Occupy protestor facing up to 7 years for being assaulted

raburrell · May 11, 2014

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179330/outrageous-trial-cecily-mcmillan

Two years ago, a young activist named Cecily McMillan attended a protest at Zuccotti Park marking the six-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. When police moved in to clear the demonstrators, a cop roughly grabbed her breast—photos show an ugly bruise—and she ended up being injured so badly that she had a seizure and ended up in the hospital. In a just world, she would be getting restitution from the City. Instead, in a grotesque act of prosecutorial overreach, she’s currently on trial for assault and facing up to seven years in prison.

According to prosecutors, McMillan, now 25, intentionally attacked her arresting officer, Grantley Bovel, by elbowing him in the face, and was then hurt when he tried to subdue her. She says that she instinctively struck out when she felt his hand on her breast, not knowing that he was a cop, and was then further assaulted.

McMillan is a committed pacifist as well - the prosecution's story, that she planned to attack an officer for attention, is rather unbelievable, but thanks to the judge's efforts on their behalf, they succeeded.

Several members of the jury (shocked after the fact to find out the actual details of the case, not to mention how much time she's facing), have already written a letter.

Opinion piece on the judge's conduct of the trial: http://www.thenation.com/article/17...ooms-and-cecily-mcmillan-doesnt-belong-prison

Ambrosia · May 11, 2014

Just unbelievable.

ShaunHorton · May 11, 2014

Well, that's rather infuriating.

I put forth to the jury of public opinion that the Judge and the Officer in question should both meet a group of people armed with baseball bats in a dark alley.

robjvargas · May 11, 2014

She was in a protest situation, with police present, and she struck an officer trying to take her into custody.

The officer may still be wrong, but this doesn't look cut-n-dried to me.

From the story:

Drew Mitchell, a member of the group Justice For Cecily who attended the trial, was shaken by the pronounced inequality of the judge’s treatment of the two sides: “Every rule that could be enforced on the defense was enforced. The prosecution had no rules.”

It's not clear to me that this trial was as biased as advocates for Cecily would have us believe. Still, there's a significant possibility that it was.

I'm just not sure.

raburrell · May 11, 2014

Meh - the officer in question has several disciplinary actions for assaulting the public, multiple investigations by internal affairs, etc. Meanwhile, you have a woman with a long and documented commitment to nonviolence who, at worst, elbowed somebody who grabbed her breast hard enough to leave a bruise.

This judge apparently has a long history as a 'prosecutor in robes', and it's not solely this case where he's all but overtly taking up as a part of the prosecution rather than fairly adjudicating a case.

People are advocating for her, sure - but it's because she's gotten royally hosed to this point.

Plot Device · May 12, 2014

Can I get all tin-foily and say I see an invisible hand of evil that put THAT judge onto this case?

raburrell · May 12, 2014

It seems 'motivated' to me as well, PD.

Don · May 12, 2014

Dissident citizen loses case against government employee in government-managed and government-financed courtroom, prosecuted and refereed by government employees and defended by a government-approved attorney, constrained by a set of procedures written and approved by the government.

Shocking.

jeffo · May 12, 2014

Disobey any police order, ever, or even think about disobeying them = jail & beating. Every single time.

Ambrosia · May 12, 2014

robjvargas said:
She was in a protest situation, with police present, and she struck an officer trying to take her into custody.

She elbowed someone who was behind her and grabbed her breast hard enough to leave bruises. She did not know it was a policeman who grabbed her breast. However, I have to say if there was ever a time to elbow a cop, that would have been it. Since when is it permissible for police to sexually assault a woman?

She also had a seizure from the rough handling of the police and had bruised ribs and bruises all over her body. She was taken to the hospital and treated, sent to jail, sent back to the hospital, sent back to jail. She repeatedly requested to speak to a lawyer while in police custody for 40 hrs and was denied every request. During the trial only one video was allowed to be shown, although there was a lot more video footage that would have been of benefit to her case. The videos that were taken, that would have been used in evidence on her behalf in the case, were disallowed by the judge because the cop "didn't remember" parts of those videos. Only what the cop remembered was allowed to be shown and it was a very small slice of the videos taken. The evidence the defense lawyer had was not allowed to be presented. The prosecution was allowed to mock the defendant and suggest that she bruised her own breast in the hospital after she was admitted. Among other actions of mockery, the prosecution mocked her seizure and suggested it was faked. Perhaps she also bruised her own ribs and put bruises all over her body.

This trial, from what I have read, was a mockery of justice. Just unbelievable, and both the prosecutor and the judge should suffer consequences. But they won't. The best I think we can even hope for is that there will be a retrial on appeal and the woman will actually get her day in court. Because what happened was not even close to what a citizen should expect when being charged with a crime. It was a total miscarriage of justice.

robjvargas · May 12, 2014

Sexual assault is very hard to prove in an instance like this. Officers are allowed to use force to take someone into custody. If he reached for her from behind, there could be nothing sexual about it.

I cannot tell for sure that this occurred as claimed by her advocates. And the officer, too, is owed innocence until proven guilty.

I can say that swinging an elbow virtually guarantees increased force in the officer taking a person down.

The trial looks questionable, at best. But the incident at question doesn't seem so clear-cut.

kuwisdelu · May 12, 2014

robjvargas said:
But the incident at question doesn't seem so clear-cut.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

Dude, he'd already injured her breast when she elbowed him. She was not the one who started the altercation. The guy has a history of abusing his power and that day it involved him helping himself to a handful of a woman's breast.

