Options

Mehserle found guilty; Oakland (relatively) safe for now. [BART shooting]

1679111214

Posts

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.

    Would you approve if he beat her?

    A nightstick or manual grappling probably would have been more likely to cause injury. To her, that is...obviously to him as well. He had a valid reason for arresting her, and a need to gain her compliance.

    The second hit on the ground was a bit more fucked up, but mostly (to me) because he gave her way too little time to comply.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    It's okay guys, the cop gets to use the possibly lethal device so he doesn't get his shirt ruffled!

    Yes that's exactly the same as being dragged in a speeding vehicle. hi5

    I'm pretty sure the fit officer would have been able to fight off the grip of the unfit woman and remove himself from the vehicle before it sped away.

    I mean, just GUESSING here.

    Cops being dragged by speeding cars is common enough that I don't blame him for not risking it.

    Good thing fit people never get hurt, eh.

    Well then perhaps arresting her then and there isn't the solution if the only alternative is using a potentially lethal device. I mean I know the state needs the fine revenue but goddamn.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    It's okay guys, the cop gets to use the possibly lethal device so he doesn't get his shirt ruffled!

    Yes that's exactly the same as being dragged in a speeding vehicle. hi5

    I'm pretty sure the fit officer would have been able to fight off the grip of the unfit woman and remove himself from the vehicle before it sped away.

    I mean, just GUESSING here.

    Cops being dragged by speeding cars is common enough that I don't blame him for not risking it.

    Good thing fit people never get hurt, eh.

    Um, yeah, this shit seriously does happen people.

    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.

    She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.

    This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.

    She's an unfit woman in a car and she's not cooperating. I do not see a moment of assault.
    Tasers were promoted and deployed as at least a partial substitute to guns and marketed as a way to avoid lethal force. It's been said a zillion times, but there goes again, if one as a professional law enforcement agent can not deal with the kind of situation above without use of force, it's time for a fucking career change. What we see in that video is that the officer had a temper too and it got blown pretty damn fast.

    Officer tells woman to get out of her car.

    Woman refuses to do so.

    How do you resolve this without resorting to force? You realize that physically grappling her out of the car could easily cause injury as well, and she'd have probably moaned and wailed just as much...right?

    Hell, let's assume he at least clearly articulated that she was under arrest, and why (which I'd have preferred), and she still wouldn't get out of the car. What then? Call SWAT? Wait? Buy her ice cream?

    Well then perhaps arresting her then and there isn't the solution if the only alternative is using a potentially lethal device. I mean I know the state needs the fine revenue but goddamn.

    No, the state needs people not to drive around with suspended fucking licenses (and probably no insurance) but goddamn.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.

    Would you approve if he beat her?

    A nightstick or manual grappling probably would have been more likely to cause injury. To her, that is...obviously to him as well. He had a valid reason for arresting her, and a need to gain her compliance.

    The second hit on the ground was a bit more fucked up, but mostly (to me) because he gave her way too little time to comply.

    It's my understanding that it would basically be impossible to comply with his order in the amount of time he gave her after getting tazed

    ronzo on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »

    What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.
    He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.

    Would you approve if he beat her?

    She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.

    This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.

    I guess she should just get to do what she wants then? No po-lice getting her outta the car, nu uh.

    No. She should be calmed down. Which should be fucking easy in such a trivial situation. Fuck, even a well articulate warning of tasing would have been enough if the officer is so gun happy, but there was absolutely no need to even reach in this situation.

    She was driving with a suspended license. That can warrant arrest, and since she was giving the officer so much attitude, he wasn't in the forgiving mood. I can't blame him.

    He tried to pull her out of the car. She did something to resist, and even if it was "just" to push him away, that still counts as battery on an officer. Now we go from misdemeanor to felony. (Okay, we don't know for a fact that she hit or pushed the officer, but he ducked back outside the car pretty quickly, which lends me to believe she did put her hands on him.)

