>This article reads like there is a lot of information missing, yet people seem very eager to fill in the gaps - as we can see from your comment that the cops "arrested a random black dude."

This is spot on. I hope no one assumes it as Pro-Cop (or anti for that matter). Journalism is fucked. Police misconduct and brutality absolutely Should be reported on. However, any story about cops is usually total "click-bait" these days because it's about 1,000,000 times more likely to be clicked on than an article about, my cat or something. In other words, very lucrative. Therefore the financial push to produce these kind of articles as rapidly and abundantly as possible (for clicks, not justice or accurate info) mires journalistic integrity.

Where you're hearing a "bad cop story" it often turns out to be a bad cop. Not giving them especially the RPD benefit of the doubt. However:

I don't know the psychological terms. But we all know law enforcement and journalism have a fuck-ton of ethical, moral, and professional major issues right now. And especially the RTD.

Basically, as soon as it appears to be a bad cop story (or anything else intense, missing kid, child abuse, bad teacher etc.), people suddenly forget how fucked, and how there are no standards for journalism anymore. Most of what we read is simply padding for ads.

I hope that makes sense. Basically it's possible to think cops are bad and journalism is bad. And not have a knee-jerk reaction to the buzzwords we've been researched by online tracking and targeting, to be presented exactly what we wanna see, not see what we don't want to see. By "don't want to see" I mean "less likely to click the headline, therefore less ad money."

Ok now I'm starting to ramble about targeted ads. Everyone knows those are unethical. They target you with the exact kind of articles you're mostly to click, which ads catered to the general lifestyle of the target group.

In other words, police brutality is real. But so is bad journalism. Don't get overwhelmed when they happen simultaneously.

Social media is fucked in the same way. Before you downvote, Ask yourself this... How many times have you seen a video posted on Reddit (any subject, doesn't have to be cops)... And then seen a truncated version reposted later with a completely different, equally convincing narrative? That's Journalism 101. You can't trust it's good journalism just because it's covering an important subject matter. They have no pressure or reason to complicate their process by getting tripped up by standards of accuracy, ethics, morality, saying who's financially backing them, etc. Etc.

Also Edit: How many times have you seen something in person that makes the local news, and then the local news gets it all wrong? Every time pretty much.

yea i just did sounded like a high caliber rifle!

Defendants are bullied and coerced by prosecutors into taking pleas for bullshit charges like this all the time. Glad some attention is finally being brought to this practice.

Cops file the initial charges. The prosecutor decides to pursue, not pursue, or change the charges and purse.

But the cop files the initial charges when they seek a warrant from a magistrate.

I’m just going based off of what I’ve read but it’s kinda both. If they do not have the legal authority to arrest you then you are allowed to resist in Virginia. They had no business arresting him as there was no probable cause that he had committed a crime nor was he who they were there for and simply holding a phone is not a crime and neither is j walking in Virginia.

When resisting an unlawful arrest you cannot show more force than the officer otherwise it becomes assault. The officer makes physical contact with him and he pushes away. That doesn’t seem any higher in severity so it’s probably not assault.

[deleted]

Can't even be arsed to communicate properly, and you're acting like that's a mark in YOUR favor?

Okay.

Ahhh you’re right. My bad. Was doing my dishes when I saw this reply. Misread his quotes out of context.

Not a concert place but going to a friend’s home who also works from home and having a work day together is pretty nice.

[deleted]

Here's my hot take, which I'm guessing will get downvoted into oblivion.

The article came out on Wednesday, and didn't mention anything about the evidentiary hearing on Friday. That information was provided in the comment added on Thursday.

That hearing was, like everything else that happens in every court except juvenile court, a matter of public record. As would have been anything filed by either the defense attorney or the prosecutor in the matter.

Presumably, information would have come out at that hearing about what was in that call and why officers responded the way they did. RTD chose not to report on this and we don't have any information about what happened at that hearing.

This article reads like there is a lot of information missing, yet people seem very eager to fill in the gaps - as we can see from your comment that the cops "arrested a random black dude."

The article also can't decide if it wants to praise the prosecutor for dismissing bogus charges or condemn them along with the entire system. Its .. a weird and confusing article.

I know I’m getting killed in the comment section but this is a legitimate question I have if you have a second to answer.

