Title: Cop Slams Mom’s Face to the Ground Over Tinted Plate Cover as She Dropped Her Kids Off at School Source:
Free Thought Project/WFAL URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... ids-school-tinted-plate-cover/ Published:Aug 29, 2015 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2015-08-29 16:59:28 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:7341 Comments:67
As Liz Vargas was walking her daughter into school on November 5, officer Kevin Fitzpatrick heroically swooped in to protect the citizens of Tampa from Vargas’ tinted license plate cover.
Not having done anything wrong, and upset that she was being harassed in front of her children, Vargas voiced her discontent.
“Then because I was in my pj’s he called me bummy, and he accused me of illegal drugs, that’s why I got argumentative,” Vargas said of the incident.
Within 34 seconds of his encounter with Vargas, Fitzpatrick grabbed her wrist and had slammed the innocent woman to the ground, face first.
After being brutally assaulted in front of her child by police, Vargas retained attorney Brett Szematowicz.
“At best that could be explained away that he thought there was an officer safety issue with her pointing up at the sky, but he never said he ordered her back in the car, he never said he felt threatened by her actions at any point,” Szematowicz said.
As early as February, Szematowicz said they requested video of the incident from police, but he said they told him there was no tape.
According to WFLA,
The Tampa police department claims it never denied the video existed. In other cases it is common for officers to acknowledge there is video evidence, by writing “video” on criminal report affidavits. Fitzpatrick put a slash mark through the “evidence box” indicating there was no evidence. Hegarty isn’t sure why Fitzpatrick didn’t write in “video” but insists no one at T-P-D- denied that the video existed.
But if you watch the video, it becomes quite apparent as to why Fitzpatrick would have claimed it didn’t exist.
After repeated attempts at obtaining the video, it was finally released in July. The video clearly shows a uniformed assailant, Fitzpatrick, assault an innocent woman, Vargas.
Despite this video evidence, however, an internal ‘investigation’ into the incident cleared Fitzpatrick of any wrongdoing. Tampa police claim that Fitzpatrick had no other option to “control Vargas” other than slamming her face-first into the ground.
Szematowicz feels that the investigation is incomplete. “They left out why he was grabbing her in the first place and to us as her criminal defense attorneys that is the most critical part,” he said.
This entire ordeal was over a tinted license plate cover that can be purchased at auto parts stores throughout the state of Florida.
“…all letters, numerals, printing, writing, and other identification marks upon the plates regarding the word “Florida,” the registration decal, and the alphanumeric designation shall be clear and distinct and free from defacement, mutilation, grease, and other obscuring matter, so that they will be plainly visible and legible at all times 100 feet from the rear or front.”
Despite the low quality of the video, we can see on the officer’s own dashcam that Vargas’ plate was legible.
The precedent set after failing to hold Fitzpatrick accountable is that police can initiate violence against citizens for no reason, even innocent mothers, in front of their children, and this is “following procedure.”
Shall I show you case law where tinted or even clear plastic covers are still deemed to be an obstruction of the plate?
It's a valid stop... courts in every state has upheld this after someone like you challenged the citation. Your complaint shouldn't be with the cops, it should be with the law makers that wrote the law and the states highest courts that uphold the plate covers as a violation... but hating law makers and judges doesn't really help you get your sheep followers to hate cops and the "war on drugs", does it?
Shall I show you case law where tinted or even clear plastic covers are still deemed to be an obstruction of the plate?
The license plate number was clearly visible, but once again, thank you for chiming in with another one of your badge-licking responses.
You got one thing right - the entire judicial system is corrupt.
But instead of cops doing the right thing, we have assholes like this guy who decides to harass an innocent mom for only one reason - because he can and because the criminal enterprise that employs him will exonerate him of any wrongdoing.
"Many plates found were in violation of Florida statute 320.061.
The law states in part, “A person may not apply or attach a substance, coating, covering, or other material onto or around any license plate which interferes with any feature or detail on the license plate.”
When you put any plastic cover over a plate, clear or tinted, it causes and or interferes with plate readers picking up their reflective coating. Also, tinted plate covers diminish the plates viability by the 100 yard standard, at night.
Plate covers have been appealed all the way up to the highest Florida courts... every officer on patrol knows that the stop is a legal one... perhaps you need to brush up on your CASE LAW, instead of preaching infowarrior law.
All this person had to do is take the ticket, allow the officer to do his job, show proof the cover was removed at court and he/she (I didn't watch the video) probably would have had the ticket dropped.
But no... the defendant had to do the cop-block special.
And there you have it - GrandIsland cheers the surveillance mechanism in place to track our every move.
