"I don't play. ... I don't play." LEO gone wild

Number 6
"For such a supposed veteran of "a few cappers [sic]," you have NO clue as to what constitutes an arrest."

Simple test: Was she free to go?

As she obviously wasn't (cuffed and dragged off bus by cop), she was under arrest. Whether the cop was intelligent enough to Mirandize her is irrelevant to the analysis, except to the extent that his failure to do so is further evidence of his incompetence."


Sorry Number 6, but just because you are in cuffs does not mean you're under arrest. In Florida there is a "stop and frisk law" Title XLVII Chapter 901 901.151
Also, An arrest does not necessarily and automatically result only from the use of physical restraints (e.g., handcuffs), U.S. v. Hastamorir, supra, at 1557; U.S. v. Kapperman, 764 F.2d 786, 790 n. 4 (11th Cir.'85), or only from the officers' show of force (e.g. drawing their weapons), U.S. v. Roper, 702 F.2d 984, 988 (11th Cir.'83), it cannot be seriously doubted that these factors, when used in conjunction, would ordinarily lead a reasonable person to believe that he is under arrest, cf. 2 LaFave, supra, Section(s) 5.1(a) at 390-91; 3 id. 9.2(d) at 366-67, especially when such a seizure follows directly on the heels of an official directive, or even a 'request,' to leave the sanctuary of one's home.
Click to expand...
 
Number 6 said:
Whether the cop was intelligent enough to Mirandize her is irrelevant to the analysis, except to the extent that his failure to do so is further evidence of his incompetence.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. While it's true that in many jurisdictions, the act of Mirandizing an individual often times occurs at the moment of arrest, it is only mandatory to do so before actual interrogation occurs.

Mirandizing juveniles presents its own complications, as the juvenile can not legally assent to a waiver of rights. Generally speaking. Specific instructions may differ slightly as to individual jurisdictions.

Now, if we are to "bridge the gap" between "us and them," such statements as above only serve to further the distrust/disrespect between LEO and non-LEO.
 
Arrest

"Sorry Number 6, but just because you are in cuffs does not mean you're under arrest. In Florida there is a 'stop and frisk law.'"

Sorry, but being cuffed is NOT a "stop and frisk;" i.e., a Terry stop. Being cuffed is seizure.

As for Mirandizing, he was already questioning her, hence the fracas. Sounds like "custodial interrogation" to me.

Note also that Florida law is a poor second to SCOTUS decisions.
 
Under the stop and frisk they also have the ability to detain while determining if there is cause for arrest. It has to be done in the imediate area of the stop, but there is nothing stopping them from cuffing you to detain you. I don't say I agree with it, just relaying it. After looking at this thread for a couple of weeks, I think errors were made on both sides of the law.
 
I also see a problem for the bus driver

Good chance the bus driver is taken to task on this.

Like I have said several time's it will be handled by a further investigation and when these people are being talked to at the station and being detained they will not be under arrest (like some mistakenly believe).

The Officer at the scene had the right to do what he did. It was a crime committed in his presence, 3rd grade felony or full blown felony or just a plain old traffic violation.

He took action, he may get reprimanded for it or not. I still feel he was in his lawful right to do what he did. He may have, 'not done the best job' but he did what he felt necessary at the time, to conduct an investigation. The condition on that bus was almost like a mob condition, until you take command, however it is done it needs to be done.

Maybe the bus driver could have helped some, or a school official should be aboard the bus if the children cannot contain their actions to lawful practice.

Sounds like they were pretty much out of control. Some times if the children are so out of control the investigation will go back to the parents and hold them responsible. Which would be correct from some of the response's I have read.

It will go both way's regarding the depth of the investigation and if there has been priors on either side it will be looked at even closer. It could even go back to the school not having correct procedures while transporting the children.

It will all go back to safety issues. Parents will be called in and both sides of the story will be revealed. That girls history will be looked at as well as the officers, small town, different way of doing things.

