If I rob a liquor store and a clerk pulls out a gun, it backfires and he kills himself, I'm up for murder/manslaughter charges. The argument goes, if not for the illegal actions of myself, the clerk would not be dead.

"The court also finds that the majority of plaintiff's injuries were incurred when he resisted the police officers after this first incident," Marschewski wrote. "The resistance by plaintiff to the commands of the officers also is an intervening cause of his injuries, and the court does not find that all of plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the initial constitutional violation."

Why doesn't the same argument hold here? If not for the unconstitutional actions of the police officers, this kid would not have "resisted arrest."

Sweet, so I can give the judge a twenty and taser the shiat out of hi...

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 1) That for excessive tasering
2) and that's only if you are a cop

Oh. Always a catch.


Saborlas: Tasers were supposed to be a less-lethal way of taking down violent people. They've become compliance tools. Is this where we want law enforcement to go?

To go? Have you been in suspended animation or something?

There is coming a time in the very near future when all cops will shed their uniforms and try to hide in the crowds.

I really hope they are not successful in trying to be found.

Subby mentions the best way to handle this as far as i'm concerned. Everyone go out and buy tasers to use with reckless abandon.

Saborlas: Tasers were supposed to be a less-lethal way of taking down violent people. They've become compliance tools. Is this where we want law enforcement to go?







Are you really that nostalgic for the compliance tools of ye olden days ?

Don't kid yourself about how resorting to violence is a new phenomenon in LE

Remember that scene in Law Abiding Citizen with the judge and the cell phone? I am amazed at how corrupt judges don't find themselves the target of scorned Americans more often. We are an angry spiteful bunch that hates being wronged, yet we always always always let judges slide. I'm not advocating it, I'm just honestly suprised by it.

Jack Black 62: People will soon grow tired of this and begin fighting back with much more lethal weapons.

i don't know about 'soon' (or, that depends on your definition of 'soon') but this is certainly the direction we're headed in.

i'd say we're a good decade or two away from that yet though. most of us are far from shiat like this being the 'last straw' as we happily gobble our mcsandwiches on our lunchbreaks in our heat and a/c cars. once the good stuff starts going missing, the fighting will start. we're a ways off yet.

Weaver95: For what its worth, this ruling is entirely consistent with a country that says waterboarding isn't torture. So at least we're being consistent. which is nice.

This is why they should never tell us about it. What happens in the Middle East stays in the Middle East.

TFA: The court ruled this treatment was Kirby's fault.

Um?

TFA: The resistance by plaintiff to the commands of the officers also is an intervening cause of his injuries, and the court does not find that all of plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the initial constitutional violation.

Er... the resistance was to prevent further constitutional violations. Are you just supposed to let a police officer do whatever s/he wants, whenever s/he wants it, then try to find justice in this sham of a courtroom? At what point, as a responsible member of society, are you expected to defend your own rights to the best of your ability? After the first violation, it was clear that the plaintiff could not rely on the police to protect and enforce his constitutional rights...

TFA At most, the evidence established that the defendants, in reacting to plaintiff's desire to leave the scene and failure to submit to their commands, failed to meet the situation at hand with an appropriate degree of force.

By a factor of infinity, since zero force was required. They had no right to stop, hold, or search him, and therefore no right to order his compliance to demands of such. The officers were acting completely outside of their authority, and assaulted a citizen in the course of this breach.

The man may not deserve a $1m settlement, but there should certainly be a ruling more stringent than "pay his medical bills and try not to do this again." There should be real consequences for the department, or there is no motivation to correct this behavior.

I'd really like to be able to trust and respect law enforcement but they just make it sooo damned hard to.

Jack Black 62: People will soon grow tired of this and begin fighting back with much more lethal weapons.

No they won't. And if they do, I don't even want to imagine the kind of hell that will rain down on them for doing so. They'll be lucky if they're only killed.

"At most the evidence established that the severity of plaintiff's conduct was the failure to comply with a command of an officer."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought you only had to comply with legal commands of an officer. In other words, they can't command you to break the law and they can't command you to do things outside of their authority. It was outside of their authority to detain him thus he was under no obligation to comply with their command to stop.

I'm sure there are people in here who know better than me. Let me know what the deal is.

I have one question that hopefully someone with a bit of law enforcement knowledgement/background can help me with:

TFA
About forty minutes had elapsed during which police agreed Kirby had been cooperative. He was not under arrest and the four officers had no reason to fear for their safety. Nonetheless, they asked Kirby to consent to a pat-down search; he declined. When Kirby's mother arrived, he began walking to her. One officer ordered him to "comply or be tased." Kirby kept on walking and was hit by a taser, causing him to fall face first onto the pavement. A federal judge found this excessive.

Why doesn't this qualify as assault and battery on the part of the officer? To hell with the civil case. The officer should be indicted and tried in a criminal court.

Okay... two questions:
Judge James R. Marschewski ruled. "At most the evidence established that the severity of plaintiff's conduct was the failure to comply with a command of an officer.

