Your papers please!

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

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?

Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass.

Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal.

How do you know this? There is a reason for pedestrian/traffic laws. I very nearly hit a jaywalker recently (jogged right through a red light), and I can easily see how she could have caused a wreck. After slamming on my brakes, I just barely missed hitting her. And I would have been pretty upset about that, even if it was her own stupid fault.

Quote

The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully.

Unless there is something of higher priority for them to take care of at that moment, it makes sense to enforce these laws (at least with a warning) even if a particular instance doesn't cause cars to swerve or brake forcefully. It might inform the jaywalker of the law and prevent a future incident that nearly or actually causes a collision.

[billvon 3,132]

>so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce?

Definitely. Cop sees two cars driving by, one going 1mph over the speed limit, the other clearly drunk and weaving all over the road - he SHOULD choose which law to enforce.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

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?

Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass.

Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety.

This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion?

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

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.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

Had they actually handled it well, there would be no controversy.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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?

Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass.

Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety.

This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion?

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

The cops were within their right to issue him a citation. They were not within their rights to escalate the sitatuion to violence. They were not within their rights to charge the guy with trumped up charges. These were cops clearly looking for a pre-textual stop.

Yup, the guy should have provided his name an address when the cop wrote him a citation, but I find a lot more to criticize in the cops for needlessly escalating a situation to a violent confrontation. If there is no need to escalate force, then the cops should not escalate force. They are trained specifically with non-violent methods to handcuff passively resisting subjects, as this guy was. If they can't figure out, between the two of them, how to get handcuffs on a guy standing still, then they need to be sent back to training.

I'd suggest as a first step that they tell the guy he's under arrest and start reading him his rights. That may be enough to notify him that it's serious enough that he should stop trying to demand a statute number and should shut up and put his hands behind his back.

As a second step, they should tell the guy that since they're arresting him, if he doesn't put his hands behind his back, then he's resisting arrest, and that's an additional, potential felony charge.

All of this could be accomplished easily within those 30 seconds, and a lot more efficiently than shoving a taser into the guy's face. He's also not as likely to pull 20 feet away at that point.

Leave the taser for when he does an affirmative action, like pushing them, running, etc. Standing still does not qualify. The taser is not a compliance device. It's a less-violent alternative to a gun. You wouldn't shoot someone for not putting their hands behind their back if they're not doing anything else, so you shouldn't tase them either.

The woman with the camera should not have kept yelling at the officers (not helpful, plus extremely distracting with her video). She should not have been carrying without a license. Nonetheless, this guy was very fortunate this incident was caught on video. Without video he most likely would have been injured much worse. He also likely would not be able to fight the ridiculous trumped up charges of battery on a police officer and resisting with violence.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

Had they actually handled it well, there would be no controversy.

Non sequitur

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.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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?

Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass.

Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety.

This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion?

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

The cops were within their right to issue him a citation. They were not within their rights to escalate the sitatuion to violence. They were not within their rights to charge the guy with trumped up charges. These were cops clearly looking for a pre-textual stop.

Yup, the guy should have provided his name an address when the cop wrote him a citation, but I find a lot more to criticize in the cops for needlessly escalating a situation to a violent confrontation. If there is no need to escalate force, then the cops should not escalate force. They are trained specifically with non-violent methods to handcuff passively resisting subjects, as this guy was. If they can't figure out, between the two of them, how to get handcuffs on a guy standing still, then they need to be sent back to training.

I'd suggest as a first step that they tell the guy he's under arrest and start reading him his rights. That may be enough to notify him that it's serious enough that he should stop trying to demand a statute number and should shut up and put his hands behind his back.

As a second step, they should tell the guy that since they're arresting him, if he doesn't put his hands behind his back, then he's resisting arrest, and that's an additional, potential felony charge.

All of this could be accomplished easily within those 30 seconds, and a lot more efficiently than shoving a taser into the guy's face. He's also not as likely to pull 20 feet away at that point.

Leave the taser for when he does an affirmative action, like pushing them, running, etc. Standing still does not qualify. The taser is not a compliance device. It's a less-violent alternative to a gun. You wouldn't shoot someone for not putting their hands behind their back if they're not doing anything else, so you shouldn't tase them either.

The woman with the camera should not have kept yelling at the officers (not helpful, plus extremely distracting with her video). She should not have been carrying without a license. Nonetheless, this guy was very fortunate this incident was caught on video. Without video he most likely would have been injured much worse. He also likely would not be able to fight the ridiculous trumped up charges of battery on a police officer and resisting with violence.

