Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
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: 7296
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. According to Florida Statute 316.605(1), “…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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL, -- and LF's authoritarian communitarian duo (#23)
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.
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. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Our inalienable rights CANNOT be infringed by govt, even if the guilty go unpunished. Here's what you posted: --- 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. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
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? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Is using drugs moral or immoral? Is it right to be addicted to crqck or heroin? Is it a good choice? If heroin and crqck were legal. What should the penalty be when you drive on the stuff and endanger others? If the drugs you want to make legal (all of them) were to be made legal. Should society have to taqke care of people who abuse their health? Like provide them with healthcare. Wouldn't that be slavery? So what should come frist legalizing drugs or making it so that Grandisland doesn't have to foot the bill for your druggie friends? Or druggie whoever it is that you support. If you got your way and all drugs were legal. But Grand Island still had to pay for their health care etc. Would that be better then the system we have now? Shoulod all drugs be legal for 5 year olds? Wouldn't it be a violaton of their right to make it so? Using the same reasoning you make in favor of drugs being legal? Again how does legalizing drugs make us a bedtter peoploe? Because I think it would make us a lesser people. A lesser culture. A garbage culture.
Yet apparently, cops are regular constitutional scholars, right? Police Raid Man’s Home WITHOUT A WARRANT After He Criticized Them On Facebook In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much The constitution and BOR were written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, not the citizens like you seem to believe. You got it all backwards, as usual. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Obviously, you're wrong. Our BORs does protect us from various aspects of govt efforts to detect criminal activity. -- Exactly as the founders intended. Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional activity that you communitarians INSIST should be criminal. It was crafted to constrain the gov't from infringing upon our inalienable rights.. And only idiots like you argue otherwise.. Nobody asked for your opinion either, you clown. -- But thats why we're here, isn't it...
I can site more case law than you could ever dream of. Officers generally keep up on the latest case law cases so they know what they can and can't do. For instance, as soon as the first officer wrote a ticket for obstructed plate in Florida, and the ticket was challenged all the way up to Florida's highest court, when the ticket was challenged, a state wide TELETYPE was sent to every agency with an ORI number, advising them of the potential problem with writing for plate covers should the states supreme or appellate courts strike the ticket down... and once the court upholds the writing of a plate cover, the agencies get another state wide TELETYPE stating the use of tinted plates IS NOT LEGAL.... and now, every cop employed in that state will stop plate covers, looking for the bigger offense. Cops live for that... and your beef isn't with the officers doing their jobs, your beef is with your states courts and law makers. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The word is "cite" you blithering idiot, and no doubt you have been trained well in all the ways to twist the law to your own advantage while violating someone's rights. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Anyone that relies on grammar to base his argument on, has no argument.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No officers could "twist" anything if you were more self reliant, not a sheep, and actually learned your states laws and case law. Ignorance is never a defense. Like our pathetic dysfunctional millennium generation, it's always someone's else's fault a person gets a obstructed plate ticket in Florida, besides the motorist. You are so filthy libtarded, you march lockstep with libtard America... it's always someone else's fault. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I posted this about the BOR's... "It was crafted to constrain the government." You might wanna do some studying. That's exactly why the BOR's was put in place. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Exactly... but Tpaine doesn't care who foots his compassion... he's libtarded. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The BOR recognized our natural rights long before the various criminal laws were enacted by Congress or state legislatures. Until the last century, for instance, we had almost no federal criminal statutes.
Federal smederal. Why is it that someone always brings up federal... on a thread about a state law being violated? 99 times out of 100, Deckard is bitching about a state law being enforced that isn't even close to being unconstitutional... like driving with a tinted plate cover on a public funded public road with public passed V&T laws. I realize the BOR's was put in place before any of our states laws... that doesn't mean it was put in place to help citizens break future or existing laws. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional activity that you communitarians INSIST should be criminal. We are at liberty to use drugs for both moral and immoral activities. If those activities harm others, they could be criminal. No DUI penalties should be the same for all intoxicating substances. People abuse their health by eating too much. Same principles should apply for drug abuse. Drugs were legal 100 years ago, before anyone 'footed the bill'. I'd say we should return to that constitutional view. I'd gladly trade a type of minimalistic 'universal health care' for an end to the war on drugs, guns, and liberty.
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. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
AKA --- If you got your way and all drugs were legal. But Grand Island still had to pay for their health care etc. Would that be better then the system we have now? I'd gladly trade a type of minimalistic 'universal health care' for an end to the war on drugs, guns, and liberty. Excellent example of the grandisland style of 'debate'.
Nobody asked for your opinion either, you clown. -- But thats why we're here, isn't it... Your silly hyperbolic insults are all you've got. Feel free to get lost.
