Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupier Wins case!!

Posted 1 year ago on March 1, 2013, 3:17 p.m. EST by shooz (17793)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Taking all those videos was worth the effort!!

In the first jury trial stemming from an Occupy Wall Street protest, Michael Premo was found innocent of all charges yesterday after his lawyers presented video evidence directly contradicting the version of events offered by police and prosecutors.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/03/jury_finds_occu.php

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13354) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

What is really interesting is that in the future, defense lawyers may dredge up this case: where the officers who gave testimony here are asked to testify in the future, their credibility may be questioned at length. It is possible that this can even go as far as the cases they present for prosecution, their handling of evidence - in any other set of circumstances, officers whose credibility may be so successfully challenged in a court of law see their careers in law enforcement come to an end.

I think Premo should consider suit, for false arrest.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17793) 1 year ago

This ruling could be applied to all the ousted occupies, so I expect it to be appealed to another court.

But it is still a win.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13354) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't follow - the verdict of innocence in this case pertained to charges of assaulting an officer by a single individual.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13354) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Oh right, of course. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and is upheld, then sure, it might be applicable nationwide.

Short of that, I think the case of the Library and it's property loss won't have much impact outside the state of NY.

Have other Occupies suffered significant property loss? Tents I'm sure, but right or wrong, I can't see much of a case coming forward unless the property loss is significant, and for that to happen the lost property needs to be accounted on a communal level.

What I mean is that the loss of individual tents won't add up to much when taken one by one - they would all need to be taken as a whole before the court. Otherwise you are talking about a dollar loss that on average is probably less than $500.

To the denizens of the American legal system, what is that? Half a day's pay? Chump change, and hardly worth crying over. Taken collectively you could be talking several tens of thousands, just as with the library.

That gets attention. It is not the kind of loss that can be counted as insignificant. With the library you also had the consideration of cultural significance and the iconography of past book burnings from other eras and cultures as a back drop.

So I dunno. I don't know how one presents a case of property loss unless one can demonstrate that loss is significant - and with the Occupy process and the evictions . . . I'm not sure how that plays out.

Interesting tho. And a credit to the legal system of NY that they found in favor of the OWS Library. That must really chafe bloomberg's ass . . .

[-] 1 points by shooz (17793) 1 year ago

Anything that chafes Bloomberg's bloomers is worth it.....................:)

I did see considerable damage done at Boston and a few other Occupies though.

I guess I'm just an optimist at heart.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

That was cool shooz, thanks. I love Sinatra's New York - New York, and in this case it can very easily and rightly applied to the recalcitrance of the people in Occupy to the corrupt status quo.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Took long enough. GodDamn stormtroopers

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

They should all insist on jury trials. The judges are kept in line by the threat of losing their pensions (among other ways).

Police officers & prosecutors should lose their protection from perjury. They should both be asked to waive this protection by the defendants.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17793) 1 year ago

I'm sure that case by case, their lawyers will do what's prudent, and if there's video available, you know they will.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I don't know about that. It seems to me that most lawyers have been swept up the in the assembly line judicial system. It's just business as usual to them, even innocent defendants often plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid the worst. It's time to throw a spanner into the works.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17793) 1 year ago

Send you to law school?

I don't think we can afford that. It could take decades.

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

No, no, no. The whole point in the need to step away from business as usual. (But of course, videos and camera phones are invaluable.)

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The case is Briscoe v. Lahue -- they should be asked to waive their protections under Briscoe.

"Police officers granted absolute immunity for perjury at criminal trial Briscoe v. Lahue, 103 S.Ct. 1108 (1983)" http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil60.html

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

So the cops can lie without recourse if caught out lying?

It's much the same as the banksters knowing that if they get caught cheating, stealing, gambling, nothing will happen to them either.

What kind of justice do you call that?

Arrogance with impunity. This is getting out of hand, people. Your prez knows he can commit murder, and illegally invade other nations, and nothing happens.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

And so can prosecutors.

[Removed]