PDA

View Full Version : Cop tasers 76 year old man for expired license plate sticker


rotornut
16th Dec 2014, 13:51
http://rt.com/usa/214655-texas-cop-tasers-elderly-man/

Burnie5204
16th Dec 2014, 14:00
I guess "man resists arrest, starts fighting with cop and gets tased" doesn't sell as many papers


For those who don't want to follow the link and sit through the video I'll sum it up.

Man gets stopped by police,
Man starts arguing with police,
Man starts shouting at police,
Police try to restrain man,
Man starts pulling away,
Man starts actively resisting the police,
Man swings a punch at Police over his shoulder,
Police pushes man up against car,
Man breaks away from Police,
Police take man to floor,
Police fight with man on floor,
Policeman stands up aiming his taser at the man and can be heard shouting "STOP RESISTING!" "PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK"(x3)
Policeman tasers man for a very short period of time and arrests him.

Checkboard
16th Dec 2014, 14:26
Man starts shouting at police,
Police try to restrain man,You see - this is the bit where the policeman begins breaking the law.

Shouting at the police is not an arrestable offence - and his licence plate was, in fact, completely in order.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
16th Dec 2014, 14:55
In Texas, it is illegal to resist an arrest, even if the arrest itself is illegal.

er340790
16th Dec 2014, 15:09
In Texas, it is illegal to resist an arrest, even if the arrest itself is illegal.

:D :D :D That's a classic!

"The Accused is always Presumed Innocent until Found Dead." :}

Ancient Mariner
16th Dec 2014, 15:13
And here's me thinking that a physically fit, martially arts trained, level headed policeman would be able to take down a 76 year old man without too much fuzz. Apparently not.
Per

KBPsen
16th Dec 2014, 15:16
...the steers and queers are apparently outnumbered by asses.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
16th Dec 2014, 15:24
Both Canada and the US derive their Laws in this area from English Common Law, where it is legal to resist an illegal arrest. In the USA, this has been superseded by statue in all but 14 States (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming).

There's a useful discussion here, for the interested, about a Canadian case.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2690/index.do

P6 Driver
16th Dec 2014, 15:33
"And here's me thinking that a physically fit, martially arts trained, level headed policeman would be able to take down a 76 year old man without too much fuzz. Apparently not.
Per"

Are there a couple of assumptions hiding in there?


1. Physically fit - how do you know?


2. Martially Arts Trained - how do you know?


3. Level headed - open to offers on that one.

highflyer40
16th Dec 2014, 15:40
I guess the fact that the officer has been put on administrative leave and the chief of police has offered an apology on Facebook is an admission that the officer was in the wrong.. the fact that he didn't even know the laws he was meant to be enforcing is worrying in itself to then go on and taser an old man not once but twice..well, that says it all really. does there not seem to be more of these police brutality cases each week? what's happening to the police forces in America?

Turbine D
16th Dec 2014, 15:41
@ Burnie
For those who don't want to follow the link and sit through the video I'll sum it up.
Bad summary, look at the video again, maybe in slow motion. There are still some of us that believe local police are in place to serve the community, not the other way around as illustrated in the video…

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 15:43
Ancient wrote:

And here's me thinking that a physically fit, martially arts trained, level headed policeman would be able to take down a 76 year old man without too much fuzz. Apparently not.Tee-hee. Not even near all policemen or women in the U.S. are physically fit. not even close. Here is one of NYPD's "finest."

http://thepolicedaily.com/images/fat%20cop.jpg

Then again, we have some really nice female police officers of the NYPD running around

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5474931803_a2d688235d.jpg

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I000048vHyjDEKFo/fit=1000x750/MG-8119.jpg

http://hoodhustle.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_5198.jpg

I wish one or two of the female cops pictured above would "stop and frisk" me.

Capot
16th Dec 2014, 15:47
The reason that police officers in the USA use their tasers so much is that, with few exceptions, they are anything but fit and level-headed.

The majority are over-weight, unfit and stupid; lard-asses incapable of waddling more than a few yards from their "cruisers".

So if you give them a taser, they'll use it as an alternative to any physical effort, regardless of proportionality, which they wouldn't understand anyway.

All we should be grateful for is that now they have uncontrolled use of their tasers in any situation, they are less likely to shoot anyone who argues the toss, and more likely to taser their victim.

Provided the victim is white, of course. Otherwise, all bets are off.

Shack37
16th Dec 2014, 15:49
Originally posted by P6 Driver.

Are there a couple of assumptions hiding in there?
1. Physically fit - how do you know?
2. Martially Arts Trained - how do you know?
3. Level headed - open to offers on that one.


Re 1 and 2, are you saying that a policeman on duty is not likely to be physically fit? If he is not then he shouldn´t be on duty and certainly not alone. Are you also saying a pólice officer is not trained in self defence and how to subdue a person resisting his instructions? Rubbish!

As to your point 3, there is no need for assumption, it is obvious by his behaviour that he is far from level headed.


And finally the victim was over three times the cop´s age.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Dec 2014, 15:53
The majority are over-weight, unfit and stupid; lard-asses incapable of waddling more than a few yards from their "cruisers".
So give them bicycles.


Much better for getting to know their patch and their people, and also much better for chasing young lads who run down alleyways that cars can't get through. And policemen chasing young lads is good clean fun for all parties. (Provided, of course, that the police don't have guns.)

rotornut
16th Dec 2014, 16:00
Fox3
A full panel of the SCC - they obviously took it very seriously.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 16:03
Capot wrote:

The majority are over-weight, unfit and stupid; lard-asses incapable of waddling more than a few yards from their "cruisers".

A blanket statement which does not hold true at all for every police department in the U.S.

I see officers of the NYPD all day. Aside from a few lard asses like I posted above, most of the NYPD cops I see are very fit indeed. Quite a few obviously spend some time pumping iron in the gym as well.

superq7
16th Dec 2014, 16:04
Way over the top reaction from the Policemen, :mad: he could have killed the poor chap by using a Taser on him.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
16th Dec 2014, 16:06
Well, it's a pretty fundamental point.

Policing can only work with consent, and is only supported when effective.

Arresting decent people for not breaking the Law, whilst real crime increases, is the worst of all worlds.

Ancient Mariner
16th Dec 2014, 16:10
P6 Driver.

1. Physically fit - how do you know?
2. Martially Arts Trained - how do you know?
3. Level headed - open to offers on that one.

1. I don't know, but that is what I expect from a police officer
2. I don't know, but that is what I expect from a police officer
3. I don't know, but that is what I expect from a police officer
Per

ShyTorque
16th Dec 2014, 16:16
And finally the victim was over three times the cop´s age.


Looked like the cop was about two times his weight, too.

People complain about the police in UK but compared to what happens on the other side of the Atlantic......

Checkboard
16th Dec 2014, 16:50
.... and a cop listening to head-banging hip hop in the car while at work and recording a traffic stop, at that. :suspect:

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Dec 2014, 16:51
he could have killed the poor chap by using a Taser on him
Which of course is only allowed if the "perp" is a black child.

