more from JPFO on Florida traffic stop and tasering of driver, and another item too.

[MikeTx]

I fail to see where immediate compliance = police state. Pennsylvania vs. Mims and Maryland vs. Wilson. Look them up. Yes if you are stopped and the officer directs you to exit the vehicle (whether under arrest or not) it is not optional. The Supreme Court has upheld this many times for officer safety. Like it or not, it's the law of the land.

A agree 100 percent. And, no matter what else the "courts" uphold, You WILL enforce it. Be that gun confiscation or what ever. You will enforce it on a once free people until one day the people make you stop, whether by force or rule of law.

 

[joab]

There is no way to know what the driver thought

Yes there is, it's the first thing she said to the officer as he approached the vehicle. Just before she told him that They arrested her brother for no reason she made mention of race.

On the other hand, standing up for your rights On the other hand, standing up for your rights
at the moment of their being violated can be the most
important thing you do. This driver might have been quite
smart to proclaim her rights on the spot, because then her
position is clear on the recorded video

Her position was made quite clear after being informed that she was under arrest and why she was under arrest she chose to resist arrest on video for all the world to see

She spoke loudly and helped record every event that took place.

Too bad the state haters don't want to actually listen to what she actually said

Would a city council person (black or white) been allowed to finish her telephone call to alert her family of her arrest before
being taken in?

Not around here, and that's verifiable. We haven't reach the Cali celeb awe state yet

The video provides no evidence that anyone was actually endangered.

She was doing 51 in a 35, she knew that and knew that it was illegal, she was driving with a broken windshield, she had to know that and every driver in Fla knows that it is illegal to drive with a broken windshield. She had a broken taillight, again illegal whether she knew it was there or not.
These vehicle and driving deficiencies are enough to claim public endangerment, if not why are the laws in place.
Instead of acknowledging these infractions she became belligerent and accused the cop of pulling her over illegally.
But even then she is not arrested until her license came back suspended, which is an arrestable offense in Fla


I fail to see the connection between exercising the Privilege of driving, which you agree to a certain set of rules in order to have that Privilege and the Right to firearms which simply require that you live in America

 

[joab]

For those that didn't quite get it, this is the police state mentality: Immediate Compliance.

So is it your position that you should be allowed to be arrested at your leisure

Hell, it would take me longer than a minute to find my registration and insurance papers.

Why would it take that long after you had already produced your papers and the cop had already run you DL and determined that it was suspended.
She should have called as soon as he took her DL because she probably knew she was going to jail at that point

 

[MikeTx]

Ha ha. He said "your papers".

 

[joab]

Ha ha. He said "your papers".

I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, other than some tired old reference to bad Nazi war movies
Would it have meant anything different if I had said "registration and insurance papers" or "paperwork"

 

[Handy]

I'm surprised some of you feel that resisting arrest is properly dealt with immediate coporal punishment.

"Resisting arrest" is a chargeable offense. Once found guilty, then you get punished. What should the officer be doing in this video? Recording the act of resisting arrest for later prosecution. His decision to use of force saved no lives, but endangered one.

Using force to compel compliance with laws is sick. What if the penalty for perjury was being tased until the truth came out? What do we call that type of behavior?


Officers have force availble to them to COUNTER force, not to force compliance.

 

[SCCop]

Overcoming resistance is not punishment. I've been tased 3 times, pepper sprayed at least 3 times, and hit with straight batons an infinite number of times in training. Any option feels like punishment, except maybe letting her make all the phone calls she wants, at which point she probably still ain't getting out of the car on her own.

A lot of people seem to equate this with gun ownership/confiscation etc. Exactly which amendment says "the right of the people to drive, whether or not they have a license, shall not be infringed"?

 

[Handy]

SScop,

Any of the things you listed, by themselves, are called "assault", and have severe criminal and civil penalties. How do you figure that isn't coporal punishment if they are not being employed to counter force?

 

[joab]

So should the police resort to "Pretty Please" when trying to make an arrest.

The officer claimed that the brat struck at the other officer.
While there is no video proof, judging from her extreme belligerence from the beginning of the stop it is a very believable claim.
In that case he was countering force with force.

Of course he could have followed the Atlanta PD's model and called every available officer to come and wait her out, and make sure she was comfortable while they waited

I am more than surprise at those that find fault with the police reaction.

Should we just castrate the police to the point that all they can do is make suggestions and beg for compliance

 

[Phillip]

Police are authorized to use one level of force above that which is being presented. In some cases force must be used in order to effect an arrest, which is what you are seeing in this instance. It's not about "corporal punishment." How about Use of Force Continuum.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Authorized use of force.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public
officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public
officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting
another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and
delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the
other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another
to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or
personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful
possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful
interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to
retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a
charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other
lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful
authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in
the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil,
or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger
who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of
passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the
passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or
mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when
used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with
reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or
treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing
custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to
compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control,
conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have
announced their presence and are performing official duties at a
location where a person is committing a crime or an act that
would be a crime if committed by an adult.

 

[Handy]

TBO,

That listing provides no limitations on the use of force. According to that thinking, force is always appropriate in EVERY arrest.

Think that was the intent?

 

[jefnvk]

So is it right to wait until she is ready to be arrested? They could be sitting there for hours, or days if they waited for someone to get ready to be arrested.

