ChangoLanzao 0 #26 July 13, 2012 Quote Or did I mishear Obama when he said not to question illegal aliens, and that we wouldn't take steps to deport people who don't have the right to be here. Yes, you did mishear him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #27 July 13, 2012 Quote Did you see a valid reason for the officers to tazer that person? I saw a man who was not resisting and posed absolutely no threat. I saw officers following their use of force continuum to the letter. Someone they saw breaking a law was not complying with a lawful request to show ID. Now... how does stopping a jaywalker escalate to someone being tazed? We saw it on video. Having someone with you interfering with police business doesn't help the situation. Refusing lawful request doesn't help the situation. Don't lay this all on the officers. Officers on the street follow established procedures. If you start asking that they use their own judgement, then you start asking them to ignore policy and process. Is that what you really want?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #28 July 13, 2012 QuoteWhat they found is that many criminals have no respect for the law and hence, tend to be the ones that jaywalk etc. By stopping jaywalkers and asking for ID's they found many who were wanted on warrants and were able to take them into custody and get then off the streets. This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read so far today. This is the kind of tactic that makes for a very efficiently run police state. Once the authorities are given full discretion to stop, question, and abuse people for all kinds of minor offenses the stage is set for tyranny. Why not just let the police stop and question anyone at any time for whatever reason (pretty much the situation we have in America today)? Won't that lead to even more apprehensions of real criminals? Of course. And if the circumstances allow it, it becomes very easy to focus on any group in society and make their lives absolutely miserable in a perfectly legal way. "Your papers please!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhat they found is that many criminals have no respect for the law and hence, tend to be the ones that jaywalk etc. By stopping jaywalkers and asking for ID's they found many who were wanted on warrants and were able to take them into custody and get then off the streets. This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read so far today. This is the kind of tactic that makes for a very efficiently run police state. Once the authorities are given full discretion to stop, question, and abuse people for all kinds of minor offenses the stage is set for tyranny. Why not just let the police stop and question anyone at any time for whatever reason (pretty much the situation we have in America today)? Won't that lead to even more apprehensions of real criminals? Of course. And if the circumstances allow it, it becomes very easy to focus on any group in society and make their lives absolutely miserable in a perfectly legal way. "Your papers please!" Law enforcement ebbes and flows. In NYC before Gulliani cracked down on criminals people were being shot, robbed and mugged. After the crack down even his critics agreed that the streets were much safer. Once they had the streets under control, they were able to back off. Sort of like the Surge worked during the war. But, I'm sure you were against that too. Only in liberal Never, Never Land does the criminal decide to be a law abiding citizen without coersion from the police. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 July 13, 2012 Quote Law enforcement ebbes and flows. In NYC before Gulliani cracked down on criminals people were being shot, robbed and mugged. After the crack down even his critics agreed that the streets were much safer. Once they had the streets under control, they were able to back off. Sort of like the Surge worked during the war. But, I'm sure you were against that too. Crime is also down in other places that didn't involve this sort of shakedown. Or those that permitted liberal CCWs. But you're certain that this is what solved it for NYC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #31 July 13, 2012 QuoteOnly in liberal Never, Never Land does the criminal decide to be a law abiding citizen without coersion from the police. "Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear from the police!" -- Augosto Pinochet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #32 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuote Did you see a valid reason for the officers to tazer that person? I saw a man who was not resisting and posed absolutely no threat. I saw officers following their use of force continuum to the letter. Someone they saw breaking a law was not complying with a lawful request to show ID. Now... how does stopping a jaywalker escalate to someone being tazed? We saw it on video. Having someone with you interfering with police business doesn't help the situation. Refusing lawful request doesn't help the situation. Don't lay this all on the officers. Officers on the street follow established procedures. If you start asking that they use their own judgement, then you start asking them to ignore policy and process. Is that what you really want? Something is wrong when the use of force continuum involves tazing somebody who is not resisting and poses no threat of harm to anybody, including the officers. I do not believe the cops ever had the ability to require the man to provide ID, as the Florida "stop and identify" statute is pretty explicit in limiting the officers ability to demand ID to instances of loitering or prowling. Maybe that is why the officers did not want to provide an explanation or cite a statute. Here is the text of the FL code: 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.— (1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. (3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Frankly I am shocked at hoe freely and frequently people on here who claim to be conservatives are willing to dispense with civil liberties. Civil liberties are for all of us and protect all of us. These cops should be investigated for violations of the 14th amendment. The city may also be liable for a large lawsuit (if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency)."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #33 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Did you see a valid reason for the officers to tazer that person? I saw a man who was not resisting and posed absolutely no threat. I saw officers following their use of force continuum to the letter. Someone they saw breaking a law was not complying with a lawful request to show ID. Now... how does stopping a jaywalker escalate to someone being tazed? We saw it on video. Having someone with you interfering with police business doesn't help the situation. Refusing lawful request doesn't help the situation. Don't lay this all on the officers. Officers on the street follow established procedures. If you start asking that they use their own judgement, then you start asking them to ignore policy and process. Is that what you really want? Something is wrong when the use of force continuum involves tazing somebody who is not resisting and poses no threat of harm to anybody, including the officers. I do not believe the cops ever had the ability to require the man to provide ID, as the Florida "stop and identify" statute is pretty explicit in limiting the officers ability to demand ID to instances of loitering or prowling. Maybe that is why the officers did not want to provide an explanation or cite a statute. Here is the text of the FL code: 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.