it should be.
Do not forget that police officers themselves can (and often are) arrested. Last fall, the MSP arrested one of their own for OUI (both ETOH & drugs) after a MVA that made headlines. The FBI has a "color of law" division for a reason...
Hence even if he actually *intentionally* struck an officer, even if they can prove that (beyond a reasonable doubt), it may not be a crime. All kinds of things in an attempt to avoid falling come to mind here...
Notwithstanding what UMass may decree, intoxication is a defense against all offenses -- "mens rea" or "diminished capacity" -- and that is particularly true here!
An intoxicated person can not be expected to know that he/she/it is being "tumultuous" -- an archaic adjective that even *I* had to look up the dictionary. The APD have to prove that he
*was* "tumultuous" because otherwise everything they did was completely unlawful *and* would have been a wholesale violation of civil rights even if it were permitted under statute.
They (and the DA's Office) have to prove that he lacked "mens rea" -- the ability to understand that what he was doing before the cops even confronted him was wrong while CONCURRENTLY attempting to prove that he did NOT lack it *when* confronted by the cops.
That is logically impossible.
And even THEN, they have to prove that *anyone* could have known exactly *what* the cops were ordering -- and it wouldn't be hard to prove that the cops were both confusing and inconsistent.
Anyone else who was present can be subpoenaed to testify -- "Mr. Kelly, you aren't a police officer, didn't you know that *you* had to leave the area" -- and 269 MGL 1&2 -- which are essentially British Colonial Ordinances which predate the American Revolution -- has NEVER been upheld by the SJC!
These two laws were written by King George's men (whom we revolted against), predate both the MA and US Constitutions, not to mention BOTH the 14th Amendment and the "Warren Court" -- and in the only case (I'm aware of), our Supreme Judicial Court refused to uphold the law, although that was in the context of a prison riot.
I've long said that a competent defense attorney would topple this whole house of cards...
And then, after the acquittal, the expensive attorney then goes after the town and that could get expensive.
Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the "Anti KKK Act) is still on the books and provides both criminal and civil penalties for "violation of civil rights while acting under color of law." This includes municipalities and their police officers -- it's 46 USC 1983 and damages are NOT subject to the limits of the state tort claims act!
His damages include everything that occurred as a result of what the town's agents (i.e. cops) did -- and that includes what Enku may have done as a result of the report they sent her. FERPA does not apply here -- UMass can't hide behind confidentiality if HE is suing, if he (or actually anyone) requests information as part of a legal process.
If he got kicked out of UMass -- and there is no distinction between suspension and expulsion anymore -- his damages include his potential lifetime earnings -- and the Town of Amherst is liable -- and has nowhere enough insurance...
Town property can be legally seized to satisfy a judgment (that includes vehicles (e.g. police cars & fire trucks) and real estate (e.g. the police station). Municipalities can file bankruptcy, but I don't know how much that would do for this.
Like I said, one good attorney would topple this house of cards.
Post a Comment