Ferguson protester faces four years' jail over charges of kicking SUV

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Ferguson protester faces four years' jail over charges of kicking SUV

Brittany Ferrell accused by St Louis police of causing $5,000 damage to car as driver forced her way through demonstrators at Michael Brown anniversary

Jon Swaine in New York
@jonswaine
Wednesday 12 August 2015 21.09 EDT

A protest leader in Ferguson, Missouri, could face up to four years in prison after being charged with a felony for allegedly kicking a vehicle as it ploughed through a line of peaceful demonstrators who were blocking a highway.

Brittany Ferrell was accused of causing damage worth more than $5,000 to the SUV as its driver forced her way through the group, which had gathered on Interstate 70 near Ferguson during events to mark the anniversary of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, by a police officer.

Ferrell, 26, was charged with first-degree property damage, which is a class D felony in Missouri. She was also charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace, according to Bob McCulloch, the prosecuting attorney for St Louis county, who oversaw the grand jury inquiry into Brown’s death. Ferrell was released on a $10,000 bond on Wednesday.

Ferrell’s wife, Alexis Templeton, was charged with misdemeanour assault for allegedly punching the driver through her vehicle’s window, and misdemeanour charges similar to Ferrell’s for alleged trespass and disturbing the peace. Templeton, 21, has also been released.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/13/ferguson-protester-faces-four-years-jail-over-charges-of-attacking-suv-and-driver

---

[center]

Brittany Ferrell

[/center]

[cstanleytech]

1. I dont think there is much doubt to her guilt

but sending her to jail is not justice, instead she should be sentenced to doing community service say 8 hours per week for the next 5 years.

[elias49]

2. $5,000 worth of damage? With her foot?

You have to be kidding me!

She looks really dangerous!
just in case...

[yeoman6987]

3. Believe it or not, it doesn't take much to damage a car now a days

They are cheaply made and can dent easily. And on top of that if you dent a part of the car that includes one large part of the vehicle, there's you 5 grand. I believe it easily. Even if it is a small dent it can cost a lot to fix.

[Travis_0004]

28. Its possible

Car damage gets expensive fast.

[CanonRay]

35. That was my thought as well

what the hell kind of shoes was she wearing, spiked iron boots?

[Gore1FL]

4. 5 years is the maxim for a class D felony. She faces a maximum of 4. She probably won't see any.

The article makes it sound like we are at the sentencing phase of a trial that hasn't happened yet.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/felony-offense/missouri-felony-class.htm

[HFRN]

78. people tend to serve a fraction of the maximum, on non violent lower felonies

maximum 4 years often translates to something like 20-30 days

[Lee-Lee]

79. It will probably be plead down to something lower

I hope so for her future- nobody hires nurses with felony convictions on their record.

Of course, this now will forever follow her when any prospective employer googles her name...

[jwirr]

5. Is that part of the tough on crime sentencing laws? This is utterly rediculous.

[7962]

6. Dont kick a damn car on the highway.

You'll get ZERO more supporters for your cause. They ought to charge the others blocking the road as accessories

[840high]

8. Agree.

[NaturalHigh]

17. Punching a motorist won't endear one to the general public either.

[Supersedeas]

20. It does have a combination effect....does the public have a right to ignore your protest?

Without the threat of violence?

[christx30]

24. Of course the public has the right to ignore protests.

Not everyone is interested. And if you shove their face into it, you could turn someone that might be sympathetic toward your cause totally away from it.

Besides, walking on the interstate is stupid, as is blocking traffic. They are lucky to still be alive, when you're walking in an area with no stop lights, and cars going 60+ MPH. They are lucky no one slammed into the car that got kicked. I would have supported manslaughter charges if anyone had died because of their stupidity.

[leveymg]

52. I would say the threat of violence was more on the part of the driver

who rolled her SUV through a group of pedestrians, no matter they were trespassing on the road.

Driver should have been charged with Reckless Endangerment, if there was a real danger of injury to persons in the roadway.

[GreatGazoo]

18. Sounds like cars are pretty important to you.

[Travis_0004]

29. Not destroying others property is a good idea

And lets wait for sentancing and a trial. The odds she gets jail time are small. Give her a 10k fine and be done with it

[LanternWaste]

21. I'd pretend to support cars too when anything else would advertise my biases...

I'd pretend to support cars too when anything else would advertise my biases far too obviously for DU...

[Supersedeas]

89. you can't be too careful

[GoneFishin]

7. Darren Wilson commits murder and skates free. And now this. Ridiculous.

Wow. Those are great photos.

