HEMPSTEAD—An East Quogue woman is seeking $70 million in damages from Suffolk County and Southampton Town law enforcement agencies, charging that she was wrongfully arrested and detained after taking photographs near the entrance to the Air National Guard base in Westhampton last July with two guns and dozens of rounds of ammunition in her car.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Central Islip last Thursday, July 29, the federal lawsuit also alleges that Nancy Genovese, 54, a mother of three who has lived in East Quogue for more than three decades, was the victim of assault and malicious prosecution when she was detained by authorities on the shoulder of Old Riverhead Road for nearly six hours on July 30, 2009, before being arrested. The criminal charge was later dropped.
The litigation charges... more
Filed in U.S. District Court in Central Islip last Thursday, July 29, the federal lawsuit also alleges that Nancy Genovese, 54, a mother of three who has lived in East Quogue for more than three decades, was the victim of assault and malicious prosecution when she was detained by authorities on the shoulder of Old Riverhead Road for nearly six hours on July 30, 2009, before being arrested. The criminal charge was later dropped.
The litigation charges... more
As for her $70,000,000 is absurd and the fact that she is asking for so much money shows that she is going for a money grab - well, the lawyers are and she agreed to it. I know that Lawyers will say you always ask for the maximum even if you know you aren't going to get it, but it makes you look greedy (not saying you are, just how it is perceived).
As for her arrest and charges, it's not ...more that far fetched. I wasn't there so I can't say that everything was done legally (I doubt that the woman would claim that she had her guns locked and in the trunk if they were out in the open), BUT there was a lot of circumstantial evidence that would raise red flags to responding officers.
A woman taking photos of a government base from the side of the road (and who probably was defensive upon initial questioning [and who wouldn't be? She felt she wasn't doing anything wrong but was accused as such]), who had serious weapons with tons of ammo AND $13,000 in cash on her person (who pays tuition in cash anyway? Isn't a check MUCH safer?). I don't think it was unreasonable for the police to do what they did and again, are covered under the patriot act.
Good luck lady, you'll need it. You have a better chance @ suing for defamation of character.
She had been told previously to not take pictures of the base: fact
She had an Assault Rifle and a Shotgun with 500 rounds of ammo: fact
She had $13,000 cash in her car: fact
(a deposit in a bank of more than $10,000 requires a CTR form which is filed with the IRS because that much cash is suspicious)
This country is at risk of terrorist attacks, domestic or otherwise: fact
There is a law called the Patriot Act that allows a suspected terrorist ...more to be held indefinitely without explanation: fact
It's called personal responsibility and situational awareness. She apparently had valid explanations for the camera/gun/cash but it needs to be properly and thoroughly investigated by the government before releasing her back into society.
She was held in jail on a Trespass charge which was dismissed, which equals the court saw it as she didn't do it!
I knew it was,just wanted to bring it up,it wasn't mentioned in the article.
You REALLY need to get ALL the facts, and details about her arrest, and detainment.
Seriously, has this woman ever heard of a checkbook?
Maybe a cashier's check?
There will probably a few, shall we say, "undesirables" who may be looking for her this month when she has to pay "tuition" again...
While it's "unfortunate" an "innocent" woman had to be dragged through all of this, you have to be smart enough to not put yourself in this position in the first place. If I were going to take photos of a police station for a website (or whatever reason) I surely would make sure I removed my $13,000 ...more cash and guns/ammo from my car before doing so. You have to expect to have someone question what you're doing.
The police shut down the Throgs neck just this morning because of a "suspicious vehicle". It turned out to be nothing, but that one in Times Square certainly was something worth being worried about... better to be safe than sorry.
If she broke the law as far as taking photos in a no photo area why was she not charged for that action? The trespass charge if it was to have been for her photo taking actions, was dismissed. What does that tell you about it's legality and validity? 5 days in jail on 50,000 bail for trespassing? After violating her 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.
The guns may not be popular with many people who are condemning ...more her for this incident, but fact is they were legal and being legally and properly transported. You may not agree with her choice to own or operate them, but it is her right. The cash just doesn't make sense though, maybe she doesn't trust banks, which in this day and age isn't entirely unreasonable. Carrying that amount of cash around in unreasonable.
If she broke the law as far as taking photos in a no photo area why was she not charged for that action? The trespass charge if it was to have been for her photo taking actions, was dismissed. What does that tell you about it's legality and validity? 5 days in jail on 50,000 bail for trespassing? After violating her 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.
The guns may not be popular with many people who are condemning ...more her for this incident, but fact is they were legal and being legally and properly transported. You may not agree with her choice to own or operate them, but it is her right. The cash just doesn't make sense though, maybe she doesn't trust banks, which in this day and age isn't entirely unreasonable. Carrying that amount of cash around in unreasonable.
She was repeatedly warned NOT to engage in the behavior which got her arrested, questioned base personnel about matters of national security, and made herself known to not only base personnel as a potential threat, but to local law enforcement as well.
She was held for those five days, because of her "performance" at her araignment, and the judge ordered her held for "psychiatric observation".
"It was news to me, but military bases and nuclear facilities can restrict photographs – even from the outside area. Even if you’re not trespassing onto government land, taking pictures of these installations could be illegal.
Don’t even try. We’re not talking misdemeanor illegal. You might be shipped off and never seen again. Yep, crazy illegal!"
http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/photo-law-your-right-to-take-pictures-in-public/
What does that mean? What are you talking about?
They should have checked her out verified her identity and right to have those weapons. The if the photos were an issue confiscate the memory card. Then release her as she posed no threat.
explain that logic to those who died in the domestic (some would say muslim) terrorist attack at Fort Hood.
The shooter was properly trained and by all accounts lived on the right side of the law (and was an employee of the US military). Many people saw signs that something might be amiss but gave him a pass.
You can't be too safe and the government was right for what they did.
They did her a favor by choosing NOT to charge her.
b) my point was that a terrorist attack can occur at any time of the day, including broad daylight. My use of quotes was to emphasize it was at the same period of day.
Sounds like Berlin in the 40's to me. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Just to clarify, it is their job to protect and serve, not illegally detain and trample constitutional rights. "
where do you stand on illegal immigration? Would you apply the same standard?
Her lawyers, who already know she's a TOTAL WHACK JOB, will be fired very soon.
Apparently, she had $13,000 cash on hand at the time of her arrest, but $50,000 was a little harder to come by.
Or did I get something wrong and she is really a female Rambo mom who is plotting to take over the world. Right......
Her public comments in cyberspace are not only paramilitary related, some of the things she posted could border on sedition.
If they aren't deemed seditious then they are covered under the first amendment.
Once again she wasn't charged with anything relating to this.
If they aren't deemed seditious then they are covered under the first amendment.
Once again she wasn't charged with anything relating to this.
I say they did the right thing;they were protecting the airmen at the base.
Are they not worth protecting?
Please give your opinion on guns, not that it will be supported by any law or facts. Just your ignorance on the matter.
You seem to be interested in laws being upheld. here is a comment you posted:
"Wow dont hold back gallery girl why dont you make youself a sign and go stand outside the 7 eleven in southampton in the mornings, with you ...more buddy"
Sounds like you don't support our Federal immigration law, are certain laws optional when it comes to enforcement?
Many illegal immigrants break more than just the one law upon entering, they add forgery and identity theft to their resume. Is this okay by you?
IN EUROPE ALOT OF THE COUNTRIES INCLUDING IRELAND THANKS TO THE EU HAVE TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTSTO THESE REFUGEES INLUDING CHILDREN ALLOWANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO THESE PEOPLE WHO DONT EVEN LOOK FOR WORK THEY GET PAID MORE THAN MY PARENTS DO FOR WORKING FULL TIME. SO ANYWAY HOPE THIS MY HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO IGNORANT THE SOLUTION TO THE DAY LABOURING PROBLEM MAY BE MANDTORY FINGERPRINTING , IDS AND TAX ID NUMBERS AND IF NY LAW IS BROKEN THEY ARE IMMEDIATLY DEPORTED. WE CAN SEE ITS WRONG UNTILL WE ARE BLUE IN THE FACE ITS NOT GOING TO CHANE THE PROBLEMSO LETS FIX THE PROBLEM NOT BY STANDING AND YELLING AT THE SEVEN ELEVEN CANT WAIT TO HERE FROM YOU
IF THESE LADY WAS ANY OTHER COLOUR OR RACE AND WAS SEEN OUTSIDE THE BASE, WITH A CAMERA,CASH AND GUN LEGALL OR NOT WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
PEOPLE ARE TOO SUE HAPPY THESE DAYS,
Drumroll.. .