Granted there is a fine line between detained and arrested, each state probably has their own take on it as we on this board do. So it will be all handled and I am sure we have not heard the last of it.

Harley
 
Good response as to what happened and what will probably happen, Harley.

My guess is that some here, will take issue with it, nonetheless.
 
I essentially see the division here as one being where some believe that physically restraining a 13 yr old while doing an investigation is OK. The rationale is that the 13 yr old was "interfering" with the officer during the investigation and the officer was justified in using the physical restraint to "control" the situation generally and the 13 yr old specifically.

I have a problem with this viewpoint. Under such theory, the police could go door to door during any investigation and question those who respond. If any of the respondents were to loudly scream they "didn't do it" they could be cuffed and restrained for the duration of the investigation for that reason alone.

That sounds totally ridiculous and appears to be a low key version of "kill them all and let God sort them out".

And if you can't "control" a 13 yr old girl with a strong "sit down and shut up" you're doing something wrong. Teachers do that all the time.

And it's not cop bashing to disagree with the tactics used by them.
 
"Under such theory, the police could go door to door during any investigation and question those who respond. If any of the respondents were to loudly scream they "didn't do it" they could be cuffed and restrained for the duration of the investigation for that reason alone."


What is the problem? If they were called to your house yes they would be justified. He didn't go bus to bus, he went to the bus from which the object came. Nice try, but faulty analogy.
 
Sidestepping ad nauseum

"Like I have said several time's [sic] it will be handled by a further investigation and when these people are being talked to at the station and being detained they will not be under arrest (like some mistakenly believe)."

Drivel. Here's "mistakenly believing" for you:

ARREST 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority....

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.), p. 116, col. 2.

Got that, biker? "SEIZURE OR FORCIBLE RESTRAINT" - like grabbing a girl, dragging her down an aisle and cuffing her. Speaking of grabbing, when do you think you'll be able to grasp the concept?

But wait; there's more!

DETENTION 1. The act or fact of holding a person in custody; confinement or compulsory delay.

Investigative detention: The holding of a suspect without formal arrest during the investigation of the suspect's participation in a crime. Detention of this kind is constitutional only if probable cause exists.

Id. at p. 480, col. 1.

Tell again how "when these people are being talked to at the station and being detainedthey will not be under arrest..." :barf:

"The Officer [sic] at the scene had the right to do what he did. It was a crime committed in his presence, 3rd grade felony or full blown felony or just a plain old traffic violation."

Another egregiously false statement. He NEVER saw the golf ball thrown; he was cut off by the motorist who swerved when it was thrown. Here's the clue, for those who so obviously missed it:

If he HAD actually seen "a crime committed in his presence," he'd have KNOWN who threw the ball. :rolleyes:

But enjoy your transparent rationalizations; they obviously mean a lot to you.
 
"If he HAD actually seen "a crime committed in his presence," he'd have KNOWN who threw the ball."

Sorry, but I call bs. Is it impossible to throw something out the window from a seat across the bus? Sitting on the left side and tossing it out the right side?

The poor thing I sure she was respectful and answered the officers questions in between polishing her halo. For those of you not familiar with a teenage old girl, I've heard a number of them that could make a sailor and biker blush.
 
That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if she called him names, if she insulted his heritage, if she yelled obscenities at the top of her lungs. None of those warrant an arrest and nothing she did gave him any kind of probable cause to do what he did.
 
Hysterical? She's a kid, she stood up and exclaimed that she didn't do it. For all we know the little boy that did throw the ball was whispering to her "I'm gonna tell him that YOU did it!"

Denying involvement is enough cause to be detained?
 
See post #115. Like it or not perception is reality. If you act guilty you must be guilty. The first rule of getting caught is deny, deny, deny, make counter accusations. Sounds like she hit all four points. I agree the officer could have handled it better, but he didn't and once again perception is reality and we're arguing over a newspaper article. He must be guilty since it was in a newspaper that printed both........ooopps wait it only had her side in the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top