The officer had absolutely no basis for or right to detain the plaintiff, so it seems to me that the officer's command was unlawful. Why should anyone be required by law to follow an unlawful command?

I do wonder: Since a soldier can be charged with crimes for carrying out the unlawful orders of superiors, why are police constantly getting off because "they followed the policies of their department".

?

[reads article]

And some portions of the public wonder why the other portions of the public won't shed a tear when a cop is killed.

wmoonfox: Er... the resistance was to prevent further constitutional violations. Are you just supposed to let a police officer do whatever s/he wants, whenever s/he wants it, then try to find justice in this sham of a courtroom? At what point, as a responsible member of society, are you expected to defend your own rights to the best of your ability? After the first violation, it was clear that the plaintiff could not rely on the police to protect and enforce his constitutional rights...

Also begs the question, if this was excessive force, have the police been brought up on assault charges? If the cops clearly should not have tasered the guy, how is it any different than me tasering the guy for giggles? Other than perhaps its significantly worse for a cop in a position of authority to abuse that power.

Teachers get fired for sleeping with their 18 year old students because they are abusing their position of power. Sure it's legal but it's an abuse of power so out they go. This abuse of power wasn't even legal, I'm betting they weren't fired over this.

Mmm'kay, I see everybody, including the reporter and the judge, need to read Terry v. Ohio.

There is something in between "free to go" and an arrest. It's called a detention, aka, a "Terry stop," and it requires reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. If cops find meth on your GF during a traffic stop and you're in the car with her, that's seems like reasonable suspicion.

Always a good idea to ask a cop, "am I free to go" before you go. Unlawful detentions should be fought with internal affairs and the courts, not with your central nervous system getting lit up.

the link FTA gives some good info too, in case anyone skimmed the article and skipped it.

Link (new window)



Interestingly, it appears that the primary argument is that it is illegal to ignore the lawful command of the officer telling you to stop, and that in order for the tasering to have been lawful use of force and not excessive use of force the police would have had to charge the subject with resisting arrest. So apparently, it wouldn't be excessive force if they threw around more charges.

What a lovely precedent. So basically they aren't so much keeping cops from tasing people, but telling them to level more charges to support their tasing, instead of tasing people and then not being douchey enough to throw the book at them for resisting.


lennavan: Why doesn't the same argument hold here? If not for the unconstitutional actions of the police officers, this kid would not have "resisted arrest."

The stop was constitutional.

ftfa " In this case, Kirby was riding in a vehicle that allegedly ran a stop sign and had no license tags on November 8, 2005. "

I think he is saying that there were injuries that occurred from the tasering, which was the excessive level of force, and injuries from the kicking, which was viewed somewhat separately? I dunno.

As usual of course, these articles are poorly written so that we can all disagree about what we imagine was happening. Yay for journalism.

/off to read some journalists' opinions about science!


I would like for the courts as a whole to figure out whether ignoring lawful commands and walking away is active or passive resistance, because there have been cases going both ways. Generally they seem to fall less along a defined line of what constitutes which form of resistance, and more whether to subject in question is someone we can empathize with or not - which is a pretty stupid way to write law, but here we are.

ArcadianRefugee: [reads article]

And some portions of the public wonder why the other portions of the public won't shed a tear when a cop is killed.

Wow, takes a pretty big douchebag to wish cops to die. I just want them fired or prosecuted.

Trance750: special20: I hate cops. They are people who have failed at life.

They are your school-yard bullies, who wanted to continue to bully others, now they have a badge and gun.

No, cops protect you from the schoolyard bully. Occasionally, there are some bad ones that need to be run out of the force.

You anti-cop libs, I wonder, if I keep reading about black people committing crimes, can I assume all of them are bad? This inductive reasoning is great! It allows me to besmirch a whole group for the actions of a few.

To be fair, his medical expenses were paid in full, so it doesn't look like he got the terrible end of the deal either.

Honest Bender: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought you only had to comply with legal commands of an officer. In other words, they can't command you to break the law and they can't command you to do things outside of their authority. It was outside of their authority to detain him thus he was under no obligation to comply with their command to stop.

Provide me an example of an instance where a cop can say "Do this", you can say "You can't tell me to do that" and the cop will say "my bad".

"Failure to comply" is a catch-all that allows cops to basically do whatever they want and roll the dice (which are usually loaded in their favor) in the review later on (assuming there even is one).

Jack Black 62: People will soon grow tired of this and begin fighting back with much more lethal weapons.


Good luck with that.
You hurt/kill a cop, his buddies have access to better weaponry than you and will come after you with everything they have.
What kind of flowers do you want on your grave?

StanTheMan: You anti-cop libs, I wonder, if I keep reading about black people committing crimes, can I assume all of them are bad?

Sounds like you already have.

lennavan: ArcadianRefugee: [reads article]

And some portions of the public wonder why the other portions of the public won't shed a tear when a cop is killed.

Wow, takes a pretty big douchebag to wish cops to die. I just want them fired or prosecuted.

