DUer Galoglas arrested today when he went to vote!!!!

Just got off the phone with him. They asked him for more ID than state law requires and when he refused, he was arrested!! He promised to post the whole story when he gets home. He just got out of jail and is on the phone with several officials. He called and asked me to post the news of his arrest. So watch for his thread.

They should face a world of aggro for it...

No voter ID but you have to show something. Sorry I am not clear on the law. I live in KS.

Odd... I voted in Missouri (in the Democratic Primary) with my signed voter card from St. Louis County Election Board and had absolutely no problem at all... So one has to wonder just a bit here as to what the details happen to be. Arrested???? :shrug:

Yep. Cuffed and hauled away.

All because I insisted on knowing a reason for not being allowed to vote. Strikes me as damned odd that six experienced election judges could simultaneously forget Secretary Carnahan's dictates about what is, and what is not, acceptable ID

Along with the names of the judges responsible for this crime.

...and this is a big problem on several levels, but Galoglas stirred up a fracas, perhaps righteously and he needs to be ready for the consequences. DU might want to be ready too.

But first things first. I'm in CA, and I have not yet but this story resolves me to make myself available to the local DNC for poll monitoring, to try an insure that this scenario is not repeated in CA, or if it is, it does not come down exactly Galoglas described. This can be discussed but remember special training in the jurisdiction is required.

Second, it is the law just about everywhere that disruption of a polling station can, does, and probably should result in an arrest. That is an appropriate rule, we want such rules available. Whether something is 'disruption' which is legal justification for the arrest will be determined in a criminal proceeding. Galoglas does not appear to be a lawyer, nor did it appear he was advised by one, and he may have picked the wrong method of proceeding. That does not detract from the merits of his voter id complaint, btw. In any event, at this point Galoglas will need a (criminal) lawyer to advise him on criminal case. He and his son should not be making any FURTHER statements (beyond what he already made) without legal advice. All this may, could, and should be discussed by anyone who wants to really understand this story.

Third, without researching (but I'm resolved to look), the refusal of the id and the demand for signature could violate both state and federal. The 'chest bump' and intimidation is also of serious concern. These parts seem to me problems on their face. This is separate from the criminal action. Galoglas should consult a (civil rights attorney) about these events. Of course this is also a generic problem since any number of technicalities can result in denial (whether lawful or unlawful) of the right to vote, and how a voter should respond to such a situation is important. Do we want violence at the polling place, do we want 'tit for tat' lawlessness by voters? Isn't there, in the present US, a way to enforce rights short of violence or civil disobedience? Surely there must be. What are the laws, are they wise, and how can/should they be enforced. This can be discussed.

Fourth, this may be a (state and federal) criminal matter for the election officials themselves, including conspiracy. This could be discussed.

Fifth, and last for now.. Of course, this assumes entirely that the government, particularly the executive and subordinate police power, are obeying the rule of law. Thus, integrity of state officials AND at justice including who's in charge of the civil rights division at justice is rather important, so we don't end up like... well, Zimbabwe, for example, where free elections have become impossible. Discussion?

So, Olberman, Rhodes, absolutely. This looks meaty enough for them. But also for here, where love of liberty still resides. The rule of law starts with you, so whatcha gonna DO about this?


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Galoglas says,

The ticket states that I, on 11PM of this date
"did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent
or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s)in fear of safety by
(and this is the part I find fascinating) refusing to show proper I. D. when voting".

Note to Galoglas: Please don't comment within a quote. It is ... well, confusing and
muddies waters. Thks. I agree with your comment but please have a care what you say,
you face criminal charges, probably not all that serious, but I could be wrong and
in any event you don't want to lose unnecessarily, right? You should consider
carefully your right to remain silent, and the consequences of not, and your right
to a lawyer, which you should consult pronto.

However, you can and it would be helpful and not too harmful if you would (TERSELY)
post ALL charges as given and without comment, and state that these were the entire
charges. An additional fact is of interest. Was your son also refused to vote
based on similar refusal to show 'proper id', and was he also arrested and charged,
and if so how was he charged? Careful and terse answer. Remember why you have rights,
because you need them. Thks again.

Now my comment to the above charges. Oboy, I'm salivating but also even more pissed.

Of course the operative part is: "did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct
to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s)
in fear of safety". If that happened, most would agree would be bad.

But then....
the latter part says, "by refusing to show proper I. D. when voting."
Oh my... (quietly) It doesn't look like they have correctly charged.

This charge certainly could raise, within the context of a criminal case, whether proper ID
was actually tendered, and also what MO law may require by way of 'proper id'.
Alas, criminal cases are poor forums for these questions, which is also why it is
better NOT to get arrested. Ahem...

The analysis of the charges (which seem a crock - although can't be ignored) could be
further subject for discussion. It just gets jucier. Olbermann? Rhodes?

but I find it very difficult to see how not showing an ID is somehow, "did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s) in fear of safety".

I am not privy to precisely what happened, but not showing ID, is non-compliant at worst; a threat is akin to something like gestures of bringing harm upon someone, or verbally stating your "going to kick ass" of something that purveys threat, or can be seen as purveying a threat.

This arrest can do one thing, it can bring to light what a county or state is doing to suppress voting, and if this is "one sided", the county/state should be held liable.

FWIW, on another aspect, I have always been required to sign my name before voting, there might be a question of "refusing" to sign vs not being "permitted" to sign, because of not presenting ID. Here in my county, we don't have Voter ID cards, although I've had them every other place I've ever lived and voted.

In any case, the law can be challenged, as there has been an arrest and charges. (IMO, any judge worth his salt would throw this out).

Now, on a personal level on arrests at a polling place. I was on the Mohave County Board of Elections as a Poll Worker, and we told very distinct rules we were to follow on a host of items. One of them was that there was to be no electioneering within the boundaries we set up w/tape, (75 feet at the time). A group of reagan supporters showed up, and walked right up to the door and began chanting and using a bullhorn and signs to push Reagan. I asked them to leave, and we were instructed to avoid confrontation. We had a number to the Dept of Public Safety, (State Patrol), and I went in and called the hotline. Within 5 minutes the SP pulled up, and w/o saying more than, "you are under arrest for violation of '_______________'", they placed the signs and bullhorn in the trunks, placed the offenders in the patrol cars and took them downtown where they were booked into jail' Best part is, they did this before they voted! Needless to say I was impressed, and also took my job very seriously. I would have done the same thing if D's had been so blatant, but I don't expect such behavior from civilized people, so seeing D's do something like this was pretty well out of the question...:D

... to care about these things, or to have thoughts or opinions about them. Laws are better when they are understood and have the support of those who must obey them. Thanks for the comment.

Concerning your personal experience as a poll worker, I agree that disrupting a polling station is a serious matter. Your account is an example of why we must treat it so and that an arrest is sometimes justified. That is not to say arresting the voter is the proper response when, ahem, lawless action by the polling official is what causes the disruption...

Anyway, the available account of what happened here is...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3735725&mesg_id=3737989

I also agree that refusing to show proper id cannot itself justify the arrest, unless of course, the refusal was done so in a manner that is "violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s) in fear of safety".

Signing the polling sheet is generally required, and I see no proper objection to that part. Signing is a reasonable 'requirement', but voting is a 'right'. It is the improper denial of the right to vote, whether or not signing is required, that is the wrong.

These officials seem to have thought that what they were doing was correct. They seemed to act that way (see account), and I see that as a possibility. Therefore, if I were investigating I would especially look for the source of the information that the polling officials had, with an eye to identifying the person(s) that provided it or caused it to be provided.

The son may have a complaint which is uncomplicated by the criminal case. However, it is not yet clear whether he was technically refused the vote.

I've tried to identify issues for discussion. Thanks for considering these.

asked for.

PHOTO ID TYPE

Missouri Driver's License
Missouri Non Driver's License
Federal Government ID
Federal Government military ID
Missouri Institution of Higher Education
Out of State Driver's License

NON PHOTO ID

Local Election Authority
Bank Statement
Utility Bill

I suspect it was the real ID voting act..... What state?

Georgia?

Nope. Zealots running their own game, methinks. Unless someone has a better or different thought.

The REALID Bogeyman has arrived in MO.... yet.

Good for him!

Is this in Kansas?

How dare they?

K&R

:yourock: for you both!

what city/county did this happen?

no reports of ballot problems from st louis area...

I had no problem at all in Florissant.

Doesn't surprise me one bit, Nazi bastards.

