 Share
|
« Previous McArdle | Next McArdle » |
Email
Print
|
Jefferson 1: Still not free
By
Incidentally, I went to a fundraiser last night for the Jefferson 1, aka Brooke Oberwetter. [full disclosure: I play poker at her house pretty regularly]. As I blogged last week, Brooke was arrested for asking a Park Policeman why she was being told to stop her silent dancing and leave the Jefferson Memorial. Everyone pretty much expected that after they'd annoyed her by taking her to jail, the police would drop the charges.
Not only haven't they dropped the charges; they've added a new one, "demonstrating without a permit", even though the gathering clearly does not meet park guidelines for a "demonstration". Brooke is having to pay for a criminal attorney to shepherd her through a federal court case. This has gone from mild harassment to outrageous, not to say perfectly ridiculous, [expletive deleted].
The original charge, interfering with an agency function, is also perfectly ridiculous. Making it stick would require proving that Brooke had disobeyed a lawful order. Since the order does not appear to have been lawful, this will be difficult.
There are two theories of why this is going forward. It may be that the agency is simply reluctant to admit that it erred and back down, which would be embarassing, particularly since they are still recovering from their recent failures at crime control in the national monuments, which culminated in the rape of a young girl near the Smithsonian. (So much for the commenters who derided me for pointing out that the police might have something better to do than prevent mall dancing.
The other possibility is that they're trying to head off a civil suit; the only way they can be sure of this is to get a criminal conviction, so they're going for it, however unlikely this may be. There's a large downside to this strategy, of course. I can't speak for Brooke, but if the police forced me to spend large amounts of money defending a spurious criminal charge, there would be a civil suit, no matter what the personal inconvenience involved.
There certainly should be one. The purpose of the justice system is to protect the public, not to keep them in line.
Not only haven't they dropped the charges; they've added a new one, "demonstrating without a permit", even though the gathering clearly does not meet park guidelines for a "demonstration". Brooke is having to pay for a criminal attorney to shepherd her through a federal court case. This has gone from mild harassment to outrageous, not to say perfectly ridiculous, [expletive deleted].
The original charge, interfering with an agency function, is also perfectly ridiculous. Making it stick would require proving that Brooke had disobeyed a lawful order. Since the order does not appear to have been lawful, this will be difficult.
There are two theories of why this is going forward. It may be that the agency is simply reluctant to admit that it erred and back down, which would be embarassing, particularly since they are still recovering from their recent failures at crime control in the national monuments, which culminated in the rape of a young girl near the Smithsonian. (So much for the commenters who derided me for pointing out that the police might have something better to do than prevent mall dancing.
The other possibility is that they're trying to head off a civil suit; the only way they can be sure of this is to get a criminal conviction, so they're going for it, however unlikely this may be. There's a large downside to this strategy, of course. I can't speak for Brooke, but if the police forced me to spend large amounts of money defending a spurious criminal charge, there would be a civil suit, no matter what the personal inconvenience involved.
There certainly should be one. The purpose of the justice system is to protect the public, not to keep them in line.
Join the Discussion
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus