99% - $260
So far, not so good for the famous Portland pepper spray poster child. She may have the last laugh, though, as she's suing back.
| Posted at 2:04 PM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 21, 2012 2:04 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Nick Fish loves the Sam Rands to the bitter end.
The next post in this blog is Time for the ultimate Friday surprise.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (10)
Not the sharpest tool in the shed. What do you expect when you disobey police command..
Posted by pdx.native | December 21, 2012 2:23 PM
Isn't this conviction going to work against any civil case she may be trumping up??
Posted by It's Mike | December 21, 2012 2:32 PM
Just think of the possibilities if those "protesters" put the same amount of energy in gaining employment as they do in "protesting".....
Posted by Employed | December 21, 2012 3:05 PM
PDX Native: My understanding is that one group of police was in the street pushing people onto the sidewalk while another group of police were on the sidewalk pushing people into the street.
Posted by reader | December 21, 2012 3:46 PM
Mike, I expect this conviction would be "inadmissible" owing to being prejudicial. A precept in our law I often if not usually find difficult.
Posted by sally | December 21, 2012 5:36 PM
I seem to recall seeing Ms. Hot Mouth and two others were trying to spook a police horse moments before her breakfast.
The horse were using their body mass to nudge the unwashed back onto the sidewalk when 3 or for occuturds slapped the flanks of the horse who immediately fell back when a sergeant came forward and fed those in front.
And what exactly were her damages? Lost work? A new appreciation of action/reaction? An education more valuable than a BA in fine arts?
Posted by ltjd | December 21, 2012 8:15 PM
Seems we take the 2nd amendment a bit more seriously than the 1st.
Being convicted of the non-criminal violation 'disobeying police' will have no bearing on whether or not they used excessive force.
The obvious lie about her acting aggressive toward the police is pretty much standard procedure. Visit the courthouse and you'll hear it over and over and over. It reminds me of a South Park episode where they aren't allowed to hunt rabbit, but shooting them in self defense is legal:
"They're coming right for us!"
I'm offended by the notion that protests should be conducted in a clean cut, quiet, non-bothersome manner. Or else you get assaulted and arrested. Great.
Posted by Jo | December 21, 2012 10:53 PM
Hey "reader," please direct me to the source of your "understanding." Because if you can't, then equally valid is my "understanding" that the perp was trying to incite a riot by her actions. Is it a deal?
Posted by PDXLifer | December 22, 2012 12:50 AM
You can tell easily from the picture how she is aggressively standing with her aggressive face aggressively facing the authorities in a confrontational soaking up with her aggressive skin of the authorities' defensive pepper spray.
Posted by Allan L. | December 22, 2012 1:42 PM
If you look carefully (or biggify the photo), you can see that the guy behind her was trying to pull her back (presumably) when the mouthwash hit.
Posted by steveo | December 25, 2012 8:51 PM