ICE introduces illegal immigration into a completely different situation.
Would ya' stop already?
I was merely pointing out that ICARE seems to CARE about laws being broken in this case, but not in others.
Jul 31, 10 8:34 PM
"so you think they can just round up whoever they like whenever they like?
Sounds like Berlin in the 40's to me. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Just to clarify, it is their job to protect and serve, not illegally detain and trample constitutional rights. "
where ...more do you stand on illegal immigration? Would you apply the same standard?
elliot (sag harbor)
Total comments by elliot
Pot calling the kettle much elliot? How can you be so foolish as to accuse me of do something which you yourself had just done a little over 3 hours prior?
Earlier you claimed I called you ignorant, but it is a lack of your understanding of the English language which caused you to misinterpret what I wrote. "Please give your opinion on guns, not that it will be supported by any law or facts. Just your ignorance on the matter." This is not saying ...more you are ignorant across the board, just that on the issue of guns and their legal possession and transportation you are ignorant.
BTW, I don't watch any Court TV. I rarely watch TV in general.
As for guns killing people: Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
personally i think she deserves every penny of it and then some remember people like her keep you sheep safe and free not that most of you deserve it you all need to wake up and get with the program is this really the America you want to live in because its sure as hell isnt the America that i chose to serve
thank you
She was arrested bcause she was tresspassing and taking pictures of a military installation.The fact that she had guns in her car,legally or not,complicated the issue.The woman was stupid,but keep defending her.
Mobil used to be like Mecca back in the early nineties.
This really is not a constitutional issue, it's about violating laws regarding national security, and a judge having mercy.
IMO
seems others have no problem with it,though.
Once again I ask if it is illegal to take the photos, why didn't they charge her with that and if that is what the trespass charge was in relation too, why didn't it stick?
"so you think they can just round up whoever they like whenever they like?
Sounds like Berlin in the 40's to me. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Just to clarify, it is their job to protect and serve, not illegally detain and trample constitutional rights. "
you sure like to pick and choose who you like to harass and apply the law to.
don't like brown people ...more ?
I have friends of many different nationalities and races, but they all have one thing in common, ...more the one who live here are LEGALLY here. Get it illegal isn't a race or nation, it's a status.
Once again I ask if it is illegal to take the photos, why didn't they charge her with that and if that is what the trespass charge was in relation too, why didn't it stick?
hear that all the time.Typical dodge.
I didn't call her a 'whack job',maybe you should go back and re-read he previous posts.
I did say she was stupid,and I did say you are defending stupidity.
You've been putting words in the mouths of everybody who opposed you.
They see you for what you are.
Law enforcement was well within in their rights to detain, and investigate her. How many times have you heard of someone just snapping, and killing a slew of their co-workers? Post office, Wall St., other military bases, and elsewhere.
This woman played with fire, got burned, and now she wants to get paid for it.
Just what we need if she actually wins, another cup of McDonald's coffee...
Or imply that you're a terrorist.
typical when someone has a weak argument.
After a little more time spent making some extra dough working for Google, I'll be out cold.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=492531657&blogId=505351981
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
"Late on a Saturday night two weeks ago, an unemployed carpenter packed his mother's Toyota Tundra with guns and set off for San Francisco with a plan to kill progressives.
When California Highway Patrol officers stopped him on an interstate in Oakland for driving erratically, Byron Williams, wearing body armor, fired at police with ...more a 9mm handgun, a shotgun and a .308-caliber rifle with armor-piercing bullets, Oakland police say. Shot and captured after injuring two officers, Williams, on parole for bank robbery, told investigators that he wanted "to start a revolution" by "killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU," according to a police affidavit. His mother, Janice, told the San Francisco Chronicle that her son had been watching television news and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items"
Any questions?
Also, you refer to an arraignment on "Friday." Did this occur yesterday on July 30, 2010? Was Ms. Genovese held for psychiatric evaluation, as you have stated?
Thank you.
Didn't you cut, and paste the link?
As far as Genovese is concerned, you can see that she is not working with a full deck. Some people get ideas and opinions and become so overzealous that it ultimately leads them into situations like this. Is it patriotic to disobey a military bases rules where signs are clearly marked? Can you imagine what would have happened if someone that remotely looked Arab was returning from the gun range with 2 rifles and ammunitions stopped in the same situatuion.
Fair warning was given, and disregarded.
