Log in

View Full Version : PA police officers burst into home, arrest woman for filming them with cellphone



Ares
29th September 2014, 08:18 PM
Couple Sues Police Over Tense Confrontation Inside Collingdale Home
(NBCPhiladelphia) A Pennsylvania couple is suing three police officers, claiming their rights were violated during a tense confrontation captured on cellphone video.

Kia Gaymon, 38, and her husband Michael Gaymon, 35, of Collingdale filed a lawsuit against the borough as well as three police officers.
The lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred at the couple’s Collingdale home back on February 22. The couple says it all began when Mr. Gaymon’s mother visited their home and partially parked her car on their next-door neighbor’s curb. The neighbor called police and three Collingdale officers soon arrived.

According to Mrs. Gaymon, one officer began to yell at her and her husband in an “aggressive and accusatory manner,” and asked which one of them spit on their neighbor. The couple told the officer they had done nothing wrong and that their neighbor was falsely accusing them.

The lawsuit accuses the officer of getting within inches of Mr. Gaymon’s face while screaming at him.
“His behavior was so aggressive that the first thing I thought was to pull out my phone and video,” Mrs. Gaymon said.

Mrs. Gaymon began to record the officer as she stood outside her front door. The lawsuit claims the officer noticed her recording and walked toward her, demanding that she stop.
“He told me that if I continued to video he was going to come in my house and confiscate my phone and place me under arrest,” Mrs. Gaymon said.

According to the lawsuit, the officer told Mrs. Gaymon she couldn’t record him because it violated Pennsylvania’s wiretap statute. Mr. Gaymon and the couple’s 21-year-old daughter Sanshuray Purnell told the officer he was wrong however and that she had the legal right to record. The lawsuit states the officer then told Mrs. Gaymon that if she didn’t stop recording him he would enter her home, take away her cellphone and arrest her.

After Mrs. Gaymon refused to let him inside the home, the officer allegedly moved towards Purnell, handcuffed her and threatened to use his taser against her. Mrs. Gaymon says a second officer then escorted Purnell away from the scene.

The first officer then allegedly entered the home, ignoring the couple’s demand s that he not come inside.
The lawsuit accuses the officer of grabbing Mrs. Gaymon, pushing her against the wall and holding his taser against her chest.

“I panicked,” she said. “I was scared.”

The lawsuit states the second and third officers then placed Mrs. Gaymon under arrest and removed her from the home.

Mrs. Gaymon and her daughter were taken in separate vehicles to the Collingdale Police Station. Cellphone video shows Gaymon’s 10-year-old son sobbing as officers take her and her daughter away. The mother and daughter were held at the Collingdale Police Station and later received citations for disorderly conduct.

“The actions that are described in the citation are for videoing the officer,” said the family’s attorney Jonathan Fienberg. “It’s not a crime.”

In 2012, the Department of Justice issued a letter stating individuals had a “First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties.” In Philadelphia, several policies state officers can’t take cellphones or arrest citizens for recording them. Some departments have even placed cameras on officers, an action supporters say prevents misconduct and protects the officers.

Mrs. Gaymon and Purnell appeared for a trial on May 22. After hearing their testimony, the judge dismissed the charges against them.

The Gaymons’ lawsuit claims the officers, “had no legal cause to believe that any plaintiff committed any crime” and that they “maliciously initiated a criminal prosecution” against Gaymon and Purnell. The lawsuit also accuses the officers of illegally entering the home without a warrant.

NBC10 reached out to the Collingdale Police Chief. He told us he was advised not to comment on the lawsuit.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b5_1412018369

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b5_1412018369#tWDIrgz5worGPqht.99&use_old_player=0

collector
29th September 2014, 08:44 PM
Color of law - sue them individually in civil court
42 u.s.c section 1983

Cebu_4_2
29th September 2014, 08:45 PM
They need to sue not defend from false charges.

Dogman
29th September 2014, 09:07 PM
She should win the lawsuit and then squeeze the doughnut munchers of all their money and then laugh all the way to the bank!

And that in not all that they should deserve, clear abuse of power.

Ares
29th September 2014, 09:10 PM
She should win the lawsuit and then squeeze the doughnut munchers of all their money and then laugh all the way to the bank!

And that in not all that they should deserve, clear abuse of power.

I would of shot them if they broke into my house. Without a warrant they are but common thieves, murders, thugs at that point.

Dogman
29th September 2014, 09:18 PM
I would of shot them if they broke into my house. Without a warrant they are but common thieves, murders, thugs at that point. Yes, but no also, doing so would earn you a whole world of shit.

There is the law as written, which you would be justified, but then there is the real world and the way of interpretations and they would hang you out to dry in prison if you even get to live that long short term, not to say make it to court.

Just not worth the hassle, unless one just is tired of living the good life= being free.

Ares
29th September 2014, 09:20 PM
unless one just is tired of living the good life= being free.

We're free??

Dogman
29th September 2014, 09:38 PM
We're free??More so than most of the rest of the people in the world, relative thinking wise. Why do you think a bunch from all over the world want to come here to live?

Ares
29th September 2014, 09:43 PM
More so than most of the rest of the people in the world, relative thinking wise. Why do you think a bunch from all over the world want to come here to live?

I always thought it was the entitlement subsidies and racial preferential treatment.

expat4ever
29th September 2014, 11:19 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/09/24/federal-appeals-court-no-qualified-immunity-defense-for-officers-who-engaged-in-blatantly-unconstitutional-raid/

Different case but should be applicable

mick silver
30th September 2014, 09:03 AM
welcome to the USA

Hatha Sunahara
30th September 2014, 10:47 AM
We're free??