[Judi Lynn]

10. You made a respectable point, GoneFishin.

Depends upon who has committed an either completely understandable act, or an unholy crime, doesn't it?

Unbelievable!

Fortunately, Democrats aren't so unbalanced.

[7962]

12. The Holder Justice dept says he didnt.

No to mention the whole hands up dont shoot never happened. This was the wrong event to make a big deal.
Eric Garner should be the poster boy for the bad cop issue. We see him, as it happens, being strangled to death for NO reason. The man in SC shot in the back running away, unarmed. The man in Utah shot for not turning around. The student in Alabama. Athens ga. Its a long list.

[GoneFishin]

16. No, the DOJ said they could not prove the murder was racial based or a hate crime. Not even close

to the same thing. Darren Wilson murdered an unarmed civilian who he was paid to protect and serve. Being a cop in a district where the DA is racist and refuses to prosecute cops' violence against minorities is not even fucking close to being innocent.

[hill2016]

25. did you even read the report?

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

Page 78, legal analysis.

The evidence discussed above does not meet the standards for presentation of an
indictment set forth in the USAM and in the governing federal law. The evidence is insufficient
to establish probable cause or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242
and would not be likely to survive a defense motion for acquittal at trial pursuant to Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 29(a). This is true for all six to eight shots that struck Brown. Witness
accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous
signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are
otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of
inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions,
if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant
Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses
corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the
physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the
government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a
specific intent to violate the law. As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown
was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson
under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true –
i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson
over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have
failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s
account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a
threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not
permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law.

For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on
Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond
reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

[hill2016]

27. in summary

the evidence is too weak to even constitute probable cause for an indictment LET ALONE surviving a motion to dismiss by the defense LET ALONE actually proving beyond reasonable doubt to a jury.

[7962]

41. None of which will stop the same misinformation from being repeated forever. nt

[GoneFishin]

42. Keep digging. "do not constitute prosecutable violations ... federal criminal civil rights statute."

[hill2016]

44. I see you ignored the parts

where they say the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances and the witnesses who claimed his hands were up were not credible.

[GoneFishin]

45. I see you ignored the fact that he got out of his car and shot an unarmed civilian 8 times.

[hill2016]

46. who tried

to snatch his gun and was charging him.

[LanternWaste]

22. Your dramatic lack of accuracy is, if nothing else, rather consistent.

Your dramatic lack of accuracy is, if nothing else, rather consistent.

[hill2016]

26. he is

actually factually accurate.

[Supersedeas]

91. there is alot of that going round

[Supersedeas]

92. The sins of Darren Wilson justify all sorts of violence

[davidpdx]

9. First, the car was said to be plowing through a crowd

Granted they were on an interstate, but drivers still have a responsibility to not hit pedestrians. The damage to the car is not that big of a deal. There is something called insurance. The other person punching someone, that is assault.

[Judi Lynn]

11. The facts should have more to do with this. Thank you! n/t

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

14. And insurance rates rise when you make a claim

And most people have something called a deductible.

I have a nice scratch on my car that was never fixed because it wasn't worth making a claim (with the potential rise in rates) and paying the deductible.

I would be very upset to read that this young woman went to prison over this, especially if she doesn't have a criminal record (which I assume she doesn't). But she needs to take responsibility for what she did.

[davidpdx]

15. Over a decade ago I had someone rear end me that had no insurance

We were on a local highway and I was stopped at a light. Pulled over into the parking lot to get his information and he took off. Fortunately someone in another vehicle saw the whole thing happen and went after him and got his plate number and came back and gave it to me. The person was a saint because my deductible went down from $500 to $300, plus they caught the guy. Turns out it wasn't even his car (I think it belonged to a family member, but I can't remember). My insurance company went after him for the rest of the cost. It was still bad, but

[ShrimpPoboy]

19. I would hope restitution

and some community service is the worst she gets. But definitely restitution.

[Travis_0004]

30. I would rather see her pay

She caused the damage she can pay for it.

[7962]

40. The car was not "plowing through" the crowd. See post #13 for video.

The woman moves slowly until the people blocking her are out of the way. I can easily see where a woman could feel threatened by a crowd surrounding her car. I would've done the same thing. Dont try to block an active highway

[Supersedeas]

93. This is an important consideration--did the car endanger the protesters

[Camel_Camel]

110. Standing in the middle of a highway you say...

Run over by a car you say...

Amazing stuff...

[7962]

13. Here's the actual video of the incident

Although this clip starts after the kicking, you can see the dented door as the driver pulls away.