If you ask, and receive clearance, there should be no problem.
Thanks.
She's a Whack Job of the First Order.
you know,name calling is a sure sign that your losing the argument.
If your going to get all screechy,maybe you should just admit she did somethng stupid,which she did.
The second rate whack job was me being sarcastic about you comment and not directed at you personally. The pants wetting gun hater is you though.;-)
That's gotta' say something unsavory about your proclivities.
Try and send a friend request, it's a great read...
More likely that her lawyers told her to set it to "Private". Your lack of grammar, as well as writing and spelling skills seem awfully familiar, newbie.
I'm not a "rocket scientist", but your style seems alot like someone else's recently inaccessible web content I have read...
The bottom line is that she wasn't minding her own business on her own property and was sujected to an illegal search and seizure - she brought this all on herself. The good news is that the authorities know about her now and she probably ...more has a nice thick CIA file and is on the no fly list. The bad news is that she is still out there, free as a bird (God Bless America) with her sizeable chip on her shoulder increased by lawyers, with who knows how many guns, ammunition and fellow lunatic supporters. I am concerned about what will happen when she loses this case.
Knowing this, I will ask you directly, Ms. Genovese, "What in the bloomin' world did you THINK was going to happen to you after you illegally photographed a military base with an arsenal in your trunk.
Did you really think the police were going to say a polite, "Goodnight, Ma'am"?
You're actions and motivations are so outrageously suspicious, it is no wonder at all that they held you. ...more You are a potentially dangerous person.
I mean, read the above post by Q333. Do you hear the ring of truth? I do.
"You are a potentially dangerous person." This is a benign statement as any human being operating a motor vehicle is "potentially dangerous". Ease up on your support for thought crime and worst case scenario paranoia.
She not only associated herself with paramilitary groups, some of the things posted would be considered sedition in other parts of the world.
If it is as you say and she was detained for her rants, then the allegations in her lawsuit seem to have some factual support. You can't detain some one because you don't agree with their ideology if they haven't broken the law. Think about it, she was charged by the county for breaking a federal law, this makes no sense.
True many people have ranted much less and committed far worse acts of aggression, the quiet ones are the ones you need to really worry about! Think of how unassuming most serial killers are.
Fact remains, what she was doing for the umpteenth time was not legal, and she was warned to cease, and desist her involvement with the base. She could not. Read over Title 19, and it may change your tune.
You're a whack job, too.
I predict her new Lawyers will drop kick her soon just like the NYC firm did in 2009.
Had she done this in many another Countries, she (and her car) would just simply have disappeared....
Her inept grammar, spelling skills, and choice of moniker were more than sufficient "red flags" to consider her a potential threat to others.
Come on, this is a woman who BELIEVED that FEMA was stockpiling coffins at the airbase, so bodies would efficiently be disposed of after we were placed in concentration camps.
What does lawyers working for the county have to do with anything? They will probably end up with outside council anyways.. you know how the Town/government loves spending money on lawyers
"Why don't you move if you don't like this country?"
"You are so hysterical is is amazing.People like you are the reason the NRA exists. "
"Well, I guess that's better than being a second rate whack job or a pants wetting gun hater."
"The pants wetting gun hater is you though."
"Pants wetting is rational now?"
!
"You are defending ...more stupidity, you are defending the the police who arrested her and charged her ineffectually. That seems to be a fairly stupid move as the lawsuit reflects. "
"How do you know so much about planning terrorist attacks? "
"Pot calling the kettle much elliot? How can you be so foolish as to accuse me of do something which you yourself had just done a little over 3 hours prior? "
"Except people who think like you! "
"How thick are you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after all that was said,the woman was engaging in suspicious activity at a military installation;though she was released,the police were justified in detaining her for observation because she could have been a threat to the safety of the servicemen.
Name call and act as belligerent as you want,Ice.
You lost the argument.
If it is illegal to take the photos, why didn't they charge her with that and if that is what the trespass charge was in relation to, why didn't it stick?
I will agree she didn't use the best judgement in her approach to photographing the helicopter. I never said it was unreasonable for the police to detain her at the scene and ascertain wether or not she was a threat. Where they screwed up was arresting her and ...more charging her with criminal trespassing.
Think the photography rule/law is a Federal one, why would the County charge her for breaking a law they don't have jurisdiction over?
I concede no defeat to one who can not answer simple questions.
