Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
May 30, 2011, 1:19 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,324
How come he was the one they chose to put on the stand?-- they had the whole brigade ready the first time 'round and then they came back and only put one cop on the stand.
Given his history, Officer Dildo by now should be used to being hauled into civil court on 1983 causes. During the civil trial, he gets to explain how the tape got deleted . . .
Given his history, Officer Dildo by now should be used to being hauled into civil court on 1983 causes. During the civil trial, he gets to explain how the tape got deleted . . .
May 30, 2011, 7:14 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Someone needs to explain to me how a TSA employee calling the police is a violation of anyone's rights. When there is a question about whether someone has committed a crime, a law enforcement officer is the appropriate authority to call. LEOs have been given the authority and training to arrest and charge individuals who break the law. They also have been given the responsibility to not arrest individuals who have not broken the law.
TSOs are not LEOs. They can't arrest anyone or use force to maintain the peace. It is therefore appropriate for TSOs to call for law enforcement assistance. It is also appropriate for police officers to make their own independent evaluation of each situation and respond accordingly.
castro
TSOs are not LEOs. They can't arrest anyone or use force to maintain the peace. It is therefore appropriate for TSOs to call for law enforcement assistance. It is also appropriate for police officers to make their own independent evaluation of each situation and respond accordingly.
castro
Neither of these acts were illegal.
May 30, 2011, 8:01 am
#33
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
The TSO working TDC supposedly believed that the taping and the way it was being done constituted "interfering with the screening process" and called law enforcement on that basis. Phil was never charged with that, however. It's clear that what was really going on was that the TSO personally didn't like being taped, but I think it would be really hard to make a case on that basis.
May 30, 2011, 8:35 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
I listened to the trial and the issue of ID was uncontested. The TSO working TDC claims he told Phil that ID was not needed and the defense did not contest that statement. (and actually mentioned it in their opening remarks). From the TSA perspective, this was all about recording, not ID (it was the police that introduced the ID issue as a potential illegality).
The TSO working TDC supposedly believed that the taping and the way it was being done constituted "interfering with the screening process" and called law enforcement on that basis. Phil was never charged with that, however. It's clear that what was really going on was that the TSO personally didn't like being taped, but I think it would be really hard to make a case on that basis.
The TSO working TDC supposedly believed that the taping and the way it was being done constituted "interfering with the screening process" and called law enforcement on that basis. Phil was never charged with that, however. It's clear that what was really going on was that the TSO personally didn't like being taped, but I think it would be really hard to make a case on that basis.
Even if the TDC screener thought filming was illegal does that resolve that person of not knowing the regulations? I thought ignorance of the law was never a defense.
One serious issue in my view is that individual TSA employees have way to much latitude to interpret regulations.
May 30, 2011, 9:35 am
#35
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
I agree and I don't think TSA will get pulled into this. I think it's sad that TSA will get away with what this one TSA employee started. I stated (post #5) that I wished it was otherwise and that TSA would get their fair attention in Phil's action.
Even if the TDC screener thought filming was illegal does that resolve that person of not knowing the regulations? I thought ignorance of the law was never a defense.
One serious issue in my view is that individual TSA employees have way to much latitude to interpret regulations.
Even if the TDC screener thought filming was illegal does that resolve that person of not knowing the regulations? I thought ignorance of the law was never a defense.
One serious issue in my view is that individual TSA employees have way to much latitude to interpret regulations.
Regardless of whether or not the TSA gets a pass here, naming them in the suit means that Phil and his counsel will have the right to such items as duty logs and report logs that may shed light on the situation.
And, of course, those reports and logs might be a noose long enough to hang the TSA.
May 30, 2011, 9:55 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
You're correct. There were half a dozen, maybe eight, cops on the prosecution's witness list, but most of them could be shown to have perjured themselves at some time during the Mocek event and its aftermath. Thus, they weren't called to testify. The prosecution really had no choice about putting the arresting officer on the stand; if they hadn't, then the defense would have called him, I imagine. His lying was truly extraordinary. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. At age 59, I like to think that I can spot a liar, but this guy was impeccable. He was tripped up by technology. Without that, Phil would have been convicted -- which would have really been an injustice.