I hope that he gets the proper officials to pay attention.

what country do we live in? can't be america. dang

I want details!

Finally got it all down at the bottom of this page... somewhere.

If that doesn't get it all, drop me a note and I 'll back track to anything I missed

could any element of this be a race issue?
I only ask because I am hoping you will file a lawsuit, and am wondering if there is more than one issue at hand.
Although from what I have read so far, it sounds like Rove bots are running the elections.
which is bad enuff.

I am sending this to a couple blogs.

Let us know if you are suing...I will be glad to send a couple bucks your way.
Have you talked to ACLU yet?

This was in Independence, Mo? How Ironic.
or MOronic....(of them)

anyhow, good on you for standing up.:yourock:

It would almost be easier if it were a race issue. But in this case it is not. I have contacted the ACLU and will be meeting with them today.

It may be that the hard line taken by the Election Board itself (as opposed to the Rove Bots who manned the precinct) can best be explained by the fact that the 501(c) I chair, Show Me The Vote!!, filed a Constitutional Initiative Petition last year in an attempt to force Missouri to return to hand counted paper ballots. All of the 116 election districts in Missouri came close to apoplexy at the thought of hand counting and Charlene Davis of Eastern Jackson County.

For many reasons, we did not try to force the issue and get the necessary 180,000 signatures necessary to put it on the ballot, waiting instead to file again for the 2010 election.

Many of the election directors were, however, aware of the fact that the number of signatures garnered reached substantially into the five figure area. I am sure they have done the math (as we have) and realize that it is the Initiative is not a pie-in-the-sky idea and, possibly, see it as a knife at their throats in regard to all electronic voting, our wish being to eliminate SDDs (software driven devices).

Also, they had originally misperceived our purpose/mission. They thought the Initiative Petition was our only interest, our only activity. Now that they understand that there is more to the 501(c) than the Initiative, they may be nervous about what will be the next tack that we take.

But a lawsuit against them would be a very likely scenario. We will just need to take a few days to vet everything with our allies and see where we can do the most good.

But please stay in touch and keep your ear to the ground. We are planning to take pre-emptive action (of whichever type is best) this fall.

And thanks for the very kind words. Those kind of props do wonders at brightening up Municipal Jail Holding Tanks! <grin>

I responded to you here at 411, but it appears that is was posted to someone else in error. I'm too lazy to move it. Please take a look when you have time. Thank you. lonestarnot as you too are a star!

BEFORE I jump on the bandwagon. Like i see many people here doing.

I also know him well enough to know he isn't making this up either.

what was the charge? etc.

I'm not going to assume he's in the right, and the authorities are in the wrong without details.

He said the law doesn't require that. They refused to let him vote and he was arrested. He'll have to fill in the details. This is all he told me on the phone.

"They refused to let him vote and he was arrested"

The details before the "and" make all the difference.

Did they ask him to leave, and he refused, and was subsequently arrested for a trespass after prohibition? were the cops called by the poll workers? why?

or what? Again, I'd also like to see the PC cert.

In my many years in law enforcement I only heard of one person ever arrested in conjunction with voting.

It was a person who got into an argument with the volunteers, was asked to leave ... repeatedly... refused... and was arrested.

didn't you understand? Why keep interrogating her when she's already stated that?

I understand your defense of the jackboots, though... you gotta stick up for your own...

if the OP is going to post this, he should expect these obvious questions. It was his choice not to wait for more details before posting.

And then after posting the details, he should expect further questions, such as some kind of corroboration. This is the foundation of critical thinking and evaluating things read on the Internet.

There is nothing personal in this, I would expect the same if I posted anything like this.

at all. Also, why is this an isolated case. no reports of any voting problems in the news or tv.

Not saying nothing happened but as you say, there are questions.

The fact is he has a right to vote - and according to the OP, they were asking for more than what the law required.

Are you going to sit here and defend this tactic when rethugs use this to try and steal the election in November?

defend what tactic? What are you talking about? Is the OP even claiming this is voter suppression?

stopped him. And, this thing of arresting protestors, if that's what he became once his right to vote was violated, is a bunch of bullshit. You jackbooted thugs gonna arrest little old ladies next?

Mus show BC or pass port to get ID to vote. It is used to disenfranchise minority, elderly and handicapped voters...most of whom are dems. He provoked them somehow to get arrested. McCaskill, our phony progressive dem DINO did nothing to help stop it and neither can any of the other states. Justice will force them into it. 50mil. voters will be disenfranchised this way to get the 5 voters per year for the last 5yrs who were convicted of voter fraud. Republicans don't believe in fairness or what the majority of people want as they are more than willing to cheat ans steal elections anyway they acan. The party of hypocrisy are a despicable lot. Family values my ass, Vitter, Gingrich make fun of west coast values when Pelosi is still married to the same person and these guys have 3 wifes and run around with hookers.

Court back in Oct. 2006

problems around here other than this one.

Last time they did ask for ID and I had my driver's license. Had to have something to verify my address, I think.

He did something if he got arrested. Like made some kind of scene. But sometimes scenes are worth it.

"They wouldn't be suspects if they weren't guilty".

I'm sure he's bummed about not being able to vote though.


.

so i have no opinion

Right now I'd guess he's probably burning up the phone.

You aren't impressing anyone with your stuttering.

No, he's a cop. Couldn't you smell the bacon? :)

At least he claims he makes zillions in the economics threads.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

moderators. He's a top man. We need quality light-entertainment, even when we're discussing really serious issues.

you've posted only opinion.

Why not wait until he posts his thread and then ask your questions and post your "non opinions".

I swear half these people on this board are paid by the post!

:hi:

without facts to back it up. Yup, he really contributes to the discourse. :eyes:

I have said on several occasions that the economy is fucked.

So, you are lying or mistaken.

What i have said is that there are huge opportunities for patient longterm investors, that BUBBLES pop (see: oil).

I also used facts to back it up.

I referenced past bubbles to include the great tulip bulb, 1929, nifty fifty, stock market crash of 87, tech bubble poppage of 2000-2003 etc.

And unlike you (that posts sans facts) I said that oil was a short when it broke 130 support.

I has sinced dropped 10+ handles from there. That's an actual analysis/trade recommendation that came true, and you can make money from. Panicking and whining otoh doesn't make you more wealthy.

There are great opportunities. When others are panicking and when laymen (with no understanding of the 2 way auction markets and zero understanding of market dynamics) are prattling on about the market, it pays to be a contrarian.

You sound like an infomercial.

do they involve making money off the suffering of others, politely asking? that's all I'm concerned with when I see someone rattle off expertise on money-making...

but I can see it will be a one way conversation, as I expected it to be sooner or later. :hi:

during the primaries. Got me in the habit of checking profiles. The ones with hidden profiles were automatically discounted.

I don't think it's happenstance.

and forty of our closest friends at one of the WI lakes some time ago.

He and I both came to DU to read the ER forum. The world is little. And in my opinion, I'm lucky to have met him.

I am worried...

:)

Doubt he's had dinner thou, give him a couple hours.

:hi:

when you're gonna do something like that?

was in response to the kneejerkers hth

You referenced your LE experience with voting place arrests to support that. That's not "no opinion."

my opinion was that there was not enough facts (or claimed facts) / evidence/anything else to make ANY conclusion whatsoever except... he was arrested.

i have no idea who was right, wrong, good, bad, if the arrest was procedurally/legally/constitutionally justified or not.

I'm not going to assume, because he is a poster here, that he was right or wrong.

I'm going to remain agnostic and wait for an actual fact pattern to emerge.

Too often, if something fits people's preconceived metanarratives, they are willing to jump to all sorts of conclusions.

Contrarily., if it conflicts with same, even metric assloads of evidence will never convince.

We know he was arrested at a voting locale.

that's about it.

Okay. Glad we cleared that up.

Your FIRST post was no opinion. Most of your post since most certainly do exhibit skepticism based without basis in fact.

they simply say I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED nor do you.

some people here otoh have stated the cops in this case were "nazi thugs" etc.

they are prejudiced and kneejerking.

i have exactly ZERO opinion as to whether the arrest was justified or not.

because i, like you, don't know the facts.

considering i have made hundreds of arrests, and have testified scores of times, once the evidence is in, i will apply my knowledge of const. law, crim. law, crim. procedure etc. to the fact pattern.

but not until then.

"In my many years in law enforcement I only heard of one person ever arrested in conjunction with voting.

It was a person who got into an argument with the volunteers, was asked to leave ... repeatedly... refused... and was arrested."