Fantome
16th Dec 2014, 17:00
p'raps you'd like to be told get your hands up right now mister by one of those pert fashion plate pistol packing police women

(whose faces in a few years will look more like plates of condemned veal)

KBPsen
16th Dec 2014, 17:03
Hey Gertrude? Bullshit is what I say. Do you have an idea of how many white people are killed by cops per year here in America as opposed to how many black people are killed by cops? 3 times as many whites. I don't hear anyone sniveling about that.
There's also nearly 6 times as many white people as there are black people. So any way you slice it, if you are black you are much more likely to be shot by the police than if you are white.

Flash2001
16th Dec 2014, 17:04
GtW

Works on Polish people too. RCMP at YVR.

Bronx
16th Dec 2014, 17:21
Not only in America

BBC News - Tasered blind man: PC Stuart Wright ordered to apologise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26729965)

No criminal charges brought against the cop.

Krystal n chips
16th Dec 2014, 17:22
I see it says the Police still managed to keep the victim in custody for a few hours....why would that be I wonder ?

obgraham
16th Dec 2014, 17:32
Well George Bush issued an executive order to all cops in the US:

If suspect is white, taze him. After discussing the situation.

If suspect is black, shoot him.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 17:35
Well George Bush issued an executive order to all cops in the US:

If suspect is white, taze him. After discussing the situation.

If suspect is black, shoot him.

Judging from the headlines for the last six years, are you sure that it was not President Obama that issued that EO?

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 17:44
KBP,

What percentage of Violent Crime is committed by Blacks as compared to Whites in the USA?

You reckon that might have effect on how many Black-Cop encounters there are compared to White-Cop encounters for Violent Offenders?

Why would you think there might be more shootings involving Blacks than Whites as a result of that FACT.

Look at the Chicago PD's stats for just Murder for the year 2013 and draw your own conclusions.


Gertie,


Much better for getting to know their patch and their people, and also much better for chasing young lads who run down alleyways that cars can't get through. And policemen chasing young lads is good clean fun for all parties. (Provided, of course, that the police don't have guns.)

The problem is the young lads tend to be carrying Guns....remember this is Realville we are talking about and not that dreamland Utopia some folks live in.

ExXB
16th Dec 2014, 17:48
I've always rejected the argument, put forward on various now-deleted threads, that the average US citizen needs guns in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of an over zealous government.

Well, I apologize, I was wrong.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 17:58
Though you speak in jest (mostly), there is truth in what you are suggesting.

This current situation is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind exactly when they penned the 2nd Amendment but if you carry the concept you confirm forward to its logical end then you, the Fathers, and those of us who see it that way, are correctly interpreting the need for Citizens to be Armed.

KBPsen
16th Dec 2014, 18:02
Why would you think there might be more shootings involving Blacks than Whites as a result of that FACT.I don't really understand that sentence, nor do I know what "FACT" you are talking about as you haven't presented any.

Krystal n chips
16th Dec 2014, 18:20
"The problem is the young lads tend to be carrying Guns....remember this is Realville we are talking about and not that dreamland Utopia some folks live in.

It's possibly escaped your notice, but, in this case, the young lad in question was....76yrs old.

So, apart from your inevitable defence of "the cops always right, do as the cop tells you, or else " regarding the police, how do you intend to entertain us with an explanation and justification for the officer shown in the videos behaviour ?.

Thankfully, this time all nicely caught on camera...makes you wonder how many other incidents of a similar nature haven't been now doesn't it ?

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 18:25
It's possibly escaped your notice, but, in this case, the young lad in question was....76yrs old.


Okay fair enough, but what about the blind older lad in the UK that was tazered by a Brit cop?

Perhaps that has escaped your attention.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 18:32
KC,

I quoted Gertie directly and thus it was Gertie's very own words...not mine.

So take that up with Gertie.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 18:39
ExXB wrote:

I've always rejected the argument, put forward on various now-deleted threads, that the average US citizen needs guns in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of an over zealous government.

Well, I apologize, I was wrong.

No need to apologize to us.

He knew about it a long time ago.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/79/d1/75/79d1757c4c742004981eeb35817cf777.jpg

As applicable today as it was back then. Perhaps more so now.

Blacksheep
16th Dec 2014, 18:45
The big man with white hair wearing shorts seems to be acting as a good witness. He has words with the cop and then gets on the phone. When the cavalry arrive he stands his ground as well.

wings folded
16th Dec 2014, 18:54
What does "retian" mean?

KBPsen
16th Dec 2014, 19:01
What does "retian" mean? Good question. Another good question is why the "quote" is attributed to Jefferson when there is no evidence that he ever said or wrote it.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 19:17
Spelling error I suppose.

Yes, he did indeed say that. It is in my volume of "Jefferson - Writings". So the evidence is quite there.

rotornut
16th Dec 2014, 19:22
And now a few statistics:

BBC News - Race, police and the US - in numbers (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30341731)

John Hill
16th Dec 2014, 19:24
This whole sorry incident would have been avoided if the old geezer had an alphabet agency badge on his licence plate.;)

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 19:26
rotornut:

What the statistics don't readily show is, the percentage of blacks who are arrested or shot is based, in reality, in the fact that black males are far more likely to commit crime than anyone else in the population. That's just the way it is and is kind of evident in the stat which shows the percentage who are arrested as "suspects" in a crime.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 19:30
Hey rotornut. How about O' Canada? What's the racial makeup of people in your prisons, eh? A little help perhaps?

OTTAWA – Minorities make up a disproportionate percentage of the country’s prison population, but the faces of the guards don’t match the faces on the other side of the bars, Canada’s prisons watchdog said today.
While the racial makeup inside the corrections system is changing, prison hiring practices have not kept pace, correctional investigator Howard Sapers said as he released his office’s latest annual report to Parliament.
Sapers points out that close to a quarter of all inmates are aboriginal even thought they make up only four per cent of the general population.
“Recent inmate population growth is almost exclusively driven by an increasing number of aboriginal and visible minority groups behind bars,” he said.
“Today, four in 10 of the federal inmate population is comprised of non-Caucasian offenders.”
As well, he says, black inmates are over-represented, particularly in maximum-security institutions.
Black offenders also report facing discrimination by being marginalized or even shunned from within the corrections system, he said.


Not sure what your intention with the statistics was but before casting stones, check the glass house you're in, eh? :ok:

And as for our British cousins: 13.7% of the prison population in the UK is black. What percentage of the total population is made up by blacks? (Hint: 3.3%)

Stones... glass houses....

rotornut
16th Dec 2014, 19:37
rgbrock1
The stats are from the BBC. I'm not throwing stones. I'm the first person to admit we have our own problems, especially with aboriginal people and the police.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 19:38
Roger that, rotornut. Just checking. :E

KBPsen
16th Dec 2014, 19:39
Yes, he did indeed say that.Perhaps you could be more specific in where he said that.

