Outrageous photog/police encounter

Reading through that there's a lot of things that seem odd to me. Carrying around $13500.00 in cash ... less than half of which was supposedly stolen. So a thief finds $13500.00 in a car on the side of the road and only takes $5300.00! :rolleyes:

The whole thing smells fishy!
 
Keith said:
Reading through that there's a lot of things that seem odd to me. Carrying around $13500.00 in cash ... less than half of which was supposedly stolen. So a thief finds $13500.00 in a car on the side of the road and only takes $5300.00! :rolleyes:

The whole thing smells fishy!
Click to expand...

Or else it was an amount the police thought they could get away with - taking the lot would have been difficult to explain. Taking a portion could be blamed on the defendant's state of mind/poor memory etc and that there never was the amount she claimed.
It's only one side of the story we're hearing but there are too many other examples of thuggish behaviour from ignorant local cops and security guards. You don't need to believe it all to decide America is a place you never want to visit again!
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Or else it was an amount the police thought they could get away with - taking the lot would have been difficult to explain. Taking a portion could be blamed on the defendant's state of mind/poor memory etc and that there never was the amount she claimed.
It's only one side of the story we're hearing but there are too many other examples of thuggish behaviour from ignorant local cops and security guards. You don't need to believe it all to decide America is a place you never want to visit again!
Click to expand...

wow.. really..
 
Well, I have little trouble believing it, apart from the issue of anyone being silly enough to carry that much cash. I'm sure she must have had a checking account. If not, she could have gotten a bank check. But yes, I can believe some (not all) police would act that way.

"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity."
--Albert Einstein
 
ehh, $13,000 in cash for tuition...incident with same cop at shooting range earlier... actually feel pretty safe she was, err... slowed down and checked out ...
 
Last edited:
As I read this I thought it must have been a joke. I guess to an australian this seems a bit radical and stupid. I feel pretty sorry for her to go through all that though, all because of a photo...

It does seem a bit fishy doesn't it?
 
This I find strange:

"In an attempt to prevent the lieutenant from damaging the camera, Nancy removed her memory card, which Lieutenant Iberger confiscated."

What has removing the memory card to do with protecting the camera ?

Sounds more to me that she had photographed something she didn't want the police to see.

Stefan.
 
I have to say that somehow this does not ring true to me. No specific reason just my instinct for a good urban myth. I keep waiting for someone to go "April Fool!"

Or as Captain Blackadder said "I smell something fishy........and its not the content of Baldrick's apple crumble!"
 
From the Law firm's bog article; "All of the alleged facts discussed in this article have been taken directly from the court documents filed in this case."

A jury, if it gets that far, will determine whether the alleged fact are true or not. What was written in the blog was meant to inflame.

Also, although it is true that some American cops are "bad", that does not mean that all are "bad."

--michael
 
So she had a Gun- an assault rifle with 500 rounds of ammo, $13,000 in cash, and a camera.

I don't think it was the camera that caused the problem. The Gun and Cash, plus camera- I would be suspicious as well. Good thing they arrested this crazy woman.

It's a deep stretch just to call her a Photographer and that it was the camera that was the root of the problem. You had to read into the article and then Google some other articles on the subject to find out she was a "gun-totin' Mama" with a horde of cash in her pockets.
 
Last edited:
She may or may not have "acted suspiciously," however she did
nothing illegal and the fact that all "charges" were dismissed
supports that fact. The additional fact that the city officials made
no defense or even a response to her lawsuit also tends to support
that.

My view is that an appropriate police response to someone
"acting suspiciously" might be to to interview and/or investigate
but it is not to brutalize, falsely arrest/confine and humiliate
someone who has done nothing illegal.
 
The "airport" is an Air National Guard Base. The guns and cash got her into trouble. If she had opened fire, the police would have been criticized for not taking action.

The woman is a nut case.

More articles, just google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Nanc...&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS359&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

It's too bad she had a camera. It proves that terrorists and nut cases use them to stake out a target.
 
^ So, it's OK to brutalize people you consider to be nut cases who
haven't broken the law?

I don't think it is.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Or else it was an amount the police thought they could get away with - taking the lot would have been difficult to explain. Taking a portion could be blamed on the defendant's state of mind/poor memory etc and that there never was the amount she claimed.
It's only one side of the story we're hearing but there are too many other examples of thuggish behaviour from ignorant local cops and security guards. You don't need to believe it all to decide America is a place you never want to visit again!
Click to expand...


We will do our best to make it without you
 
I suppose some people would complain that someone brutalized Jared Loughner, Nidal Malik Hasan, Seung-Hui Cho and others if they got them BEFORE they started shooting.

Look at what this woman has put online. Draw your own conclusions about her intentions.
 
Last edited:
retro said:
She may or may not have "acted suspiciously," however she did
nothing illegal and the fact that all "charges" were dismissed
supports that fact. The additional fact that the city officials made
no defense or even a response to her lawsuit also tends to support
that.

My view is that an appropriate police response to someone
"acting suspiciously" might be to to interview and/or investigate
but it is not to brutalize, falsely arrest/confine and humiliate
someone who has done nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I've been sidelined before with that "acting suspiciously" BS before. The last time was while cutting through a mall parking lot at 1 a.m.. After about an hour of being told I'd be lucky if I didn't spend the night in a cell, a State Trooper pulled up. Thankfully the Trooper informed the ever vigilant keen eyed donkey the reason I was cutting through the lot was because a water main blew about 400 yards from us and the road in front of the mall had to be closed. Even luckier for me, the mall was on a state route(reason the Trooper got the call in the first place) and I asked him if he would follow me through the parking lot onto the state route(instead of the town owned side street I had intended on using in the first place) until I got out of town. When he asked why I mentioned the now heated(from the Trooper giving him both barrels) eager beaver may decide to invent some charges to get me in that very cell mentioned earlier. He decided since it was a likely event to happen he would do just that for me, since it was he that had got the podunk town cop heated in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom