There was a bizarre arrest in Palm Coast, Florida, where Shawn Madden, 40, proved that he was no threat by stripping naked and asking “where’s my weapon?” There is ample evidence to support charges of disorderly conduct and exposure in the video below. However, a couple of the charges are as baffling as Madden’s full Monty performance.
Madden was allegedly yelling at people when police arrived and began to unload on the officers. On the videotape, Madden is heard yelling “Let’s go! Let’s go! I’m swinging on everybody. I’m swinging on everybody.”
Later, he seems to assume the posture of a man misunderstood, asking “What did I f**king do? I ain’t brandishing sh*t.” He then dropped his pants and exposed himself while asking repeatedly “Where’s my weapon?”
In a prior Florida case, a man was arrested for walking on the wrong side of the street (even though the officer could not remember which side he was walking on) and resisting without violence. The suspect, who was black, was punched in the face by the officer and later sued. The case was troubling not only due to alleged racial elements but also the use of two charges that served to legitimate the stop and striking of the suspect.
In this case, there was ample basis for the arrest. The use of the resisting without violence charge seems superfluous and unnecessary. It is often used to count stack to force a plea.
I agree that this was overcharged. We don’t need to gild the lily, when indecent exposure was plenty.
I assumed that resisting without violence was like when someone went limp like a sack of potatoes, and a cop would throw his or her back out dragging him or her to the police car. Sounds like it’s too vague to be applied properly. I’ve known cops who were spat at, and now wonder if this would be a form of assault, via possibly infectious bodily fluids, or resisting arrest without violence? I never thought to ask if that act caused additional charges, because I was so grossed out at the description. Honestly, cops should be appreciated more for handling people that most of us couldn’t possibly deal with.
How was your day?
Oh, I had to cuff a bare naked guy and haul him into the patrol car. Glad I had disposable gloves.
It’s a thankless job nowadays.
Actually, my name is David B. Benson.
II’m just testing this site.
Jonathan: As usual some on your blog have misinterpreted and distorted my comment “I am ashamed” (10/28@5:07pm). Thinkitthrough says: “Dennis McIntyre always turns every subject to Trump. This is his go to subject whenever he has nothing else of interest to say” (10/28@5:49pm), Tit even waxes poetic about my comment: “Like a clanging cymbal blowing in the wind that irritates everyone within earshot”. Tit never bothers to actually address the issues raised in my comment. That’s Tit’s frequent response to a POV he disagrees with on this blog.
John Say, like Tit, simply dismisses my comment as “vile and dangerous”. He says “the core of DM’s argument is orange man bad and anyone who defends him is also bad…DM’s position is not even that narrow–no one would be allowed to challenge government on ANYTHING without risking criminal prosecutions (10/28@12:45am). JS is sleep deprived because he missed the salient points in my comment.
For the record, I never said ALL lawyers working for DJT were “bad”. WH counsel for DJT, Pat Cipollone, his deputy Pat Philbin, Eric Herschmann and acting AG Jeff Rosen were good lawyers. They told DJT not to listen to “team crazy” because there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. They pushed back on DJT’s illegal scheme to stop the certification of the electoral vote and put up fake electors. They are the heroes who defended the Constitution.
But JS goes further in distorting my comment. He erroneously concludes from my comment that “no one accused of anything by the government would be entitled to a lawyer” I never said that. DJT is entitled to “effective assistance of counsel”. In the NY civil fraud case before Judge Engoron, DJT is represented by Kris Kise, Alina Habba and other attorneys. DJT is entitled to hire as many attorneys he wants to defend him. That is the right of every civil or criminal defendant. What DJT was not entitled to do was to use lawyers, like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Ken Chesebro and Jenna Ellis, et al, to pursue an illegal conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election. In the Georgia case they intimidated election workers, tampering with election tabulating machinery and put up fake DJT electors. Chesebro and Ellis have already admitted their guilt. They all deserved to be prosecuted.
None of these facts are on the radar of either Tit or John Say. They don’t like any discussion of DJT and his threat to our Democracy. They rather attack the messenger! They are the three monkeys in the Japanese proverb.
