03-21-2012, 05:08 PM
Yes I read the same article. What the Denver judge says makes sense:
the arrest was justified, whether it was retaliatory or not is undecided. I agree with the administration attorneys defending the service, they need a little slack to do their jobs. I don't see that this man had any rights violated, he convinced law enforcement that he was no threat. Fine. It's over. He could have answered questions and avoided arrest to begin with.
"The Denver-based federal appeals court ruled that the agents had sufficient grounds for taking Howards into custody, but the court also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow Howards to continue with his claim of retaliatory arrest."
the arrest was justified, whether it was retaliatory or not is undecided. I agree with the administration attorneys defending the service, they need a little slack to do their jobs. I don't see that this man had any rights violated, he convinced law enforcement that he was no threat. Fine. It's over. He could have answered questions and avoided arrest to begin with.
"The Denver-based federal appeals court ruled that the agents had sufficient grounds for taking Howards into custody, but the court also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to allow Howards to continue with his claim of retaliatory arrest."