Whitner has been charged

[yall]

I'll take the blame for that one.

 

A Cleveland officer told me Whitner had been released with no charges. That, plus the original Buffalo News report that he already had been charged led me to believe the charges were dropped, when, in fact, he hadn't been charged at all.

 

That one's on me.

 

You git yer facts and take 'em somewheres else, Mr.

 

Seriously though, thanks for the clarification.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Hunh? Ohio Rev.Code § 2917.11(A) and Ohio Rev.Code § 2917.11(E)(3) define the terms in a court of law. Why would fighting in the presence of a police officer be "very hard" to prosecute?

 

Because it is. Unless there was one person involved in the cause, and people are outraged and were witness to it and hurt by it, it is hard to prove. And i don't see any newspapers with that many witnesses or info on what happened. So I assume the police are fuzzy on the details too.

 

In order to win this in front of a judge, the prosecuter would have to show the "disorderly conduct" through evidence, which is hard to prove. It takes more than a police statement that says "he was fighting." The police officer has to say exactly what he was doing, who else was involved, what caused it, etc. Since not much has been released on this story, it looks like the police aren't that aware of what happened.

 

Any small crime is hard to prove. Small crimes usually have sloppy arrests. I am not sure what the stats are, but i know in my criminology class way back when, the percent of convictions/arrests in small crimes had a big gap. It takes too much time to just slap a guy on the wrist for something stupid. This stuff happens all the time.

 

And I don't see anything that shows that he needed to be tasered. He isnt being charged for anything that would make the taser needed at least.

 

But whenever a small charge is put on you, you always fight it. Small crimes are hard to prove. Police aren't as meticulous as they would be if it were a homocide or something. So they are going to make a lot of mistakes. Even if the police did do the right thing, you could get arrested for jaywalking, but if a prosecuter were to charge you for it, the case would get thrown out. It is a waste of a judge's time. Don't be surprised if Whitner walks into court in two weeks and the judge throws the whole case out the window.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Because it is. Unless there was one person involved in the cause, and people are outraged and were witness to it and hurt by it, it is hard to prove. And i don't see any newspapers with that many witnesses or info on what happened. So I assume the police are fuzzy on the details too.

 

In order to win this in front of a judge, the prosecuter would have to show the "disorderly conduct" through evidence, which is hard to prove. It takes more than a police statement that says "he was fighting." The police officer has to say exactly what he was doing, who else was involved, what caused it, etc. Since not much has been released on this story, it looks like the police aren't that aware of what happened.

 

Any small crime is hard to prove. Small crimes usually have sloppy arrests. I am not sure what the stats are, but i know in my criminology class way back when, the percent of convictions/arrests in small crimes had a big gap. It takes too much time to just slap a guy on the wrist for something stupid. This stuff happens all the time.

 

And I don't see anything that shows that he needed to be tasered. He isnt being charged for anything that would make the taser needed at least.

 

But whenever a small charge is put on you, you always fight it. Small crimes are hard to prove. Police aren't as meticulous as they would be if it were a homocide or something. So they are going to make a lot of mistakes. Even if the police did do the right thing, you could get arrested for jaywalking, but if a prosecuter were to charge you for it, the case would get thrown out. It is a waste of a judge's time. Don't be surprised if Whitner walks into court in two weeks and the judge throws the whole case out the window.

Nice bait and switch. You originally stated there was no or a poor definition of aggravated disorderly conduct (which is false/weak as it is defined in the Ohio code) only to go off meandering about how it isn't easy, economical, frequent to convict "small crimes" in a very general way (court cost, case specifics, police errors, etc.). Congratulations.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Nice bait and switch. You originally stated there was no or a poor definition of aggravated disorderly conduct (which is false/weak as it is defined in the Ohio code) only to go off meandering about how it isn't easy, economical, frequent to convict "small crimes" in a very general way (court cost, case specifics, police errors, etc.). Congratulations.