DM – I did not simpy waive off your argument,
I tore it apart bit by bit in dozens of different way.
No you did not say all lawyers arguing for Trump are bad.
That does not alter the FACT that you do not have a single attack on a Trump lawyer that does not FAIL as a violation of core principles that are centuries if not milenia old.
Even Micheal Cohen scum bag that he is, did NOT do anything as Trump’s lawyer that was actually illegal. Yet, you violated Trump’s priviledge and got … NOTHING.
Cohen is a crook – he was engaged in an NYC taxi medallion scam.
You can question Trump’s judgement in hiring him.
But the evidence of some conspiracy to act illegally DOES NOT EXIST.
Further you and other argue here REPEATEDLY that perfectly legal, constitutional excercises of free speech, political protest, petitioning government are Crimes.
And that the lawyers who were involved are criminals.
I would note that the garbage arguments you are making are NOT NEW. These are the same arguments that have been used over the years to attack sometimes successfully attorney’s defending unpopular or politically weak clients.
This is only a Left/Right thing recently – because of the willingness of those like you – to destroy Trump by “Any means necessary”.
As I noted – this “attack the lawyers” game is not new. Until recently it was not even a characteristic of the left.
But it has ALWAYS been wrong. DOJ, FBI, and local prosecutors have engaged in it in the past. They done it to a very wide array of attorneys representing
unlikeable clients.
IT IS ALWAYS WRONG. In my lifetime I have seen numerous instances in which Lawyers have committed crimes. I am hard pressed to think of a single instance of any lawyer – including the thoroughy disreputable Micheal Cohen, conspiring with a client to commit a crime.
But I have seen untold numbers of attacks claiming that or even devolving to – you represent a bad [person – therefore you are a bad person.
You claim that SOME of Trumps lawyers are worthy of your excoriating and deserved to be targeted for their representation of Trump.
Which ones and what for ? I have read the guilty please of All the Trump lawyers from Cohen through Ellis. To the extent there is anything at all in those please involving conduct related to Trump – all of it is the legitimate legal representation of a client.
Even the Cohen case proves that SDNY violated Trump’s constitutional rights in seizing his communications with Trump. After violating those rights they STILL walked away with nothing. The SDNY attorney’s should have been sanctioned for false representations to the court. They claimed to have met the crime fraud exception and OBVIOUSLY they did not.
The Trump attorney’s you are excoriating – did their jobs, and they did their jobs well – and that is why those on the left like you hate them.
They rank with the Alan Dershwitz’s and the F Lee Baileys and the Gerry Spences – who faced the same kinds of attacks that Trump lawyers have faced.
But you can not get past your Trump derangement.
This is not even a slippery slope – we have seen the DOJ go after most of the attorneys that defended those in Guantanamo accused of terrorism.
You are on the wrong side of this argment. You are on the morally bankrupt side of this argument.
We would be better off as a country, as a society, as a legal system if Micheal Cohen got away with his taxi medallion scam.
Then to have experiences the political rape of the law that the left has done in the past decade.
The ends do NOT justify the means.
Trump has promised his supporters retribution when he is elected in 2024.
You should pray to god that the courts do not allow Trump to do to you and yours what you have allowed them to do to him and to those on the right.
You have allowed your political views to distort your morality, to your own harm and to that of the country.
Bad conduct by those in government does not become acceptable when the target is someone you hate.
It is all the worse still when it is amplified by politics.
The people and actions you are defending are the villians not the heros.
Not because of their politics – though their motives are primarilly political.
But because of their conduct.
You seem to think that guilty pleas mean something ?
Actually real the pleas – they allocuted to facts that do not constitute crimes, and if they did, then the laws they violated are unconstitutional.
You do know that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the exhonerated list – this is over 1000 people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes. Not technically not guilty, but ACTUALLY INNOCENT,
Every single one of them confessed.
regardless, if you actually bothered to review these pleas and confessions – you would discover that Willis’s case is falling apart.