    3) He tells her to put down the phone and get out of the car. She says no. (That's resisting arrest.) He then tells her again, and she still refuses. He pulls out the taser and states twice for her to get out of the car or she will get tased. She still refuses. He then tells her a third time, saying he won't warn her again. HE THEN WARNS HER AGAIN. At that point, having tried to pull her from the vehicle, and then telling her SIX TIMES to get out of the vehicle, and FOUR warnings she will be tased if she doesn't comply, he tases her.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see the unnecessary use of force here.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.

    Would you approve if he beat her?

    A nightstick or manual grappling probably would have been more likely to cause injury. To her, that is...obviously to him as well. He had a valid reason for arresting her, and a need to gain her compliance.

    The second hit on the ground was a bit more fucked up, but mostly (to me) because he gave her way too little time to comply.

    It's my understanding that it would basically be impossible to comply with his order in the amount of time he gave her after getting tazed

    Pretty much. But is that improper training or him being a sadistic prick? The "we've been tased, it's not that bad" suggests to me the former, but it could still be the latter.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »

    Sweet. Do you believe there was any imminent or even actual danger from the "subject" to the officer, bystanders or anybody? Because if you don't, and you still approve of the use of taser here, we have entirely different view on what law enforcement's role in society is and what is part of their mandate and what isn't.

    Possibly, you never know with a car stop. Car stops are taught as the MOST dangerous situation a police officer will encounter on a daily basis. Did you know that the woman wasn't a threat?

    This is how fast car stops can go bad. So yes, we are probably going to have different views of this sort of thing.
    Again, there was no fucking point initiating physical contact at that moment of the video.

    She refused to get out of the car and fought him off when he tried. There was a point to the physical contact.

    Anything I'll say below will be presumption and let's not continue with the role playing, but in the above situation not talking like a fucking prick, but as a professional would be a good start. Explaining why you ask her out of the car. Explaining how the moment you're done she'd be free to continue with her activities(doesn't fucking matter if it's true or false, just do it in a calm manner). Asking with a please up to 100 fucking times if necessary etc. There was zero need to be proactive about getting her out of the car.

    Agree that the officer's attitude could have used some work, but you could have asked her please a thousand times and she would have refused. She had to get out of the car because she had a suspended license, so there was a point to get her out of the car.

    EDIT: And do you agree that she could have avoided being tazed if she had just followed the officer's directions? I don't see anything unreasonable in the directions that were given her, especially not to warrant that type of attitude from her.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I say call back up to block the vehicle in while she takes her sweet ass time to decide to get out.

    If she continues resisting well, throw a stink bomb in there. No not tear gas, a stink bomb, like high school shit.

    Oh what, that's too much trouble? Sorry, the lethality rate of a fucking tazer is way too high for me to advocate their use in such a situation.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    3) He tells her to put down the phone and get out of the car. She says no. (That's resisting arrest.) He then tells her again, and she still refuses. He pulls out the taser and states twice for her to get out of the car or she will get tased. She still refuses. He then tells her a third time, saying he won't warn her again. HE THEN WARNS HER AGAIN. At that point, having tried to pull her from the vehicle, and then telling her SIX TIMES to get out of the vehicle, and FOUR warnings she will be tased if she doesn't comply, he tases her.

    If you aren't told you're under arrest, is simply saying "no" resisting arrest? Or just failure to comply? Seems like if you don't fucking tell me I'm under arrest I can hardly be resisting arrest.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    I say call back up to block the vehicle in while she takes her sweet ass time to decide to get out.

    If she continues resisting well, throw a stink bomb in there. No not tear gas, a stink bomb, like high school shit.

    Oh what, that's too much trouble? Sorry, the lethality rate of a fucking tazer is way too high for me to advocate their use in such a situation.

    How old are you? Is that the best you can come up with? Stink bombs and backup? I guess the cops don't have other things to deal with.