How are they supposed to cite him if he refuses to identify himself? You said earlier that they should have let him walk away. Now, you say they should have cited him. (By the way, the police don't have 'rights' in these situations. They have duties.)

When you are told to put your hands behind your back and two cops have their cuffs out, telling you that you are under arrest seems redundant, but I'll give you that they could have given him a play by play. He is, afterall, on the dense side.

Once you are told that you have committed a crime; been told to put your hands behind your back; been warned that you will be tazed if you do not comply, and; continue to resist arrest...I cannot agree with your view that it was the cops who escalated the violence. The cops did what was minimally necessary to perform their duties. Had the guy identified himself as required by law, there would have been no tazer or physical contact at all.

By the way..the law allows law enforcement to use one level of violence above the suspect. It has to be that way, or the officer will always die first and the bad guy will always win.

I am very critical of law enforcement. I have done the job myself. I know there are lots of bad cops. These guys did an excellent job.

Also...there is another video on youtube of this suspect doing something very similar. It seems he has a history of baiting the police by committing infractions and then refusing to identify himself while video-taping it. If we follow your view that the police are trumping up charges on him, we have to wonder why the police are following him around while he videos things. The simpler explanation is that he is provoking situations. Also, the cop in the other video happens to be black. Apparently even black cops are against this guy because of his race (I don't think you brought up the race thing, Southernman, but it was brought up.)

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.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce?

Definitely. Cop sees two cars driving by, one going 1mph over the speed limit, the other clearly drunk and weaving all over the road - he SHOULD choose which law to enforce.

come on bill... talk about straw man.

This discussion isn't about prioritizing which laws to enforce. It's about seeing one violation and choosing to enforce or ignore it.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,132]

>It's about seeing one violation and choosing to enforce or ignore it.

OK. Then cop sees someone go by going 1mph over the speed limit and decides to wait for someone going 20mph over the speed limit. (In your terms, "chooses to ignore the law.") Prioritization happens all the time - and that often means not busting someone for the more minor infraction.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>It's about seeing one violation and choosing to enforce or ignore it.

OK. Then cop sees someone go by going 1mph over the speed limit and decides to wait for someone going 20mph over the speed limit. (In your terms, "chooses to ignore the law.") Prioritization happens all the time - and that often means not busting someone for the more minor infraction.

much better.

so if the officer chose to pull over the 1mph speeder and ask for his ID, would he be violating anyone's rights? What about if that person was acting suspiciously, and refused to identify himself? Should the officer then let him go?

--
Rob

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Unless there is something of higher priority for them to take care of at that moment, it makes sense to enforce these laws (at least with a warning) even if a particular instance doesn't cause cars to swerve or brake forcefully. It might inform the jaywalker of the law and prevent a future incident that nearly or actually causes a collision.

As a pedestrian, I've encountered a handful of traffic signals in the Orlando area that displayed walk signals and green turn arrows at the same time, promoting automobiles to cross crosswalks while they are in lawful use. With many drivers dividing their attention between the road and their phone / breakfast / audio player / kids, I had a few close calls. From their reactions, most of those drivers felt that the right of way was theirs. Given that they were turning on a green arrow, their conclusion wasn't entirely unreasonable.

It didn't take me long to learn that, when using a sidewalk around Orlando, crossing the street at an intersection with a traffic signal was a less than ideal proposition, and should be avoided whenever practical, in the interest of safety. It's much better to cross between intersections when the way is clear.

That doesn't mean that all jaywalking is done in a safe and responsible manner. But if a police officer can't recognize the difference between safely crossing the street outside a crosswalk or against a don't walk signal and crossing the street with blatant disregard for other road users, then they should be in another line of work. Cops should certainly be allowed to use their discretion to ignore victimless violations of the letter of the law when those violations pose no threat to the public safety that the law is intended to protect.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[davjohns 1]

Personally, I speed as much as the average driver on long drives. Not at all on the daily commute. I accept my faults. But I would be fine with automated devices that take a picture of your tag when you get 5mph or so over the limit and mail you a ticket. Move them around at random. We would probably all be a bit safer.

On a humorous note, I was at a course where we were issued government vehicles. We were warned that local stop lights had cameras and would automatically issue tickets if you ran them. We were advised at the beginning of the class to let the instructors know if you thought you were going to get a ticket. I raised my hand... They told me to wait until I had actually run the red light. You can see my confusion. :)

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.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

>It's about seeing one violation and choosing to enforce or ignore it.