That's an opinion. In fact, it's a predjudice based on your experience. That doesn't mean that your opinion is invalid, but you have formed an opinion and expressed it.

Those are both solid declarative statements. There is nothing in there saying what he thought about something.

He really has only seen one person arrested for something related to voting (not opinion). The story of what happened to that individual follows...

Pre-conceived notions are flying on this thread...

in his first post and subsequent ones. One can present an opinion without prefacing it with cues like "In my opinion" or "I don't believe (that story.)"

it's an anecdotal example.

again, i have no conclusions about this case, because i don't know the facts, nor does anybody else except the person involved, the cops, the witnesses, etc.

unlike the bigots, i don't assume the cops were "nazi thugs" w/o evidence. they don't know the facts, but the prejudicially assume the cops were "nazi thugs" etc.

that's prejudice. same as racism.

assuming things about people w/o evidence and painting a broad brush

exact same thing

Would asking the police give you a clearer picture? The "judges"? Who would you listen to?

The police were used unjustly and illegally as tools to block a voter from voting at his designated voting place. You have been a police officer for years, so have you no opinion at all?

I haven't seen that yet. can i have a link yo?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3735725&mesg_id=3737989

I am eager to hear your opinion. I am not a knee-jerker either. And I have both great respect and great concern over the state of law enforcement in the USA.

looking forward to it.

Eager to hear a level-headed reply from you.

ATFPIC (Assuming the Fact Pattern is Correct), he has a cause of action against the election people (judges and whomever was in charge there).

the cops acted legally (at least based on the laws in my state) in using the 'apparent authority' (well established legal doctrine) of the people in charge at the election site and acting as THEIR agents in repeatedly asking the OP to leave and even giving him a warning that he would be arrested if he didn't (not statutorily or constitutionally required- but recommended).

they certainly did not act like "nazi thugs". they just acted as agents of the judges. Now, ATFPIC, the judges were in the wrong, and the liability thus rests with them.

in some jurisdictions, this would actually be a "citizen's arrest" for disorderly (or trespass after prohibition) which is nice because it makes it really "clean" that the liability rests with the judges, not the cops.

at least in my jurisdiction.

the judges (or their agents) made the call to the cops, and as far as i can tell from the fact pattern where the ones telling the OP to leave initially.

the cops responded and acted as THEIR agents. OP was taken outside (which would always be the first step- seperate the parties and get him out of the voting area so other people coudl get on with voting).

now, it seems pretty clear the judges DIDN'T have that authority since the OP was in the right, but that rests the issue with them, not the cops.

you can't honestly expect (nor does the law require) that the cops spend hours researching voter ID law before deciding whether or not to assist the judges in having the OP removed.

the law requires merely "good faith" on their part.

iow, unless they KNEW the judges were NOT justified in having OP removed, the cops did the right thing - legally.

again, I am just speaking the law.

if a paper showing the precise voting requirements is shown to them - and a telephone with someone from the voting commission or whatever, is on the phone -that they would listen.

We are talking about voting rights. No small thing. On an election day, I would expect law enforcement to be able to make some reasonable judgments and not handcuff a man who is exercising his right to vote and being clearly rational (I suspect he was rational because he was fully prepared for the event and had his shit quite clearly together).

If police allow themselves to be used as tools (ie, "just following orders"), we are in trouble. Especially in the more, umm, rednecky areas. Know what I'm sayin'?

there are issues of manpower, etc. how long are the cops expected to research this when they have the RP making a simple request?

you've got several cops there, and they are simply telling the guy to leave, acting as agents. as soon as he steps off the property the cops are done and can go on with their next call.

the OP can get their names, and the name of the complainant and a case # (if there is one. and in this case, if i was the cop, *i* would write one. including a signed statement from the judge who wanted the guy removed).

and the OP can then begin his grievance process. now of course his grievance is MUCH better, since he was ARRESTED. in a sense that's a good thing. it was essentially a civil disobedience thang except he believes he's in the right and he very well may be.

i agree that the cops should, to some extent, try to determine if the OP has a claim, but they still have to deal with apparent authority.

this is actually rather how i suspected it might have turned out before the OP gave his account (i mentioned a trespass after prohibition).

again, ATFPIC the OP has a great claim.

but even he admits the cops gave him ample warnign he would be arrested if he didn't leave and i see no reason to believe they weren't acting in good faith.

did they go as far as they could to try to validate OP's claim that he was in the right? no. but that's not legally required.

it's also a little optimistic to expect the cops on scene to become instant experts on election ID law.

the apparent authority doctrine rightly places the liability on the RP's (not the OP's) shoulders.

again, sounds to me like a SWEEEEEEEEET lawsuit.

talking about rethugs when they were invoking nazi's, not the police.

Now when they were talking about bacon- THAT was them talking about the police.

But whatever.

Hopefully this will get cleared up before Nov.........my fingers are crossed.

who rubbished the exit polls, which had served reliably for decades in elections all over the world.

the point is not primarily that he was arrested - that's a fact of his probable demanding to get to vote - the point it would sound like from the OP's announcement to her fellow DUers is that another DUer was stopped from voting because they demanded more ID than required by law! The arrest is from them refusing to follow the law, I'm not too worried that something worse happened, like the DUer pulled a weapon on them or something... glad to see you're so concerned with voting laws being ignored (that's how you appear, so you understand)...

And this happens to be a community, not a line up.

details. I'm not questioning the story. The story thus far is that he was arrested pending some sort of disagreement at a voting location.

Why would I question that?

That, and .50 (well not so much anymore) will buy ya a cup of coffeee.

What I'm not doing is assuming who was right or wrong, that the arrest was justified or not, or anything because there is simply nothing to go by at this point.

You didn't simply ask for more details.

You labeled anyone who has voiced their opinion as a "kneejerker".

i referred to THE kneejerkers.

those are people who already KNOW what happened./ w/o evidence. that's called prejudice.

the cops are

"Doesn't surprise me one bit, Nazi bastards."

because they are. facts don't matter. only prejudice does.

THAT"s who I was responding to. NOT the people who have sympathy for the guy getting arrested.

the people who call the cops "nazi bastards" without ANY *rational* basis.

except prejudice.

Still, Aspergris, you can't help but understand why people hate the cops when it comes to shit like this. Go out to vote, get arrested. The finger points straight to the jack booted ones.

We're fucking sick of it, Aspergris. We're sick of seeing our fellow Americans getting tased to death, shot to death, and our rights taken away from us. And it is the cops that carry out this bullshit.

1) first of all the VAST majority of people respect the cops. VAST.
2) your go out to vote, get arrested = jackbooted govt. thugs is a RIDICULOUS assumption.

how many people went out to vote? oh, i'd say SCORES of millions in the last several years. how many were arrested in connection with voting? seriously.

all we know is this guy got arrested for SOMETHING (we have no idea what), and people like you ASSUME the cops are nazi jackbooted thugs. you have no idea what the charge was, or what he did or if it's justified or not.

that's prejudice.

you have NO idea what happened, but the cops are AUTOMATICALLY guilty.

that's EXACTLY the same as assuming somebody is guilty because of their race, gender, religion, or any of that crap.

it is not surprising to me at all that EVERYBODY has their prejudices .

prejudice is disgusting. how about WAITING FOR THE FACTS TO COME OUT ***before*** assuming the cops involved in this case were "nazi thugs"?

they MAY be. They may also have been entirely justified. or any point in the spectrum between those two concepts.

but for people who are prejudiced, the member of the group they are prejudiced against is wrong - before any evidence is seen.

sit down and examine yourself, and the attitudes of others that kneejerk and make these "nazi assumptions" without evidence. It's a BAD thing. and if you can't see the parallel with racism, etc. than imo you are simply blind.

Some just happen to be cops. Theres no entitlement. It's just a job.

not surprising.

my point was to counter the other person's (false) statement about how people FEEL about cops

the polling data shows his assumption to be incorrect.

people- this is based on DATA not unsupported assertion - respect police MORE than many other professions and poll after poll police consistently rank AMONGST THE TOP professions in terms of respect by the average citizen.

so, that's a fact and it was used to counter an unsubstantiated falsehood.

the bigot assumed that because he had all this distrust and dislike of cops that his opinion was how most thought.

most don't think that way

Gee and I thought I was agreeing with you.

It's a job.

Post the polling data.

