Texas Woman Jailed for Outing Narc on Facebook

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/oct/16/texas_woman_jailed_outing_narc_f

In a case that would appear to raise serious First Amendment questions, a Mesquite, Texas, woman has been arrested and charged with a felony after she allegedly posted a photograph of an undercover narcotics officer on Facebook and identified him as a narc. Melissa Walthall, 30, was charged with felony retaliation after Mesquite police deemed her post "a viable threat to the officer's safety."

The photo was copied from the officer's own Facebook page.

Walthall got into trouble after an acquaintance of hers went to the Mesquite Police and told them a photograph of a man labeled "Undercover Mesquite Narcotics" had appeared on her newsfeed. "Anyone know this bitch?" asked the caption below the photo.

Walthall reportedly told police she had seen the photo on a flyer several weeks earlier and had posted it on Facebook because a friend of hers was unhappy with the narc's testimony in a drug trial. Walthall refused to snitch out her friend, but a police computer search led them to a George Pickens.

Pickens told police he and his brother, Bobby Stedham, had begun researching the narc online and found his Facebook page and photograph, then used the photo to make flyers with the intent to display them locally "like garage sale signs."

Stedham now also faces a felony retaliation charge, while Pickens was hit with drugs and weapons charges after police found an ounce of meth and a sawed-off shotgun at his residence.

Law enforcement spokesmen defended the arrests.

"It's a very dangerous situation," said Kevin Lawrence, executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association. "If you're trying to infiltrate a cartel, a drug ring, a gang, one of the keys is people have to believe you're not an officer. Anything that hints at tying you to law enforcement is very dangerous," he said.

Walthill and Stedham have been arrested for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights. Their flyers and Facebook posts did not call for retaliation against the narc, but merely identified him. It will be interesting to see if they fight the charges, and if they get any help from civil libertarians.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/oct/16/texas_woman_jailed_outing_narc_f
 
This is the saddest case going right now. I can't think of anything more important to American citizens than finding and outing narcs, and here it's becoming illegal.
 
Texas is like its own country they do what they want. Narc cops are replaced when their identified in most states. The court better not let this go to trial it would set a bad president.
 
I dont think he should be off limits or recive special treatment. Red white and blue stands for freedom unless the colors are flashing behind you then they mean the exact opposite.
 
In a case that would appear to raise serious First Amendment questions
Click to expand...

I don't see any question that what she did should be protected by the First Amendment.

Melissa Walthall, 30, was charged with felony retaliation after Mesquite police deemed her post "a viable threat to the officer's safety."
Click to expand...
Her post was most definitely not a threat.
It may result in some danger to him, but her post itself is not dangerous or threatening.
 
yeah narcs are lame but dont put that shit on facebook. Just another retard from Texas who doesnt think of the consequences of their actions.
 
wiggi said:
The first amendment isn't applicable if you are putting others in harm's way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's correct. I know there are exceptions, but is that specifically one of them?

For instance, journalists place people in harm's way all the time. The Valerie Plame thing comes to mind.
 
shimazu said:
yeah narcs are lame but dont put that shit on facebook. Just another retard from Texas who doesnt think of the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most people wish they could get back at the officer who screwed them over but the smart ones realize it's best to let it go before they make a mistake. I'm not saying she deserves to be punished, just that there are times when one must keep their mouth shut.

I recall a while back when I was in court for pot possession, hearing the judge spewing all of these lies for a camera, how much I wanted to stand up and question him. I wanted so badly to call him a damn liar for what he was saying. He kept yelling at this woman telling her that by purchasing pot, she is killing americans in the war on drugs via supporting cartels with her money.

I wanted to explain to him that if she could buy the marijuana at a store like the equivalent of a liquor store, she wouldn't need to buy marijuana from a drug dealer.

but I realized that that would accomplish nothing and possibly get me arrested.
 
23536 said:
I'm not sure that's correct. I know there are exceptions, but is that specifically one of them?

For instance, journalists place people in harm's way all the time. The Valerie Plame thing comes to mind.
Click to expand...


Never heard of clear and present danger?

clear and present danger n. a situation created which someone deems to require a governmental limitation on Constitutional First Amendment freedoms of speech, press or assembly, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (speech), printing a list of the names and addresses of CIA agents (press) or gathering together a lynch mob (assembly).
Click to expand...


I guess you have never heard of imminent lawless action either.

The Supreme Court has said that for speech to lose First Amendment protection, it must be directed at a specific person or group and it must be a direct call to commit immediate lawless action. The time element is critical. The Court wrote that “advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time … is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess' speech.” In addition, there must be an expectation that the speech will in fact lead to lawless action.
Click to expand...
 
^there is an Obstruction of Justice charge for tampering with an investigation with out any intent to cause bodily harm to an officer.

 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

________
somewhere amidst the clauses i though i saw that stipulation.
 
Last edited:
wiggi said:
The first amendment isn't applicable if you are putting others in harm's way.
Click to expand...

She didn't make him become an undercover narcotics officer, which in itself, is a job where you put yourself in harm's way.

She might have saved his life; he won't be an undercover narcotics officer anymore. What if he kept working, and one day gets shot and killed as a result of his work?
 
what if he was not a narcotic officer, and his life was put in danger because of a slander?

also, how did she find out?


_________
the thought of crazy cops, taking a bunk lead, to go after more shitty drugs, and accidentally fire bombing some sleeping kid should be avoidable all together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top