[hill2016]

23. wow

they could have charged the rest with false imprisonment

[leveymg]

54. If you pushed through a line of police that way, they would shoot you dead. Reckless Endangerment

unless the crowd was attacking the vehicle before it moved forward - in which case, I would try to back up.

[christx30]

55. The difference is that police would

have the right and a reason to obstruct traffic. Those protestors do not. If my car was stopped by a bunch of angry people that were attacking it, id be terrified and want to get the hell out of there.
I hope the judge throws the book at these people, and protestors use other tactics to get their point across.

[leveymg]

57. It makes no difference. Unless the driver had fear for life, it's assault with a motor vehicle.

It doesn't matter who's in the roadway or why they're there. You can't endanger them by driving through a crowd that way, unless, as I said, one has reason to fear for one's own life or limb, and there is no alternative to driving forward into a line of people.

[christx30]

66. The driver isn't being charged.

The only people being charged are the protestors.
One faces 3 years in prison for it. And I hope she gets every second of that time.

[giftedgirl77]

67. Oh how the roles would be reversed if that driver was

a minority & those were just some good old wholesome Americans standing on that road exercising their constitutional rights.

People can get run over protesting on a highway, because the driver felt inconvenienced? The whole point of the protest is to inconvenience people that will otherwise ignore a dire situation because it doesn't effect them.

[christx30]

70. I'm not saying they should be run over.

But they need to be smarter about walking onto a highway where cars are going 60+ MPH, and shouldn't be surprised if people in cars are afraid of angry people with signs screaming at them and wanting to leave the area.

[giftedgirl77]

71. Oooh those scary black people meme again...

Clutch your purse & lock the door honey, there's an angry mob out front.

[Devil Child]

86. There was an angry mob

Watch the video, there is an angry mob surrounding her car. No wonder she wasn't charged.

[giftedgirl77]

87. Wow, 34 posts since 2008 & you remember your

password that's amazing. So what brings you out tonight, was it the keywords ”angry mob”?

[Devil Child]

90. I am amazing thank you.

I'm here every night. Since 2008. Don't post much as you can tell.

The charges towards the protestor are stupid, about as stupid as protesting on a freeway.

A crowd of angry people start surrounding a car screaming and panic will probably kick in. No need to call the driver racist or scared of black people but whatever continue on.

[jberryhill]

94. I'll remember that the next time I am held captive

[leveymg]

99. False equivalency. Blocking a roadway isn't kidnapping for ransom. n/t

[jberryhill]

103. False imprisonment doesn't require a ransom demand

Who said anything about demanding ransom?

She wasn't let go for ransom. She was let go for a punch in the head.

[leveymg]

106. It isn't false imprisonment if you can back out.

[jberryhill]

114. Traffic was backed up for over a mile

Apparently no one had your presence of mind.

[Lizzie Poppet]

96. In a crowd of angry protesters, would such fear be unreasonable?

In the scenario shown in the video in Post #13, I'd have been in fear for my life, without a doubt.

[leveymg]

100. Only one of the drivers freaked out and moved forward through the line of protestors.

AFAIK, this was the only vehicle damaged. Driver should have been charged, too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

102. If they stay in a line, no poblem.

If I were driving in this situation and the protesters stayed in a line, just blocking the road, I'd just sit there, too. I'd be pissed off, I'm sure...but I'd just sit there. I wouldn't try to drive past them unless they started surrounding my car. Then I'm getting the hell out of there, no hesitation, no apologies.

[jberryhill]

108. Your children are at a daycare which closes in a half hour

How long are you going to sit there?

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Oh, as I said, I'd be pissed.

And having to call the daycare and let them know I'll be late because some people with a very real beef have no fucking clue how to advance their cause ain't gonna improve my mood. But if I don't feel threatened, I'm not going to risk escalating things.

[Sunlei]

31. while the car was moving? Hope all claim not guility and let a jury decide.

wish I lived in that county, I always go to jury duty.

[Travis_0004]

32. why were you standing on the highway

Guilty. Next case. I wish I was on the jury.

[Sunlei]

34. You can't run people over just because they're on the road.

[7962]

39. She didnt run over anyone, she just gently shoved them out of the way.

Dont block an active highway.
There are other clips of folks who werent so easy on the gas pedal. Which is probably the way I wouldve handled it. Move or BE moved.

[Rex]

60. 'gently shoved them out of the way' - so the rule that pedestrians have the right of way

doesn't mean anything to you? Glad you are not a judge or cop, I would cringe if you were.