    EDIT: Is this going to turn into "Rocks aren't Deadly 2.0" thread?

    legionofone on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    zeeny on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    Now we're just down to semantics. She had four warnings. She wasn't getting out of that car. She obviously had an issue with the police.

    "I'm going to taze you" four times is plenty of warning.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    THERE'S NO TIME FOR COURTESY MAN!

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    I can agree with this.

    However, had he simply informed her that she was under arrest for a suspended license and needed to exit the vehicle, the initial use of the Taser would have been a-ok by me.

    The second, not so much.

    "Do what I say or I will tase your ass" is not a valid command from a cop, I'm sorry, even if he has some secret reason for placing her under arrest.

    EDIT: At least not without significant context, which an (at that point, to her) otherwise routine traffic stop does not qualify as.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In fact why AREN'T police given lessons in proper etiquette maybe if they were more cordial about shit instead of Alpha dicks they wouldn't get such bad reputations?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    In fact why AREN'T police given lessons in proper etiquette maybe if they were more cordial about shit instead of Alpha dicks they wouldn't get such bad reputations?

    I agree here in some respects, but there's a pretty good segment of the population who sees etiquette as weakness and will act on it as such.

    You have to know your crowd, as it were.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    I can agree with this.

    However, had he simply informed her that she was under arrest for a suspended license and needed to exit the vehicle, the initial use of the Taser would have been a-ok by me.

    The second, not so much.

    "Do what I say or I will tase your ass" is not a valid command from a cop, I'm sorry, even if he has some secret reason for placing her under arrest.

    EDIT: At least not without significant context, which an (at that point, to her) otherwise routine traffic stop does not qualify as.
    Police officers generally don't tell you you're under arrest until you have the handcuffs on, or are in the process of being handcuffed. You also don't have a guaranteed right to drive: one of the restrictions on driving is that you have to obey certain commands from a police officer who legally stops you, such as stepping out of your car or showing your license and registration. But you can be said to be resisting arrest if he asks you to step out of the car with the intention of arresting you.

    Hell, I'd bet money she knew her license was suspended, and that was the primary reason for her giving the officer so much shit.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    Now we're just down to semantics. She had four warnings. She wasn't getting out of that car. She obviously had an issue with the police.

    "I'm going to taze you" four times is plenty of warning.

    And at no point before or during those warnings did he inform her that she was under arrest.

    This whole "you have to do what I say or I can just shock you into submission" attitude, legal or not, is why people hate cops and think they're pricks on a power trip.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    I can agree with this.

    However, had he simply informed her that she was under arrest for a suspended license and needed to exit the vehicle, the initial use of the Taser would have been a-ok by me.

    The second, not so much.

    "Do what I say or I will tase your ass" is not a valid command from a cop, I'm sorry, even if he has some secret reason for placing her under arrest.

    EDIT: At least not without significant context, which an (at that point, to her) otherwise routine traffic stop does not qualify as.

    Police officers generally don't tell you you're under arrest until you have the handcuffs on, or are in the process of being handcuffed. You also don't have a guaranteed right to drive: one of the restrictions on driving is that you have to obey certain commands from a police officer who legally stops you, such as stepping out of your car or showing your license and registration.

    I can see the value in "surprise" and keeping control of the situation.

    But at the point where you're already drawing your weapon and have it aimed at the suspect, is there any good reason you can't just fucking tell them they're under arrest? Afraid it'll *snicker* "escalate the situation?"
    EDIT: Is this going to turn into "Rocks aren't Deadly 2.0" thread?

    Satisfaction guaranteed.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    Now we're just down to semantics. She had four warnings. She wasn't getting out of that car. She obviously had an issue with the police.

    "I'm going to taze you" four times is plenty of warning.

    And at no point before or during those warnings did he inform her that she was under arrest.

    This whole "you have to do what I say or I can just shock you into submission" attitude, legal or not, is why people hate cops and think they're pricks on a power trip.

    He told her to get out of the car.

    She refused.

    He went to pull her out of the car.

    She fought him off.

    He told her four times to get out of the car or she was going to ride the lightning. (my words, obviously)

    She started to scream to whoever it was on the phone that she was about to get shot by police and to come and save her (HUGE officer safety issue).

    He didn't tell her she was under arrest while she was in the car because he was trained not to, more likely than not. If he does that, there's no telling how she is going to react. She could speed off or react in any number of ways.

    If she's outside of the car, she's out of her comfort zone, and there's really not too much she could do.

    EDIT: If she would have sped off and hit someone while she fled, he would have been on the hook more likely than not for that.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    We're also not talking about the officer having reasonable suspicion of a crime, but having directly witnessed said crime when the dispatcher informed him the license was suspended. It wasn't a matter of if she was going to get arrested at that point.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    Four warnings isn't exactly immediate. Or if you think it is, how many warnings should an officer give, exactly, before he's given a suspect enough time to comply? Eight? Ten? Twenty? Or should he say, "Well damn, miss, if you refuse to get out of the car, I just can't arrest you, dangnabbit! You're free to go!"

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    We're also not talking about the officer having reasonable suspicion of a crime, but having directly witnessed said crime when the dispatcher informed him the license was suspended. It wasn't a matter of if she was going to get arrested at that point.

    Depends on the state. In many states, it's officer discretion. We just picked a friend up for getting busted for a suspended license, no big deal. I've been allowed to walk away from the scene by officers in another state. Sometimes, they decide to take you in.

    Obviously, even if he had the discretion here he wouldn't have exercised it...dumb bitch was getting arrested, and understandably.

    My point is that she didn't know she was under arrest until she'd been Tased. Twice. She may not have even known her license was suspended (I didn't).

    EDIT: And, in fact, for that reason I wound up getting the charge (driving on a suspended license, a criminal offense) dropped. In AZ, being honestly unaware of the suspension is a valid defense.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    I've posted before on the Whining Board that I have an issue with alpha dickheads who wear too much tactical gear and hide behind 5.11 Tactical shades and act like every traffic stop is a patrol in downtown Baghdad.

    This wasn't one of those guys. He asked her to step out of the car, she refused, he went to remove her from the car, she fought him off. Its simple Ask/Tell/Make escalation.

    The problem here was on her side of things, not his. He was firmly in the right on that one, no matter how it might look to a casual observer.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    Four warnings isn't exactly immediate. Or if you think it is, how many warnings should an officer give, exactly, before he's given a suspect enough time to comply? Eight? Ten? Twenty? Or should he say, "Well damn, miss, if you refuse to get out of the car, I just can't arrest you, dangnabbit! You're free to go!"

    How about precisely one time telling her that she is, in fact, under arrest.

    If his training tells him not to do this, particularly in a situation where he has backup and a weapon already at the ready, then that training needs to change.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    We're also not talking about the officer having reasonable suspicion of a crime, but having directly witnessed said crime when the dispatcher informed him the license was suspended. It wasn't a matter of if she was going to get arrested at that point.

    Depends on the state. In many states, it's officer discretion. We just picked a friend up for getting busted for a suspended license, no big deal. I've been allowed to walk away from the scene by officers in another state. Sometimes, they decide to take you in.

    Obviously, even if he had the discretion here he wouldn't have exercised it...dumb bitch was getting arrested, and understandably.

    My point is that she didn't know she was under arrest until she'd been Tased. Twice. She may not have even known her license was suspended (I didn't).

    EDIT: And, in fact, for that reason I wound up getting the charge (driving on a suspended license, a criminal offense) dropped. In AZ, being honestly unaware of the suspension is a valid defense.

    There's a difference between having an expired license and a suspended license. Your license doesn't get suspended until a judge tells you it's suspended, usually for having too many unpaid tickets or getting a DWI.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    I've posted before on the Whining Board that I have an issue with alpha dickheads who wear too much tactical gear and hide behind 5.11 Tactical shades and act like every traffic stop is a patrol in downtown Baghdad.