— (1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. (3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Frankly I am shocked at hoe freely and frequently people on here who claim to be conservatives are willing to dispense with civil liberties. Civil liberties are for all of us and protect all of us. These cops should be investigated for violations of the 14th amendment. The city may also be liable for a large lawsuit (if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency). Are you saying that in Florida the police can not require ID when they catch someone breaking the law? The guy was jaywalking, wouldn't getting ID so that you don't write a ticket with a false name on it seem the normal thing to do? Is the officer just supposed to write "B. Obama" on the ticket if that is the name he is given? I do believe that law enforcement are going to tazers more than necc. these days and that this needs to be addressed. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #34 July 13, 2012 Quote Are you saying that in Florida the police can not require ID when they catch someone breaking the law? The guy was jaywalking, wouldn't getting ID so that you don't write a ticket with a false name on it seem the normal thing to do? Is the officer just supposed to write "B. Obama" on the ticket if that is the name he is given? I do believe that law enforcement are going to tazers more than necc. these days and that this needs to be addressed. James According to what I can read in the law (and I freely admit that I am not an expert) the police can ask for an ID in the circumstances listed in the statute above. They are also explicitly free to ask for an ID anytime they take you into custody. They are not allowed, under the law, to simply stop you and ask you for ID when you are not in custody. The victim would have been better advised to ask if he was under arrest or whether he was free to go then to consistently ask the officers for a statute. Regardless, the officers did not have any authority to ask him for ID unless they were arresting him. (this is different for traffic stops and also different in other states). The officers never say that he was being stopped for jaywalking, unless I missed it. Officers are not allowed to arrest you for exercising your rights, as they apparently did with this guy."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #35 July 13, 2012 I don't know, but watching that video...... makes me grateful that I am not a cop. I almost got arrested for jaywalking once. Well, not actually for jaywalking, but for being a complete asshat to the officer after he stopped me for jaywalking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #36 July 13, 2012 The officer responds to the question "what do I need to provide ID for" with "the fact that you committed an infraction". I guess the question becomes may an officer require ID after someone has committed an infraction of the law. I would not think the loitering law you quote above would have anything to do with this situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #37 July 13, 2012 QuoteThe officer responds to the question "what do I need to provide ID for" with "the fact that you committed an infraction". I guess the question becomes may an officer require ID after someone has committed an infraction of the law. I would not think the loitering law you quote above would have anything to do with this situation. I wouldn't think the loitering statute has anything to do with it either but it is the authority I can find for a police officer to require ID. Can you cite a statutory authority for the officer to ask for an ID under Florida law? He did ask once if he was being detained and he was told he was not. At that point he should have stopped all interaction with the officer and walked away. instead the police officers tasered him three times and then arrested him and charged him--"Peurifoy is facing charges of resisting with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer" Did anybody see any resisting with violence? Any batter on a police officer? I sure didn't. Trump up charges. Good thing it was on video or I bet he would have come out of it with some serious bruises, broken bones, etc. Here's what Taser says about their products "Our industry leading Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) are used worldwide by law enforcement, military, correctional, professional security, and personal protection markets. TASER ECDs use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement/correctional officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force." Does anybody believe that this guy was dangerous, combative, or high risk or posed a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or himself?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #38 July 13, 2012 Quote a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force." Does anybody believe that this guy was dangerous, combative, or high risk or posed a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or himself? I believe that being tased and then cuffed resulted in less injury to him and to the officers as opposed to if they had used force to subdue him.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #39 July 13, 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-police-taser-subdue-jaywalker/story?id=16763050#.T_9E5F1TNGQ Price (the camerawoman) had brass knuckles, a firearm, pepper spray, and a knife in her backpack. She did not have a concealed weapon permit. Not very smart to get into that situation while breaking much more serious laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #40 July 13, 2012 Quote I don't know, but watching that video...... makes me grateful that I am not a cop. I almost got arrested for jaywalking once. Well, not actually for jaywalking, but for being a complete asshat to the officer after he stopped me for jaywalking. That reminds me...my buddy and I were stopped for jaywalking in Canada near the club scene in Windsor back in college. The cops said that we had to stand there and prevent people from jaywalking for the next 30 minutes and sober up or we'll get a ticket. (We were happy drunks back than so we obliged.) Little did we know, everyone jaywalked in that particular spot...what a great way to meet hot chicks. We were like the most popular guys later that night...never did get a chance to thank those officers. btw, I would've stopped you too Keely... ok, ok...I'll stop.