I cheer no more for plate readers than I do Doppler radars, in car CAD systems, the NCIC network, the fingerprint archives, DNA testing... and any other technological advancement that helps LE curtail criminal activity.
The constitution doesn't protect you from criminal activity detection.
The BOR wasn't created or designed to help criminals break the law... period. It shouldn't be used to help criminals violate the rights and freedoms of their peers... period.
You break the law, and the cops discover you did, without violating any of the constitutional amendments, and a normal thinking person is happy. Only an anarchist pile of shit is upset and tries to spin that detection into a constitutional violation. We have a plethora of piles of shit posting.
The BOR wasn't created or designed to help criminals break the law... period. It shouldn't be used to help criminals violate the rights and freedoms of their peers... period.
The BOR primarily shields your natural rights from intrusions on life/liberty/property by a tyrannical government. This is natural, given the tenor of the Revolution against the hated tyrant George III and the widespread suspicion of any federal government over the former colonies. The guarantees of the BOR were required before the citizens of the various colonies would ratify and support the Constitution and the new federal government.
You see the Constitution as an impediment to law enforcement. And, indeed, that is exactly what it is.
But before criminal law was and law enforcement agencies existed in the colonies or the early Republic, there was the Constitution and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
#28. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL, -- and LF's authoritarian communitarian duo (#23)
GrandIsland (#22) (Edited) --- The BOR wasn't created or designed to help criminals break the law... period. It shouldn't be used to help criminals violate the rights and freedoms of their peers... period.
The BOR primarily shields your natural rights from intrusions on life/liberty/property by a tyrannical government. This is natural, given the tenor of the Revolution against the hated tyrant George III and the widespread suspicion of any federal government over the former colonies. The guarantees of the BOR were required before the citizens of the various colonies would ratify and support the Constitution and the new federal government.
You see the Constitution as an impediment to law enforcement. And, indeed, that is exactly what it is.
But before criminal law was and law enforcement agencies existed in the colonies or the early Republic, there was the Constitution and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. ---- TooConservative
Well put TC..
The grandiose one you're trying to educate, along with his communitarian hero misterwhite, obviously have no real conception of our founding documents; -- ie, how the Declaration was a direct precursor of our bill of rights, -- being an integral part of our Constitution.
Our inalienable rights CANNOT be infringed by govt, even if the guilty go unpunished.
Our inalienable rights CANNOT be infringed by govt, even if the guilty go unpunished.
Nobody stated otherwise. I'm all for shitbags walking free before we convict without "beyond a reasonable doubt" or if not enough evidence can be uncovered without violating the shitbirds rights... but you and the agenda drug lovers use the constitution to help MASK criminal activity that you don't feel should be criminal.
Our inalienable rights CANNOT be infringed by govt, even if the guilty go unpunished.
Nobody stated otherwise. I'm all for shitbags walking free before we convict without "beyond a reasonable doubt" or if not enough evidence can be uncovered without violating the shitbirds rights...
Here's what you posted: ---
The constitution doesn't protect you from criminal activity detection. --- GrandIsland posted at #20
Obviously, you're wrong. Our BORs does protect us from various aspects of govt efforts to detect criminal activity. -- Exactly as the founders intended.
but you and the agenda drug lovers use the constitution to help MASK criminal activity that you don't feel should be criminal.
Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional activity that you communitarians INSIST should be criminal.
Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional
You don't have the importance to decide what's constitutional. You are a biased, tainted... nobody. McVeigh stated the same shit you do. Like you, he lacked the necessary skills to rationally think. So why would anyone allow you to decide what's constitutional?
The constitution doesn't protect you from criminal activity detection. --- GrandIsland posted at #20
Obviously, you're wrong. Our BORs does protect us from various aspects of govt efforts to detect criminal activity. -- Exactly as the founders intended.
but you and the agenda drug lovers use the constitution to help MASK criminal activity that you don't feel should be criminal.
Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional activity that you communitarians INSIST should be criminal.
You're an idiot if you feel our founding fathers intended the BOR's to help criminals get away with crimes. It was crafted to constrain the government.
It was crafted to constrain the gov't from infringing upon our inalienable rights.. And only idiots like you argue otherwise..
You don't have the importance to decide what's constitutional. You are a biased, tainted... nobody. McVeigh stated the same shit you do. Like you, he lacked the necessary skills to rationally think. So why would anyone allow you to decide what's constitutional?
Nobody asked for your opinion either, you clown. -- But thats why we're here, isn't it...
Nobody asked for your opinion either, you clown. -- But thats why we're here,it
I'm not the idiot that tries to get other posters here to drive drunk, with tinted plate covers and to sell crack out of their homes because all those laws are unconstitutional... and when you do get stopped doing these things, resist and hope a cop blocker is filming it.