I don't expect intellectual honesty from people who are prejucidiced, so I won't expect an apology or an acknowledgment that he/she was wrong.

but here it is. actual FACTS.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kKv8PXwIiFkC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=gallup+police+respect&source=web&ots=-TNm_i7D4O&sig=h0xWL8wquINzLbunStmEV2MYwak&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
(gallup poll 64% have "great respect" for police... 29% have some respect)

if i asked you if you thought SIXTY FOUR PERCENT of people have "great respect" for police, you probably would have thought that was not true. that's why it pays to seek evidence, THEN form opinion.

In the REAL world vs. the rarefied climes of DU etc. things might surprise you.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3DD1231F932A25751C1A96F958260
The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland, a public opinion agency in New York, found that 75 percent of the blacks and 83 percent of the Hispanics interviewed agreed with the statement ''I respect the New York City Police Department and its officers.'' The proportion of whites who agreed was 83 percent.

Support for the police among blacks and Hispanics dropped off when they were asked whether the police were working to improve their relationship with members of minorities. Among blacks polled, 51 percent said they believed that the police were making an effort, as did 58 percent of the Hispanics polled.



http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10800615_ITM




http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm
ALL Blacks Whites
% % %
"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of your local police?"
Favorable 81 58 85
Unfavorable 17 36 13
Don't know/Refused 2 6 2
.

"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of state police or state troopers in your area?"
Favorable 83 64 87
Unfavorable 11 26 8
Don't know/Refused 6 10 5

The Gallup Poll is dated. 1999 as is the NY Times Poll

Access my Library is from 2001

The Last one recites the Gallup data from 99.

places. It was caught on national television. They also caught cars which were going to vote turning around and heading the other way when they saw the road block . And we know how close that election was. All to often when voter suppression is used, the police and the so called justice system are there to back it up. This is a legitimate concern of Democrats and your attempts to cut off this area of discussion naturally arouses suspicion.

Thread disruption is a form of divide and conquer which is the GOP's favorite strategy to use against Democrats.

that's not respect, it's fear and it's not because we've actually done anything wrong it's because we've seen too many stories of inappropriate police violence and know full well that even if we smile politely and do everything exactly as a cop asks we can still have the shit kicked out of us if the cop is in a bad mood.

Besides, the important point of this post was that he was refused the right to vote. The arrest is secondary and probably has more to do with a cop with an attitude taking it out on someone who isn't willing to take any shit. I'll wait for the whole story before I come to a conclusion on who was right or wrong in the arrest but years of experience tells me that cops view outspoken people as subversive and they don't look too kindly on citizens who don't meekly listen to a cop even when he/she is wrong.

#1 you have NO idea what the arrest was for, and you are purely speculating
#2 the polls continually show that how the public feels about cops is NOT how you think they do

your post is just more prejudice. now, you are a mindreader and know how cops think. do you know how black people think? women? accountants? lawyers?

omniscience and prejudice. beautiful combo.

when compared with a willingness to ignore evidence, and make unfounded assumptions about a case you know nothing about.

it's truly a perfect example...

2. The fact still remains that the gentleman was refused the right to vote
3. The VAST MAJORITY of people *I* know think that cops are dangerous power hungry bullying psychopaths. Since I don't see a source for your supposed poles I can't really argue with you on that. I only know from personal evidence and the people I know. My evidence is anecdotal but I believe that it's honest opinion and not some whitewashed crap people give pollers because they're are afraid of giving the wrong answer.

what evidence have I ignored? You don't know anything about the case either but you're providing all the more fodder for the belief that cops are assholes and bullies. You are truly a perfect example...

i posted the polls in my other post.

the vast majority of people YOU know do not represent society at large.

are you deluded to think they do?

if i want to know how MOST people think, i query polling data.

i do not ask the people I know (and granted, I know a pretty fair and diverse smattering of dems, repubs, libertarians, etc.). Because I recognize that MY sample group is not representative.


and if requiring evidence and attacking prejudice makes me an 'asshole and a bully" then I proudly plead guilty.

I will always seek truth over prejudice and openmindedness over intolerance.

unlike you, and many others . who assume the cops in this case were "nazi thugs" or assume their narrow unrepresentative cadre of compatriots represents how SOCIETY feels about cops.

You sited the data...

Got anything current?

It's just not that simple, you can't make sweeping statements.

The study, conducted in Los Angeles, found that residents from neighborhoods perceived to be crime ridden, dangerous, and disorderly were less likely to approve of the police. In contrast, residents who had informal personal contact with police were more likely to express approval.

Race and ethnicity, factors cited as influential in other studies, were not found to be as important as community disorder in determining the public’s satisfaction with police.


From the June 03 NIJ report- Cheryl Maxson, Karen Hennigan, and David C. Sloane
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeJU

the polling data shows you to be wrong.

prejudiced people ignore polls and evidence when the evidence conflicts with their (false) impression

that's what you are doing. you have your opinion and extrapolate from your (small minority) opinion falsely to the population at large.

do you think every poll that consistently shows you to be wrong are all fabricated?

is it a conspiracy?

lol.

again, you have no facts, just false assertions

Are you denying that police set up road blocks near polling stations? Are you denying that voter fraud and intimidation is still rampant?

"In my many years in law enforcement I only heard of one person ever arrested in conjunction with voting."

I have heard of many more, and am not a cop. Having a supposed law enforcement person say that doesn't inspire much trust in your opinions.

After all, it's the cops who are enforcing the fascist moves on the part of the government. Maybe THEY shouldn't have such knee jerk reactions, huh?

of any cops who are having kneejerk reactions.

fwiw, I have NO opinion, because i have no evidence.

many here have called the cops in this case "nazis" and "fascists" w/o evidence they acted improperly.

it's because of who they are, NOT what they did.

that's the exact same thing as racism.

judging people by their group membership, not their actions and character.

for shame.

wait for facts, THEN draw conclusions. that's a rational approach

prejudice draws conclusions w/o pesky facts.

THAT'S not a knee jerk reaction?

These people are bleeding Americans dry. These people are sucking the blood out of and killing the very people they are being paid by, and to serve.

Yeah, I hate cops. I have good reason to. So should you.

As a cop's daughter, I can tell you that I am disgusted by cops today. As are many of the people I know. (And I remember a time when I never referred to law enforcement officers as "cops." It was considered an insult...)

Many (perhaps even a "VAST" majority of) law enforcement officers of today think they are above the law.

In one county nearby, the State's Attorney learned of alledged brutality toward restrained prisoners in the county jail. He launched and investigation and a grand jury regarding this matter.

Immediately, that county's law enforcement officers began an advertising/public relations offense against the State's Attorney. It was so vociferous, the State's Attorney asked Governor Bush to appoint an independent investigator to take over the case.

The independent investigator turned out to be the father of an attorney that had been fired by the State's Attorney. He immediately, and in violation of his mandate from the Governor, turned the investigation on the State's Attorney.

Ensuing bruhaha went on for months until a Judge ruled that the report by the independent investigator exceeded his mandate and was sealed.

Meanwhile the county's law enforcement officers, gaining sympathy from other counties' law enforcement, continued their PR offensive. Even to the point of showing up at a candidates forum, all wearing black T-shirts with slogans against the State's Attorney.

The forum's hosts were made so apprehensive by the cardre of black T-shirts that they canceled the forum.

I need to point out that the State's Attorney involved has been the State's Attorney for the district for four election cycles... One term, then he lost a term for focusing too much on porn. He learned his lesson, made a come back and changed his focus to more important issues and has been reelected two more times.

Law enforcement had, up to the jail scandal, always gotten along fine with him.

(Can't say I like him or don't like him.... I'm pretty much neutral on him.)

But this story illustrates that the badges will not tolerate anyone curbing their absolute authority and will not cooperate in ridding itself of bad cops.

Which doesn't speak well for cops in general. If you won't rid yourself of the bad cops and the serisouly questionable cops, then you are not a good cop.

(edit: changed a word for clarification)

unless you witnessed the events personally.

I live in Independence, and have had a run in with the Independence cops. Late one night, I fell asleep at the wheel of my car and crahed. It was a single car accident, but my car was totalled. I woke up with a street sign through my windshield, narrowly missing my head. I was lucky. I don't drink and was stone cold sober. I was just suffering from exhaustion. I kicked my way out of the car, pried open the hood, and was standing looking at the engine, when I get gang tackled by four Independence cops and handcuffed.

I was taken to the station, about ten minutes away, protesting the whole time, but to deaf ears. Once there, I volunteered to take a breathalyzer, which showed absolutely no reading, since I wasn't drinking. They then wanted to take a blood sample, which I refused. I was booked for dwi, went to court five times, each time, the arresting officers never showed up, and finally the charges were dropped.