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #41 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuote a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force." Does anybody believe that this guy was dangerous, combative, or high risk or posed a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or himself? I believe that being tased and then cuffed resulted in less injury to him and to the officers as opposed to if they had used force to subdue him. There was no reason to use force at all. Frankly the whole thing smacks of the guy being harassed for WWB."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuote a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force." Does anybody believe that this guy was dangerous, combative, or high risk or posed a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or himself? I believe that being tased and then cuffed resulted in less injury to him and to the officers as opposed to if they had used force to subdue him. unless he died in the process. Then it would be a hard argument to make, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #43 July 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Did you see a valid reason for the officers to tazer ^ ^ ^ ^ on contingency). Are you saying that in Florida the police can not require ID when they catch someone breaking the law? The guy was jaywalking, wouldn't getting ID so that you don't write a ticket with a false name on it seem the normal thing to do? Is the officer just supposed to write "B. Obama" on the ticket if that is the name he is given? I do believe that law enforcement are going to tazers more than necc. these days and that this needs to be addressed. James He should write Son of B. Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #44 July 14, 2012 QuoteHe should write Son of B. Obama. "If I had a son, he'd look like Zikomo Peurifoy." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #45 July 14, 2012 Quotedo you really want the cops deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore? They do that already and have been doing so for a long, long time.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #46 July 14, 2012 QuoteQuotedo you really want the cops deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore? They do that already and have been doing so for a long, long time. So does the Attorney General. Leading by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #47 July 14, 2012 Here's the deal. First thing you do is ID the people you are talking to. You get it on the radio who you are with, so dispatch knows. If you go off the air because one of them shot you, there is a start to the investigation. If you read the article, both of these people were armed. Hers was illegal. The police officer is wearing a uniform and has a name tag. You know who you are dealing with right off. Why shouldn't people identify themselves to the officer? It's a common courtesy. When I call someone on the phone, I identify myself right off. Next, the guy committed an offense. Often, the officer would make sure there were no outstanding warrants on the guy and then give him a warning. The fact that the guy would not present ID becomes a problem. When you receive a citation, you have been arrested. You signed your bond on the bottom of the ticket and then you leave. If the officer can't ID you, he can't let you walk. You have to go to jail. That's what this officer was doing. He may not have said 'You're under arrest.', but the guy was. I once took a guy to jail for driving without a license because he lied to me about who he was. The SSN he gave me came back to a female. I later found out he had an outstanding warrant and that's why he was lying. But I had to take him to jail because I couldn't confirm his ID. You don't need positive ID to go IN jail; just to get OUT.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #48 July 14, 2012 What if the jaywalker doesn't have an ID on him? (That didn't seem to be the issue in this case; I'm just curious.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 July 14, 2012 QuoteWhat if the jaywalker doesn't have an ID on him? (That didn't seem to be the issue in this case; I'm just curious.) Then the cop would be even more suspicious because they claimed they had just cashed their paychecks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #50 July 14, 2012 Quote There was no reason to use force at all. Frankly the whole thing smacks of the guy being harassed for WWB. so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Shotgun 1 #44 July 14, 2012 QuoteHe should write Son of B. Obama. "If I had a son, he'd look like Zikomo Peurifoy." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #45 July 14, 2012 Quotedo you really want the cops deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore? They do that already and have been doing so for a long, long time.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #46 July 14, 2012 QuoteQuotedo you really want the cops deciding which laws to enforce and which to ignore? They do that already and have been doing so for a long, long time. So does the Attorney General. Leading by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #47 July 14, 2012 Here's the deal. First thing you do is ID the people you are talking to. You get it on the radio who you are with, so dispatch knows. If you go off the air because one of them shot you, there is a start to the investigation. If you read the article, both of these people were armed. Hers was illegal. The police officer is wearing a uniform and has a name tag. You know who you are dealing with right off. Why shouldn't people identify themselves to the officer? It's a common courtesy. When I call someone on the phone, I identify myself right off. Next, the guy committed an offense. Often, the officer would make sure there were no outstanding warrants on the guy and then give him a warning. The fact that the guy would not present ID becomes a problem. When you receive a citation, you have been arrested. You signed your bond on the bottom of the ticket and then you leave. If the officer can't ID you, he can't let you walk. You have to go to jail. That's what this officer was doing. He may not have said 'You're under arrest.', but the guy was. I once took a guy to jail for driving without a license because he lied to me about who he was. The SSN he gave me came back to a female. I later found out he had an outstanding warrant and that's why he was lying. But I had to take him to jail because I couldn't confirm his ID. You don't need positive ID to go IN jail; just to get OUT.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #48 July 14, 2012 What if the jaywalker doesn't have an ID on him? (That didn't seem to be the issue in this case; I'm just curious.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 July 14, 2012 QuoteWhat if the jaywalker doesn't have an ID on him? (That didn't seem to be the issue in this case; I'm just curious.) Then the cop would be even more suspicious because they claimed they had just cashed their paychecks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #50 July 14, 2012 Quote There was no reason to use force at all. Frankly the whole thing smacks of the guy being harassed for WWB. so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