Keep in mind that most recreational drugs that are consumed are legal and prescribed by a physician. Abusers of illegal drugs are a small minority compared to the much larger group of legal drug abusers.
It's a valid stop... courts in every state has upheld this after someone like you challenged the citation. The plate is obscured. It appears to be angular obscurement covers designed to defeat traffic cameras shooting at a downward angle. It may be unintentional. That the plate may be read at one angle and not another does not defeat the statute. MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES 320.061 Unlawful to alter motor vehicle registration certificates, license plates, temporary license plates, mobile home stickers, or validation stickers or to obscure license plates; penalty.—A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner. A person may not apply or attach a substance, reflective matter, illuminated device, spray, coating, covering, or other material onto or around any license plate which interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate or interferes with the ability to record any feature or detail on the license plate. A person who violates this section commits a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318. History.—s. 9, ch. 28186, 1953; s. 3, ch. 69-178; s. 192, ch. 71-136; s. 3, ch. 72-79; s. 7, ch. 77-357; s. 15, ch. 83-318; s. 33, ch. 96-413; s. 23, ch. 2007-196; s. 25, ch. 2010-162; s. 32, ch. 2012-181.
Placing a tinted plate cover over a license plate, ALTERS the "original appearance". I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So, let's beat the shit out of mommies that drive their kids to skool. Let's make a mockery out of common sense and reasonable policing duty by beating the snot out of a mommie to enforce the law. Your rationalization of fact to support the pure beating of a mommie driving her kids to skool *IS* the POLICE STATE.
I'm smart enough to know she wasn't beaten for the plate cover... she was physically handled because she resisted arrest for a lawful V&T charge... and acted just like you recklessly preach. When you can understand that people aren't manhandled because of a taillight, a plate cover or speeding, but resisting and obstructing, you'll "rationalize" like a normal thinker. Passing blame and making excuses for criminals has been a (D) platform staple for over 75 years. Why don't you join the black lives matter movement... Hell, your pal Deckard already posts their YELLA articles. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Excessive force is to be accepted by the publick in a POLICE STATE, correct?
Excessive force can never be tollarated... but relying on YOU to determine what's "excessive" is like asking a whore how many sexual partners are too many. You are a joke. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So, slamming mommie's head into the asphalt is "love" by the POLICE STATE and is not to be considered excessive force?
Many times I've hit my head on the ground fighting with one of your friends... shit like that happens when you engage in a takedown to control a subject unwilling to be placed in custody. Sometime their heads hit the ground as well... however between the officer and the shitbirds, only one has choices... and that's the shitbirds. The officer reacts to the actions of your dysfunctional pals. I doubt he intentionally slammed her head against the ground any more than I intentionally slammed mine when arresting a resisting turdbird... that you chronically defend. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Uh, no - she wasn't resisting. If you weren't such a badge-licker you could see that. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Is this "moving violation" punishable by an arbitrary beating at the hands of a badged thug with a case of 'roid rage? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It's rather telling that you refer to "officers" and "shitbirds". As if cops are superior to the citizens they supposedly serve. That's the problem with you and the rest of the badged thugs - a system where cops see everyone as "shitbirds". In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You doubt? Re-read the article. See and feel the video that caught the so-called professional "police officer" pursuing "due-diligence" and tell me that it wasn't excessive force.
Yes she was resisting... she was fighting to keep her hands from being cuffed... next step is to take the person down. That was done. Who could of changed the outcome... the defendant. Millions of people stand up, against the car and allow officers to handcuff them with zero problems... not this one, she's self important, like you. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
How many people have you handcuffed? How many people have you handcuffed, alone, while they resisted? I've cuffed thousands. Maybe 2% resist... and I have had to take people to the ground like this. I did finally watch the video... his intent was to take her to the ground to gain control... her hitting her head on the ground is a byproduct of her RESISTING... shifting blame is a (D) party staple, libtard. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
For a minor traffic code violation? You are out of your fuckin' mind.
She was controlled by the PIG.. His fat body was all over her to begin with, while he cornered her in the door jam of her car. That was xcessive force to begin with.
If his hemorrhoids make him feels rage, and the perp exhibits excessive resistance or interference with the administration of justice, that is just the shits. She earned a ticket. She should have taken it and gone on her way. The best part of your articles is usually the title. Without looking at the article, I know its general nature and who posted it.
The best part of your articles is usually the title. Without looking at the article, I know its general nature and who posted it. Yup. Resisting the lawful authority of a cop who has declared you under arrest and is handcuffing you always ends in tears.
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.
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
(Edited)
Our inalienable rights CANNOT be infringed by govt, even if the guilty go unpunished.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)
(Edited)
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...
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.
#31. To: tpaine (#30)
Obviously, you're wrong. Our BORs does protect us from various aspects of govt efforts to detect criminal activity. -- Exactly as the founders intended.