Why had I fallen asleep and wrecked my car? My wife and I had been taking care of my father, who was in the last throes of terminal pancreatic cancer. I had been getting maybe an hour or two of sleep per night. But the cops weren't interested. They had their minds made up. I didn't even appear to be intoxicated.

Another story about the Independence police: An Independence cop pulled a service revolver on my brother and pressed it against my brother's head. Why? Because my brother had an outstanding warrant. The crime? Failure to appear in court for a PARKING ticket. A fucking parking ticket.

So, I would say that in some cases, yes, the scorn that many people have for cops IS justified.

Now, I don't expect you to believe any of this, since it is just my heresay, and you weren't with me to witness these two events,. You are free to believe what you want to believe, and I realize someone like myself probably is wasting time on you. But let me just say, as a final thought that my father's business partner was a former Independence cop, and I heard a lot of stories from that guy that let me know that many policemen play god out on the streets, and to hell with what is legal. What's more, they get backed by the court system. The average schmuck hasn't much chance, when it comes down to our word against theirs. Which is probably why cops are so uncomfortable about being videotaped by cell phones or other means.

of course, some 'good' cops, the majority are on some kind of power trip. Then when you call them for a suspicious person walking door to door at 10:00 at night, they never even show up. (Just one example from decades of living here). They also have a history, very well known, of abuse and racial profiling. Not just my opinion-anyone who lives here knows it.

I just found out that galloglas' precinct and my precinct are next to each other and about five minutes apart from each other.

Yes, there are some good cops, but it is a fact that there are enough bad ones out there to justify people's fears and prejudices against them.

:hi:

And am friends of kite and galoglas. Couldn't agree with you more about Independence cops. I was involved with the petition concerning the pregnant woman they forced to lay down by the side of I 70.

Galoglas will be at our DFA meeting tonight talking about what happened to him yesterday. 7 pm Californo's in Westport.

Can you do me a favor and pm me, to let me know of any future meetings?

agree and the police do not want to make arrests at a polling place. They will if they have to. This is the only incident in this area that occurred as far as all the news reports, papers have not reported anything.

So I will wait and see if there was anything but until then, ?

calling cops nazi bastards.
They get that label by their own behavior.

and there is too sketchy a story to go on right now.

Who normally reads your letters for you? Did they all take holidays at the same time?

Its logical debate. You can question ANYTHING based on facts, without once ever ventering into the realm of opinion.

you can't have an opinion that's worth a damn anyway.

perceive as kneejerk -- it isn't uncommon on DU, or any message board for that matter, for posters to be supportive of their fellow posters who have had bad days - being arrested would be a bad day for most folks. That is not kneejerk, that is human nature on a message board.

So you may want to keep your kneejerk judgments to a mimimum and those "no opinions" to yourself until you have the chance to ask the DUer what exactly occurred. Then you can judge his response, or lack their of, accordingly.

Then you can give your kneejerk opinion based on your perceived belief as to what you would have done in that situation.

could you imagine...

your description about how it's normal for fellow posters to be supportive of their net-friends suffering or situation is very true! when a nutjob supporter of Fred Thompson on youtube ripped my bridge collapse video, and placed Bush's audio comments at the beginning of it, and the end, DUers sprung into action immediately by peppering his video with so many comments he yanked his hacked video version of my own. DUers back up each other, this gentleman obviously doesn't do that, and doesn't understand we're sad for the arrest, but the bigger point is that he couldn't VOTE despite there being no law requiring more ID.

thanks!

Leroy didn't know about the law, but he didn't get a chance to find out before Galaglas escalated the situation

later, at the election board, he was offered papers to vote with and he refused them because he wanted to vote at the boot in the precinct he was banned from for causing a disturbance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWr6ec2zEyE&feature=related


I'm kiddin'

:rofl:

Damn those Clones!

:rofl: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :rofl:

We're not law enforcement. We're not part of the legal system. As such, we're free to form our opinions based on the info at hand. And if it turns out that there's more to the story than is currently being reported, then we are free to go back and revise our opinions. Sorry, but you do not get to tell DUers or anyone else how to think, and I'll thank you very much not to refer to us as a bunch of "kneejerkers".

Funny that you would defer to jackboot thugs instead of a DUer.

that with no evidence whatsoever assume that the cops were acting as jackbooted thugs and this guy was in the right.

i remain agnostic, because that's what intelligent RATIONAL people do before they have evidence.

the irrational and prejudice form opinions BEFORE they have any facts, then selectively filter, ignore, twist, and misconstrue the later revealed facts in order to suit their bias.

posts such as

"Doesn't surprise me one bit, Nazi bastards."

are exactly what I am referring to.

you have NO idea what he was arrested for, the facts/circumstances, etc.

but this guy KNOWS the guys who arrested this guy were "nazi bastards"

that's prejudice, and no different from racism or sexism. it PREjudges

...and later reread the thread.

I can't say for sure but I'd guess the only thing the cops did was give him a taxi ride and kinda knowing gallagos... would agree with people who have stated ...it was most likely civil disobedience issue because he was within the law.

The OP SAYS absolutely nothing about mistreatment, the whole JACKBOOTED thug thing is BULLSHIT.
PERIOD. It saddens me to see it. Unfortunately, I can't apologize for others here. It's the nature of DU and what gives it's overall balance, wit and color.(IMO)

There are lots of LEO's, Military, even intelligence folks who seem to get along(for the most part he-he) just fine with the rest of the "riff raff" here.

The OP does says he'll post when he gets here... Trust in that.

Being a detail guy you should have caught that on the initial read. I don't doubt a lot of people thought you were a troll and were protecting one of there own, a concept you seem familiar with. Finally, You've been here one month some have been here over six years. There are great friendships here. May you come to understand respect them in time. (It took me a while)


Prost, and welcome to DU and all that Jazz.
http://www.cocktailchronicles.com/2006/04/13/the-last-word/

this whole post seems pretty intimidating to me, as is the reaction to anyone who might disagree with the OP

I thought it would be in DU's best interest to welcome newcomers.

Paint it Blacks? You mean? or Mine? Wasn't meant to be... Direct maybe. Guess you had to having been reading the thread at the time the posts were made.
:hi:

to the people who called the cops "nazis" "thugs" etc. in this case w/o knowing any facts.

I don't stand for prejudice.

I do realize many here gloss over it when it's against the so called "oppressors" cops, etc. since they are always guilty until proven innocent.

I, otoh, will choose to wait for facts and evidence before drawing conclusions

that's simply the rational approach.

While I'm certainly not a big fan of modern law enforcement, in this case they appear to have been called out by the election officials, and were merely doing their job. According to Galoglas's statement below, they appeared to have done so reluctantly.

The election officials who refused to allow him to vote, who were acting belligerently, and who caused this whole scene - THEY are the ones in this case who are the 'jackboot thugs'.

support to a DUer.

Don't lecture against behavior you are guilty of, it reeks of hypocrisy and a lack of understanding.

Many of us have been through this before, many of us follow the election fraud efforts and trust the DUers we know.

What is sad is that LEO is supposed to enforce the law, the law of the SOS in Missouri was violated by the election workers, not by the potential voter.

Shame LEO isn't willing to consider the law.

If you have the rules of the agency in front of you, do you look at them or do you just react to what the agent responsible for the rules tells you they are?

The DUer was in a public place, not on private property, he was trying to abide by the law and even had the laws in his hand, the information straight from the SOS stating what was required of him.

The prejudging was done by the LEO that removed him and by you when you jumped others for offering support.

I hope that this incident has caused you to stop and think about how you might handle a similar situation. You may want to consult the legal counsel for the department and ask them for guidance. You may also want to suggest a meeting with your election commission officials to discuss just this type of situation in an effort to prevent false arrests and election fraud.

You see, our DUer knew the law, think about the poor bastards that don't and are turned away - think of the rejected votes. Then consider how you would feel if you were turned away.

"... responding to people like you that with no evidence whatsoever assume that the cops were acting as jackbooted thugs and this guy was in the right."

Get someone to Galloglass's post to you very slowly... and you'll perhaps note that he made a point of largely exculpating the police, who, he said, seemed reluctant to arrest him. Galloglass's election judges did indeed ape the judges of the Nazi regime. You are dense beyond belief.

"i remain agnostic, because that's what intelligent RATIONAL people do before they have evidence."
Nothing Galloglass wrote would have constituted evidence for you would it, Dum-Dum? Not proof. Evidence.