Monticello.org would likely be grateful for your help as this is what they currently say on the matter:

Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It is often seen preceded by the sentence, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms-quotation)," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Dec 2014, 19:41
What percentage of Violent Crime is committed by Blacks as compared to Whites in the USA?

You reckon that might have effect on how many Black-Cop encounters there are compared to White-Cop encounters for Violent Offenders?

Well, maybe people who think they're going to get shot by the police sooner or later anyway because of the colour of their skin reckon that they might as well rake in some criminal profits first.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 19:46
Monticello.org, a worthy organization, is run by a bunch of old hags whose main benefactor is the Federal government. Gee, I wonder why they would write something like that on their web site?

Like I said, it's in black and white in my lofty tome entitled "Jefferson - Writings". He wrote the sentence, as I refer to the book, as part of a letter to his mentor, and law professor, George Whythe on 16 August 1779 when Jefferson was still Governor of the state of Virginia.

Lonewolf_50
16th Dec 2014, 20:01
Well, maybe people who think they're going to get shot by the police sooner or later anyway because of the colour of their skin reckon that they might as well rake in some criminal profits first. We note your apologia for criminal activity. Here's hoping that you are soon a victim of crime in your little corner of the world. You can then feel much stronger in your principles. :p

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 20:24
This whole sorry incident would have been avoided if the old geezer had an alphabet agency badge on his licence plate.

What agency would that be Hill?

This whole sorry incident would have been avoided if the old geezer in question would have obeyed the police officer.

Man gets stopped by police,
Man starts arguing with police,
Man starts shouting at police,
Police try to restrain man,
Man starts pulling away,
Man starts actively resisting the police,
Man swings a punch at Police over his shoulder,
Police pushes man up against car,
Man breaks away from Police,
Police take man to floor,
Police fight with man on floor,
Policeman stands up aiming his taser at the man and can be heard shouting "STOP RESISTING!" "PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK"(x3)
Policeman tasers man for a very short period of time and arrests him.

At least the old geezer in question had the opportunity to obey the lawful orders of the police office. The poor blind guy in England wasn’t given a chance, the Brit cop just tazered him.

rgbrock1
16th Dec 2014, 20:28
Man starts arguing with police,
Man starts shouting at police,
Police try to restrain man,

I see a large problem here. The man starts arguing with and shouting at the police who then try to restrain him? Since when is it illegal to argue with or shout at the po-lice?

BillHicksRules
16th Dec 2014, 20:54
Con,

Surely you cannot support the actions of the officer in this instance?

This was a badly trained officer who over-reacted and quite rightly is under a disciplinary review.

The officer was at no time in danger and attempted to arrest the man less than 20 seconds after the start of the incident.

This was not a violent crime being prevented or a dangerous individual being apprehended.

Now I admit not being knowledgeable about the organising principles of the Victoria Police force but I would expect it is similar to those of other counties and states in that the Police are public servants with a duty to "protect and serve".

It does not speak well that someone as yourself, who strongly advocates the personal freedom that your nation is so historically justly proud of, being unwilling to condemn such actions.

I would expect you to react similarly to the old gent in this video if you were in his place.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 21:10
Surely you cannot support the actions of the officer in this instance?


Well, I guess the cop in this instance could have just gone ahead and beat the crap out of this guy while he was on the ground instead of using the tazer.

I've been tazered in training, while it was not something I'd like to go through again, I would prefer that than being beaten.

By the way, being pepper sprayed was worse in my experience than the tazer. That stuff lasts for a while, whereas as soon as the tazer is turned off, the pain stops.

Interestingly enough, I've seen videos of where big guys have been tazered and all it did was make them meaner. Of course in this instance the guy was not a big mean guy, but again, all he had to do was do what the cop told him to do.

This cop deserves his suspension and needs to go back through training, for not knowing the law about all license plates and letting things get out of his control. Which was what this thing was all about.

In this case, if you’re going to be stupid, you better be tough, because you’re going to get hurt.

You'd think at the age of 76 this guy would know that.

I would expect you to react similarly to the old gent in this video if you were in his place.

No, I would not, I would do what the police officer told me to do.


Oh, have to go offline for a while, back with you later. :ok:

wings folded
16th Dec 2014, 21:11
con-pilot

At least the old geezer in question had the opportunity to obey the lawful orders of the police office. The poor blind guy in England wasn’t given a chance, the Brit cop just tazered him.

You are quite right to point out this massive miscarriage of policing in Britain. Shameful.
Now, how does that come about? Or,
How did the Ian Tomlinson affair happen?
At our age, you will have noticed that the police are getting younger. They used to be grown ups whom we feared and respected.
Today's police recruits have been exposed to virtual violence via the cinema, video games and so forth, and seem to regard extreme violence as normal.
It is a further manifestation of nastiness which pervades modern society.
Even what should be a dignified, gentle game such as Where on Earth, here on pprune, gets quite unpleasant at times.

I do despair, and find no excuse for the little git who tazered a blind bloke, "mistaking his white cane for a sword"

I mean, really...

Flying Lawyer
16th Dec 2014, 21:39
Burnie5204
For those who don't want to follow the link and sit through the video I'll sum it up.


For those who want to see what actually happened I advise you to follow the link and sit through the video instead of relying upon Burnie's version of what it shows.

con-pilot Well, I guess the cop in this instance could have just gone ahead and beat the crap out of this guy ...Were those the only two options?
(I agree it seems likely that they were the only two options which occurred to this particular cop.)
This cop deserves his suspension and needs to go back through training, for not knowing the law about all license plates and letting things get out of his control. Which was what this thing was all about.Based upon what is shown in the video, things got out of control because of the cop's behaviour.
I agree about suspension but, unless anything emerges which significantly changes what can be seen, I don't see any point in re-training. In this case, if you’re going to be stupid, you better be tough, because you’re going to get hurt.Not necessarily, it appears.
The cop was both stupid and tough and, as far as we know, he didn't get hurt.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 21:40
Give Plod a break will you.....after all it was just a case of Blind Justice!:E

I think it was in South Carolina we had an Old Man shot because he reached into his car to retrieve a Walking Cane and the Police Officer took several whacks at him with a Pistol.

So a bit of Tasering seems pretty minor in the scheme of things.







WARNING....All OF The ABOVE WAS WRITTEN TONGUE IN CHEEK!

west lakes
16th Dec 2014, 21:50
Or does it go to the concept that a lot of younger folk have this inappropriate sense of privilege.

So if you've got a 23 yr old cop that's been brought up to think he can do nothing wrong, for an old guy to actually argue and correct him goes against all that he think he knows so reacts by firmly lashing out (toys out of the pram!)

Absolutely no excuse and shows a total failure of how he was trained but also how schools operate and possibly his parents!

just a though

419
16th Dec 2014, 21:53
I see it says the Police still managed to keep the victim in custody for a few hours....why would that be I wonder ?

I'm only guessing here but it might be so that they could keep an eye on him to make sure that he didn't suffer any after effects due to being tasered.
It's bad enough for the police having to explain why it happened but it would be far worse if the victim went home and had a heart attack shortly afterwards

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 22:36
Were those the only options?