She clearly displayed the intent to trespass repeatedly (photos are probably the best way to plan it), and in addition was instructed by base personnel not to return, and she did. I'm also more than sure she was investigated after the first incident of being asked to leave the base. Her cyberspace content is enough to label her a potential threat, besides the guns, and cash ...more found on her person. The intent allows law enforcement not only to detain her, but arrest her and allow the judge to decide if any further, or proper course of action be taken, up to, and including incarceration.
She potentially triggered both provisions of Section 1382, but we can't be sure where she was when personnel asked her to leave repeatedly prior to the trespass arrest, and it actually covers re-entry to the base. If she was "out back" on the base by the range, that could be sufficient to trigger Section 2 upon her return, but they (base personnel) let her slide with a warning before she was picked up out front taking pictures.
Yet again, the INTENT to enter the base was demonstrated in her blogs, all of whose web pages are probably cached on a hard drive somewhere as evidence.
Mother of three, resident for thirty years, I would wager the judge simply chose not to charge her after her pychiatric observation was completed, and her suit is frivolous on those grounds.
Nothing of what the others are commenting has any validity to it. The filed docs have two law firms on them, the law firm on Park Ave., NYC decided we needed a law firm on LI also.
This false arrest and demonetization is a witch hunt. You people are my neighbors and should know better. How ...more sad, the media has so many Americans brainwashed.
ICE Thank you for your kind intellectual words. Nancy
Can you give us an example of the "brainwashing"? You mean like the belief that FEMA is stockpiling coffins?
What does the divesting of currency, or the discontinued use of a particular form of it in a society have to do with your story? I'm more than sure your arrest has nothing to do with FDR removing us from the Gold Standard. Maybe you meant "demonization"?
Respectfully ma'am, there are the freedoms we have, and the freedoms we can choose to abuse. The only crime here, was the one you were conducting yourself in at the base, taking photos of it, once again, in violation ...more of standing laws, and statutes. The fact that your camera "did not work" at any point is irrelevant as you were engaged on the base for a purpose, and the memory card not returned to you is evidence. More so actually, since you have chosen to file suit.
You not only violated the law on more than one occasion, and were let go with a warning, you refused to cease "poking the sleeping tiger", and you got mauled for it.
And I quote:
" 'She said she was doing nothing wrong,' said Mr. Caracappa (*Undersherrif of Suffolk County), adding that she was arrested because she ignored the warnings of base officials."
They did you a favor by not charging you, and now you want to get paid for it?
Do us all a favor who pay taxes, and just admit you had NO BUSINESS engaging in the activities which had you arrested under Title 18, Section 1382 of the U.S. Code, which carries not only the potential for a fine, but up to SIX MONTHS of incarceration.
"Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon
any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort,
arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited
by law or lawful regulation; or
Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post,
fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been
removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or
person in command or charge thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six
months, or both."
But 70 million would go a LONG WAY to healing your oh-so-broken heart.
Fact: Thought crime is not yet on the books, except in the case of hate crime legislation. Not agree with someone ideologies doesn't grant the right to infringe on a constitutional right.
The cash is a non issue, because it is not illegal ...more to have $13,000 on your person unless you are flying on a commercial flight.
As for the bogus criminal trespassing charge which was the impetus for her incarceration. Intent to trespass would be difficult to prove as intent is generally one of the most difficult things to prove in a trial.
If taking photos is illegal as has been claimed by many, then they should have charged her with it. To hold a 30 year resident on $50,000 bail on a criminal trespass charge is a gross misuse of power by the Judge.
Bottom line is she was held in jail for a charge that was dismissed, that alone justifies compensation.
I'm not saying 70,000,000, but she will be paid for the mishandling of this incident.
All charges were dropped.
Think about it !!!
Please do the same.
What is all the fear, anger, hysteria and melodrama about?
Sad IMO.
Please take a deep look in the mirror.
Who is there?
The posts above !!!
Would you pleas take Nancy and ICE and go get yourselves a cold beer or something?
Jeez! Your condescending, holier than thou observations are getting sooooo predictable.
They're just so "sad"
Being prosecuted is another...
Nov 20, 09 5:39 PM "This was the result of an under sheriff Caracappa who wanted his name in the papers, a media hungry under qualified person put in a job position he doesn't deserve."