    This wasn't one of those guys. He asked her to step out of the car, she refused, he went to remove her from the car, she fought him off. Its simple Ask/Tell/Make escalation.

    The problem here was on her side of things, not his. He was firmly in the right on that one, no matter how it might look to a casual observer.

    For clarity, my main problems are failing to notify she was under arrest before resorting to the Taser, and Tasing her a second time without realistically allowing her to comply.

    I'm probably willing to agree to disagree on the former.

    And I'll agree that, for the most part, she brought all of that on herself and he was a (fairly) reasonable dude given the situation. I've seen a thousand times worse.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I honestly would never be ok with the use of a taser in the above situation before the words "I need you to get out of the car because so and so...I'm sure this could be resolved in a satisfactory way with your cooperation.. Could you please get out of the car?... If you do not get out of the car, I may need to.......This is a last warning, you're giving me no other choice than to.....".

    Now we're just down to semantics. She had four warnings. She wasn't getting out of that car. She obviously had an issue with the police.

    "I'm going to taze you" four times is plenty of warning.

    And at no point before or during those warnings did he inform her that she was under arrest.

    This whole "you have to do what I say or I can just shock you into submission" attitude, legal or not, is why people hate cops and think they're pricks on a power trip.

    So tell me, where exactly in the timeline of the video would you have put a, "You're under arrest!" in the script? And would having told her she was under arrest before she was under control have given us a greater or lesser chance of her speeding away?

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    We're also not talking about the officer having reasonable suspicion of a crime, but having directly witnessed said crime when the dispatcher informed him the license was suspended. It wasn't a matter of if she was going to get arrested at that point.

    Depends on the state. In many states, it's officer discretion. We just picked a friend up for getting busted for a suspended license, no big deal. I've been allowed to walk away from the scene by officers in another state. Sometimes, they decide to take you in.

    Obviously, even if he had the discretion here he wouldn't have exercised it...dumb bitch was getting arrested, and understandably.

    My point is that she didn't know she was under arrest until she'd been Tased. Twice. She may not have even known her license was suspended (I didn't).

    EDIT: And, in fact, for that reason I wound up getting the charge (driving on a suspended license, a criminal offense) dropped. In AZ, being honestly unaware of the suspension is a valid defense.

    There's a difference between having an expired license and a suspended license. Your license doesn't get suspended until a judge tells you it's suspended, usually for having too many unpaid tickets or getting a DWI.

    Actually if you get a DUI you can still drive for a month until your license is officially suspended by the DMV.

    At least in California.

    Of course, this assumes mistakes don't happen, which they do, and a license is suspended before the date expected.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    I've posted before on the Whining Board that I have an issue with alpha dickheads who wear too much tactical gear and hide behind 5.11 Tactical shades and act like every traffic stop is a patrol in downtown Baghdad.

    This wasn't one of those guys. He asked her to step out of the car, she refused, he went to remove her from the car, she fought him off. Its simple Ask/Tell/Make escalation.

    The problem here was on her side of things, not his. He was firmly in the right on that one, no matter how it might look to a casual observer.

    For clarity, my main problems are failing to notify she was under arrest before resorting to the Taser, and Tasing her a second time without realistically allowing her to comply.

    I'm probably willing to agree to disagree on the former.

    And I'll agree that, for the most part, she brought all of that on herself and he was a (fairly) reasonable dude given the situation. I've seen a thousand times worse.

    He didn't tell her she was under arrest because he has no clue how she's going to respond. She could passively get out of the car. Or she could speed off and take out someone crossing the street up ahead (there was plenty of ped traffic on that street, apparently).

    Why risk it? Get her out of the car and out of her comfort zone and THEN tell her what she's under arrest for.