Bruce
Bruce
May 30, 2011, 10:34 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Yes. He had no choice, really, having to justify the arrest somehow. But he claimed that Phil's illegal behavior wasn't caught on tape. Of course, TSA videos and other testimony contradicted those statements, and the jury didn't believe him at all. Still, I was shocked at his ability to lie seemingly so effortlessly.
Bruce
Bruce
May 30, 2011, 11:09 am
#38
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: UA PE, FL A+Elite, X-DL Silver, X-AA Gold, HH Diam, Marriott Silv
Posts: 213
Is it necessary for TSO's actions to be illegal for a civil case?
Is it necessary for them to have carried out the civil rights violation for a civil judgment?
IANAL obviously but I don't think it's that cut and dry. I mean, I'm sure their are better examples but if people get judgments for spilling coffee on themselves it seems getting arrested and tried because people lied to make a case against them. Isn't there some precedence for that. And for employers held liable for their employee's actions, govt or not. If the TSOs involved are still employed by TSA well that speaks volumes.
Is it necessary for them to have carried out the civil rights violation for a civil judgment?
IANAL obviously but I don't think it's that cut and dry. I mean, I'm sure their are better examples but if people get judgments for spilling coffee on themselves it seems getting arrested and tried because people lied to make a case against them. Isn't there some precedence for that. And for employers held liable for their employee's actions, govt or not. If the TSOs involved are still employed by TSA well that speaks volumes.
May 30, 2011, 11:46 am
#39
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Is it necessary for TSO's actions to be illegal for a civil case?
Is it necessary for them to have carried out the civil rights violation for a civil judgment?
IANAL obviously but I don't think it's that cut and dry. I mean, I'm sure their are better examples but if people get judgments for spilling coffee on themselves it seems getting arrested and tried because people lied to make a case against them. Isn't there some precedence for that. And for employers held liable for their employee's actions, govt or not. If the TSOs involved are still employed by TSA well that speaks volumes.
Is it necessary for them to have carried out the civil rights violation for a civil judgment?
IANAL obviously but I don't think it's that cut and dry. I mean, I'm sure their are better examples but if people get judgments for spilling coffee on themselves it seems getting arrested and tried because people lied to make a case against them. Isn't there some precedence for that. And for employers held liable for their employee's actions, govt or not. If the TSOs involved are still employed by TSA well that speaks volumes.
May 30, 2011, 11:57 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Don't, however, underestimate the importance of discovery once the suit gets underway.
Regardless of whether or not the TSA gets a pass here, naming them in the suit means that Phil and his counsel will have the right to such items as duty logs and report logs that may shed light on the situation.
And, of course, those reports and logs might be a noose long enough to hang the TSA.
Regardless of whether or not the TSA gets a pass here, naming them in the suit means that Phil and his counsel will have the right to such items as duty logs and report logs that may shed light on the situation.
And, of course, those reports and logs might be a noose long enough to hang the TSA.
May 30, 2011, 1:14 pm
#41
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
From the content of this letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/56475027/P...of-Albuquerque it doesn't seem like TSA is the target of any action.
May 30, 2011, 1:23 pm
#42
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
TSA security guard said he was concerned about lack of ID and photography/videotaping
Thanks, everyone, for the encouraging words.
May 30, 2011, 1:35 pm
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 31,203
Maybe someone with a much more precise recollection of the events could correct me but before the trial I seem to remember there being a continuance granted to the prosecution in light of "new video evidence" being offered by the defense.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
Last edited by anrkitec; May 30, 2011 at 1:44 pm
May 30, 2011, 2:18 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
There's nothing more dangerous to liberty than lying pigs. Except, of course, for lying pigs who attempt to destroy evidence of their lies.
May they rot in hell.
I've seen police officers arrested, tried and convicted of perjury for similar actions. Wonder if that will happen in this case?
May they rot in hell.
I've seen police officers arrested, tried and convicted of perjury for similar actions. Wonder if that will happen in this case?
May 30, 2011, 2:30 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Maybe someone with a much more precise recollection of the events could correct me but before the trial I seem to remember there being a continuance granted to the prosecution in light of "new video evidence" being offered by the defense.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...g-show-id.html