#32. To: tpaine (#30)
Bullshit. -- We patriots use the constitution to help UNMASK criminal/ unconstitutional
#33. To: tpaine (#30)
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.
#34. To: GrandIsland, tpaine (#32)
You don't have the importance to decide what's constitutional.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#35. To: GrandIsland, tpaine (#31)
(Edited)
You're an idiot if you feel our founding fathers intended the BOR's to help criminals get away with crimes.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#36. To: GrandIsland (#32)
The constitution doesn't protect you from criminal activity detection. --- GrandIsland posted at #20
but you and the agenda drug lovers use the constitution to help MASK criminal activity that you don't feel 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.
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?
#37. To: Deckard (#34)
Yet apparently, cops are regular constitutional scholars, right?
#38. To: GrandIsland (#37)
I can site more case law
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#39. To: Deckard (#38)
#40. To: Deckard (#38)
(Edited)
ways to twist the law to your own advantage
#41. To: Deckard (#35)
The constitution and BOR were written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, not the citizens like you seem to believe.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#33)
If you got your way and all drugs were legal. But Grand Island still had to pay for their health care etc. Would that be better then the system we have now?
#43. To: GrandIsland (#31)
You're an idiot if you feel our founding fathers intended the BOR's to help criminals get away with crimes.
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#33)
The communitarian/authoritarian: -- you and the agenda drug lovers use the constitution to help MASK criminal activity that you don't feel should be criminal.
AKA -- Is using drugs moral or immoral?
Is it right to be addicted to crqck or heroin? Is it a good choice?
If heroin and crqck were legal. What should the penalty be when you drive on the stuff and endanger others?
If the drugs you want to make legal (all of them) were to be made legal. Should society have to taqke care of people who abuse their health? Like provide them with healthcare. Wouldn't that be slavery?
So what should come frist legalizing drugs or making it so that Grandisland doesn't have to foot the bill for your druggie friends? Or druggie whoever it is that you support.
If you got your way and all drugs were legal. But Grand Island still had to pay for their health care etc. Would that be better then the system we have now?
Shoulod all drugs be legal for 5 year olds? Wouldn't it be a violaton of their right to make it so? Using the same reasoning you make in favor of drugs being legal?
No. We adults have an obligation to protect children from danger. Again how does legalizing drugs make us a bedtter peoploe?
Prohibitions create black markets and scofflaws. We'd be better off without them. Because I think it would make us a lesser people. A lesser culture. A garbage culture.
We ARE a garbage culture, because of prohibitions, imho.
#46. To: tpaine (#36)
(Edited)
Nobody asked for your opinion either, you clown. -- But thats why we're here,it
#47. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#42)
grandisland --- Exactly... but Tpaine doesn't care who foots his compassion... he's libtarded.
#48. To: GrandIsland (#46)
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?
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.
#49. To: tpaine (#47)
AKA --- If you got your way and all drugs were legal.
#50. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#4)
Shall I show you case law where tinted or even clear plastic covers are still deemed to be an obstruction of the plate?
The 2015 Florida Statutes
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 320
#51. To: nolu chan (#50)
(Edited)
A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate,
#52. To: GrandIsland (#51)
Placing a tinted plate cover over a license plate, ALTERS the "original appearance".
#53. To: buckeroo (#52)
Your rationalization of fact to support the pure beating of a mommie
#54. To: GrandIsland (#53)
#55. To: buckeroo (#54)
(Edited)
Excessive force is to be accepted by the publick in a POLICE STATE, correct?
#56. To: GrandIsland (#55)
Excessive force can never be tollarated... but relying on YOU to determine what's "excessive" is like asking a whore how many sexual partners are too many.
#57. To: buckeroo (#56)
So, slamming mommie's head into the asphalt is "love" by the POLICE STATE and is not to be considered excessive force?
#58. To: GrandIsland (#53)
she was physically handled because she resisted arrest for a lawful V&T charge
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#59. To: nolu chan (#50)
A person who violates this section commits a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#60. To: GrandIsland (#57)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#61. To: GrandIsland (#57)
I doubt he intentionally slammed her head against the ground any more than I intentionally slammed mine when arresting a resisting turdbird... that you chronically defend.
#62. To: Deckard (#58)
#63. To: buckeroo (#61)
Re-read the article. See and feel the video
#64. To: GrandIsland (#62)
Millions of people stand up, against the car and allow officers to handcuff them with zero problems... not this one, she's self important, like you.
#65. To: GrandIsland (#63)
... his intent was to take her to the ground to gain control ...
#66. To: Deckard (#59)
Is this "moving violation" punishable by an arbitrary beating at the hands of a badged thug with a case of 'roid rage?
#67. To: nolu chan, Deckard, GrandIsland (#66)
She earned a ticket. She should have taken it and gone on her way.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]