OK. Then cop sees someone go by going 1mph over the speed limit and decides to wait for someone going 20mph over the speed limit. (In your terms, "chooses to ignore the law.") Prioritization happens all the time - and that often means not busting someone for the more minor infraction.

much better.

so if the officer chose to pull over the 1mph speeder and ask for his ID, would he be violating anyone's rights? What about if that person was acting suspiciously, and refused to identify himself? Should the officer then let him go?

Driveing is a whole different set of rules. Driving is a privilige, not a right. You are required to have a driver's license in your posession while operating a motor vehicle.
That simple, but huge difference means that, yes, a cop can pull a car over for 1 mph over the limit, crossing the center line, failing to come to a complete stop, running a yellow light or just about any other pretext if they choose. And the driver has to show the officer his license.

There's no "walker's" license. And no requirement to have ID on you when walking.
Ideally, IMO, the cops should have asked the dude for his name, written the citation out with no ID, and then explained to the guy that because he violated a law (the statute number would have been on the ticket) he would have to either provide proof then and there that he was who he said he was, or "accompany" them to the station until they could verify he was who he said he was.

The use of the taser as a compliance device should be stopped. It's supposed to be one step below lethal force, as I understand it.

It is used far, far too often.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well.

Had they actually handled it well, there would be no controversy.

The situation was handled exactly as it should have been. I don't get where everyone is coming off saying that the man was not resisting. Fighting with a police officer while screaming, "I'm not resisting" does not mean you are complying. When they had their hands on him and were asking him very calmly to allow them to cuff him he tensed his arms to prevent this, that constitutes resisting arrest. You'd on't have to be physically engaging a police officer to be resisting. And the man was given several warning about being hit with the taser, which he CHOSE to ignore, so the individual in question, not the officers escalated the situation.

That idiot walked into the situation with a game plan and thought he could outsmart the police and ended up making the situation worse for himself. Had he simply provided an ID and been polite I would be willing to bet he would have walked away with a verbal warning.

The use of tasers as a compliance tool was ideal in this situation. The officers could have either tackled the man and fought him on the ground which would have led to greater injuries for all parties or they could snap him with a taser and avoid an even worse altercation. Its a simple concept, if someone who has authority over you tells you that if you refuse to do something you will be shocked then it is nobody's fault but your own if you end up with 50,000 volts passing through you. And whether or not people choose to believe it once you commit a crime, that officer has every right to issue you lawful commands.

Cops-1
Idiot-0

Trying to speak eloquently when you are really just being an idiot does not make you right or a victim of the man, it merely confirms that you are an idiot.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[wmw999 2,602]

I took a safety leadership class at work once where we were challenged to follow all speed limits for the duration of the 3-day class.

After the first day, one of the upper-level managers in the class said that he about went insane

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

How are they supposed to cite him if he refuses to identify himself? You said earlier that they should have let him walk away. Now, you say they should have cited him. (By the way, the police don't have 'rights' in these situations. They have duties.)

I think this was a silly stop and a simple pretext to harass somebody. I do not think they should have stopped him at all. I do believe that ultimately the police do have the ability to cite him, if indeed he crossed against a traffic signal, which best I can tell is the specific infraction he was charged with. I have searched google maps using zoom and street view and cannot, to this point, find the particular intersection he was alleged to have crossed. I do think he has to identify himself if he is cited, although he does not have to provide a physical ID. He is within his rights to ask if this is a custodial stop and he is within his rights to walk away if it is not.

Quote

When you are told to put your hands behind your back and two cops have their cuffs out, telling you that you are under arrest seems redundant, but I'll give you that they could have given him a play by play. He is, afterall, on the dense side.

Once you are told that you have committed a crime; been told to put your hands behind your back; been warned that you will be tazed if you do not comply, and; continue to resist arrest...I cannot agree with your view that it was the cops who escalated the violence. The cops did what was minimally necessary to perform their duties. Had the guy identified himself as required by law, there would have been no tazer or physical contact at all.

I do not think the man posed any threat to the officers, the public, or himself. I believe that the force used was well above that minimally necessary to perform their duties.

Quote

By the way..the law allows law enforcement to use one level of violence above the suspect. It has to be that way, or the officer will always die first and the bad guy will always win.

I am very critical of law enforcement. I have done the job myself. I know there are lots of bad cops. These guys did an excellent job.

I don't see any level of violence being used by the suspect. I see ample evidence for a charge of resisting without violence. Do you see anything that indicates that a charge of resisting with violence or a charge of battery on a police officer is warranted? I am not asking whether it is standard procedure in cases of this type, because I am well aware that the officers will hit you with every charge conceivably possible to cover their ass and make their assault appear warranted. It is possible that he hit the officer while thrashing as volts went through his body but I do not see any act of violence out of him.