 

Well, i don't follow Ohio law. I have never been. I didn't realize they had it more detailed. Even so, even though it is more detailed than some laws, "disorderly conduct" is still a vague term, even by those standards. the only thing that is clear in it is "Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior." The rest is retoric to most other states. If whitner was involved in fighting, he would have been charged for more than disorderly conduct. So i assume he wasn't "fighting." If he was fighting, and that is what he was arrested for, then all the lawyer has to do is say "if he was really fighting, why aren't they charging him for assault?" So it looks like he never actually attacked or fought with anyone physically.

 

but other things don't have a clear interpretation of the law. for instence, the very next thing "Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person"

 

What is "unreasonable noise?" What is unreasonable to one person isnt unreasonable to the next. it is a matter of opinion. Same with abusive language. What is offensive to one person isn't offensive to the next.

 

the same goes for the rest of the Law. "Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;"

 

again. What is insulting or what could provoke a violent reponse is open to interpretation.

 

I only went through the begining of the law, but for the most part, with very few exceptions, it is open to interpretation.

 

Sorry if you didn't like my previous reponse.

[billsfreak]

Maybe the commissioner will just let us forfeit the first 3 games and then clear the slate for all of our criminals and thugs, and even out all the suspensions.

[folz]

No surprise as to charges.

 

You generally are acting up big time before you get tased, because in most jurisdictions that's a discharge of a weapon, which draws statutory review. Few police officers, on duty or not, do so unless concerns for their own safety and that of others rapidly develop.

 

 

A quick trip around Youtube will show you that police are using tasers way too often and under very questionable circumstances, people who at the time are causing no threat to the police, themselves, or anyone else around them. It seems like many police figure its not going to kill them so its no big deal, but it is a HUGE deal to the rights of your average citizen.

 

The police aren't always right just because they are police...

[BillsVet]

Well, i don't follow Ohio law. I have never been. I didn't realize they had it more detailed. Even so, even though it is more detailed than some laws, "disorderly conduct" is still a vague term, even by those standards. the only thing that is clear in it is "Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior." The rest is retoric to most other states. If whitner was involved in fighting, he would have been charged for more than disorderly conduct. So i assume he wasn't "fighting." If he was fighting, and that is what he was arrested for, then all the lawyer has to do is say "if he was really fighting, why aren't they charging him for assault?" So it looks like he never actually attacked or fought with anyone physically.

 

but other things don't have a clear interpretation of the law. for instence, the very next thing "Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person"

 

What is "unreasonable noise?" What is unreasonable to one person isnt unreasonable to the next. it is a matter of opinion. Same with abusive language. What is offensive to one person isn't offensive to the next.

 

the same goes for the rest of the Law. "Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;"

 

again. What is insulting or what could provoke a violent reponse is open to interpretation.

 

I only went through the begining of the law, but for the most part, with very few exceptions, it is open to interpretation.

 

Sorry if you didn't like my previous reponse.

 

 

A quick trip around Youtube will show you that police are using tasers way too often and under very questionable circumstances, people who at the time are causing no threat to the police, themselves, or anyone else around them. It seems like many police figure its not going to kill them so its no big deal, but it is a HUGE deal to the rights of your average citizen.

 

The police aren't always right just because they are police...

 

Marginalization through generalization.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Well, i don't follow Ohio law. I have never been. I didn't realize they had it more detailed. Even so, even though it is more detailed than some laws, "disorderly conduct" is still a vague term, even by those standards. the only thing that is clear in it is "Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior." The rest is retoric to most other states. If whitner was involved in fighting, he would have been charged for more than disorderly conduct. So i assume he wasn't "fighting." If he was fighting, and that is what he was arrested for, then all the lawyer has to do is say "if he was really fighting, why aren't they charging him for assault?" So it looks like he never actually attacked or fought with anyone physically.

 

but other things don't have a clear interpretation of the law. for instence, the very next thing "Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person"

 

What is "unreasonable noise?" What is unreasonable to one person isnt unreasonable to the next. it is a matter of opinion. Same with abusive language. What is offensive to one person isn't offensive to the next.

 

the same goes for the rest of the Law. "Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;"

 

again. What is insulting or what could provoke a violent reponse is open to interpretation.