Don't know, wasn't there. What options do you believe he had

So now we go back to a previous thread on the interpretation of what we see on a video.

Still goes back to obeying the lawful order of a police officer, in both cases.

Based upon what is shown in the video, things got out of control because of the cop's behaviour.

Which was caused by the 76 year olds refusal to obey the police officer.

What should have the police officer have done, just let the guy drive off?

"Oh dear me, that man will not do what I told him to do, better just let him go."

The cop was both stupid and tough and, as far as we know, he didn't get hurt.

There are exceptions for every tongue in cheek supposed rule.

By the way, I first heard that in Sabre recurrency school when we were discussing accidents caused by pilots being stupid. It stuck with me.


____________________________________________________________ _________


I am still waiting for the same amount of outrage and shock by those from across the pond about the blind man being tazered by the British cop, as been expressed about the US case of the 76 year old.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 22:43
I am still waiting for the same amount of outrage and shock by those from across the pond about the bind man being tazered by the British cop, as been expressed about the US case of the 76 year old.

Sweet Jesus....DON"T HOLD YER BREATH!

We were told not so long ago that British Cops were only allowed to use their Tasers on Violent Offenders and then only with written Home Secretary Approval upon proof that all other efforts to include Arbitration and Mediation had failed.

Flash2001
16th Dec 2014, 22:53
Does one have to obey a police officer when he gives an order that he has no reason to give? Does any law give him the right to order you to, say, empty your pockets?

After an excellent landing etc...

obgraham
16th Dec 2014, 23:04
At least in the US, my response to being told to "empty my pockets" would likely be "Officer, I have no weapons -- am I being detained?"

Then proceed as necessary,

In Canada, however, the Mounties might just ride me like one of their horses.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 23:13
Does any law give him the right to order you to, say, empty your pockets?


Yes. There are a lot of reasons a police to order one to empty one's pocket, weapons, illegal drugs, stolen property, etc.

You do what a police officer tells you to do. Unless it is clearly illegal, then you need to contact a supervisor or another cop ASAP.

We have a police officer here that will soon be headed for prison for demanding sexual favors from females that he arrested. He demanded such from the wrong woman and she called 911 (999). There are now over 10 women that have come forward that he did the same thing to.

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 23:20
Recent Court Case that started in my State not far from me.

Small Rural County....oddly enough the place "Andy of Mayberry" was modeled upon had one of its Deputies stop a Vehicle because it had a Brake Light Lens broken and thus not in working order. During the traffic stop the Deputy asked for a Consensual Search of the Vehicle and the Owner of the Car (who was a passenger and not driving the vehicle at the time) granted his permission for the search. Found during the Search was a user amount of Cocaine. The Owner of the car was arrested, convicted, and appealed his Conviction on the Drug Charge.

The case wound up at the Supreme Court and the Court quickly rejected the Appeal saying that despite the State Law requiring only that one Brake Light be functional and thus the Traffic Stop was improper, the subsequent Consensual Search was Legitimate and the Conviction was affirmed.

The Chief Justice stated the Police were not perfect and even if they were wrong in the Traffic Stop, they were acting in good faith and thus everything that happened after that was legal.

So...as long as the Cop is acting in good faith, even if he misunderstands the Law, then the Supreme Court supports the Cop's actions. The Chief Justice reminded the Defendant's Lawyer that the Appeal was over the Drug Conviction and not the Traffic Stop.....and that the Consensual Search was done strictly according to the Law and thus it stood on its own merits.

Long answer but then it is not a simple answer.

Best method is to comply and then if the Cop does wrong....sue his Ass and take money from him, his supervisor, his Chief, and his City or County as best you can.

Checkboard
16th Dec 2014, 23:32
con-pilot - pulled over by a large policeman.

all he had to do was do what the cop told him to do.

con-pilot - Gets out of car.

Policeman - How are you doing son? Been doin' anything illegal?

con-pilot - No officer.

Policeman - Well, it's your unlucky day, son - I'm feelin' damned horny right now. Bend over the hood of that car - I'm goin' to do you up the arse!

all he had to do was do what the cop told him to do.

con-pilot - Well officer, although I know that it is a right under common law to resist unlawful acts upon my person - you are a police officer, and I have stated on an internet forum that I must obey every thing you say and do without any resistance whatsoever - so f*ck away sir! :rolleyes:

Boudreaux Bob
16th Dec 2014, 23:39
Now if it was Checkboard.....he would become a Recidivist.:E

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 23:42
Best method is to comply and then if the Cop does wrong....sue his Ass and take money from him, his supervisor, his Chief, and his City or County as best you can.

Every attorney I know say the same thing.

If you are stopped by a police officer.

A. Comply with their instructions.

B. Admit nothing. (That is covered by the Fifth Amendment.)

C. Say nothing. (That is covered by the Fifth Amendment.)

D. Never resist.

E. If anything seems not legal, contact an attorney as soon as possible, let them handle it.

A couple of attorneys I know say not to even carry on a casual conversation with a police officer if stopped. Don’t know I’d go that far.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 23:45
Policeman - Well, it's your unlucky day, son - I'm feelin' damned horny right now. Bend over the hood of that car - I'm goin' to do you up the arse!



Quote:

all he had to do was do what the cop told him to do.


con-pilot - Well officer, although I know that it is a right under common law to resist unlawful acts upon my person - you are a police officer, and I have stated on an internet forum that I must obey every thing you say and do without any resistance whatsoever - so f*ck away sir!

I already covered that.

You do what a police officer tells you to do. Unless it is clearly illegal, then you need to contact a supervisor or another cop ASAP.


Perhaps you didn't notice that in your attempt to be cute. :rolleyes:

rh200
16th Dec 2014, 23:56
The usual nit picky [email protected] by the left which has undermined our law enforcement and basically made life a lot harder and less safe for the rest of us.

As they say, if asked to do something by a police officer, unless its obviously illegal. Bend over and I'm going to do you up the @rse, how pathetic and example.

I made a joke on another tread about the recent terrorist incident in Sydney where police officers where running around telling people to get the F#$k out of the area. Now inmost cases they weren't stopping and explaining why they where doing it. If you didn't know would you be forcing the officers to explain their actions:ugh:.

There was some examples earlier in the thread of where law was derived, for example you have the right to resist an illegal arrest. A truly noble idea, but in practice potentially dangerous, both personally and from a societal viewpoint. Basically all of us have different ideas on whats right and wrong, but in most cases whether you may be right or left, we all have one thing in common, most of the time we don't like being told what to do and think where right, even when where not.

Hence you get the situations where every man and there dog resists arrest when they shouldn't. And we all know what happens then. The police have had there authority undermined and eroded over the last several decades, it needs to be turned back the other way.

Checkboard
17th Dec 2014, 00:09
You do what a police officer tells you to do. Unless it is clearly illegal, then you need to contact a supervisor or another cop ASAP. You obviously didn't watch the video in question, Con. :confused:

There was no supervisor - and, in all of these videos I have seen, there never IS a supervisor.

