Jonathan Guessford was first confronted, then hassled, then pursued, then pulled over, and, finally, cited for a moving violation he didn’t commit by Delaware state troopers.

Guessford managed to attract the attention of Corporal Stephen Douglas, Trooper Nicholas Gallo, and Master Corporal Raiford Box by calling attention to a state police speed trap. As is detailed in Guessford’s lawsuit [PDF] (and captured on multiple cameras, including Guessford’s phone), the officers rolled up on Guessford armed with their attitudes and some convenient lies.

This is from the NBC report on the recent lawsuit settlement:

The cell phone video shows troopers approaching Guessford, who was standing in a grassy area next to the shoulder of Route 13 north of Dover. Douglas told Guessford that he was “disrupting traffic,” while Gallo, based on a witness report, said Guessford was “jumping into traffic.”

“You are a liar,” Guessford told Gallo.

“I’m on the side of the road, legally parked, with a sign which is protected by the First Amendment,” he told troopers.

Dascham video shows Douglas twice lunging at Guessford to prevent him from raising his sign. Gallo then ripped it from his hands and tore it up.

  • Weslee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wrong title, should say Delaware tax payers pay to enable police to continue to be power mad control freaks

  • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It amazes me how little some police officers know about the law and the limits of their authority. Its literally the one thing a cop should be informed about.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Supreme Court ruled that’s not their job. They’re not required to know every law, and they’re allowed to get away with false arrests as long as they think what they’re arresting someone for is the law. (They also ruled in a separate case that police are not required to render aid to citizens, they’re legally able to watch someone murder you and do nothing to stop it.)

      On the flip side, the Supreme Court also ruled that it’s every citizens responsibility to be intimately familiar with every law because “not knowing the law” isn’t a reasonable defense.

      Funny how that works, doncha think?

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      As they say, you can beat the charges but you can’t beat the ride. Maybe that’d change if these dickheads were on the hook for that 50 grand instead of Delaware taxpayers.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alternatively, require police to personally carry malpractice insurance that pays for these kinds of settlements. When their rates start skyrocketing or their entire precincts rates double because a couple of them couldn’t control their temper you’d better believe shit would change.

          Become such a liability that you can’t find anyone willing to insure you? Tough shit, guess you shouldn’t be a cop.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      They very well know the law. They just don’t care, because they know the taxpayers will pay out on the lawsuits, while they, the cops, continue to get away breaking the law without any form of punishment.

  • rez_doggie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    These pigs should be brought up on charges and held personally liable.

    Acab, smoke more pork.