BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 25, 2010 6:09:37 GMT -5
www.app.com/article/20100324/NEWS/100324146/Judge-finds-mother-son-claiming-police-brutality-resisted-arrestA state Superior Court judge determined Wednesday that a Freehold Township mother and son who claimed police brutality interfered with officers and struggled when they were put under arrest in 2008. The judge, Eugene A. Iadanza, found Migdalia Irizarry and her teenage son guilty of obstructing the administration of law and resisting arrest on Jan. 29, 2008, following a motor vehicle stop in Freehold. He acquitted the boy, now 18, of aggravated assault on a police officer because he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's recounting of the alleged assault was true. Iadanza ordered Irizarry, 35, to pay a minimum fine of $25 per count, and $175 in court assessments. Her son was given an unsupervised deferred disposition until Sept. 1, which means if he stays out of trouble until then the complaints against him will be dismissed. It also means he will not have to provide a DNA sample or pay any fines or assessments, Iadanza said.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 25, 2010 6:10:32 GMT -5
They got off light, very light.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 6:46:40 GMT -5
Its a shame they didnt get more, after what they have put our fine department through! Sad day for us residents and shame on this judge!!!
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 25, 2010 6:49:59 GMT -5
Its a shame they didnt get more, after what they have put our fine department through! Sad day for us residents and shame on this judge!!! Agreed, they were found guilty so that does say something, but to hand down such a light sentence the judge did slap this town, and especially the cops, in the face. |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Mar 25, 2010 7:32:58 GMT -5
A heaping pile of steamy guilt served fresh! Man, I knew something was really stinky here. Tell it, Judge!
As far as the amount of the fines, I have no clue what's normal and/or allowable in such a case. Although, perhaps some creative judgments should have been thrown in the mix: such as making them both stand on corners wearing signs, "When pulled over by a cop, keep your hands to yourself!"or "I love the police! They save lives every day! Hug a cop!"
Or, making mother and son wash floors, windows and bathrooms in the PD every day for a month.
But that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 8:13:58 GMT -5
Question and maybe Rich Kelsey is best suited to answer this...
Does this guilty verdict now stop them for suing the department for money?
Can the department go after them for wrongful claims or defamation?
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Mar 25, 2010 8:24:26 GMT -5
Excellent questions Mike. I also await Rich's response. I would, however, surmise that their civil suit is severely compromised now and may not bear fruit from the money tree.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Mar 25, 2010 8:31:15 GMT -5
Question and maybe Rich Kelsey is best suited to answer this... Does this guilty verdict now stop them for suing the department for money? Can the department go after them for wrongful claims or defamation? Those are some good questions... Here are my thoughts as this issue appears to be wrapped up. This whole thing has dragged on for quite some time and brought about some very negative press to our town, police department and the defendants family. There will never be any true winners in all of this. Colaner had his own promotion marred by this event and that is not fair to him. When I look at various comments on different Internet sites, most are very favorable of and supportive of the police. I think a lot of that is natural and quite reflective of the fact that borough-ites are very protective of their town. I know that people are sick of watching this town get dragged through the mud. On the other side, we cannot forget that Irizarry family have certainly been through tough times. It is wise to not demonize them and to at least try to be respectful of them. Like any story, they have their side which must be heard, even if most do not agree. The above is important to keep in mind because none of us was there on the night of the incident. It is not right to indict anyone on the public arena. We have a court system that, though not perfect, is the best we have and we must rely on. People may have very strong opinions either way, but we must respect the outcome in the court of law. In the end, the facts are better laid out there and decisions are made for what we hope is good reason. Barring any civil suit, lets hope that all parties can find closure and move on in peace. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 8:47:31 GMT -5
Brian, well said!
About comments being made, I see it as this. People that speak ill of the police department, no matter what race, religon, etc., are people that generally are doing things that could get them introuble. And by trouble I mean, speeding, parking tickets, drugs, child support, gambling, anything. Why else would you speak out against a department who's soul purpose is to protect us all? I have lived here 33 years and havent seen anything that would make me not trust or worry about our police. Sure, have we had some police that were better then others, yes but as a whole, nothing bad.
Moral of the story is, hopefully this is all over now and all parties involved can go back to there normal lives. I will say this though, Alot of credit has to be said for most the residents in this town, there support of the department has been second to none. These men and women have seen an out pouring of support, which is much deserved!
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Mar 25, 2010 8:55:53 GMT -5
They got off light, very light. I would not used the expression “LIGHT".., the kids "GOT OFF" period. The mother barely had her wrist slapped By ALL accounts the "child" assaulted an Officer of the Law. While this child obstructed the administration of law and resisting arrest, did he HIT (aka assault) the person wearing the uniform and badge?  "...not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's recounting of the alleged assault was true" By this same measure, what testimony satisfied (this judge) beyond a reasonable doubt that the child’s recounting of the alleged assault WAS true? How unreasonable is it to postulate that this officer, at which point in time when he made the "STOP” managed to have an unblemished record…. And then the night of this incident…, this officer (who champions the Boro's Santa Train, and through out his career here in Freehold Boro..., has participated in youth out reach) for some reason…, change his entire demeanor, and exposed both personal and departmental risk..., by way of an unprofessional, totally out of character violation of the public trust.. While…, the accused would allege that this was an instance of a rogue officer beating down a child? Or is it possible and very reasonable…, that the irresponsible belligerent demeanor of the accused, exposed the officer to unnecessary imminent danger, forcing the officer to take necessary and appropriate action as required by standard police protocol…., when both of the accused refused to comply thusly … obstructed the administration of law and resisting arrest on Jan. 29, 2008. I am interested learning more about this Judge and to see if he has an anti-law enforcement track record. I wonder what the accused's attornies bill will be, and if their next action will be a civil law suite against the arresting office (and the other officers involved) To pay a minimum fine of $25 per count, and $175 in court assessments for obstructing justice.. Not a good message from our judicial system! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 9:05:29 GMT -5
Ted,
VERY WELL SAID!