I wasn't "trying to be cute" - I was trying to point out that you have a right to exercise your rights not to be oppressed. That seems to be a theme you propound on USA gun threads ;)

Not saying THIS is a USA gun thread - just saying that this (70+ year old) guy had a right to argue with the officer without being thrown to the ground and tasered for doing so.

Your posts suggest that, simply because he is wearing a uniform, you must obey without question everything he says until, perhaps, you can find a sympathetic ear. (And that sympathetic (lawyer's) ear may tell you that, by complying, you have ipso facto admitted guilt.)

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 00:22
There was no supervisor - and, in all of these videos I have seen, there never IS a supervisor.

Look at the NYC Video again....three stripes on a Uniform Shirt connotes the rank of Sergeant and in that incident she was female and black. Thus there was a Supervisor on scene and in charge of the incident as it happened.

You owe Con an Apology as you are dead wrong in your statement.

Youtube is your friend if you will take the time to make sure of your facts before you post.



One Minute into the Video the Supervisor appears on screen.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zOzkh2cKuM

rh200
17th Dec 2014, 00:51
I was trying to point out that you have a right to exercise your rights not to be oppressed

Some of you people need to spend some time in a place where there is actual oppression.

con-pilot
17th Dec 2014, 00:59
There was no supervisor - and, in all of these videos I have seen, there never IS a supervisor.


Then I suggest that you watch them again. Especially on the NYC video. Also, if you did watch the entire video about the 76 year old, you would have noticed that other police officers showed up within about 20 seconds after the 76 year is tazered.

wasn't "trying to be cute" - I was trying to point out that you have a right to exercise your rights not to be oppressed.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Not saying THIS is a USA gun thread - just saying that this (70+ year old) guy had a right to argue with the officer without being thrown to the ground and tasered for doing so.


Watch the video again, you do seem to have problems seeing everything on these videos. Within 20 seconds after the 76 year old goes out of sight, another police officer arrives. Not nearly long enough for the first police officer to commit homosexual anal rape you seem so fascinated about.



Now, Checkboard, I reviewed all four pages of this thread, nowhere in this thread do I see a single word from you about the blind man being tazered by the British cop in England. Nada.

Therefore it is quite evident that as far as you are concerned, it is okay for British cop to tazer older people, who are blind with no warning, but not okay for a US cop to tazer a person that is fighting with him.

Hypocrisy noted.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 01:52
Arguing with the Plod don't seem to turn out very well either!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qy1eWS5rzE

con-pilot
17th Dec 2014, 02:27
Bob, Bob, Bob, you just don't understand. :=

It is okay for the English police to beat the crap out of people and tazer people that do not follow their lawful orders.

But not okay for American cops.

Do try to pay attention.



We really need a sarcasm emoticon.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 02:32
Lots of Crickets out tonight....almost like a late Summer Evening almost!

Hempy
17th Dec 2014, 02:34
Those people who claim 'to defend my rights against a tyrannical Government' ...you do realise the Government own attack helicopters, main battle tanks and strategic bombers, don't you?

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 02:43
Manned by?:rolleyes:

con-pilot
17th Dec 2014, 03:28
Those people who claim 'to defend my rights against a tyrannical Government' ...you do realise the Government own attack helicopters, main battle tanks and strategic bombers, don't you?

What the hell does this have to do with this topic?

Hempy
17th Dec 2014, 04:06
Have you even read the thread?

ExXB wrote:

I've always rejected the argument, put forward on various now-deleted threads, that the average US citizen needs guns in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of an over zealous government.

Well, I apologize, I was wrong.
No need to apologize to us.

He knew about it a long time ago.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/79/d1/75/79d1757c4c742004981eeb35817cf777.jpg
As applicable today as it was back then. Perhaps more so now.


Bob. People who would happily follow lawfull orders given by their superior officers to smoke your sorry butt - unless you are suggesting the military would turn on the government as well. In that case a. It's called a coup, and b. If the military are helping fight the 'tyrannical government', how much extra assistance do you reckon your .45 going to provide? Who are your guns actually going to fight?

con-pilot
17th Dec 2014, 04:32
What world do you live in Hempy?

Oh, by the way, still waiting for you to criticize the English police for doing the same thing this cop in the video did.

I'll not hold my breath. :hmm:


However, hypocrisy noted. :D

rh200
17th Dec 2014, 04:51
Those people who claim 'to defend my rights against a tyrannical Government' ...you do realise the Government own attack helicopters, main battle tanks and strategic bombers, don't you?


:ugh::ugh:

Well I suppose Obama's (or any other twit president) reluctant to commit them to things which may actually need it, so putting them against his own people might work for him. Though thinking about how western militarys work, good luck with that, I have a suspicion it may end up being an own goal.

obgraham
17th Dec 2014, 05:12
I do believe I can hear the sound of little feet scampering off into the night!

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 05:32
Con,

I am taking up Plan A in dealing with Hempy.

Just like a Comm Radio....just adjust the Squelch so you don't have to listen to all the background noise.

wings folded
17th Dec 2014, 07:17
con-pilot,

I am still waiting for the same amount of outrage and shock by those from across the pond about the blind man being tazered by the British cop, as been expressed about the US case of the 76 year old. (your post 63)

Err, did you miss post 58?

KelvinD
17th Dec 2014, 08:36
In order to satisfy the likes of Bob & Con; I heartily condemn the use of a Taser against the blind man. The policeman in question was obviously either (a) a nutter or (b) overdoing his steroids. Rumours are rife in certain county forces of policemen using steroids and suffering from "roid rage")
Re the video from Warwick University: At what point does the police brutality start? I have obviously missed it. There was a lot of pushing and shoving but nobody was shot, hit with a Taser or even punched. One cop was heard to tell the idiots that, if they didn't vacate the place, CS gas would be used. So they moved. Does that amount to an assault with words or what? (And I am no fan of the UK police; they currently have too many bullies and morons. But it seems they are gradually being weeded out).
There was a reference earlier to the Texas incident, claiming that other police arrived on the scene within 20 seconds. Granted I could hear a police car somewhere in the area but the first appearance of any other police officers was at around 6 minutes after the first cop threw the man to the ground.
Re the NYPD and the recent incident. I watched the video and the "victim" was heard to repeat, many times, "I can't breathe". It seems to me he took a breath between each shout so it is hard to blame the police for not believing him.
I shall never forget my first encounter with NYPD in early 1978. I had just arrived at Kennedy on my first visit to the US. When I left my terminal to catch a bus to the next terminal, there was a couple of NYPD's finest outside the door, trying to maintain some order. One was a massive, big-bellied Irish American with an equally massive voice. His partner was the exact opposite; a black guy about half the size of Michael Jackson with a huge Afro hair-do and his hat was perched on top of that!
The contrast between the two was so great, I couldn't resist chuckling to myself and that image is still vivid in my memory today.