 

I only went through the begining of the law, but for the most part, with very few exceptions, it is open to interpretation.

 

Sorry if you didn't like my previous reponse.

Yes, law is a matter of interpretation unless one believes in the omniscience of judges and juries. I think we can agree they are fully human.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Yes, law is a matter of interpretation unless one believes in the omniscience of judges and juries. I think we can agree they are fully human.

 

Some law has a big gap, some is cut and dry. If you rob a bank, it is cut and dry. No one is going to argue what robbing a bank means. Everyone knows it means stealing from the bank. But if you want to argue "disorderly conduct," it isnt cut and dry like robbing a bank. it isn't clearly defined. "offensive language" could mean anything. Some kid could be wearing a shirt that says "blondes are better than brunettes" and a brunette girl can think it is offensive. But clearly, not everyone is going to think it is offensive. Someone could wear a shirt that says "i hate white people" and think it is offensive. but not everybody is going to think that. some people might think that yelling on the phone is "disorderly conduct", but not everyone. Some people might think that running through the park is "disorderly conduct" because it bothers their dogs or whatever.

 

The law "disorderly conduct" IS open to interpretation more than most laws. It is not clearly defined for the most part. you can't draw a clear line on what is offensive and what isn't. You just can't. there is a lot of wiggle room, and it IS hard to prosecute. when you go in the gray area, the odds are with the defendent. the burdon of proof is up to the prosecuter. not the defense.

 

I think i made my point as to why "disorderly conduct" is hard to prosecute because it is a vague term

[The Dean]

Some law has a big gap, some is cut and dry. If you rob a bank, it is cut and dry. No one is going to argue what robbing a bank means. Everyone knows it means stealing from the bank. But if you want to argue "disorderly conduct," it isnt cut and dry like robbing a bank. it isn't clearly defined. "offensive language" could mean anything. Some kid could be wearing a shirt that says "blondes are better than brunettes" and a brunette girl can think it is offensive. But clearly, not everyone is going to think it is offensive.

 

The law "disorderly conduct" IS open to interpretation more than most laws. It is not clearly defined for the most part. you can't draw a clear line on what is offensive and what isn't. You just can't. there is a lot of wiggle room, and it IS hard to prosecute. when you go in the gray area, the odds are with the defendent. the burdon of proof is up to the prosecuter. not the defense.

 

 

From the limited info we have (or at least I have) it sounds as though Whitner was not part of the major melee the police were there to squelch. It sounds as though he had concern for his cousin, who might be in danger, and he wigged out a little, and tried to go to aid his cousin.

 

While it doesn't excuse his behavior, if he refused to obey the police and got a little physical with them, it does put his behavior in context. I think it is likely a DA will recognize that and let Whitner plead to one count of misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct. This, of course, assumes the police acted properly with the taser. If they didn't, all charges will be dropped.

 

Mark it down.

[DanInUticaTampa]

From the limited info we have (or at least I have) it sounds as though Whitner was not part of the major melee the police were there to squelch. It sounds as though he had concern for his cousin, who might be in danger, and he wigged out a little, and tried to go to aid his cousin.

 

While it doesn't excuse his behavior, if he refused to obey the police and got a little physical with them, it does put his behavior in context. I think it is likely a DA will recognize that and let Whitner plead to one count of misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct. This, of course, assumes the police acted properly with the taser. If they didn't, all charges will be dropped.

 

Mark it down.

 

That is what I am thinking. Someone said something like "him fighting in front of police" is easy to prosecute or something like that. But i looked and i couldn't find anything about him fighting. There isn't that much info out there. the police said whitner went through a police barrier and "looked like he was about to join the fight."

 

He didn't attack anyone from the looks of it. If he did hit someone, he would have a lot more charges. It looks like what you said. The police told him to stay away, he ignored them, the police grabbed him and he put up a struggle and resisted the arrest. When he struggled, they tasered him.

 

It is hard to tell, because there isn't much that we know. but from experience, these charges are hard to make stick. especially from what i seen down here.