Land of the free? Police smash family out of van

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manedwolf

member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,693
Location
New Hampshire
Granted, I don't know the whole story here, but doesn't this reaction by the police seem just a bit excessive in terms of force?

___________________

Members of a family in Southbridge who insisted on living in a van were arrested Friday.

NewsCenter 5's Jack Harper reported that they were forcibly removed from the van as police tried to serve an arrest warrant. Ed Wright, his wife, and two daughters were charged with resisting arrest.

"They started to smash windows. First, they smashed the back window," Ed Wright said. "Then they started smashing the side windows, and they maced us all in the face."

Police said that they ordered the family out of the van. Officials spotted the handle of a hunting knife in the van.

Wright's daughters, who are 19 and 21, allegedly threw bleach at the officers.

"The broke the glass, and I got cut," daughter Nicole Wright said.

"They took our pets and they maced our dogs, and I tried to keep the cat from getting maced," daughter Jennifer Wright said.

The family has been living in their van since January. Wright said that he moved his family into their van after someone destroyed their bus.

The town even changed the parking laws, hoping to force the family to move.

"We made a way of life. We enjoyed that stuff, going around with the bus and helping people, doing all kinds of things. The bus was destroyed. I (asked the chief) to investigate it and he won't," Wright said.
 
Would you rather have the police just drop in and say; "Hello old boy, I'm terribly sorry but unfortunately when I came to work today the judge gave me this warrant for your arrest. If it's not convenient we understand, just whenever you have time drop by the court house and clear this matter up." ?

I'm sorry but the system doesn't work like that. An arrest warrant here reads something like this:To all peace officers, you are hearby commanded to seize (fill in name here) and bring him before this court. Failure to obey this order will result in the officer being in contempt of this court.

To accomplish this mission every state in the union has empowered their officers like this:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
Click to expand...

The family could have avoided any use of force if they had come out of their van when asked.

Now if the police didn't ask them to come out and just started tearing the place up that would have been excessive. Do you have any reason to believe they didn't order the family out of the van like they said they did?

Jeff
 
Four people live in a van with a cat and at least two dogs. To each their own,but that does not sound like a normal family to me. Plus the city has apparently tried to get them to leave before this.Something tells me these folks were just a smidge under "upstanding citizen" status.
 
Alex,
Is it your contention that the police should have just refused to do their job?

You're now the chief of police. How would you handle this situation?

I await your reply. I'm always looking for an easier way to do my job.

Jeff
 
the judge gave me this warrant for your arrest.
Click to expand...
It was a member of the executive branch that asked for the warrant. One cannot claim that the judge made them do it.

Kind of like police saying, "we don't make the laws we just enforce 'em," when it is their union reps and department lobbyists who are twisting the arms of legislators to enact or defeat legislation.

Rick
 
gee Rick, I sem to remember that the constitution put police functions in the executive branch. I'll have to check, my copy of the constitution is a little old, but I don't remember ever hearing about an amendment to change that little detail.

Who would you have ask the judicial branch for the warrant? Perhaps the legislative branch? Or maybe we should just give all the power to the judiciary?

The way I understand our system of government, the executive branch asking the judicial branch for the warrant is supposed to be a check on executive power.

Please explain how your post is even relevant to the issue that is under discussion here? Send me a pm so we don't take the thread farther off topic.

Jeff
 
The town even changed the parking laws, hoping to force the family to move.
Click to expand...
I think the ACLU or some other law firm could have a field day with this one. For not parking according to the law, the cops smash the van up.

I think this would be one to watch and see if some law firm does go after the city. The town changes the law just to get rid of this family!:eek: :banghead:

Does not sound right to me, no matter how different they live.

Manedwolf - You forgot the URL for this story.
 
Desertdog,
I'm getting my copy of the bill of rights out. Could you refer me to the one that says you have a God given right to live in a van on the city street in violation of a city ordinance?

I'd also like you to point me to the one that says the legislative branch can't make a law regulating living in your van on a public street.

Here's what most likely would have happened if the family would have complied. Wanted man arrested on warrant, the rest of the family told to move the van to a campground. Yep sounds like a real constitutional issue to me :rolleyes:

Jeff
 
Here's a link to a story on the 26th, about the parking problem,

Family Living In Van May Be Forced To Move

and a link to the coverage after the arrest on the 28th.

Family Living In Van Arrested

Both stories include video, but not of the arrest. The owner of the van states that he has been there since January, and the video shows the windows of the van taped over with signs. It appears that although ostensibly a parking issue, they were homesteading outside city hall in a vehicle, and the problem has been going on for months. The first story even mentions that the police took up a collection for the family, and offered to let them move to the parking lot behind the police station. The local interfaith council apparently offered to provide them with six months free rent, resulting in a large sign on the back of the van accusing the council of being a cult.

There isn't enough information to be absolutely certain that the officers making the arrest were right or wrong in their handling of the situation. But the coverage just doesn't suggest impropreity to me. It sounds like the end of a long period of restraint and sympathy for someone with mental health issues, and his family.
 
Four people live in a van with a cat and at least two dogs. To each their own,but that does not sound like a normal family to me.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Personally, I do not think it odd at all.

In an unrelated thread awhile back the subject of "gypsies" came up as an antagonizing factor in a particular case, area and an incident. Funny how some rushed in with the "prejudice" stuff when the subject of "gypsies" came up.