    EDIT: And yeah, I would believe there WAS a good chance of her saying "Fuck da popo" and taking off, based on her attitude throughout the stop.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Still makes the cop a dick for tasing her twice like that

    ronzo on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    We're also not talking about the officer having reasonable suspicion of a crime, but having directly witnessed said crime when the dispatcher informed him the license was suspended. It wasn't a matter of if she was going to get arrested at that point.

    Depends on the state. In many states, it's officer discretion. We just picked a friend up for getting busted for a suspended license, no big deal. I've been allowed to walk away from the scene by officers in another state. Sometimes, they decide to take you in.

    Obviously, even if he had the discretion here he wouldn't have exercised it...dumb bitch was getting arrested, and understandably.

    My point is that she didn't know she was under arrest until she'd been Tased. Twice. She may not have even known her license was suspended (I didn't).

    EDIT: And, in fact, for that reason I wound up getting the charge (driving on a suspended license, a criminal offense) dropped. In AZ, being honestly unaware of the suspension is a valid defense.

    There's a difference between having an expired license and a suspended license. Your license doesn't get suspended until a judge tells you it's suspended, usually for having too many unpaid tickets or getting a DWI.

    Right.

    My license was suspended. For "realsies," the criminal misdemeanor offense.

    I was, apparently, notified by unregistered first-class mail. Which I never received, as I was without a permanent residence (it went to a previous residence). So, I was blissfully unaware that my license was suspended. I had a single unpaid speeding ticket, that I had forgotten about.

    Yes, the officer and ADA argued that I should have known, after reading the ticket, that a suspension was imminent. I testified that I didn't realize this (I didn't). I also testified that I had been between addresses (and that I had relatives willing to corroborate).

    The judge bought it (and it was true), dropped the charges. My shitty court-appointed lawyer had suggested I just plead no-contest or whatever, and take the fine. Fucker was free, I still should have gotten my money back.


    And the night I was pulled over, the cop let me leave the car (I had pulled into a neighborhood street, so it was legally parked) and walk off. He kept my license, told me not to drive anymore, but did not arrest me.
    I drove more. And got caught. It didn't go as well, for obvious reasons. Still, 3 out of 3 times pulled over for driving on a suspended license, I was allowed to walk away.

    EDIT: Actually, all the cops I've ever been pulled over by, including for driving with no license, no registration, and no insurance, were pretty cool dudes. I might be willing to chalk it up to being white, but I think not being a complete fucking idiot helps too.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    See, when you already have a weapon out and pointed at somebody failing to tell them why they're being told what to do (particularly if, you know, they're under arrest) just comes off as being a gigantic raging prick for no good reason. It goes from "perfectly reasonable force used in an arrest" to "I can hurt people who don't do what I say, because I AM THE LAW!!![/dredd]" There's really no concern regarding escalation, it's more a matter of ensuring that the suspect as some understanding of what's going on.

    But no, it just winds up being a bunch of dumbass alpha dickheads getting pissed off and shocking people who don't do immediately what they say. Yay.

    Of course, dollars to pesos that that dumb bitch would still have sat in the car talking on her cellphone. But hey, some wouldn't and at least it'd be more justifiable (to, you know, the citizens you protect and serve...obviously we know that you already think it's justified).

    I've posted before on the Whining Board that I have an issue with alpha dickheads who wear too much tactical gear and hide behind 5.11 Tactical shades and act like every traffic stop is a patrol in downtown Baghdad.

    This wasn't one of those guys. He asked her to step out of the car, she refused, he went to remove her from the car, she fought him off. Its simple Ask/Tell/Make escalation.

    The problem here was on her side of things, not his. He was firmly in the right on that one, no matter how it might look to a casual observer.

    For clarity, my main problems are failing to notify she was under arrest before resorting to the Taser, and Tasing her a second time without realistically allowing her to comply.

    I'm probably willing to agree to disagree on the former.

    And I'll agree that, for the most part, she brought all of that on herself and he was a (fairly) reasonable dude given the situation. I've seen a thousand times worse.

