(Re: “Massie arrest lawsuit growing,” Feb. 5)
Never ceases to amaze me how “activists” think they have a right to be disruptive and belligerent and think no one can react to them appropriately.
From the articles that I have read on this incident, Rebekah Massie knew the rules for speaking and willfully and repeatedly violated them, even after several warnings.
In order to proceed with the rest of council business, to include other citizens that would want to address the council, Massie was arrested and removed.
But that wasn’t good enough for Massie, she resisted arrest. She clearly pulled and twisted, trying to overpower the uniformed officer. Whether you think the arrest is legal or not, that is not the time to try and escape.
Now, I must take strong exception to the article’s author (and this paper’s editor, Jason Stone). Stone states in the article that Massie was “shown hitting a wall” and “the officer did not deny that he’d threw (sic) Massie to the ground...”
Stone makes his article sound as if the officer did this. Stone neglects to say that the video shows Massie still struggling to get away, which is why she hit the wall. Whether Massie stumbled on her own or was taken to the ground by the officer is hard to say from the video.
However, arrest control tactics 101 teaches resisting suspects be taken to the ground to control the suspect, which helps avoid injury to both suspect and officer.
Hence the officers comment to Massie, “that’s what happens when you’re resisting arrest.”
The entirety of the officer’s bodycam footage shows that Massie was treated with minimal force and given way more respect than she deserved from her actions. The police went out of their way to be nice to her.
Massie’s complaints that it is the police’s fault that she was arrested in front of her daughter are entirely her fault. She decided this was the time and place to be the center of attention, knowingly with her daughter present. Is this the good parent?
But now, she is so, so concerned about what her daughter sees. The lawsuit says she has bruises and other injuries resulting from the police. Wrong! That tends to happen when you, yourself are struggling and resisting.
Now, to the lawsuit and the ‘FIRE’ group. I did some online investigation of FIRE.
They are some extreme ‘activist’ lawyers (think ACLU++), of the type showing up after riots, violent demonstrations, and so-called “peaceful” demonstrations, such as blocking a highway, taking over buildings, etc.
They use laws and “rights,” twisted into pretzels and omitting facts, to promote some supposed wrong done against their clients and are out to “get the man”, i.e., government.
With their “guidance,” Massie’s lawsuit claims a litany of harms; emotional distress, excessive force, damaged reputation, physical and mental health, mental anguish, humiliation, public embarrassment, loss of appetite, insomnia, ongoing psychiatric care, legal and other costs, use of force in front of her daughter, etc. This is all the lawyerese we’ve heard so many times before in other cases. I have no doubt that FIRE knows these terms well.
In summation, Massie used poor judgement and did many things wrong that combined into a mess, a mess of her own making.
Share with others