I switched my definition of 'free' to mean 'rid of'. Like being 'lice free' or 'cancer-free'. In this case, I would view it as being 'authoritarian free'.

The other meaning of freedom is too vague, so it is rarely shared with other folks. Hitler reminded us that we are all 'free to starve'. When you have a more specific meaning for 'free' it's easier to share it with others, such as in being 'Hitler free'. For us though, it might mean something if it were 'Obama free'. But that won't go far, because the next buffoon in office will outdo what we are free of. Perhaps being 'NWO free' might be a constructive step toward real freedom.


Hatha

iOWNme
30th September 2014, 11:28 AM
I would of shot them if they broke into my house. Without a warrant they are but common thieves, murders, thugs at that point.

Do you think a 'warrant' absolves them of being common theives, murderers and thugs?

iOWNme
30th September 2014, 11:30 AM
She should win the lawsuit and then squeeze the doughnut munchers of all their money and then laugh all the way to the bank!

.


They dont have any money. Whatever is awarded in a 'lawsuit' will have to be PLUNDERED from the innocent non violent individuals from that area. And this is a good thing to you?

midnight rambler
30th September 2014, 11:35 AM
They dont have any money. Whatever is awarded in a 'lawsuit' will have to be PLUNDERED from the innocent non violent individuals from that area. And this is a good thing to you?

Are you referring to the 'residents' (aka political subdivisions, i.e. those who willingly and voluntarily ask/RELY ON the state to establish their IDENTITY) of the corporate state? If so, then those rubes set themselves up to be fleeced AND HAVE AGREED TO THE TERMS. Ignorance is NO excuse!

Ares
30th September 2014, 11:44 AM
Do you think a 'warrant' absolves them of being common theives, murderers and thugs?

Nope, not at all. It doesn't absolve them of anything. But they no longer have the protection of the state without that warrant giving them their "legal" protection from repercussions.

crimethink
30th September 2014, 12:38 PM
Nope, not at all. It doesn't absolve them of anything. But they no longer have the protection of the state without that warrant giving them their "legal" protection from repercussions.

A "warrant" is a piece of paper documenting conspiracy against you between armed enforcers and a black-robed prostitute called a "judge," based upon perjured "testimony."

A violation of a man's castle is hardly different than the violation of one's body in rape. Both are acts of power for domination. At one time in Anglo-Saxon cultures, either would have elicited deadly force, with few to none claiming the defender was "wrong."

Ares
30th September 2014, 12:48 PM
A "warrant" is a piece of paper documenting conspiracy against you between armed enforcers and a black-robed prostitute called a "judge," based upon perjured "testimony."

A violation of a man's castle is hardly different than the violation of one's body in rape. Both are acts of power for domination. At one time in Anglo-Saxon cultures, either would have elicited deadly force, with few to none claiming the defender was "wrong."

Agreed. But we don't have juries who aware of such injustices. They think if there is law, then they are to judge YOU for breaking it, not the law itself.

crimethink
30th September 2014, 01:09 PM
Agreed. But we don't have juries who aware of such injustices. They think if there is law, then they are to judge YOU for breaking it, not the law itself.

The ignorance and sometimes utter stupidity of juries today is merely reflective of the degeneration of society as a whole. It results, primarily, from "education" by Talmudvision, and the compliance to "authority" it teaches.

iOWNme
30th September 2014, 05:00 PM
Are you referring to the 'residents' (aka political subdivisions, i.e. those who willingly and voluntarily ask/RELY ON the state to establish their IDENTITY) of the corporate state? If so, then those rubes set themselves up to be fleeced AND HAVE AGREED TO THE TERMS.


We've already been over this. You choose to blame the victims of STATE oppression when non violent individuals are aggressed upon. Simply being 'born' somewhere does not grant 'politicians' some 'special powers' unless you IMAGINE they own all of the dirt here. Being DEFRAUDED/CONNED into situations where innocent non violent people are coerced under threats of harm does not mean they have 'consented' anymore than a girl consents to rape because she agreed to meet for dinner.

You never address the part where FRAUD/COERCION is used? If it is doen under fraud, it is to be considered null and void. Morality says so. Even 'Common Law' agreed. By blaming the victims, you are actually legitimizing the STATE! How can you not see this? Do people make dumb choices? Sure. Are most people brain dead idiots? Probably. But does that mean they deserve to have violence initiated against them? I do not think so.

I asked you this question and you never replied:

Before you understood how all of this stuff works did YOU PERSONALLY deserve to be the victim of STATE aggression because you were 'ignorant' of their 'laws'? Did YOU PERSONALLY deserve to have your home broken into and held under duress with weapons drawn?

I do not believe so. I believe YOU PERSONALLY have a right to not have violence initiated against you. Whether you've read some scribbles or not is irrelevant to morality.





Ignorance is NO excuse!

Would it have been an excuse for YOU PERSONALLY before you saw how the game is played?

Ignorance of morality is no excuse. Ignorance of the scribbles of 'politicians' (sometimes called 'law') is totally and completely rational, sane, logical, reasonable and moral.

hoarder
30th September 2014, 08:32 PM
“The actions that are described in the citation are for videoing the officer,” said the family’s attorney Jonathan Fienberg. “It’s not a crime.”

Good thing they have a righteous lawyer.

expat4ever
30th September 2014, 08:44 PM
They dont have any money. Whatever is awarded in a 'lawsuit' will have to be PLUNDERED from the innocent non violent individuals from that area. And this is a good thing to you?

Go back to post 10 and see what the courts just upheld for the 3rd time. The police will most definitely be held accountable and sued personally. Although maybe not since the lawyer stands to gain a lot more if he just sues the state but hopefully he goes after them personally as well.