Cops and Prosecutors Doing Cop and Prosecutor Things

[simiansmarts]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/03/12/kyle-kapitanski-vermont-youtube/82336879007/ 
 
This story is a few months old but it has stuck with me for how absurd it is. A man lost his life because a cop was distracted watching ragebait while driving.

[killamajig]

Bodycam video shows the night a Rhode Island Attorney General was arrested for alleged trespassing. Special Assistant Attorney General Devon Hogan was charged with willful trespass and given a district court summons to appear in court, police said. Veronica Hannan was charged with willful trespass, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

[killamajig]

Student-Teacher Arrested After Concerning Snapchat Post



TIL it only took an hour for the deputies to show up after Snapchat called the FBI.

Pro tip, don't joke about shooting kids on Snapchat. Especially if you're a teacher.  

[Uncle]

I wonder about situations like that, they read her her rights...should she have said, hey I'm really sorry, I don't mean to be a bother, but I am requesting a lawyer?

I keep seeing everywhere that you should never talk to cops, that in all cases it can only hurt you, but this was also a simple, quick, open-and-shut type thing and her cooperation may have smoothed things along, like they said, no charges were filed

but then again, at the time of questioning, you do not know what it's about, it could be asking about connection with a murder for all she knew, in which case you'd definitely want a lawyer present

[killamajig]

Editor's Note: This is raw body camera video from University of Iowa police from October 2024 hazing incident. Explicit language is present in the video.

Disturbing video of an alleged 2024 hazing incident at the University of Iowa's Alpha Delta Phi fraternity is now going viral after it is posted to YouTube and posted on X.

The body cam video, which was part of court case discovery in an arrest related to the incident, shows 56 male pledges in a dirty basement, many with shirts removed and blindfolded.

Some real proud parents seeing their kids in this bodycam

[HaughtyFrank]

[killamajig]

Another officer described Perrotta at the time as "visibly hysterical (crying and breathing rapidly) and had blood all over her uniform," the report said.

[filler]

Student-Teacher Arrested After Concerning Snapchat Post



TIL it only took an hour for the deputies to show up after Snapchat called the FBI.

Pro tip, don't joke about shooting kids on Snapchat. Especially if you're a teacher.  

worse than communist chiner. social credit score too low, you go directly to jail.

[TylenolJones]

Great stuff coming out of the Afroman defamation trial. 

[Potato]

Dang! Don't fuck with Afroman

[filler]

[TylenolJones]

[filler]

https://x.com/hiphoperaganda/status/2034402683138748482

[Nintex]

Afroman ftw

[benji]

[killamajig]

[benji]

[Alpacx]

[benji]

nice

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

[HaughtyFrank]

[Uncle]

3 hours too late to post it myself lol

[benji]

[Rendle]

Jaywalks should be killed, correct call

[Alpacx]

Fuck Geese. The streamers of birds.

[benji]

New Jersey court says First Amendment no longer protects cancel culture, at least if the target is a (fat) prosecutor:

Carl then posted videos on his YouTube channel, "Rescuing Our Communities," that

made general claims of racism against "these prosecutorial and law enforcement systems" and specific disparaging remarks against Jane. For example, in the first video, Carl referred to Jane as a "fat racist prosecutor chick rival to [him] for over a year"; "dumb-ass chick" who was "fucking pathetic"; and "the worst excuse for a prosecutor I'm going after (inaudible)."

So, … over the last couple of days I have cited misconduct by the prosecutor who is allegedly charging [F.E.] in the events that she committed against me. For anyone who has watched that video and watched the evidence I put up, you see definitively that that prosecutor lied.

I have audio of her admitting to it. I have emails. People this lady is done…..

This woman has lied through her teeth and now she's afraid because I have proof that could cost her her job. But people I'm not going to stop. I'm going to file more litigation. I'm going to file the grievances.

The appellate court added that Carl had indeed "filed grievances with state and federal authorities" and had unsuccessfully "asked [Jane's] office to replace her with another prosecutor" fourteen times.

The order, among other things, required defendant to "delete all posts on his YouTube site that refer to Plaintiff" and barred him from "posting, false, derogatory, harassing statements in any form or in any online forum or platform that refer to Plaintiff … by name." (Note that there was no finding by the court that defendant's allegations about Plaintiff were indeed false or libelous.) And the appellate court upheld the order:

[The trial] court first addressed Carl's claim that his statements in the YouTube videos were protected speech under the First Amendment…. Notably, the court … found "[Carl]'s videos [we]re designed to attack [Jane's] property right … her job."

The court thus found … Carl's videos "serve[d] no legitimate purpose," but rather "sought to impugn [Jane]'s character, integrity[,] and professionalism not simply out of spite, but specifically to bring about the end of her employment." The court thus concluded, "Because [Carl]'s videotapes regarding [Jane] served no legitimate purpose, were made and disseminated with the purpose to harass [Jane] and designed to threaten her job, [Carl could] not avail himself of the cloak that is First Amendment protection." …

[T]he court noted for more than one hundred years, our courts have repeatedly recognized "a calling, business or profession chosen and followed[,] is property." Pursuant to its detailed analysis, the court therefore concluded Jane proved the predicate act of cyber-harassment under VASPA….

[T]he [trial] court cited Jane's testimony and found, after viewing the first video, "[Jane] felt harassed and had safety concerns." Further, in its credibility findings, the court noted "[Jane] conveyed a sense of anxiety." The record supports Jane's ongoing fear of Carl at the time of her testimony….

The crux of Carl's argument … is the court erroneously determined Jane possessed a property right in her employment because she was a public "at-will" employee…. [W]e have recently reiterated [that] "[a] calling, business or profession, chosen and followed, is property." …

And though Carl argued that "the trial court's decision violates [his] First Amendment rights by restricting lawful speech on a matter of public concern," the court concluded this "contention[] lack[s] sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion."

[Alpacx]