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Dec 2014, 11:34
What should have the police officer have done, just let the guy drive off?
Um, yes?? - there was no risk of violence to any person that necessitated the use of violence by the police officer. Pick him up at home later when he's calmed down a bit.

rh200
17th Dec 2014, 12:19
Um, yes?? - there was no risk of violence to any person that necessitated the use of violence by the police officer. Pick him up at home later when he's calmed down a bit.

Cool another new metric for our police officers. Don't intervene if there is no risk of violence to anyone else. All you have to due is get all excited and the police shouldn't arrest you until you calm down.:ugh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Dec 2014, 12:24
De-Escalation sounds sensible.
It's what we do in schools.
There are, of course, liable to be consequences for not initially co-operating as well.
After all, they knew who he was.

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 14:40
con-pilotWhat options do you believe he had?The most obvious option was to check whether Mr Vasquez had committed any offence. It would been entirely reasonable to seize the car keys while he did so.

Mr Vasquez gets out of the car at about 00:49 seconds. He can be seen saying something to the cop, pointing to the office and then pointing to the dealer tags on the back of the car. NB: The car was parked on the premises of the car dealer which owned the car and where Mr Vasquez helps with mechanical work.
The cop arrests him at 1.09 (latest) - within 20 seconds!
The cop could and IMHO should have made those enquiries and found out the legal position, if necessary by using his radio to speak to a supervisor.
If he had done so, no arrest would have been necessary and the rogue cop would not have brought his department into international disrepute.

Is driving with an expired inspection sticker an arrestable offence in Texas?
I invite correction but my understanding (based upon various reports) is that it's a Class C misdemeanor which is usually dealt with by a citation.
Even if it is an arrestable offence, I remain of the view that the cop should have made those basic enquiries before exercising his power to do so.
What should have the police officer have done, just let the guy drive off?No. See above.So now we go back to a previous thread on the interpretation of what we see on a video.There is a big difference between interpretation/possible misinterpretation and gross misrepresentation as per Burnie's so-called 'summary'.
The first poster to draw attention to the absurdity of Burnie's 'summary' was an American: See post 11. Bad summary, look at the video again, maybe in slow motion. There are still some of us that believe local police are in place to serve the community, not the other way around as illustrated in the video…

Journalists are often criticised for acting irresponsibly. The Victoria Advocate newspaper dealt with this story impeccably with the cooperation of the Chief of Police who IMHO also deserves praise.
Luxury of time helps us provide better coverage of tasing story (https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/blogs/staff/entries/2014/dec/16/luxury-of-time-helps-us-provide-better-coverage-of-tasing-story/)Local editor Tony Balandran received a call Thursday morning about a 76-year-old man being tased by Victoria police. We rushed to find out more, of course, but we also had the luxury of time to try to sort out the incident.

The man, Pete Vasquez, was still being treated at Citizens Medical Center when we first tried to talk with him. After he was released, reporter Bianca Montes and photographer Frank Tilley went to his home to sit down and talk with him. We also talked with Larry Urich, the Adams Auto Mart sales manager who first called us outraged about what he had witnessed.

From there, we contacted Victoria Police Chief J.J. Craig, who asked us to give him a day to investigate. We agreed, and he sat down at 1 p.m. Friday with reporter Melissa Crowe, providing us a copy of the dashboard camera video we requested. Based on what the chief told us, Crowe went back to Vasquez and Urich to interview them a second time.

We knew this story would be emotionally charged and controversial so we took a full day to review it and prepare our front-page headline and design for Sunday's edition.

How different would that story have been? How might the community and world reaction have changed if we didn't have the chief apologizing to Vasquez in our initial story?



Mr Vasquez said on Monday he hoped the incident would be kept in the proper perspective. "I agree that something has to be done, but I don't want to bash the police department in Victoria," Vasquez said. "I know there's a lot of good cops here, and I don't want them to think I'm putting them down or saying things that are not true; but there are a couple of bad ones, and they don't need to be on the force." IMHO a commendably restrained and sensible attitude in the circumstances.

It is okay for the English police to beat the crap out of people and tazer people that do not follow their lawful orders.
But not okay for American cops.It is not okay in either country.
The 'blind man' incident happened more than a year ago.
This thread is about a specific incident which happened a few days ago.
A quick search shows that this incident, complete with video footage released by the police, has been reported and is being discussed on numerous websites - including a very large number of websites across America.

I unequivocally condemn mindless anti-American posts but I have also noticed that in this forum some American contributors are far too quick to suggest anti-American bias. Whether intentionally or not, it has the effect of diverting attention from the topic and distracting from sensible discussion of that topic. (NB: This thread was started by a Canadian poster.)

The now predictable 'whataboutery' has a similar effect. That may be a cultural difference in debating styles, I don't know, but I have never encountered it in numerous discussions with American friends over many years.

wings folded
17th Dec 2014, 15:02
It is not okay in either country.
The 'blind man' incident happened more than a year ago.
This thread is about a specific incident which happened a few days ago.
It was started by an American poster.
The "when" of an incident is not relevant.

The Ian Tomlinson incident was well before both, but of no less significance for having occurred (was it?) five years ago.

The thread was started by somebody who gives his location as Canada. Well, Canada is in the Americas geographically speaking, and the poster might be a US American living in Canada. But either way, the origins of posters are not really germane.

An American or two posters have got twitchy that nobody condemns the tazering of a bling mind on the right hand side of the ocean. A bit of a mistake, since condemnation was expressed.

You changed your post, making my remarks re Canada / USA seem a little stupid. Ah, well

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 15:14
FL,

Any Summons(Citation, Ticket, or whatever it is called) is a "Courtesy" and in most Police Agencies there is a written procedure (SOP, General Order) that sets forth the action an Officer is to take in handling those kinds of Offenses.

The rub is in the fact there is a fair bit of latitude extended to the Officer and where one Officer might offer a Verbal Warning another might issue a Written Warning, another might issue a Traffic Summons (Ticket/Citation), and as is allowed by the LAW some might place the Violator under Arrest and take the guy to Jail.

I would suggest that "Attitude is Everything" in the outcome of such encounters.

That applies to the Officer as well as the Violator as each comes equipped to see an acceptable if not pleasant outcome to the event.

I have not viewed the video and care not to do so as there is little to be gained by getting involved in the discussion about this.

I have been on both sides of these kinds of events both as an Officer and as a Violator and have seen every variation of the endings played out.

I have been issued a Ticket for an expired Inspection Sticker and have had an Officer casually mention I should one day get around to getting the car inspected. Neither outcome was necessarily prompted by my conduct as i am invariably polite and courteous when dealing with a Police Officer.

As an Officer I have done the Casual mention thing and each of all the other possibilities. As issuing the Summons was considered a Courtesy by my Department, we extended that Courtesy when Courtesy was displayed by the Violator but if a hostile, rude, insulting , offensive attitude was presented then we declined to offer that Courtesy and simply arrested the Violator and converted the Summons into a Warrant, towed the car, searched the car, and impounded the Car.

From the sounds of your post it would appear the Victoria Police Department, Newspaper, and Citizens are handling the situation in a fair even handed and proper manner. If the Officer diddled the pooch in this....he shall pay a penance for it.