It does look like the person who is being arrested is certainly resisting arrest. He appears to push the officers and maybe take a swing?

At what point does what he is doing become resisting arrest? Or escalate from resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer? Is what is happening in this case basically - ‘the police had no reason to even be involved with this guy so the fact that he may have assaulted them is irrelevant’ or ‘what he is on camera doing is not assault or resisting arrest’. Genuinely curious.

Thanks !

Where are you getting the idea that the police failed to disclose the reason for the call, or the idea that the call didn't match the person who was arrested? None of that is even alluded to in the article. The only thing mentioned is the fact that a judge ruled the context of the call inadmissible the Friday before.

I agree that the prosecutor was on board for the case to get to the level it did (day of jury trial--which takes months and a ton of work). I think that shows another issue within the system which is that this case made it through bond hearings (most likely), preliminary hearing, motions date--and yet the prosecutor withdraws the charges the DAY OF the jury trial and was at least the second, if not the third or fourth, prosecutor to have this case assigned to them. Multiple prosecutors saw this footage and saw nothing wrong with it.

The phone call doesn't change the fact of whether or not an officer was assaulted--I believe this to be an excuse the prosecutor is using because they knew the case was trash and had to come up with some reason. And just to be clear, the prosecutor didn't dismiss this charge. It was nolle prossed, or withdrawn without prejudice, which means it can technically be brought back at any time since there are no statute of limitations for felony charges in VA.

He's correct though. Charges can be brought a few ways - a basic search in the court system (public record) shows this case was brought on warrant and made it though general district court up to circuit. That means the prosecutor and at least one judge thought there was probable cause for the assault - presumably before the 911 call was ruled inadmissible.

[deleted]

Lmao there it is. Have a great night!

The video pretty clearly shows him pushing the cops bro.

Isn't this that same guy who was brandishing an assault rifle at the former Lee statue for the "constructive conversation" that never happened?

Edit: oh it was his partner whoops what an orchard

Cops literally take a "throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks" approach. ALL possible charges are filed with the DA, and the ones they can prove in court are the charges they move forward with.

Source: former Deputy Sheriff.

*you’re

The article states the prosecutor brought the case forward because officer Yoon said that the defendant assaulted them. The body camera footage shows that that isn’t the case. The case wasn’t happening because of a 911 call. That wouldn’t ever be the case. The commonwealth attorney saying that the initial call was inadmissible further proves even more that they had no backing for their response or to prosecute. If that were the case than they could just go with the camera footage as their main evidence of assault.

Silly goose club every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Come get ya some.

Your obviously upset and that’s fine- but you shouldn’t be rude. All I was saying is that the prosecutors have discretion on what cases to bring to trial. Once it was determined that that reason for the 911 call was going to be inadmissible- the prosecutor no longer felt they could try the case effectively.

Literally all of this is in the article. If I’m wrong on something here I’d love for you to point it out to me. But you won’t because your just emotional and lashing out.

> “I spoke with Ms. Shapiro candidly and said I was uncomfortable even moving forward with disorderly conduct charges,” Wildeus said before the court.
Shapiro said that Officer Yoon is well known in the Fourth Precinct. Two other cases with similar charges also had similar last-minute dismissals, said Shapiro, an attorney with Richmond Public Defender’s Office. One of the charges was as recent as last December.

Pattern of misconduct is bad thing, maybe they shouldn't be cops.

>On Thursday, Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin emailed the Times-Dispatch to add comments to Holley's case.
McEachin said that her office did not "have any issue with the legitimacy of the charge in this case," and that their decision not to proceed with charges "was unrelated to the implication suggested in your reporting"

Whaaaa, let's stop clowning around gang.

> McEachin said that at a hearing the Friday before Holley's trial, the judge had ruled the 911 call for service that brought Yoon and Onorati to Maggie Walker Plaza was inadmissible.
McEachin said the call for service was for a report of a man attacking people with a glass bottle.

So they arrested a random black dude?

>Asked if she thought the body camera footage substantiated Yoon's claims of assault, McEachin said that body camera footage doesn't always capture everything that transpires, and that ultimately, it was for the jury to decide if Onorati had been assaulted.

So the new rule is cops, when we know they are BSing they can throw accusations, and then it's "fuck It, let the trial settle this"

Richmond has made no effort to reform the RPD or its commonwealth prosecution.