Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UnderThenOver t1_j7do5bi wrote

Reply to comment by bigdaddyman6969 in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

Not true. Most charges are taken out by warrant at the Magistrate's office. The officer gives their version of events and the magistrate authorizes the warrant. Prosecutors can alter the charges and can bring direct indictments in circuit court but for charges like this--it's all based on the officer's testimony.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7dp65l wrote

I’m not a lawyer- but the DA obviously has to be on board for the case to move forward. So either the DA is just as corrupt as the police officers or something else is also at play.

Reading in between the lines a little bit it looks like the DA chose to drop the case when the reason for the call that brought the police out in the first place(suspect threatening people with a broken glass bottle) was ruled inadmissible.


augie_wartooth t1_j7dpyr4 wrote

My guy, you’ve got some hot takes that are not really accurate and have said yourself you’re not a lawyer, so maybe just back off this one.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7drs7w wrote

It’s from the article homie. I realize it goes against “POLICE ALL BAD” narrative Reddit loves. But if you think that cops just decide what charges are brought and that’s the end of the story I don’t know what to tell you.


augie_wartooth t1_j7dxg1o wrote

You have no idea how the legal system works and look like a total fool right now.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7dymmd wrote

Your obviously upset and that’s fine- but you shouldn’t be rude. All I was saying is that the prosecutors have discretion on what cases to bring to trial. Once it was determined that that reason for the 911 call was going to be inadmissible- the prosecutor no longer felt they could try the case effectively.

Literally all of this is in the article. If I’m wrong on something here I’d love for you to point it out to me. But you won’t because your just emotional and lashing out.


MeanMasheen5 OP t1_j7dzrsq wrote

The article states the prosecutor brought the case forward because officer Yoon said that the defendant assaulted them. The body camera footage shows that that isn’t the case. The case wasn’t happening because of a 911 call. That wouldn’t ever be the case. The commonwealth attorney saying that the initial call was inadmissible further proves even more that they had no backing for their response or to prosecute. If that were the case than they could just go with the camera footage as their main evidence of assault.


oldguy_on_the_wire t1_j7eij9v wrote

Cops file the initial charges. The prosecutor decides to pursue, not pursue, or change the charges and purse.

But the cop files the initial charges when they seek a warrant from a magistrate.


LostDefectivePearl t1_j7g68un wrote

An actual cop is telling you you’re wrong and you can’t stop doubling down. Surely no bias there


MonkeyWrench1973 t1_j7e0m0r wrote

Cops literally take a "throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks" approach. ALL possible charges are filed with the DA, and the ones they can prove in court are the charges they move forward with.

Source: former Deputy Sheriff.


opienandm t1_j7dtmlq wrote

Meanwhile, whatever semblance of a normal life this guy had before a wrongful arrest was probably destroyed. The presumption of guilt is very very strong in this country.

Is the RPD going to reimburse him for lost time at work and attorneys fees?


RVALoneWanderer t1_j7ggdbx wrote

What makes you say it was wrongful? They received a report of a man threatening people with a bottle, found a man there matching the description who had a bottle, detained him to investigate, and were attacked and so arrested him.


PopBopMopCop t1_j7ih116 wrote

You clearly haven't seen the bodyworn camera footage if you believe he attacked the cops.


MsKawasaki t1_j7dszrp wrote

You’re responding to someone who is a lawyer so. Maybe defer to them on this.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7du3in wrote

Dude this is literally directly from the article. The DA dropped the charges because key info in the case was ruled inadmissible. For better or worse.

> McEachin said that her office did not "have any issue with the legitimacy of the charge in this case," and that their decision not to proceed with charges "was unrelated to the implication suggested in your reporting."

> McEachin said that at a hearing the Friday before Holley's trial, the judge had ruled the 911 call for service that brought Yoon and Onorati to Maggie Walker Plaza was inadmissible.

> McEachin said the call for service was for a report of a man attacking people with a glass bottle.

> “The exclusion of the crucial evidence left our prosecutor in a position which she would no longer be able to present at trial the context and reported violence that led the officers to approach Mr. Holley," McEachin said


[deleted] t1_j7e19oh wrote



beamishbo t1_j7e37we wrote

Where are you getting the idea that the police failed to disclose the reason for the call, or the idea that the call didn't match the person who was arrested? None of that is even alluded to in the article. The only thing mentioned is the fact that a judge ruled the context of the call inadmissible the Friday before.


MeanMasheen5 OP t1_j7ednbx wrote

Ahhh you’re right. My bad. Was doing my dishes when I saw this reply. Misread his quotes out of context.


beamishbo t1_j7e3317 wrote

He's correct though. Charges can be brought a few ways - a basic search in the court system (public record) shows this case was brought on warrant and made it though general district court up to circuit. That means the prosecutor and at least one judge thought there was probable cause for the assault - presumably before the 911 call was ruled inadmissible.


Daemonrealm t1_j7dv8o8 wrote

Also I hope it’s known that magistrates are not judges. They almost all have a very close and many times blatantly 1 sided decision making process with regard to anything a police department wants or asks for. There is no decision making or due diligence on their end. They just sign off without reviewing a thing most of the time.


UnderThenOver t1_j7e36fg wrote

I agree that the prosecutor was on board for the case to get to the level it did (day of jury trial--which takes months and a ton of work). I think that shows another issue within the system which is that this case made it through bond hearings (most likely), preliminary hearing, motions date--and yet the prosecutor withdraws the charges the DAY OF the jury trial and was at least the second, if not the third or fourth, prosecutor to have this case assigned to them. Multiple prosecutors saw this footage and saw nothing wrong with it.

The phone call doesn't change the fact of whether or not an officer was assaulted--I believe this to be an excuse the prosecutor is using because they knew the case was trash and had to come up with some reason. And just to be clear, the prosecutor didn't dismiss this charge. It was nolle prossed, or withdrawn without prejudice, which means it can technically be brought back at any time since there are no statute of limitations for felony charges in VA.


bigdaddyman6969 t1_j7e3yh4 wrote

I know I’m getting killed in the comment section but this is a legitimate question I have if you have a second to answer.

It does look like the person who is being arrested is certainly resisting arrest. He appears to push the officers and maybe take a swing?

At what point does what he is doing become resisting arrest? Or escalate from resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer? Is what is happening in this case basically - ‘the police had no reason to even be involved with this guy so the fact that he may have assaulted them is irrelevant’ or ‘what he is on camera doing is not assault or resisting arrest’. Genuinely curious.

Thanks !


MeanMasheen5 OP t1_j7egh96 wrote

I’m just going based off of what I’ve read but it’s kinda both. If they do not have the legal authority to arrest you then you are allowed to resist in Virginia. They had no business arresting him as there was no probable cause that he had committed a crime nor was he who they were there for and simply holding a phone is not a crime and neither is j walking in Virginia.

When resisting an unlawful arrest you cannot show more force than the officer otherwise it becomes assault. The officer makes physical contact with him and he pushes away. That doesn’t seem any higher in severity so it’s probably not assault.