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 15:18
wings folded

I spotted my mistake and changed it while you were posting.
I also corrected other errors/typos and added a small section.

The "when" of an incident is not relevant.In the greater scheme of things, I agree. However, when trying to discuss a particular incident, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to discuss that incident.

Agree re the Tomlinson incident. It was discussed very thoroughly - and had reached 609 posts when the thread fizzled out.
As was the Stockwell station shooting of the Brazilian man on his way to work - in more than one thread.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 15:19
Bob wrote:

Neither outcome was necessarily prompted by my conduct as i am invariably polite and courteous when dealing with a Police Officer.

As I am. Which 99.9% seems to work out in my favor at the end. (Having Veterans plates on my car, as well as a US Army Airborne Ranger plate frame seems to work in my favor very well also and invariably leads to discussion about the Army, Rangers and how I can "go on my way now but please slow down, sir.")

wings folded
17th Dec 2014, 15:24
FL

Happens all the time, so not a problem.

You raise Stockwell and the deceased in that incident.. Yes, indeed. Many voices were outspoken in condemnation on that occasion also. (By British posters)

It seems that American readers are just a little on the defensive, though I have no idea why they should be.

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 15:25
Bob

Thank you for responding. I didn't know, and am surprised, that a Class C misdemeanor is an arrestable offence.
That said, I stand by what I said about the cop arresting in the circumstances.


I have not viewed the video and care not to do so as there is little to be gained by getting involved in the discussion about this.I'm puzzled.
You've posted 12 times.
(Not including your most recent post which was in response to my request for information.

BTW, I recommend viewing the video - taken from the onboard camera of the cruiser.
It shows the cop in action. :eek:
(Whatever happened on the ground is out of view but everything up to and including the arrest is shown.)

FL

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 15:34
It seems that American readers are just a little on the defensive, though I have no idea why they should be.

It is certainly a matter of One's perspective.

As you gaze out your Window you might remember there is a framework that surrounds it that creates the full view.....and yours is not the only window in town.

wings folded
17th Dec 2014, 15:37
That is far too cryptic for me to comprehend, let alone respond.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 15:41
FL wrote

Thank you for responding. I didn't know, and am surprised, that a Class C misdemeanor is an arrestable offence.

But an arrest for a Class C misdemeanor is rarely performed as far as I know. I believe it's up to the discretion of the officer(s) involved.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 15:48
FL,

As you have so carefully counted my posts here then you also read where I stated my views about asking Checkerboard to apologize to Con after making a snotty comment and pointing out to Checkerboard that his post was patently wrong. I highlighted that in Red for him to consider. Did you miss that?

As you rightly say, the Victoria Video is of very limited value as it omits a lot of what transpired. Just as i am right in not needing to view that particular video it is also right that a full interpretation of what went on cannot be formed by the video alone.

I am sure in a British Court the Judge was find that to be so.

My posts in this thread generally address the comments made by others about the American Police, American Laws, and American way of doing things despite the posters not being American and not being ExPats living in America.

You have just admitted you did not fully understand American Law re Traffic Violations and you are a very highly regarded Lawyer, one who I personally hold in very high regard.

We all see things in a different light based upon our Life Experiences, education, professional experience, and political views.

As you well know, Witnesses see much different things despite there being just the one event they observed. Is that not applicable to this Video or any video for that matter.

What is different in this video?

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 16:59
Bob

It didn't need careful counting - until I ran out of fingers. ;)

Yes, I noticed that error in Checkerboard's post. When I saw it the error had been pointed out.

I didn't say the Victoria Video is of very limited value, nor do I think it. I agree it's of very limited value in relation to the actual use of the taser but it is very informative concerning the events leading up to it which are extremely relevant to the discussion. IMHO the discussion would have been just as interesting if no taser had been used. (I appreciate that opinion won't mean anything if you haven't watched the video.)

Re British courts
The build-up would be very relevant if the behaviour of the two parties needed to be explored. eg If the member of the public sued the police or if the police officer was prosecuted. I don't know what the position would be in an American courts so can't comment other than to say I'd be surprised if it wasn't. (That assumes the cop wouldn't be immune from being sued/prosecution. I have a vague recollection that there is a Qualified Immunity doctrine in U.S. federal law but don't know when/how it operates.)

I hope and believe that the way in which this cop behaved is not "the American way of doing things" but, as you rightly say, I don't know. However, I don't see why that should preclude anyone of any nationality from expressing an opinion on what this cop did to the old man - even before he used the taser.

What is different in this video?
There's no point in me describing what can be seen in the video when you are able to watch it for yourself. You may not like what you see, but that's a separate issue.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 17:13
Don't know if the rap/crap/hip-hop music was coming from inside the cruiser or not but if it was this would be, to me anyway, a small example of unprofessionalism on the part of the cop involved.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 17:19
FL,

Would the UK Court use the Video alone or would the Video be just one part of the Case? My point is simple and it would apply to both the US and UK Judicial systems equally. The Video is of some value but in and of itself would not be sole information used to decide the Case in either Court System.

I am the one saying the Victoria Video is of limited value for use in deciding the full merits of the case. The Witness accounts, review of the pertinent Laws, consideration of the Police Department SOP's, and the actions of both the Officer and the Violator would be considered in both the Department's Administrative Review and the in the Courts, Criminal and Civil as required.

Anyone is free to discuss the event but the criteria is American Law, Federal and State, Victoria PD policy, not any other standard.

As I have clearly stated....if the Cop diddled the pooch....he shall pay a penance for that. That is up to his Department and the Courts to decide.

Whether I "like" what I see in the Video is not germane to those determinations.

RGB,

Had it been Redneck Country blasting from the Cruiser Radio....would that have been more professional?

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 17:25
Bob,

It could have been any kind of music as far as I'm concerned but there is no place for any type of music to be played in a police cruiser. Which is probably why the NYPD, as a matter of policy, makes it against departmental rules to do so. (This "no music in cruisers" rule is also strictly adhered to by the officers of the NY State Police as well as most NY county police and Sheriff departments.)

ShyTorque
17th Dec 2014, 17:37
BB, being justifiably stopped for an actual violation and being polite to the police officer is a good idea; from what you have said, in your case you knew you were guilty of the offence. Being stopped and incorrectly accused of an offence due to the ignorance of the police officer, when you know you are not guilty, is a different situation but being polite is also still a good idea.

But in this case it appears an innocent old man pointed out the legality of the situation (it was later agreed by his management that no offence had been committed) which instantly enraged the officer to a point where he could not control his anger. He threw the man to the ground then used a taser on him to subdue him further.

I've been in a very similar situation in UK when I was given a ticket for not displaying a tax disc on my car. I pointed out that no offence was being committed because the car was not on the UK register and I was visiting from another country, where the car was correctly registered and fully legal. I pointed this out for no other reason that to continue to write the ticket was a waste of everyone's time. Did I deserve to be leapt on from behind, to be arrested or to be shot with a taser just because I pointed out that the person issuing the ticket was in the wrong? Not by any standards, either side of the Atlantic.