It is likely Trump and other defendants will be filing for dismissal shortly – because Willis has gutted her own case.
These pleas as to non offenses of no consequence with no prospect of consequetial sentencing Rather than ensuring cooperation to “get Trump” Willis has lost any leaverage she has with these defendants.
There three fundamental types of plea deals.
Deals that involve pleading to a number of significant crimes with a very light even sweat heart deal for sentencing in return for damning testimony against more important targets.
Deals for judicial efficiency where the prosecution and defendant trade oversharging for a plea to something close to the actual crime. These do not involve third parties.
And finally slap on the wrist deals were the prosecution avoids the high risk of losing a bad case and the defense avoids the cost of a trial and appeals necessary to prevail.
Every single plea so far has been in that last catagory.
The only useful purpose it serves willis other than moral preening is avoiding the risk of losing. Each of these defendants has bet that Willis had no case and could not be ready for an october trial and that bet proved correct, and they used that to get sweetheart deals.
They pose ZERO threat to trump or other defendants – because though they most cooperate – the top range sentences are still only probation and the deals can not be revoked. The pleas themselves do not include anything of consequence, and they can not be leveraged into testifying to anything beyond what they plead to.
Ellis, Powell and Chesboro are not going to “flip on Trump” – they are not going to testify to a conspiracy – because they did not plead to one, and Willis therefore has no leverage.
I suspect – though I do not know, that many of these pleas may still include a right to appeal. That is not common – but these are very sophisticated defendants.
And finally they are likely free to do much as Gen. Flynn did. Plead, testify as Flynn did and then when it is Clear that Willis has nothing, revoke their plea.
You say my conclusions based on your comments are false.
But your argument is “That is not what I meant”
I do not care what you meant. The logical results of what we are seeing is exactly what I claimed.
YOU are supporting that – whether you FEEL that way or not.
Lets use the Cohen case as an example. There is no doubt that Cohen is a crook. But the FACT is that even after violating priviledge, there is ZERO evidence of any actual crime fraud exception violation. Cohen was convicted of fraud involving taxi medallions.
By logic and by law the the breach of Trump’s attorney client priviledge int he Cohen case by SDNY attorneys was immoral unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.
While the ends do NOT justify the means – Failed ends DO frequently obliterate the legitimacy of the means.
The same is true of the Willis pleas thus far. Ellis’s allocation does not even truly admit to a crime. She appologized for not doing due dilligence on statements that were not under oath, were not a crime and may not have been wrong.
Willis – and democrats generally are trying to establish a legal standard that they will regret. That it is a crime to make an allegation in the context of an election that is not absolutely proveably correct. That is NOT the standard for the statements and arguments of lawyers – either in courts, or in election matters or anything else. It is also a standard that Willis would find HERSELF guilty of, if she falls short on a SINGLE count of her prosecution.
You claim to be a lawyer – If you do not understand how wrong that is then you should never have practiced law.
I would further note that the Ellis plea is NOT for making a false statement but for facilitating the making of a false statement.
And Finally – both Willis and Ellis are Silent as to what that False statement was.
So in the end we have Ellis pleading to something that is not what she allocuted to, and that is not even identified by either Willis or Ellis.
So if Willis, or Smith or James or Bragg fail to prove even one count of their charges against Trump – must they plead guilty to the same crime ?
You say I am misrepresenting you. But YOU are the one supporting this nonsense. And you are the one who is ashamed of Trump attorney’s like Willis who have been coerced by the likes of Willis to plead guilty to the non crime of MAYBE being wrong about some UNSPECIFIED claim in the course of their legal representation.
And that is NOT my Spin. that is the FACTS as reflected in the charge, plea and allocution.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/10/jenna-ellis-guilty-plea-underscores-the-absurdity-of-da-fani-williss-rico-case/
“What DJT was not entitled to do was to use lawyers, like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Ken Chesebro and Jenna Ellis, et al, to pursue an illegal conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election. ”
And here is the absolute Core of the problem – there is no such crime. Your interjection fo the word illegal does not make the acts involved illegal.
