Article written by eyewitness, Melissa Winn

I was at the intersection of 28th Street and 118th Avenue last week and witnessed events that must be brought to your attention. While standing at the northwest corner of the intersection, near a small group of people who were sitting in the back of a pickup truck, I was appalled to see Sergeant Lightfield attack Mauricio Rosas.

At the time, participants were seeking answers about an apparent contradictory policy of the police department, allowing free reign of all citizens and observers who are not making political statements critical of the current administration and requiring those making such statements and inquiries to be corralled in a specific, less visible area.

In response to Sunni's question, Sergeant Lightfield indicated that the "pro-Bush" people didn't have a specific location where they needed to stand. But at the same time he also said that they couldn't stand just anywhere, but no attempts were made to relocate these observers. His statements alone exemplify the confusion and contradictions of the day.

Consequently, four people with signs were directed to a vaguely identified area across the street. At different times, and depending on who gave the instruction, this area was multiply identified as the parking lot in front of the building on the northeast side of the intersection and an area behind the building bordering the street adjacent parking lot.

Mauricio had brought a video camera with him and was also carrying a sign. I heard an officer tell him that he had to move to the other area specifically because of the sign. At this point he gave his sign to me and asked to stay at his present location since he was no longer in possession of a sign. He was instructed to move anyway.

While the group was quickly trying to sort out what the actual instruction was and why it was being given, along with to whom and for what purposes individuals were included and exempt from this requirement, Sergeant Lightfield turned to Mauricio and told him he'd have to turn off the camera. At the same instant that he demanded this, the sergeant reached with his left hand and forcefully grabbed the lens and microphone above it and yanked it toward the ground. He did not give Mauricio any time to respond.

Sergeant Lightfield, immediately after grabbing the camera proceeded to push Mauricio with both his hands and even shoulders. He was obviously putting his weight into this effort and the two of them moved a few steps further from the road in this struggle. I watched from a foot or two behind Sergeant Lightfield and was both shocked and terrified. I fully expected this man to wrestle Mauricio and his camera to the ground.

I distinctly remember raising my voice and asking Sergeant Lightfield to "leave him alone, he's disabled!" My request received no response, but a second later the sergeant stepped back from Mauricio, and in doing so, made a strong downward sweeping motion with his left hand. He caught the strap on the camera with his hand, and I vividly recall the look of terror and surprise on Mauricio's face as he involuntarily bent slightly forward and struggled to hold the camera against his thighs to keep it from being thrown to the ground.

After crossing the street, confusion remained about the exact location of the allotted area for participants with signs. Mauricio calmly persisted in inquiring about what policies were being enforced and by whose orders. The group was then told to relocate to a position behind the building (from the parking lot in front of it where we'd originally been directed). We were told Officer Sharp would escort us to this new area.

Officer Sharp was both polite and conscientious in his attempt to handle the matter, and he strived to be politically correct in his terminology and understanding of the situation. Yet, he explained, he still needed to escort the group to the back of the building.

Mauricio's continued inquiries were re-directed to Lieutenant Williams, who was identified as the highest-ranking official on the premises. He began talking to Mauricio, offering answers, but after a minute suggested that he would not answer additional questions on camera. He could give more information if Mauricio turned the camera off. At this point, Sergeant Lightfield stormed toward Mauricio. He appeared to suddenly descend on the scene like a tornado, but must have been walking over from the patrol car against 118th Avenue.

Sergeant Lightfield yelled, "I told you before…" Once again, and without pausing or giving a time for any response on Mauricio's part, including lowering or turning off the camera, Sergeant Lightfield reached forward with his left hand and grabbed the lens and microphone of the camera, jerking it violently toward the ground. At this time, I saw four or five other officers instantaneously assembled around Mauricio and Sergeant Lightfield, almost in a huddle. These officers prevented me from seeing any more details about the incident. I did see Mauricio moving backward from his original position interviewing Lt. Williams and Sergeant Lightfield appeared to be pushing him once again.

I am surprised by the short temper that Sergeant Lightfield displayed on this occasion and his fierce efforts to impose immediate compliance using brute force. It seems to me that he must deal with far more dangerous confrontations (actual confrontations, not initiated ones) all the time. Sergeant Lightfield demonstrated to me that his intentions were to physically intimidate and damage private property if the opportunity arose. Clearly, it is not in the best interests of the community to have this man patrolling such events without intensive anger management intervention.

Please be aware that there were several other people present who were using both regular cameras and video cameras. These people were allowed to stand wherever they wanted and a few of them may even have the sergeant's attacks on videotape. At no time did I see them approached for purposes of relocating or turning off their cameras. It is clear to me that the group was singled out solely for expressing political opinions, an act which is in violation of the first amendment to the constitution. Also evident is the extreme reluctance of all police personnel to speak on camera about policies. If these policies are truly official, then what would they have to hide in relating them?