It cost me half a day of my holiday to sort out the issue. No apology was forthcoming or expected. The officer was a fool and ignorant so I expected nothing else.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 17:40
Our Cruisers had AM Radios but rarely got used as it was just an annoyance but on some of those long cold Winter nights when there was absolutely nothing going on and you were checking Buildings for Break-In's...it was a nice diversion.

Usually in my Patrol area we were far too busy with business.

Being City Police we were out of the cars far more than we were inside them.

The guys on the South End of town where the Mayor and Bankers lived could have used TV, Stereo, and a Futon on most of their shifts.

We needed Armor, Sandbags, and Medavacs on the North End of town as it was dark and dangerous.

wings folded
17th Dec 2014, 17:42
BB
My posts in this thread generally address the comments made by others about the American Police, American Laws, and American way of doing things despite the posters not being American and not being ExPats living in America.
And on a different thread, you invent a law in the UK which does not exist. To try to make a point. See the "torture" thread. So you feel free to comment about UK laws, a law in particular you have made up out of your own imagination? And then get all indignant?

No, I am not American. No, I am not an expat living in America. Yes, I have been more than a tiny bit critical of police actions in the UK in the last few years.

My views expressed in post number 58 were valid as I wrote them and remain so now.

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 17:46
Shy,

What was the Texas State law in this case?

Is it the shop owner who determines if a Violation had been committed or the Court when hearing the Case?

You did see my reference to the Supreme Court Case where it was found that the Police do not have to be perfect, right, or infallible......just reasonable?

If this Victoria Cop acted unreasonably, he shall pay a penance for that either by some Administrative sanction, Criminal prosecution, or Civil Action or a combination of any/all of the three.

What happened during your encounter has nothing to do with what happened in Victoria.

Checkboard
17th Dec 2014, 18:00
Quote:
There was no supervisor - and, in all of these videos I have seen, there never IS a supervisor.
Look at the NYC Video again....three stripes on a Uniform Shirt connotes the rank of Sergeant and in that incident she was female and black. Thus there was a Supervisor on scene and in charge of the incident as it happened.

You owe Con an Apology as you are dead wrong in your statement.

I asked Con to "look at the video in question" - up to that point, the ONLY video posted on the thread, and the video directly referred to in the thread title.

The one you now admit to refusing to watch, Bob. :confused:

In THAT video, there was no other officer on scene - and the other officers didn't appear until the officer reported on his radio "Taser Deployed".

I don't know where you got the NYC incident confused, as to the best of my knowledge it hadn't been referred to until you yourself mentioned it.

(And sorry if you consider my reply to be late. This is the first I have viewed the thread since then.)

ShyTorque
17th Dec 2014, 18:48
What happened during your encounter has nothing to do with what happened in Victoria.

I'd disagree most strongly. The police department have already admitted the officer was in the wrong.

It's actually called morals, Bob.

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 20:18
Bob My point is simple and it would apply to both the US and UK Judicial systems equally. The Video is of some value but in and of itself would not be sole information used to decide the Case in either Court System.
In the UK, it would not be the sole information but, depending upon the issue to be decided by the court, it might well be the most crucial evidence.
I don't know what would happen in the US.
More to the point: This is a discussion forum, not a court. Anyone is free to discuss the event but the criteria is American Law, Federal and State, Victoria PD policy, not any other standard.
For the purpose of the disciplinary investigation/proceedings, and any court proceedings, I agree. Not here.
I happen to think that people are generally, on many different topics, too quick to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. However, that is a personal view undoubtedly influenced by my having been lawyer all my adult life, not the approach of the overwhelming majority. Trying to change it would be like King Canute trying to turn back the tide.

I see no reason why anyone, provided they have watched the video, should be precluded from expressing an opinion upon whether the arrest itself or the degree of force used by the cop was reasonable in the circumstances.
Even if the cop was legally entitled to do what he did, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was reasonable to do it.

If being aware of all the facts was a condition of expressing an opinion, particularly in legal and political threads, this would not be a very active forum.
We (or those who stayed around) would be reduced to the sort of posts that appear in the longest running thread in Jetblast:I do enjoy shopping at my local Chinese operated green grocers, just across the road from the new Safeway. I try to go there for the veggies first. They always have the tiny white potatoes that make such good boiled pots. Better priced and fresher all round usually. Important to support them, across the road from Safeway, and I got thanked three times before I got out of the shop yesterday, a nice change from the Safeway scripts.The brass monkeys here are queued outside garages asking whether they do welding.
I noticed that the lovely Carol the weather guesser has yet another new frock. My weather station gives me sunrise and sunset times, I noticed that the evening has drawn out a whole minute as from today.
Yesterday sunset was 16:08 today it is 16:09.Unbelievable though it may seem, those are actual examples from the last couple of days.

(No, I do not read that thread. I popped in briefly to get a few examples and for no other reason.)

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 20:21
FL wrote:

Trying to change it would be like King CanuteKing Canute! Brings back memories FL, thanks for that. Mom, gone on to the other side now for a number of years, used to call me that - usually in a bit of anger due no doubt to her 100% Italian blood - as a youth when I did something which she disapproved of. "C'mere King Canute."

:ok::ok::ok:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.......

Boudreaux Bob
17th Dec 2014, 20:23
I bet she was saying "Come Here! I'll kick your Patoot!"!

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 20:33
Bob,

No, usually she hollered in the Eye-talian language at me. Especially the naughty words*. Until I started learning the Eye-talian language. Which then did her, and Grand Mama as well, no good. (But they continued anyway!)

*Sono stufa, sfacimme. :eek::eek::eek:

Also, Bob, as Dad was a former US Marine who served in Korea during those festivities he was the one tasked with the threat of physical discipline. Which really wasn't along the lines of kicking my Patoot but more like "Get over here so I can kick your ass for a month of Sundays".

vulcanised
17th Dec 2014, 20:44
Better than my mis-hearing the name of a nearby pub and spending ages looking for the 'Kinky Newt'.

MagnusP
18th Dec 2014, 15:54
King Canute, WF. And he wasn't trying to hold back the tide; he was demonstrating that there was a higher power than his.

wings folded
18th Dec 2014, 16:15
Thanks, Magnus, but it has all gone pants again. You kindly answered a post I did not appear to make, and we are back with old vulcan yesterday...

Lonewolf_50
18th Dec 2014, 17:32
Just out of curiosity: how many of you have actually been to Victoria, Texas?
I've been there over a score of times over the past decade or so.

You can describe it as a small city, or as an oversized town. It does not surprise me that a Victoria cop might be quick to get all physical with someone who isn't courteous during a stop. Cops are taught to "control a situation." But I also think that the cop in question has caused his chief some unnecessary headache. The points made in this thread about getting the facts when interacting with the public might have prevented this from turning stupid.

"Community policing" in not embraced equally by all cops and all police forces. It is the trend, and at its core involves talking to people, not at them.