Not sure what you're claiming isn't 'cut and dried' here. Even then, how is a single reflexive elbow worth 7 years in the clink?

shadowwalker · May 12, 2014

First, one has to consider the source of the report. Second, where was the defense? They, at no point, offered this "instinctive reaction" side of the story? Third, that letter says nothing about facts not presented, but is, on its face, merely a not atypical request for what the jury believes would be appropriate sentencing.

I would also imagine that the defense, if they know what they're doing, will immediately file an appeal, and, in all likelihood, the woman will be free on bail during that appeal. And if the allegations of misconduct are as obvious as presented, she stands every chance of having the conviction overturned.

As people here are fond of saying, people have a right to freedom of expression. But they also have to be willing to accept the consequences. And I'm quite sure there's more to the story than is presented in the rather obviously biased report by The Nation.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

Please. The Nation has a slant, but they're hardly The Blaze. The facts of the case, especially concerning the officer's disciplinary record, are backed up with evidence.

And if you read the article, you'd know the judge denied the defense's motions to do the things you were suggesting at trial.

I do hope this nonsense will be overturned on appeal, but it does shift the burden of proof, and that's very unfortunate

robeiae · May 12, 2014

It all looks pretty bad to me.

But she hasn't actually been sentenced yet, correct? She's scheduled for sentencing on May 19th. So she didn't get seven years. She could. Or she could get a suspended sentence. Or somewhere in between.

'Course, the conviction itself can still be seen as an injustice, regardless of the sentence length.

jeffo · May 12, 2014

Dissident citizen loses case against government employee in government-managed and government-financed courtroom, prosecuted and refereed by government employees and defended by a government-approved attorney, constrained by a set of procedures written and approved by the government.

And you want justice? Good luck with that.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

For those who'd like alternate sources:
Newsweek

During cross-examination last month, it was revealed that Bovell repeatedly referenced the wrong eye when testifying under oath about how McMillan harmed him, the New York Daily News reported. In the Reuters photo below, Bovell is seen grabbing for Cecily at the March demonstration.

The Guardian

eta: @robvowels - yes, you're correct, no sentence has been handed down yet. I don't have a lot of faith in this judge. I *think* I read the minimum is 2 yrs, but that may be wrong.

shadowwalker · May 12, 2014

raburrell said:
And if you read the article, you'd know the judge denied the defense's motions to do the things you were suggesting at trial.

I read the article - at least, the things they chose to include in it. But I don't believe that the defense was not allowed to present their version of events, period. That would be tantamount to saying the defense couldn't present any arguments - ie, they were gagged.

I have no doubt there was misconduct. But I also think there are things that are not included in this newspaper article, and that other things have been overblown. She has not been sentenced, and there is an appeal process, which, if things are as bad as implied, should result in at the very least, a new trial. There is just a lot of gloom and doom and ranting about injustices when, in fact, the system has not had the final word yet. Far from it.

robjvargas · May 12, 2014

raburrell said:
Not sure what you're claiming isn't 'cut and dried' here. Even then, how is a single reflexive elbow worth 7 years in the clink?

People cite the woman as a pacifist, yet she reacted without even knowing the identity of her (alleged) attacker. Plus, she hasn't been sentenced, so the allegation of "7 years" is yet another presumption here.

None of this says she did wrong. It just unclear for me what, exactly, happened.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

robjvargas said:
People cite the woman as a pacifist, yet she reacted without even knowing the identity of her (alleged) attacker. Plus, she hasn't been sentenced, so the allegation of "7 years" is yet another presumption here.

Rob, at the risk of being crude, if someone grabbed you in a tender spot like that, would your first thought be to ask for an identity check?

Williebee · May 12, 2014

MOD Note: Raburrell - people are allowed to disagree with your point of view.

Haggis · May 12, 2014

It seems to me that even if everything the cop says is true and even if everything the woman says is a lie, about the worst thing that should have happened to her is a conviction for disturbing the peace. Unless, of course, the cop wound up in the hospital instead of her.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

Williebee said:
MOD Note: Raburrell - people are allowed to disagree with your point of view.

Yes, but I'm honestly confused as to what Rob thinks her reaction should have been & I can't tell if he's misreading the order of actions or simply trying to give the cop the benefit of the doubt.

raburrell · May 12, 2014

shadowwalker said:
I have no doubt there was misconduct. But I also think there are things that are not included in this newspaper article, and that other things have been overblown. She has not been sentenced, and there is an appeal process, which, if things are as bad as implied, should result in at the very least, a new trial. There is just a lot of gloom and doom and ranting about injustices when, in fact, the system has not had the final word yet. Far from it.

Trying this again - I do think it matters to try to bring light to things in the moment, before things are settled, because the burden of proof has now shifted to Ms. McMillan. The judge in this case has demonstrably not been fair to her to this point, and as the sentencing will largely reflect his discretion, I find that worrisome.

Occupy protestor facing up to 7 years for *being* assaulted

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Grand Duchess

AW's resident Velociraptor

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

A woman said to write like a man.

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

All Living is Local

Grand Duchess

Revolutionize the World

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

empty-nester!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

empty-nester!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Evil, undead Chihuahua

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Occupy protestor facing up to 7 years for being assaulted