We had many people living here in the good old USA - literally - on the road in this country in the 1930s. The way things are going, there are going to be alot of people and families like this one. Maybe some that frequent this forum.

From the late 40s on it has become progressively move expensive to simply exist in this country even at the lowest static levels of rented accomodation.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
When people choose to be Police Officers, they have to take the bad with the good. I can't imagine these people were fun to mace and drag out of their home because the town passed a law.
In fact, most towns are run by a minority that vote and keep their thumb in local politics while the rest are busy trying to keep their heads above water. So, the sympathetic people may have not had time to have their voice heard in the proceedings.
But Jeff is right in the fact that the officer's had a job to do. And their protocol is resistance is met with an escalation of force.
The police were doing the job that the local government (and by extension, the local community) gave them to do. And, this is why I could never be a Police Officer. But, it is why I am getting involved in local politics.
 
the police took up a collection for the family, and offered to let them move to the parking lot behind the police station. The local interfaith council apparently offered to provide them with six months free rent, resulting in a large sign on the back of the van accusing the council of being a cult.
Click to expand...

This sounds like they flat out refuse to cooperate with the authorities and buck the system for the sake of bucking the system. I don't see the police taking up a collection and offering them a place to park and then viciously attacking them unnecessarilly. It sure sounds like the whole community tried to reach out to these people and they just refused to be cooperative in any way.

Police officers are people too. Most have children and pets and have to face them when they get home. They aren't out there to terrorize children and torture their pets when it's not necessary. These people refused to cooperate or obey local laws and had to be dealt with. It's unfortunate but it's reality. Follow this and I will bet it isn't the last time these people become a problem.
 
When one attempts to resist the crystallized prejudices of a community ("Laws & Regulations set in place by elected officials") one often finds oneself at odds with said community's law enforcement agencies.

Pity, that.

Land of the free?

Only if you pay your taxes and do not cause problems and/or embarrassment for those in office. :rolleyes:
Perchance the local boys in blue could have towed said van to a local impounding yard... but then they'd be accused of violating some other Civil right.

Oh for the days of living on Walden's Pond and building our dream home for $12.00... ;)
 
I have no opinion on whether or not the police action was justified. This comment is concerning, however:

Four people live in a van with a cat and at least two dogs. To each their own,but that does not sound like a normal family to me. Plus the city has apparently tried to get them to leave before this.Something tells me these folks were just a smidge under "upstanding citizen" status.
Click to expand...

The American concept of equality under the law, as embodied by the US Constitution, makes no distinction as to whether a citizen is "normal" or "upstanding." Government's role is to protect all citizens, regardless of how well they fit into the definition du jour of normalcy.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Click to expand...
-Martin Niemoller
 
Granted, I don't know the whole story here...
Click to expand...

Yes, "Land of the free" is a song lyric apparently from the land of the naive that believes song lyrics are somehow binding. You have to like how selectivily "home of the brave" is just blatantly left out. It isn't legally binding either, but most folks realize this. "Free society" is written about but is not a legally defined term.

I don't know about you, but "land of the free" was never supposed to be "land of the freeloading" where I grew up. Roadkill Coyote is nice in calling it homesteading. They were squatting vagrants. Why not a cardboard box? Same difference.

I get a good laugh at the regular contrasting views. Here we have those arguing for the land of the free and how there is the right to squat on public property, but maybe that is just for citizens because there is no way in hell Americans want Mexicans coming in for a bit of the same action...according to other threads ongoing right now. Apparently, 'land of the free' does not pertain to immigrants, but all of our laws do.

Those of us here really like "free." Apparently, we think "land of the free" means we are entitled to that which we did not earn. It sort of pisses off those paying for "freedom."
 
Right to live in a van? Squatting vagrants?

These guys were living in a van covered in signs, in front of the city hall. From the story:"It's now become abundantly clear that these particular people don’t want assistance. They want to make a statement," Southbridge Police Department Chief Dan Charette said.

Isn't making statements the subject of the First Amendment? And if the PD chief says that is what they were doing and then arrests them for it, is that not unconstitutional?
 
Wow, as a gun owner and vocal supporter of the 2nd I am constantly told I am not mainstream. The media backs that assertion.
I am very disturbed by all the comments here that since these folks didn't live the way you deem to be normal or mainstream they must be in the wrong.
Americans area diverse people, can't we just let the one's not hurting others be different?
CT
 
It seems to me that these people wanted to be a news story, they got their wish. The real crime here is that they dragged their children into the whole mess, and that responsibility lies soley with the parents. I am not about to be upset for people that got exactly what they were looking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
*ALERT!* FBI & CHP on lookout for brown Dodge van w/ Oregon plates in Calif.
Replies
2
Views
491
Duncan Idaho
D
A
  • Locked
LEO threatens innocent family...
Replies
14
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
H
  • Locked
MN: Star Trib actually prints defensive gun use, but...
Replies
5
Views
2K
halvey
H
Steve in PA
  • Locked
(PA) Two deputies killed serving warrant
Replies
23
Views
3K
Steve in PA
Steve in PA
B
  • Locked
Pregnant woman arrested by terror police in her pyjamas
Replies
16
Views
849
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top