I am very critical of law enforcement because there are way too many instances of people using their badge as a pretext to harass and assault people, as in this video. Unfortunately when you are a citizen on the receiving end of harassment and bullying then you have next to no recourse.

Quote

Also...there is another video on youtube of this suspect doing something very similar. It seems he has a history of baiting the police by committing infractions and then refusing to identify himself while video-taping it. If we follow your view that the police are trumping up charges on him, we have to wonder why the police are following him around while he videos things. The simpler explanation is that he is provoking situations. Also, the cop in the other video happens to be black. Apparently even black cops are against this guy because of his race (I don't think you brought up the race thing, Southernman, but it was brought up.)

I don't know anything about that but I will look into it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The use of tasers as a compliance tool was ideal in this situation. The officers could have either tackled the man and fought him on the ground which would have led to greater injuries for all parties or they could snap him with a taser and avoid an even worse altercation. Its a simple concept, if someone who has authority over you tells you that if you refuse to do something you will be shocked then it is nobody's fault but your own if you end up with 50,000 volts passing through you.

And here remains the problem - the taser is not a compliance device. It is a (usually) less than lethal weapon that kills often enough that the "non lethal" tag had to be removed. Since too many cops are fucking idiots using it as a compliance or just as often, retaliation tool, I'm convinced that we need to take it away from them. Go back to the baton. You lose the ability to torture (subdue) your suspect without leaving marks, but at least it will force you to use proper procedure.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

the taser is not a compliance device. It is a (usually) less than lethal weapon that kills often enough that the "non lethal" tag had to be removed.
...

Go back to the baton.

sure...

nobody ever died from getting hit or choked with a baton.

--
Rob

[Skyrad 0]

I changed my mind on watching this a second time, the start of the film starts with the cop being quite reasonable and we don't know how long the situation had been going on. The guy didn't help himself at all and the woman should have been controlled better, but having said that it only looked like there was two of them to start with and who knows what he had under his T shirt.
The woman was so bloody annoying I wouldn't have minded if someone tazered her! "Get YO SUPERVISOR!" what did she think they were McDonald's employees?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Coreece 190]

Quote

the woman should have been controlled better...The woman was so bloody annoying I wouldn't have minded if someone tazered her!

Something a muslim would say!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,132]

>so if the officer chose to pull over the 1mph speeder and ask for his ID, would he be
>violating anyone's rights?

No - because you are required by law to carry a driver's license when you drive. (I am not aware of a walking license required anywhere in the US.) And further, you do not violate anyone's rights to ASK for something. Requiring it under penalty of arrest is a bit different though.

>What about if that person was acting suspiciously, and refused to identify himself?
>Should the officer then let him go?

Again, no.

However, if he persisted in pulling over people going 1mph over the speed limit in an area known for serious traffic problems (like a lot of drunk driving fatalities) I'd expect him to be replaced pretty quickly by someone with a little more sense.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I am not aware of a walking license required anywhere in the US.

And if the guy wasn't carrying an ID, he should have said so, but I didn't hear him say that in the video.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

The use of tasers as a compliance tool was ideal in this situation. The officers could have either tackled the man and fought him on the ground which would have led to greater injuries for all parties or they could snap him with a taser and avoid an even worse altercation. Its a simple concept, if someone who has authority over you tells you that if you refuse to do something you will be shocked then it is nobody's fault but your own if you end up with 50,000 volts passing through you.

And here remains the problem - the taser is not a compliance device. It is a (usually) less than lethal weapon that kills often enough that the "non lethal" tag had to be removed. Since too many cops are fucking idiots using it as a compliance or just as often, retaliation tool, I'm convinced that we need to take it away from them. Go back to the baton. You lose the ability to torture (subdue) your suspect without leaving marks, but at least it will force you to use proper procedure.

I strenuously disagree. The Taser is much less damaging than a stick. Do you have any idea how much damage you have to inflict to gain compliance with a stick? Do you know how much more training and liability is involved? Consider just the simple difference in media reaction had these officers been striking the guy with sticks.

I've been there many times. The Taser is much less violent than the stick.

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.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I am not aware of a walking license required anywhere in the US.

And if the guy wasn't carrying an ID, he should have said so, but I didn't hear him say that in the video.

The article I read said the guy was carrying a pistol, but had a permit. That means he also had ID with him. The woman was carrying a pistol with no permit. That's why she wasn't identifying herself.

Idiots. If they had identified themselves and taken a ticket, they would have been just fine.

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.