FYI- the judge is retiring in the next few months!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Mar 25, 2010 9:06:37 GMT -5
Question and maybe Rich Kelsey is best suited to answer this... Does this guilty verdict now stop them for suing the department for money? Can the department go after them for wrongful claims or defamation? The Civil brought by the family is not barred, as a matter of law. The court finding of obstruction and resisting arrest will be facts permitted to be admitted in the Civil case, and those facts will be very, very, damaging. The more interesting fact, at least as written, is the acquittal of the more serious charge. If the Court actually said that if could not find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer's account of the assault was true -- that would be a bit unusual and could be seized upon by the Plaintiff's lawyer to say hey -- even this court didn't think the officer was telling the truth. That seems highly unusual. In a case like this, it would be more likely for a Court to merely reach an acquittal, and state that the evidence was insufficient to carry the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt on the charge of aggravated assault on a police officer. If stated that way, it would be less damaging to the credibility of the officer in any civil suit. The practical answer is this -- in a competent jurisdiction -- the civil action should be effectively, for practical purposes, dead. However, it is not barred from proceeding. (I don't recall if the civil action is a Federal action -- brought on constitutional or 1983 grounds, or if it is some form of state action.) I can't think of anything in state law that would bar a Federal action based solely on the conviction. Having said that -- this is not my area of law. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 9:09:46 GMT -5
You certainly know alot for not being your area of law. So the skinny of this is, a civil case is a realistic thought in the future for the family?
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Mar 25, 2010 10:28:19 GMT -5
You certainly know alot for not being your area of law. So the skinny of this is, a civil case is a realistic thought in the future for the family? With a civil suit, the plaintiff would choose between trial by judge or trail by jury..., and would more than likely go with a jury trial... mainly because ..., ONE… in a civil action a jury’s decision is not bound to "reasonable doubt" TWO… plaintiffs attorney can try to skew a seemingly sympathetic jury THREE… Seek an out of court settlement (seems to be a winning trend latley  )! I have a funny feeling this is not over for this family.., lets see how bad they want the MONEY!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Mar 25, 2010 10:52:49 GMT -5
You certainly know alot for not being your area of law. So the skinny of this is, a civil case is a realistic thought in the future for the family? With a civil suit, the plaintiff would choose between trial by judge or trail by jury..., and would more than likely go with a jury trial... mainly because ..., ONE… in a civil action a jury’s decision is not bound to "reasonable doubt" TWO… plaintiffs attorney can try to skew a seemingly sympathetic jury THREE… Seek an out of court settlement (seems to be a winning trend latley )! I have a funny feeling this is not over for this family.., lets see how bad they want the MONEY!! Ted, i think thats a extremly valid point. Is this family involved because they want to do whats right and try to prove they were mishandled(which I strongly believe they weren't) or do they see it as a pay day? Anyone want to bet which way it goes? |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Mar 25, 2010 11:31:55 GMT -5
With a civil suit, the plaintiff would choose between trial by judge or trail by jury..., and would more than likely go with a jury trial... mainly because ..., ONE… in a civil action a jury’s decision is not bound to "reasonable doubt" TWO… plaintiffs attorney can try to skew a seemingly sympathetic jury THREE… Seek an out of court settlement (seems to be a winning trend latley )! I have a funny feeling this is not over for this family.., lets see how bad they want the MONEY!! Ted, i think thats a extremly valid point. Is this family involved because they want to do whats right and try to prove they were mishandled(which I strongly believe they weren't) or do they see it as a pay day? Anyone want to bet which way it goes? IF the Irizarry's wanted to do whats right, they would have complyed with the polite officers request and been home by 10:30 that night, and WE would be here posting about more important community actions like Child Sex Abuse Awareness month. There sould be ZERO monitary reward for (yet another) mendacious action taken against a hard working police department. |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Mar 25, 2010 11:53:39 GMT -5
And the Vocabulary Word of the Day used Correctly Award goes to ....
...Fiber is good for you! "Mendacious"
Excellent.
carry on...
The Editor
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Mar 25, 2010 13:11:35 GMT -5
And the Vocabulary Word of the Day used Correctly Award goes to .... ...Fiber is good for you! "Mendacious" Excellent. carry on... The Editor This is a most bodacious word TY!.. See you come to read the FV, and you can expand your vocabulary! |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Mar 25, 2010 13:30:16 GMT -5
Indubitably, it also powers my perspicacity!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Mar 25, 2010 14:07:15 GMT -5
You certainly know alot for not being your area of law. So the skinny of this is, a civil case is a realistic thought in the future for the family? Well -- I am the assistant Dean at a law school! Yes -- a civil suit can proceed, and in a jurisdiction where Plaintiffs often prevail, and plaintiffs' lawyers feed on race-based cases they can put before a jury, I would say a case moving forward is still quite possible. Most of these cases are pushed by lawyers working on contingency, which costs the plaintiff little or nothing upfront. If towns and departments are named, insurers will usually be involved, and a recommendation can often be made to cut losses on the cost of litigation. Through in the cost of bad publicity, and people will often throw money at a problem to make it go away. Ted's analysis isn't half bad. I will keep my eye out for his application to law school. |
|
)!