It's pretty obvious that one "slipped through the cracks", as it were.

Better not to feed it.

I loved the phrasing

"acts in violent or tumultuous manner toward another, putting such person(s) in fear of safety by refusing to show proper ID when voting"

Raised this question with me,

How does one "act in a violent manner" or "Place persons in fear" by refusing to produce an ID with a signature on it ??

every time somebody posts "XXX arrested for speaking the truth!" or "YYY arrested for defending 1st Amendment", invariably there's more to the story. Trying to vote without ID is not an arrestable offense, but making a scene could be, trespassing could be, etc. etc.

it? Guess Rosa Parks should have just STFU and went to the back of the bus. :sarcasm:

:)

no sense trying to be rational in the middle of a feeding frenzy of ignorance.

No, I said I'd like to know more details.

I doubt he showed he up to vote, they asked him for more ID, he said "I don't have anything else" and then they arrested him. I bet you anything that's not what happened.

But the point is, every time somebody starts a thread like this, they leave out relevant information. I bet you anything he wasn't arrested for trying to vote with inadequate ID.

Wanna take that bet?

Time to start asking yourself if YOUR assumptions might not be the wrong ones.

He said he was arrested for disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

That was my only point. I never implied his arrest was proper. I never said he was wrong. I said only that I didn't believe he was arrested for trying to vote without proper ID.

Perhaps YOUR assumptions are wrong. Turns out the very narrow statement I made was 100% true.

The fact that the police "charged him" with disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct doesn't change the fact that he was actually arrested, wrongly, for not complying with the illegal demands of those voting overseers.

He did not disturb the peace or engage in disorderly conduct. That is simply the excuse that they made. This is a perfect example of election misconduct. It happens on a grand scale. We saw one piece of it, and frankly I think your attitude makes it easier for it to happen.

Your assumption was that NO ONE would be arrested unless they really DID SOMETHING. You were wrong. You won't admit it. That's fine.

Time to pay up. :hi:

I was right. I said I bet he wasn't arrested for trying to vote with inadequate ID.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. That's all I said - I took issue only with the characterization of his arrest in the OP. I never once stated that I believed the arrest was proper, that he should've been arrested, that he was in the wrong.

I made a very narrow statement, and you read far more into it.

He wasn't arrested for trying to vote with inadequate ID. I was right.

and refusing to leave when asked is

and why in the world should he leave before he votes?

...by people who believed they were following the law

his options were not over, he could have called the election board and came back with a monitor and settle the dispute rationally

situation.

" I will try to be as brief as possible with the description of my day as I can manage. But, since there are some sticky points, I will also try to be clear and complete. If anyone finds questions still hanging after reading this entry, and the comments already made above in response to Proud2Blib's post, I will gladly answer.

I, Galloglas, went to vote today and encountered difficuly. And, it is important to point out that this was not the first time I've run onto problems this year.

When I voted in Missouri's Presidential primary in February, 2008, I took the proper identification to my precinct and attempted to cast my ballot. The identification requirements are spelled out graphically on our Secretary of State's Web Site which can be found at http://www.sos.mo.gov/... /.

And, as I am of the belief that the "Voter Fraud" question is exclusively a creature of the GOP's making (a grudging tip of my hat to the GOP's odious "Thor" Hearne for fathering, with Karl Rove, this abominable scheme), and that the entire "Voter Fraud" issue is nothing more than a smokescreen to encourage the various state's to pass Photo Voter ID Laws, I always choose to use whatever acceptable identification is furthest from that which the GOP would mandate if Missouri did have Photo Voter ID laws.

That said, I point out that Missouri's Legislature did pass SB 1014 in 2006, mandating Photo Voter ID. But SB 1014 was ruled unconstitutional in October, 2006. Similarly, in May 2008, the legislature made another attempt to enact the legislation, but it died in committee. Consequently, Missouri has no Photo Voter ID law and the SoS voter ID requirements (above) are the prevailing law of our state.

In February, 2008, when I went to my precinct to cast my Presidential primary ballot, I walked in and was asked for my driver's license. I said, "Sorry. Here is my election authority ID instead. I wish to use that as my ID."
The judge said, "Look. Show me your Driver's license, or you don't vote!". To which I replied, "Look. If you want my driver's license to let me vote, we got a problem?" And the election judge replied, "Oh, no! I gotta see you picture ID or I won't know who you are."

To shorten this February episode, let it be known that A) since I had not seen this particular election judge before, and B) he seemed challenged either by lack of intellect or lack of proper training, I simply told him "call the Election Board office and ask them. You simply can't require that." This gentleman refused to do so, telling me that "if you do not like it, you can just leave!"

I replied, "OK, partner, I'll show my driver's license to you... but only under protest... and I will file a complaint with the Election Board. "You go right ahead!" he replied.

And I did. But, as one might expect, no report was ever prepared by the Election Board and when I inquired about its status in May, 2008, the bipartisan heads of the offices claimed no knowledge of it. When shown the status trail, proving the existence of the complaint, I was finally told "Well, it must have gotten lost.We have had some problems with temps and their paper work this year."

So, with the August primaries coming up, I wanted to insure no repeat of February's problems, and I made a call to my local election board (Eastern Jackson County, Missouri, Election Board), speaking to the GOP appointee, one Charlene Davis.

I recounted the events of February to her on the phone and asked, "Do you agree that the ID requirements for casting a vote in Missouri, as recounted on the SoS's web site, are the official and proper IDs? That these are the acceptable forms of ID? And that they must be accepted by the precinct personnel?"

She then replied that sometimes a person might not be asked for an ID if the judges readily recognized the voter. Pressed on the matter, she replied, "Yes. If they ask for ID, the SoS's page governs what is acceptable." I pressed further, "So, Charlene, if I come in with my precinct issued ID, or a utility bill, or my bank statement, there will no more requests for a Photo ID?"

Charlene Davis answered with the usual CYA statement about training poll workers, poll workers working long hours, mixups in communications,etc. So I asked this, "Well, since we've agreed as to what it should be, then I can just call you if there are any mixups and you wil set them straight?" "Yes, just call me." she replied.

So this morning I walked into my precinct at about 9:45AM, along with my son. Both of us were carrying Precinct issued voter cards, bank statements and utility statements, all of which are acceptable forms of ID in Missouri. The precinct is in the basement of a church and there are two precincts there: 08A and 08C. As I walked in, there were a total of six persons. Three for each precinct.

The first person who spied us was a lady, who asked "Do you want to vote?" "Yep", I replied. "I'll need to see your ID", she said, and I handed her the precinct-issued ID cards. She picked it up, glanced at it and said, "I'll need to see your something with your signature on it."

"Uh... I don't think so. What I gave you is valid ID."

"No,", she replied, "I need to see something with your signature on it, otherwise I won't know who you are." And that gave me a bad feeling.

So I said, "Uh, Ma'am, that Precinct ID card tells you who I am. It came to my mailbox last week, so that the Election Authority knows I still live there. If you want to see my signature, you can look at it as soon as I seen the Poll Book."

The judge was a bit flustered, all the other judges started looking at my son and I, and then she said., "Oh. This is the wrong line anyway. Step to that table for precinct 08A." And my son and I picked up our papers and moved to the other line where there were three male judges.

The first judge was named Leroy (he would tell em his last name) and he asked for our IDs and was handed the precinct-issued cards. He left them sitting on the table and said, "You need to show me IDs with your signatures on it!", in rough, angry tone.

I replied, "No sir, I do not." and handed him a computer copy of the SoS's web page, printed from this location. http://www.sos.mo.gov/... / The judge did not even look at it, instead standing straight up from his chair, raising his voice loudly, and said, "If you don't want to vote, there is the door, and you can leave now!"

My reply was, "Sir, we do want to vote. My son and I have both brought the proper ID, and the Sos"s sheet verifies that. Now, if you are refusing to let us vote, please tell us why." And the reply was, "I need to see your signature!"

(Now bear in mind, the next step in the voting is to actually sign the Poll Book, at which time judges can look at my signature all they want. But what was being demanded was some ID which was already signed. Then it dawned on me that many people would only have signatures on some government-issued IDs, such as Driver's Licenses.
Compliance with such demands would result in voters having to show Photo Voter IDs without even the need of the GOP-controlled Missouri Legislature having to pass another Photo Voter ID Act. In effect, causing Missouri voters to comply with conditions which had been declared unconstitutional in 2006!)