Reading comprehension low today? Who said 'wish'? All I said was 'don't care'.

That aside: what makes cops so special? Or is is wishing anyone to die that gets you upset?

"Plaintiff by backing away or beginning to leave was not evading or resisting an arrest at that point"

"The judge also ordered the city of Barling to revise its unconstitutional taser policy that allowed use of tasers against individuals passively resisting officer commands."

So they deliberately skirt around the issue of what kind of resistance it was by saying there was nothing to resist, and then they make a vague order to revise policy at a level of resistance that may or may not have applied to this case anyways.

Judges: you are the folks with the power to come down on this shiat. Do it. Make the law clear for farks sake.

lennavan: ArcadianRefugee: [reads article]

And some portions of the public wonder why the other portions of the public won't shed a tear when a cop is killed.

Wow, takes a pretty big douchebag to wish cops to die. I just want them fired or prosecuted.

The portions of the population who wish that are convinced (and not without some justification) that by and large cops are above the law and unlikely to receive any sort of discipline that would result in other officers thinking twice before abusing their power.

Removing them from the abuse of power equation entirely is one way to solve that problem.

StanTheMan: No, cops protect you from the schoolyard bully. Occasionally, there are some bad ones that need to be run out of the force.

So why do all the "good cops" stand by and support the bad ones? They end up with paid vacations instead of being run out of the force.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

The rest of the police force and judges like this are the enablers for the bad cops.

Smackledorfer: The stop was constitutional.

Right. But the tasering and detaining of him 40 minutes later was not.

Smackledorfer: I think he is saying that there were injuries that occurred from the tasering, which was the excessive level of force, and injuries from the kicking, which was viewed somewhat separately? I dunno.

The way it reads to me the timeline went:

1) Legal Stop
2) Bust girlfriend
3) Dude sits around
4) Dude not under arrest, decides to walk away
5) Unconstitutional tasering
6) Resisting illegal arrest (not allowed)
7) Legal beat down of resisting criminal

After #4, the cops had to let him walk away, which is why #5 is unconstitutional. Court says #7 is allowed because of #6. I say #6 and #7 do not exist if not for the actions of the cops in #5 and therefore #6 and #7 are the fault of the cops. Hell, if in the struggle a bystander was killed I think the cops should be brought up on murder charges.

Trance750: ZAZ: wmoonfox

You are not allowed to resist an illegal arrest.

You are allowed to defend yourself against excess force by a police officer. This right is purely an illusion. Normally by the time excess force has been used it's too late. If you are able to defend yourself then any force the officer used is justified because you're resisting arrest.

So if 4 cops beat you down, sit sit back and take it because you deserve it. Right?

If it's 4 on 1 you probably don't have much of a choice. Hope you have some friends or bystanders with cellphone cameras and the number for the local news station.

StanTheMan
Mmm'kay, I see everybody, including the reporter and the judge, need to read Terry v. Ohio.


Read your own link:

The Ohio Court of Appeals allowed the search, but made it clear that such a search was limited to discovering dangerous weapons that could be used against the officer, as Chief Justice Warren noted:

They'd already had the guy for 40 minutes. They got their "brief stop" authorized by the Terry stop rule. As for the frisking they wanted to do, they'd had 40 minutes and he was walking away. There's no farking way it's reasonable to detain him further because somehow he might be a danger to the officer or the public.

Finally, even if they had any right to detain him further, they had zero right to taser him. He was not a threat. That's assault and battery. In a just system, the officer would be on trial in a criminal court.

So does this now mean that I can taze a federal judge for only a dollar? BRB, on my way to an ATM

Knara: Provide me an example of an instance where a cop can say "Do this", you can say "You can't tell me to do that" and the cop will say "my bad".

"Failure to comply" is a catch-all that allows cops to basically do whatever they want and roll the dice (which are usually loaded in their favor) in the review later on (assuming there even is one).

That's kind of my point. I didn't think they could compel you to do anything. Let's take this article for example. If you're walking away from the police, they have zero ability to detain you, and they say, "Come back here." Am I legally allowed to say, "No." and keep walking? If their command doesn't have the force of law behind it am I still legally beholden to them? Because if so... Maybe my kids should grow up in not-America...

I don't see the problem.

Failure to comply requires a response.

What if he had drugs or a gun on him?

Don't like the response to "failure to comply" ? Get all political and try and change the response. You likely won't be successful, but at least I'd have more respect for you.

Stop! Show ID! Pat down due to suspected drug or weapon hiding. Hang out with meth-heads, ex-cons, gang members, etc., expect to be patted.

Stop whining.

wmoonfox: After the first violation, it was clear that the plaintiff could not rely on the police to protect and enforce his constitutional rights...

According to the American court system it is illegal to defend yourself against the police or attempt to assert your rights against their will. The only legal course of action is to submit to whatever they tell you to do and later attempt get compensation for your troubles and rights violations via the same court system.

Trance750: So if 4 cops beat you down, sit sit back and take it because you deserve it. Right?

According to our legal system, pretty much.