“What DJT was entitled to do was to use lawyers, like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Ken Chesebro and Jenna Ellis, et al, to pursue a conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election”
This is an ACCURATE statement of what occured. it is also what Al Gore did in 2000, what Al Franken did successfully against Coleman. What Hillary tried in 2016, what Stacy Abrahms tried repeatedly – NEED I GO ONE ?
For the above to ACTUALLY be a crime – there must be an ACTUALLY illegal act – such as bribery.
Otherwise what you have is the normal workings of the legal system, worse still an excercise of exvery single clause in the first amendment except religious liberty.
It would be extremely hard for your claims to be more offensive to the first amendment.
Not only is there nothing that Trump did after the 2020 election that was never done before – there was nothing Trump did that was not SUCCESSFULLY done at some time in the past.
If you were actually paying the slightest attention – all this has been hashed out both constitutionally, historically and in case law.
States have advanced their own slates of electors in the past – that is not only constitutional, but it is literally what the courts long ago determined is what a state legislature should do if it felt there was problems with the election.
One of the core problems with YOUR and the lefts entire claims here is that beyond the fact that they are constitutionally barred and offensive.
That as a practical matter they are logically stupid.
Lets Presume that in 2024 Trump wins the election. Various states certify, and after States have certified Dominion comes out ans says – we found a flaw in our counting software and we overcounted Trump votes by 5%.
By YOUR logic – the election is over. it has been certified by the states, Congress must certify proforma, Biden would be barred from further challenges, by mootness, standing, laches, ripeness or other legal obstructions that have nothing to do with merit.
And any effort by democrats or their lawyers to “overturn” the results would be itself a crime.
Your position is logically absurd. It ASSUMES that error, or fraud never occur, and that state executives can do whatever they please in an election and need not share anything with anyone.
That those challenging an election must – without being able to gain any information regarding the actual process of the election – must PERFECTLY identify exactly what what error was made and if they can not they are criminals if they proceed.
Worse still – the discussion above is about elections. But the legal standard you are manufacturing is defacto universal.
No one would ever be able to challenge government without committing a crime.
You say that is not what you mean. As I said before – I do not care what you “meant” – it is still the completely absurd logical outcome of the claims you support.
Whether you “meant” that or not, you are responsible for the logical consequences of your own claims.
I would suggest some wisdom from 2 millenia ago.
Matthew 25:31-46
Right and wrong are determined by what you DO. Not your intentions.
The fact that you do not intend to criminalize the practice of law – particularly by your political opponents,
does not alter the FACT that is the logical consequences if your absurd arguments were accepted as valid.
The fact that you are logically incompetent does not evade moral responsibility.
What made Shawn Madden’s arrest in Palm Coast, Florida, so controversial?
He laid down peacefully on the street with his hands behind his back after police approached him unlike what blacks do.
Turley writes two types of columns — columns about legal cases where he cites law and cases, where he has expertise and valid expert opinion, and more and more these days, columns about OTHER STUFF where his opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s, if that much, considering that Fox pays him to have those opinions, such as this one:
“Many now question democracy as a sustainable system of government. It represents the single greatest threat to this nation: a citizenry that has lost faith not just with our system of government but with each other.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/single-greatest-threat-america-hiding-plain-sight
Not saying he’s right, and I’m not saying he’s wrong. I’m just saying that you can get the same kind of stuff from any crusading TV talkshow host or Sunday-morning Bible-thumper. Similar stuff has probably even been tossed around the cackling TV henhouse called The View.
In 2021, 98,268 people died from preventable drug overdoses – an increase of 781% since 1999. These deaths represent 92% of the total 106,699 drug overdose deaths in the United States, which also include suicide, homicide, and undetermined intents.
If we kept the 10 Commandments, these problems, the traumas, the violence, racism, the collapse of Western Civilization, would all but stop.
You know, it dawns on me every once in a while, every 17 seconds roughly, that mankind goes in circles thinking that at any moment the current tragedy will be the last for a while, and soon the sun shine will break out. Ad Infinitum. It never happens, never. We are as cruel and hateful as ever.