With the sudden realization of what was probably happening,I had to make a decision. Glancing around the room, I realized that I had seen all of these election judges at past elections. What was the likelihood of them all being untrained, or them all having forgotten what the rules were in the prior election. I calculated the odds were long.

I turned back to Leroy and replied, "Leroy, my son and I want to vote. We brought what was required of us. I am holding the SoS's web page n my left hand. If you will not look at it, or read it, please call Charlene Davis at the Eastern Jackson County Election Board, or call the SoS's office to find out what you are supposed to do. Because we want to vote."

We were then told, "You can either give me what I told you to, or you can just get out that door and find someplace else to vote!" (as he stood towering above my son and I). I looked him in the eye and said, "Leroy, Nope! We will not leave until you give us our rights. We've a right to vote!"
Leroy leaned over the table and shouted, "Not unless you follow our rules here!" To which I replied, "Your rules do not trump the laws of this state! Please read them!This ID card (the precinct-issued card) is all I need. And slapped the card down on the table in front of him. "this is all that is required."

In the next moment an election judge moved toward me from my left and called to me, causing me to turn ninety degrees to my left to face him. I am fairly certain that it was the same judge who had insisted on my photo ID in February. Regardless, as I turned, the man continued walking up to me until he gave me a "Chest Bump" (like players or managers do to umpires in baseball games), and said "You either do what you're told to vote, or you get out of here NOW!"

I was beginning to feel like Alice, when she fell through the Looking Glass, but managed to ask, "And you going to evict me? Call the police?"

ASt that point, Leroy pick up the converstaion and said, "You leave right now!". I replied, "If you won't call your Election Board, I will." and pulled my cell phone from my pocket. I turned to my son and asked himn to take his cell phone and call "Election Protection" at the Missouri SoS's Office.

As we both dialed, Leroy shouted for us to leave the building immediately, and I replied, "Sorry. Can't do that. What you are asking is neither legal or fair. Let's settle this thing." And as my son and I were talking to our respective parties, Leroy also made a call... to the Eastern Jackson County Election Board.
As my son spoke to the SoS's office, I was asking for the GOP BoE head, Charlene Davis. Oddly enough, she was not available.
But Leroy did manage to get through to the Election Board, as Independence, Missouri, Police Officers entered the precinct doors. One of the last things that Leroy was heard to say to the Election Board was "Then we don't get the signatures??"

My son and I were grabbed by the arms and escorted outside. The two policemen who escorted us were soon joined by four others with two other squad cars. Surrounded, we were peppered by questions. Basically they were of the type, "Why are you bothering these people?"
The answer, as clear as we could make it was, "We aren't bothering them! We are simply trying to vote, and these people are breaking Missouri State Statutes, preventing us from voting."
The police responded, "Look, you are breaking their rules. If you don't get out of here, we are going to arrest you!"
The question I had in response was, "Their rules? What rules? Those are employees of the Election Board, they are under the mandate of the Election Board, and then the SoS. Aren't you more concerned about the breaking of state laws?" As it turns out, apparently they were not.

My son and I were given several chances to leave by the police. To go back home and just forget about voting. I will give the officers that much. They really did not want to arrest us. On the other hand, between the officers and the six election judges, none were willing to even ask what should be done.

Even as my son had succeeded in getting hold of someone at the Election Board, who had authority (Brad lastnameunknown), the police officers refused to speak to the Election Board when "Brad" made that request.

My son was told to turn off his phone and get out of the parking lot, or he would be taken to jail along with me. I told him to get in the car, drive home, and be prepared for my phone calls.

One officer then turned to me and said, "This is your last chance. Leave and never come back here." I said, "You're kidding, surely. Never? And where do I vote in November?"
"Are you going?" he asked again. I asked, "You mean leave without even having an answer as to why I am not allowed to cast my ballot?"
His answer was nonverbal; but he leaned in close, and I knew he was waiting for an answer. "Uhhh... with all due respect, officer... I feel that if I did so, I would be betraying my own conscience, and setting a bad precedent for all those citizens who share my right to vote."

About two nano-seconds after finishing my sentence, an officer behind me grabbed my wrists, handcuffed me, pulled me by the arm and pushed me into the back seat of a caged police car.

After a ten minute ride to the Independence Police Station, I was put on the bench outside the lockup (after I indicated I would post a cash bond) and was released some two hours later. The maximum bond on a city civil offense is $500, mine turned out to be $300 (though it should be noted that one policeman recommended that, since there were six election judges, they should make six Disorderly Conduct charges, heave each election judge sign one complaint, and that would raise bond to a maximum of $3000).
Perhaps, fortunately for me, one of the officers finally realized that I was doing what I was doing, not to be a pain-in-the-ass or to garner publicity, but because I thought it was the right thing to do.

Oddly, when I was finally released, there were about a half dozen officers who walked out of the detectives room (where the report was being written) as I left the building. At first, it was a bit unnerving being watched as I left the station. Then I realized that the looks betrayed more of puzzlement, or incredulity, than of a "I'll get you next time. Watch your step, buddy!"

My son was waiting for me when I was released. He told me that Charlene Davis and her Democratic counterpart at the Eastern Jack Election Board had returned his call and suggested that both he and I come up to the Election Board after my release, and we did so.
Our initial reception by Charlene Davis was one of general hostility. Slowly, as a few questions and answers were exchanged, Charlene and her counterpart realized that there was not some insane, ranting tirade emanating either from my son or myself and some civility ensued. Yet at the same time, when Mrs. Davis was shown what we had presented as Voter ID, she acknowledged that, indeed, what we were presented was valid and should have been accepted. She even pulled out a single laminated sheet of ID requirements (quite like that of the SoS) and asked, "Didn't they have this on the tables out there?" And the answer was, "No, Ma'am. They did not!'

The final attempt by the Board to mollify my son and I was to offer us the chance to actually vote (it was about 3:30PM then). I asked, "At our precinct?"
"No," I was told, "I'll give you a ballot right here to cast."
"Why can't we vote at our precinct?" I asked. "You have acknowledged that we were correct, and should have been allowed to vote. Why can't we."
"Well," she said, "if you go back out there, you may be arrested again."
"For what?"
"Well those judges filed a complaint the first time. I'm can't guarantee it won't happen again."
Thinking for a second, I suggested, "Why don't you go out with us? Or send someone."

Well, that was as far as she would go. The offer to cast a ballot at the Board Office. And I told her I would not be willing to vote a provisional ballot but she replied that it would not be provisional. I suggested she give me a moment to consult, by phone, with the SoS's Office. I was told that I would have to leave the building to do so.
I did so, checked on the status of the complaint I had already filed with the SoS by phone, then decided (since I doubt any race would be decided by my vote)that I did not want to chance setting any precedent by voting at the Board after having misdeneanor charges filed against me by the Election Judges.

And, so finally, we reach the point of outlining what my "Electoral Transgressions" of today actually amount to. And, though the full police report will not be available until probably Friday, I do have the municipal ticket which was written out for me.

The ticket states that I, on 11PM of this date
"did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s)in fear of safety by (and this is the part I find fascinating) refusing to show proper I. D. when voting".

So, if any DUers out there have ever served as an election judge or challenger at any precinct, and have found themselves frightened by a voter who attempted to use an official Election Board printed and mailed ID card, instead of coughing up a signature bearing form of ID (and in my case, it would have been, could only have been, my drivers license), I would like to hear from you.

Folks, I am a bad, slow typist. It has been a long day and I think I have covered the ground for you. This is long, but it seemed as if all this detail was necessary to cover all possible questions.

If you have any more thoughts, questions, let me know. But I must soon grab some sleep and get back on line when my mind works again.

In the meantime, it should be worthwhile to wonder just exactly how six experienced election judges would each suddenly come to believe thjat they could, or must, insist upon a signature ID, which would almost surely be affixed to a picture ID (and gee, if that is the case, why would a state need a Photo Voter ID law??

And is this Independence, Missouri mixup a portent of what we will see being done to Democratic voters this November?????

Yours truly,

Galloglas

beginning to end. First of all :yourock: I thank you for your patriotism! and :yourock: again. I will be taking a video camera and arm my son with a tape recorder when I leave whichever poll I will be assigned to watch to go cast my vote. Set them straight Gallaglas and fight them to the finish. They had no right to do this to you IMO. And did you find out if LeRoy had a heart attack before the end of his shift by any chance. Hopefully he will have a case of the terrible shits on Nov. 2! Oh and on edit: Please tell your son I think he rocks too! :applause:

Rosa Parks would be proud

And yes she would.