Nov 20, 09 8:43 PM "I have a perfect background so they made up lies to "sell papers." "
Nov 20, 09 10:29 PM "It was not until Caracappa saw my Myspace page, in the middle of the night, with my political views that he ...more told me I was under arrest, and he used a trumped up charge like trespassing 3 on a county road. its cost me a fortune to defend the charge. I paid to take it to trail. ".
Nov 20, 09 11:03 PM "He was flirting with me!!"
Nov 20, 09 11:18 PM :"I was arraigned Friday afternoon with bail left at 50,000.00. My sons were given the wrong time to be there with bail allowing them to keep me for the weekend. I was there 4 nights and 5 full days, until Monday Aug 3 about 5 pm."
Nov 21, 09 6:54 AM :"I was at peace driving home from the range, on that nice day with my roof down on my car, until I was stopped by police who ran out of donuts."
Nov 28, 09 11:06 AM "My book will be out in the Spring!!"
Nov 30, 09 9:08 PM "Actually I offered to make a 10,000.00 donation, now, of my own money, to the base, because Carlark and Caracappa made tthe troops so upset with their lies. My attorney told me not to."
§ 140.10 Criminal trespass in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he/she
knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real
property
(a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to
exclude intruders...
The rest is about schools, cities, and railroads, but, you get the point...
Looks like a plea agreement, from over here...
Forget the fact she was guilty of it, to garner the attention she did.
One judge said lock her up, the next said, don't do it again, or we'll throw the book at you, so, let's see what the next one on a Federal level has to say...
She makes people"around" her lives miserable. She is a loose cannon. maybe if the town gave her some money she would move far far away .
You are responsible for your own happiness, if you defer to outside sources for it you risk never being happy.
The crux of what this is really all about is stated here and any rational person can understand it.
You haven't explained it because you can't explain it -- but I have every confidence that if you think calmly about it for a bit, you WILL be able to better articulate what it is about Nancy Genovese that makes you so angry and fearful.
Not ...more all fears are rational.
We will never know how much she is awarded since the case will never go to a jury determination but I hope she gets at least a mil. Enough so that the various local law enforcement agencies, (particularly the Sheriffs office), will hereafter follow ...more strict Constitutional procedure rather than treat another innocent citizen as a criminal based on the misapprehension of one off-duty cop out of his jurisdiction and the capricious bias of the Sheriff.
Just to be clear, those "No Photography" signs date from the time when Gabreski airport was a functioning Air Force base in the '50s. They are superannuated and meaningless. There are, (or were when last I checked), other rusty signs on the decaying barbed wire of the perimeter of the airport that threaten shooting on sight if one trespasses. They, too, are meaningless.
There are very few places in the country where the presence of legal firearms in the trunk of a car would cause the knee-jerk prejudicial reaction that it has here. Elsewhere, most folks own firearms both for the pleasure of shooting and for protection from home invasion.
It would behoove local residents to consider the persuasive reasons for owning a firearm rather that to retain their ignorant prejudices.
Furthermore, if Genovese's allegations of Caracappa's behavior are borne out at trial, the County should fine and fire him.
Cordially,
highhatsize
What happend, did 27east revoke your "highhatsize" handle?
Some are seizing the opportunity to personally attack others that they don't even know...what the hell?
We are all entitled to our opinions, it doesn't make us right or wrong. It's healthy to speak out. Personal attacks by cowards hiding behind an online name or silhouette is not. It's immature and diverts people from the topic. Please stop it.
What part of "NO CHARGES FILED" don't you understand?
It is not illegal to be a "whack job."
The Constitution of The United States of America is in full action here.
Use it or lose it.
The Constitution is watching the replies, to see who wants to be the next victim of sloppy police action.
Do you feel it hovering around you as you type your reply?
It is.
Truth be told: Innocent until proven guilty.
Although in my opinion her actions, reactions and motivations (as reported) are entirely suspect, that does not guarantee guilt. The trial shall prove whatever facts need to be seen.
What I AM concerned about is how we, with our comments, can try a case before it ever reaches court. I know a public internet forum is legal ( and fun at others' expense), but it actually makes me very ...more uncomfortable.
Fear is quite an effective weapon...
They were detained, arrested, and later given approval, and the story ran with approved photos.
Very different situations. You said their ...more eyes and cameras were trespassing, cameras you could make a case for, but eyes you are blowing smoke.
What a country when you can sue for $70,000,000 and your in the wrong.