I'm not saying that the Taser ws the absolute right choice, but she made it clear that she wasn't going to comply. When you have to force an arrest, there is always the chance of someone getting hurt. I honestly think that whatever the cops did to this lady to arrest her, she would be whining and complaining about.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by: Handy-
TBO,

That listing provides no limitations on the use of force. According to that thinking, force is always appropriate in EVERY arrest.

Think that was the intent?

I guess you "get out of it what you want out of it". Pretty clear limitations to me.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

It is a reasonableness standard. No, you can't shoot someone for nothing. R E A S O N A B L E N E S S is defined by what a reasonable person would find acceptable in the same situation.
FWIW, LEO hatters, tinfoil haters, etc, are N O T reasonable people, but they often don't know that. That's one of the problems they have with things. They thing EVERY thing police do is unreasonable.

TBO

 

[Al Norris]

TBO replied:
FWIW, LEO hatters, tinfoil haters, etc, are N O T reasonable people, but they often don't know that. That's one of the problems they have with things. They thing EVERY thing police do is unreasonable.

Judging from your one response to my recent post, you consider me in that grouping. Care to back it up with anything I've posted here, on THR or on TAC? (I post under my real name on the latter two boards - Al Norris)

 

[TheeBadOne]

Antipitas My post was not directed at you. I have no problem naming names, when I am doing so.
(I do recognize the name Al Norris from my time at TAC (I haven't partook of that board in quite some time).)

I do think you view thing very narrowly (no crime there) and have a general distrust of "the Police" (again, no crime there).
For example

Waiting her out?

Why do we think that when 37 seconds pass from the time the officer first orders her out of the car till he tazes her is too long to wait? 37 seconds, folks.

Are we now so militarized and accustomed to such militarization that if we don't have instant obedience, we can up the force continuum? Is it truly a sign of weakness that we have to wait 37 seconds?

While I realize that the officer needs to be obeyed, is 37 seconds too long? Hell, it would take me longer than a minute to find my registration and insurance papers. Will I get tazed if stopped and it takes that long to produce the required papers?

Criminy people, 37 seconds.....

What does you looking for your registration on a theoretical traffic stop for 37 seconds have with you wondering if you'll be tazed?

That's called an "appeal to emotion".
When someone is placed under arrest they have no right to refuse to comply. They have their day in court. For you to compare a person under arrest who is tased after resisting arrest to some nice fellow just looking for an insurance card is ludicrous (and shows bias).

TBO

 

[Handy]

I'm considering going into to federal law enforcement. Tazing some lady for not getting out of her car does not pass my "reasonable" test - I wouldn't do it.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

???

Well, I watched the videos, and I don't see how people can side with the woman or think the officer was violating her rights by using force to carry out the arrest when she refused repeatedly to comply with his verbal instructions to her when he attempted to place her under arrest. Tasers, while painful, are not only nonlethal, they are noninjurious. If the police were only permitted to arrest people who agreed to be arrested, how could they possibly arrest anyone?

 

[Al Norris]

What does you looking for your registration on a theoretical traffic stop for 37 seconds have with you wondering if you'll be tazed?

That's called an "appeal to emotion".

No, it's called rhetoric. Surprised you didn't recognize it.

It goes to the previous statement about the militarization of the police. In the military, immediate obedience is the norm.

Sorry. You folks is just civilians. Immediate obedience is not the norm, nor should it be.

When someone is placed under arrest they have no right to refuse to comply.

Actually, you can refuse to comply, as well as elevate force levels, IF (really big if here) the arrest is unlawful.

As for the woman being arrested, I'll have to review the video one more time, as I don't recall the officer placing here under arrest. IIRC, the officer demanded she put the phone down and get out of the car, without ever telling the lady she was under arrest. It was only after the second tazing that we see the officer putting on the cuffs.

While I understand that a stop is is a technical arrest, it is not a custodial arrest. The devil is in the details.

Another reason for my small tirade is that there is mounting medical evidence that tasors damage the cardiopulminary system. Of course, you won't hear the manufacturer talk about that, they need to sell the things. The jury is still out on this, but, as I said, evidence is mounting.

So yeah. I think the tazing was unwarranted.

And yes, I've had this very same conversation with my local officers. We end up agreeing to disagree... Without either side calling names or referring to tin foil. Something that is sadly lacking online.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Actually, you can refuse to comply, as well as elevate force levels, IF (really big if here) the arrest is unlawful.

Dead wrong in most areas. Only a few states allow to resist an unlawful arrest.

there is mounting medical evidence that tasors damage the cardiopulminary system. Of course, you won't hear the manufacturer talk about that, they need to sell the things. The jury is still out on this, but, as I said, evidence is mounting.

Hyperbole. Unsubstantiated. There are NO proven deaths CAUSED by the TASER. If there was, TASER INC would be gone overnight due to lawsuits. The "Taser Deaths" usually have several things in common.

1) subject has hard drugs in system

2) subject (because of hard drugs in system) exerts self beyond what their body (which is in poor shape anyway from drug use) can handle

Look how many SAVES the Taser has. It's tons. Simple math.

IMHO I've found many of the Taser rants to really not be about the Taser at all. Often it's just thinly veiled LEO bashing.

All the best

TBO