Teens in Legal Limbo After Being Arrested For Enforcing Law
Christina Giammalva and Keleigh Marshall, both 18, were arrested for placing notices on campaign signs posted on public land. Councilman Gary Clifford, the man whose signs were being hit with the stickers, confronted them, demanding they be removed.
Clifford, a former cop in Glendora, had all four of the town's units to respond. They were taken away separately, questioned and jailed for four hours. Residents are reeling over the arrests and may petition a recall in the election if he wins.
Clifford said the entire situation is being overblown and would drop charges if they removed their stickers, which he says were only being put on his signs. Glendora has a history of political infighting, with many contesting the campaign sign laws.
The girls have committed vandalism. The Councillor shouldn't have put signs there.
We're aware that political electioneering is dirty and the girls probably had their own contingencies about being arrested. Being 18 years old and girls, I'm sure they might get emotional vote from people.
Did the "stickers" say? The source doesnt mention. If they were doing it only to one candidate then it is politically motivated but the show of force is completely innapropriate, they should have been cited and released on the spot with a court date. Also it does not mention how old they are, I am willing to be they were over 18, in that case the tear puller about parents being excluded from interogation means nothing. Adults do not get to have their parents with them. Then again the LA times is such a unbiased source - hah
I will tell you that I tried to give both points of view in the article. I'm sorry if you think it's still biased. You can look at it either way, they were enforcing a law or they were vandals, either one is slightly biased. But I had to pick one because if I said "teens arrested for putting stickers on campaign signs" would've got me about 5 hits. Who wants to read an article about that?
"CALL UP THE POLICE AND LET THEM KNOW!" Somehow I seriously doubt that would have done anything esepcially when "Clifford, a former cop in Glendora, had all four of the town's units to respond" for a sticker on his sign that he illegally placed. Also from the artical "and interrogated separately while their parents and lawyers were held at bay.". There is not a lot you expect from a city with an obvious corrupt police force that does not even allow lawyers present during questioning. If I was these girls I would fight it all the way to the top, this is a grose mis-use of town resources, every officer was sent out for gods sake, and a massive slap in the face of the girls rights by denying them access to their lawyer. The police in charge, and this 'politition' should all be removed from anything even remotly like a public office.
I'd like to reassess my prior statement "could it be that they were *both* wrong?"
Clifford has abused position by using his contacts at the police dept. to apprehend the girls.
Police reponse was heavyhanded and inappropriate - though Gary Clifford may not have prompted this.
There's no *concrete* proof of impropriety. But it does hint at the uneven nature of Concillor Clifford.
"CALL UP THE POLICE AND LET THEM KNOW!"
Somehow I seriously doubt that would have done anything esepcially when "Clifford, a former cop in Glendora, had all four of the town's units to respond"
I didn't read your second post before agreeing with you.
The source is obviously bias as their is certainly a slant to the article and how things are worded.
All four police units may have gone to the call but there could also be many reasons they attended that doesn't mean being heavy-handed: 1/ The accused persons are two females that are going to be arrested. 2/ Regardless of gender, arresting even the smallest person is much easier with help if they decide to resist. 3/ Maybe it's just a boring day in the town of Glendora and they just want to see what the ruckus was all about.
As for the women not having access to a lawyer, where did ssxsss learn that from? The charged women? Of course, they would never lie to beat a charge?!?!?!
How did Clifford abuse his position by using contacts at the police dept? What contact are you referring to specifically?
Clifford side of the story is that these women targeted only the signs of people they didn't like. If we are to believe his side of the story, then these women are just busy-body do-gooders who did something stupid. They did something calculated.
You and ssxxxss should read the source. The obvious bias slant to the article is there but it also states that the city attorney advised police not to pursue the signage law. Besides, if the police were to enforce the signage law then other candidates would also be affected and the police would be accused of corruption for attempting to affect the political process.
The women could have written letters to the editor, protested with signs of their own, put up posters, etc however they chose to vandalize property that didn't belong to them (even if the property was illegally placed). They could have avoided charges if they just took the stickers off but they didn't. They got what they set out to do.
Four armed police cars vs two teenage girls? It is highly unlikely the response was appropriate. Please note, I did not suggest police brutality in anyway. I also emphasised that it was unlikely Clifford encouraged this extent of response.
The article is one of the two main source I used to base my comments. If you say it's biased - it maybe, but you gotta provide me with an alternative source. I'm open to a new idea.
About misuse of his position. The article, as you suggested may be biased stated he had the 4 cars respond. Based on just the events as described in the article, you must concede: 1) Either the cops had overreacted. 2) Or Concillor levereged his contact with his old buddy cops
I believe I did a fair amount of reading into the subject. I check what golf course/land deals he might have been embroiled in. I even conjected (unfounded in the end) that he was being targetted because his opposition to some of the conditions in the property development proceedings near town.
So basically it's ok for the council members and police to violate the law several times, but when the girls put a sticker on the illegal signs it's "zomg look out they're wearing the very fabric of society.
Personally i'm proud of these girls as they show that they really care about what happens in their community.
So you have to ask yourself - what would you rather have, a politician who with eyes wide open, breaks the very law (city ordinance) he voted in, then uses the police as his private security force to selectively enforce the law (you see, the police chief wouldn't hold Clifford responsible for posting on public property), and then, the councilman has the police handcuff, book, and jail, two teenage girls who were exposing this councilman's egregious ways, OR, would you rather have a couple of teens trying to point out how a politician is acting in the worst manner and breaking the law?!!!
Personally, I think the politician should act as public SERVANT and not an ogre.
This guy doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever.
I know that I have no need for a spineless wimp of an ex-cop, that calls out the entire police force to deal with two teenage girls pointing out his flaws.
first off, once you abandon a sign it's public property. this guy might as well sue people for taking an old couch he left on the curb. signs on public land are public property. second, he was also putting signs on people's lawns without their permission. even people that support him are pissed because he's planting signs on their property. third, residents have indeed complained to the police and city officials for weeks and nothing has been done. this has been going on for some time and been on the local news. now, two teenage girls put stickers on the signs and they're under arrest? that's like getting arrested for painting over the graffiti someone put in your neighborhood.