[Travis_0004]

68. Since the police arrested everybody, they realize that pedestrians are not allowed on the road.

[7962]

81. They dont have the right of way on an interstate.

Show me THAT law. "Pedestrians have the right of way on any road at any time during any action".
Ha
I wouldve liked to have seen the whole 1st row slowly move forward. They would have all moved out of the way. Unless they were totally stupid, which I doubt. Then everyone would have gotten home on time

[Lee-Lee]

84. You are another one who thinks they know the law and doesn't

You are spouting off in ignorance pretending its knowledge. You should do a little research before making bullshit claims.

Here is the actual Missouri law on the matter:

300.390. When Pedestrian Shall Yield
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or
within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon
the roadway. (2) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead
pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the
roadway. (3) The foregoing rules in this section have no application under the conditions stated
in section 300.395 when pedestrians are prohibited from crossing at certain designated places

I even put it in italics so maybe you can grasp it. No, the pedestrians didn't legally have right of way.

[Rex]

64. Shhhh....don't break up their pretend outrage!

I swear some of the outlandish things posters will post, just to yank a few chains. To be correct, they are saying a person has the right to run over people with their car.

Normally that kind of obvious bullshit would get a person laughed off a forum, not this one. Concern trolling is all the rage on DU doncha know?

[christx30]

105. We're not saying that people have the right

to run someone over.
We're saying that no one has the right to stand in the road and impede traffic just to make a political point by inconviencing people. It's a bad idea politcally (you're going to piss off people that might support you, but you're making them late for things), and it's a bad idea for safety (someone could crash into the vehicle they aren't expecting to be stopped).
And if they make me late for work, I'm going to call the cops and try to have you ticketed or jailed. I don't factor in "A bunch of idiots decided to stand in the road" as part of my commute.

[Lee-Lee]

73. Anybody who watched that video and can't think for themselves

Understands that nobody was "run over"

You also can't illegally go on a controlled access highway, stand in traffic and prevent people for going about their travels.

In fact, because the motorists were intentionally restrained from leaving one could argue that what the protesters did actually could be considered 3rd degree kidnapping under MO law based on what I looked up.

[7962]

82. Or violating my constitutional right to move about freely!

[Rex]

59. Free country?

I am glad you are not a judge or a cop and feel pity for any jury you sit on.

[giftedgirl77]

33. Lolol, everyone on this thread saying the driver is right

is obviously oblivious to pedestrian laws. WTG, lets just run protesters over now that makes total sense.

[Sunlei]

36. Welcome to America, The Bizarro World

[giftedgirl77]

38. Guess, we should be thankful the driver wasn't armed or

this thread would be about how they were fearing for their lives so they opened fire & it was just self defense.

[d_r]

37. yeah that driver could have killed somebody

they think they are so important and have to get somewhere so bad that they drive through where they could hurt or kill somebody instead of waiting for 20 minutes out of memory of a dead young man. People suck.

[Travis_0004]

43. I know some 5 year olds that have been taught not to play in the road.

Too bad these people didnt learn that lesson.

[d_r]

48. i know some 15 year olds

that have been taught not to drive through people in the road, too bad this person didn't learn that lesson. They could have killed somebody.

[Lee-Lee]

49. Did you watch the video

Driver went very slow until the odors were out of the path, then sped up to escape.

And in MO a pedestrian not in a cross walk must yield to traffic, so the motorist was legal.

[d_r]

50. I did watch the video

it looks to me like they are driving through a crowd of protesters that were blocking the road.

I really don't know why anyone would do that instead of just waiting 20 minutes.

I wouldn't be surprised about right wingers complaining about it, but it seems crazy to me to drive through a line of people protesting.

[Lee-Lee]

51. Because when you are driving along and minding your own business

And a bunch of people who you don't know, whose intentions you don't know, illegally attempt to block you in you are smart to not just sit back.

You of the hindsight of knowing who it was and the assumption they were peaceful. That motorist was caught up in it on a whim- and based on the kicking and punching the protestors were less than peaceful.

[Rex]

63. Wrong all the car had to do was back up and take another route.

It is illegal to hit someone with your car. Reversing the car solves the problem. Not even close to nice try.

[Ace Rothstein]

65. Reverse on the interstate?

Nobody was going in any direction with the protesters blocking traffic.

[Lee-Lee]

72. Back up on the interstate?!?!

Really? That's your solution?

That idea aside from being downright idiotic is unsafe, illegal, and with traffic backe up behind you impossible.

[christx30]

83. If a Tea Party protest held you up for

20 minutes, you'd be pissed and you'd try to get past them. No one has the right to hold you up and prevent you from going about your day for a political protest, no matter the cause they support.
If the protestors didn't want to get pushed out of the way of the SUV, they should have stayed on the sidewalk.
The protestors were 100% in the wrong here.