I hope that Galloglas and his legal team can find Brad and that he is able to help the case, and also to improve things around there.

anyway, Brad could only tell the police about the election law, not about the criminal law about causing a disturbance, the only thing Brad could do was give Gallagolas a motive.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

You, of course, will be attacked by COWARDS who are in DENIAL that the threat to ONE person's rights is a threat to EVERYONE'S rights ... COWARDS who will cling to suppositions and assumptions of their own invention in order to FLEE and bow down to authoritarian force. Fuck them!

I have seen people arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest who were doing neither thing. Just because those were the charges, doesn't mean he is guilty of them. I swear this thread is interesting mostly because of the naivete of the workings of arrests. If you simply go limp, you can still be arrested for resisting, and if you refuse to leave, even though you believe you are in the right, and later found to be in the right, you can be arrested for disorderly conduct. He was rightly challenging the id requirement that the election judges didn't understand, but this could as easily happened to a voter who was just going to vote with his voter card. When I saw proud2blib posting this, I was happy to wait for galloglas to post eventually, and am amazed at how much blah blah blah happened in the meantime....funny.

Let's say that come this November, the rethug voter fraud goons are out in full force. You have everything you need to vote, but some punk tells you that you're not elligible to vote for some obvious bullshit reason. Are you just going to meekly walk away, and say "oh well, I tried"? Or are you going to stand your ground, refuse to leave the polling place until you speak to a supervisor?

we don't know what happened.

But I bet he didn't get arrested for trying to vote with inadequate identification.

Galoglas' first-hand account is towards the bottom of this thread. Looks like he was arrested for trying to vote with 'inadequate' identification, even if those weren't the actual charges.

These are the exact types of tactics the rethugs will use in November to secure another term.

What was he arrested for? Was it trying to vote?

"did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s)in fear of safety by (and this is the part I find fascinating) refusing to show proper I. D. when voting"

He showed proper ID so they filed a police report and had him arrested.

I wonder if he can sue over the false police report?

But the main fact is that you are WRONG once again.

But I doubt that you will ever admit it.

Maybe you you will just start accusing other posters of lying like you usually do.

There were three questions in that post, not one statement of fact.

Why should monkeyfunk admit he is wrong? What exactly should he admit he is wrong about?

Quotes would be sufficient.

Your statement "He showed proper ID so they filed a police report and had him arrested. " seems pretty categorical. Were you there? Have you already sat in the jury box at the end of the trial? Are you absolutely certain youo've seen every bit of evidence? The word disturbance is noticably missing from your statement. I'm not going to poke fun at you if you don't "admit it", but it doesn't seem you have proven your own statements "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Somehow, voting is now considered "making a disturbance"?

Give me a break.

The son was there too. With the same EXACT problem. Except that he went home instead of trying to assert his right to vote.

That does seem to be pretty cut and dried to me. What is it that you don't understand? I don't know how it could be more clear. The poll workers asserted to the police that there was a "disturbance" caused by them refusing to show proper ID. Only that assertion is false, a fabrication, a lie, and if they signed a false police report stating that to be the case, then they might have some civil liability.

I do wonder why some morans still think that you MUST be doing something wrong in order to get arrested these days. All it takes is few good assholes and you end up in jail.

And neither was monkeyfunk. We were just questioning yours. If you want to get press outside of DU, you might want to try to expect these types of questions. Something might actually get changed.

would be better placed "changing" narratives elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

The CONCLUSION at issue, namely whether or not the arrest was justified, is "proven" by your PREMISE that the truth of the situation is the one DEFINED by the police.

So, in the vernacular, you ummmm, lose.

Now pay up.

there was no statement of fact

if it was a syllogism, what is the proposition and what are the premises involved

also, does this make you feel better, winning?

What is the bigger picture?

will dismissing constructive criticism help or hurt the effort to improve the functioning of the polling place in Missouri and the rest of the country?

election board workers are required to come down and settle disputes within an hour or two

It looks like he would have been able to vote if he didn't walk in calling everybody their first name, telling them how to do their job and refusing to leave when asked, several times, even once the police were there

galloglas (or however you spell his name) was looking for a fight, and a reason to be called a hero on DU, too bad it'll cost him $300 plus legal fees if he chooses to fight it.

Did you read his account? How in the HELL is standing up for your rights "looking for a fight"?

first of all, he some unresolved experiences in February:

it looks like he was looking for a fight then, too

the second statement out of his mouth was "we got a problem?"

then, he was telling these poll works to call the Election board when they are busy people. He could have easily have gone out into the parking lot and called the election board. They are required to respond in a timely manner to resolve disputes.

his third statement started with "Ok, partner" and ended with a threat to call the election board

the poll worker even encouraged him to call the election board by saying "You go right ahead!"

he showed his driver's license and then was surprised (and resentful) that there was no report filed by the election board follow up to his complaint

when he talked to the election board appointee he asked three questions all at once and then, when she wasn't able to satisfy him, he "pressed her on the matter" then he "pressed further", saying ""So, Charlene, if I come in with my precinct issued ID, or a utility bill, or my bank statement, there will no more requests for a Photo ID?" when she said that the poll workers aren't perfect he called it a "CYA" statement (cover your ass). And then she said he should call her (which as you read the rest of the confrontation in the post itself), he did not do.

the first person he met was a spy, and the first thing he said to her was "yep"

when she asked for something with his signature on it, he said, "I don't think so" and then calls her "ma'am"

and then, finally he meets Leroy, whom he also calls by his first name


Leroy was hostile and insisted on the "rules", which as far as anybody knows, is what he was told is right

So, instead of calling Charlene, Galloglas "pressed" them matter, and "pressed" it some more.

He never once had anything nice, or sympathetic, or understanding to say to anyone. He is the perfect victim, which gives him the right to treat anyone anyway he wants. Just like everyone else sitting around at your typical anger management course.


Hey, I've totally been where Galloglas is. If he continues to call the media and go around busting chops and calling people by their first name every second and arguing about how unfair everything is all the time, he's going to encounter some resistance.

He has a right to vote, but the poll workers and everybody else in that room have a right to feel safe. It was 9:45 AM when it started. I'm 99% sure that a poll worker would have to come out, even if it were almost closing time.

I've seen how other people intimidate people who are skeptical of Galloglas the hero on this thread. So it just goes to confirm my opinion that something fishy is going on here, and it doesn't "smell like bacon".

Expecting to be able to vote without being asked to produce documents that the law does not require is wrong?

WOW what country do you live in?

especially when he was told several times that there might be errors, but chose to dismiss them as CYA comments

If he really wanted to fix things, he should have just waited for the election board to send someone down, instead of getting all emotional and ultimately arrested.

also, there are several other things that were unreasonable that I talked about in my post, do you have a question about any of them?


also, I have to tell you that I have to go and do some things right now, I'll try to get back to reply to anything you say later tonight (maybe after 8 o'clock eastern or so), I'm not ignoring anybody, thanks

From Galoglas' report, it looks like he was simply standing up for his rights. You know, the sort of thing that you would expect DUers to do. How do you consider that being "all emotional"? Please show us where he started ranting, screaming, crying, cursing, throwing a tantrum, etc.

Fucking amazing that anyone on DU would side with someone trying commit voter fraud over a long-term DUer.

like I started to say I don't have time, but dismissing the fact that a poll worker might not be perfect as a CYA statement is one

I want things to turn out well for Galoglas, just the fact that you used the f word and are demanding that I choose a side, that's another example of "getting all emotional"

He DID call the election board. And no, they didn't come.

Also I know him. He doesn't get emotional.

and they told Leroy over the phone that Galoglas was right, that he didn't need a drivers' license

but the police came and arrested Galoglas before the election board came

Galoglas could have called them way before things escalated, and they would have explained the same thing. He would have had to wait an hour or two, maybe a little more, but it would be less time consuming than going to jail.

plus, he might have gotten a few people on the election board on his side, now they just think he's a ranting, lunatic who scares people and is on a one way trip to a restraining order.


sorry, I gotta go, I will respond more later

thanks, I'm on Galoglas' side, believe me

He is a very calm and non-threatening guy. Perfect disposition for this kind of situation.

I also am wondering if there were those who called Rosa Parks a lunatic. She also took a stand.

do you have any links to any other posts that demonstrate how exemplary he is?


actually, I'll check out his journal later

But thanks for keeping the thread kicked.

it came up with three threads in GD and only one in Election Reform, and only one of these four wasn't about this incident.

Am I doing something wrong? I'd like to find out more about him.