[d_r]

85. no I wouldn't

I wouldn't drive through people. I'm sorry, there's no way I would do that. I don't care if it was the kkk. It is amazing to me that people think that is OK.

[christx30]

88. I'd try to push past.

Failing that, I'd call the police and have the people impeding traffic arrested and fined.

You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to impede other people from living their lives. Stay on the side walk and let people go about their day.

[Lee-Lee]

47. The driver was legal and fine

The car obviously inched foward slowly until the protesters got out of the way, and only then sped up- as most people would if they are suddenly surrounded by a mob on the street.

FWIW, look up MO statute 300.390- (1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to vehicles upon the roadway.

I'm some states blocking a persons ability to leave a place in their vehicle is chargeable as kidnapping in some circumstances- holding motorists up could constitute that. I've seen it done where a spouse prevented someone from leaving in a car where that was the only reasonable option to exit the area.

[giftedgirl77]

53. In Amerikkka this is justified...

Other civilized countries think it's batshit insane. But then again other civilized countries also sympathize with the Black Lives Matter movement as well.

[Rex]

62. It is illegal to hit someone with your car on purpose, but nice try.

Not really.

[Lee-Lee]

74. Please cite all the relevant MO statutes to back your position up

First, start with the legality of pedestrians on a controlled access highway.

Next, tell us who has right of way when a pedestrian and motorist meet and the pedestrian is not in a crosswalk, and who must yield in that circumstance.

Next, what crimes could be in play when a group of people restrain one or more people and prevent than from lawfully traveling or leaving the scene with the legally available means they have?

Finally, if a mob of people illegally on e highway is restraining a persons ability to travel or leave the location, and that person responds by slowly inching the vehicle forward at a speed that will not harm anyone until the people restraining them part and let them pass- what law exactly was broken. Cite tha statute number please.

[Lizzie Poppet]

97. Not when surrounded by an angry mob, it isn't.

In such a case, it's a lot more likely to be found, in court, to be justifiable use of force.

[Rex]

61. That or they are just concern trolling rather poorly.

I would go with the second one, since it is illegal to hit someone with your car on purpose. THEY know that, but stirring up the shit is easier and it might yank a few chains.

[Judi Lynn]

112. It's hard to grasp. Democrats don't think like that, as intelligent, awakened people.

DU does get infested with stowaways, unfortunately, posing as Democrats. They are unable to avoid giving themselves away every time.

[dembotoz]

56. So I would assume all the bikers who went road rage on that SUV in new York are all facing same?

[NutmegYankee]

69. One of the bikers was paralyzed for life.

They paid dearly. The driver was attacked with a knife but was not charged with any crime.

[Rex]

58. OTOH; former CoP shoots wife while she is asleep and gets 12 months probation.

This country has a Police State of Denial problem.

[jberryhill]

104. What was the max for the original charge

The maximum penalty for an initial charge, and what people plead to or are eventually sentenced to, are two different things.

Would you be interested in a financial proposition on the subject of whether the accused in this instance actually is imprisoned when all is said and done?

[Blandocyte]

75. Try not to damage property

And please don't block public roads. The law-abiding among us will appreciate your restraint.

[valerief]

76. What kind of country is this where people can't even protest without getting

run over/arrested/shot at/pepper sprayed/beaten up? Oh, yeah, Land of the Free. We're number fuckin' one.

[Lizzie Poppet]

98. The kind that insists on peaceful protest.

An angry mob surrounding vehicles and pounding on/kicking them sure as hell isn't "peaceful." In that driver's place, I'd have been in fear for my life.

[Travis_0004]

101. people should also be free to drive the highway without having their car damaged.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

109. What kind of country is it where people can surround a vehicle and start banging on it.....

....and people think the driver has no right to be concerned about what might happen to them next?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. If a driver was ploughing through peaceful demonstrators.....

surely the driver of the vehicle should be charged heavily?

[onecaliberal]

80. I call bullshit. No way that tiny lady caused 5,000 in damage to a car with her foot

When bankers who ripped off trillions walk free.

[jberryhill]

95. She didn't have to

If you are part of a group which, say, steals $10,000, then it's not like the amount gets divvied up between the members of the group.

In other words, if all of them did $5000 damage to the car, and her contribution was $500, that's not what matters.

I wonder where the driver was trying to go.

[Judi Lynn]

113. There are several reasons racist right-wingers would go berserk about this lady.

It's truly deeply sad.

People do reveal themselves when their upbringings overwhelm their good judgement.

[freshwest]

107. FIVE YEARS? Did the SUV die or something? n/t