    He didn't tell her she was under arrest because he has no clue how she's going to respond. She could passively get out of the car. Or she could speed off and take out someone crossing the street up ahead (there was plenty of ped traffic on that street, apparently).

    Why risk it? Get her out of the car and out of her comfort zone and THEN tell her what she's under arrest for.

    EDIT: And yeah, I would believe there WAS a good chance of her saying "Fuck da popo" and taking off, based on her attitude throughout the stop.

    Did he have her stop the engine previously? Did she comply?

    Because if the answer is yes, I'd ask whether he can (with a Taser already pointed at her) pull the trigger faster than she can start the car and speed off. I'd hope so.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »

    Did he have her stop the engine previously? Did she comply?

    Because if the answer is yes, I'd ask whether he can (with a Taser already pointed at her) pull the trigger faster than she can start the car and speed off. I'd hope so.

    I didn't hear it if he did.

    And again WHY RISK IT? Why risk one of the taser prongs slamming into the door instead of her (likely at that range) or something going wrong and her hurting herself or a bystander? When she spasms there's a good chance her foot could hit the accelerator and she has zero control of the vehicle.

    Is her getting tazered worst than her killing someone if she sped off?

    legionofone on
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Maybe if he shouted, "She's coming right for us!" before he fired, everything would be golden.

    You're not under arrest if an officer is pointing a gun at you. He is arresting you. You're under arrest after he's finished arresting you.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't know why he has to jump through 200 hoops, say pretty please with sugar on top, and plead with her when he is totally within the scope of his authority and she is in the wrong here.

    EDIT: Total disclosure, I've never been tazed by a police officer, but I've never been a dickhead to one, either. I wonder if there's a correlation.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    WarcryWarcry I'm getting my shit pushed in here! AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't know why he has to jump through 200 hoops, say pretty please with sugar on top, and plead with her when he is totally within the scope of his authority and she is in the wrong here.

    EDIT: Total disclosure, I've never been tazed by a police officer, but I've never been a dickhead to one, either. I wonder if there's a correlation.

    Cool, so if you're a dick to the cop it's OK for the cop to tase you. Is that what you're saying? Because I didn't know that was a situation that required the use of a paralyzing gun.

    Warcry on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    Y'know, I made a point last thread that I simply wasn't discussing these matters with you, because you don't respond in good faith and reply with non-sequiturs half the time. With that said, the facts aren't as you posited them. Look at the video if you wish. Mehserle was struggling with him, trying to get control of his arms. His arms weren't secured. The other officer (Pirone) had his knee across Grant's back or neck, but at the time things went south, he was upright and dealing with the subject to the right (he was upright with his hands on that subject from 1:10-1:15, up until the point Mehserle jumps off the guy and draws his gun). And there was nobody on Grant's legs.

    I don't know. I'm pretty sure if I had both my hands under me, even with somebody on my neck and somebody trying to grab my arms, I could probably still pull a gun. They did some research on this after the shooting happened, and somebody can draw and fire in about .3 seconds from that position.

    Yes, the guy was unsecured when one of the dudes holding him down stood up to execute him. That's not circular logic at all.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    While he's on his stomach and hands, you're on his back, someone else is on his legs, and everybody has hold of his arms? I mean, it's easy to shoot if you can roll onto your back, but that's about as relevant to this case as saying that someone can cut you in two if he has a chainsaw.

    Y'know, I made a point last thread that I simply wasn't discussing these matters with you, because you don't respond in good faith and reply with non-sequiturs half the time. With that said, the facts aren't as you posited them. Look at the video if you wish. Mehserle was struggling with him, trying to get control of his arms. His arms weren't secured. The other officer (Pirone) had his knee across Grant's back or neck, but at the time things went south, he was upright and dealing with the subject to the right (he was upright with his hands on that subject from 1:10-1:15, up until the point Mehserle jumps off the guy and draws his gun). And there was nobody on Grant's legs.

    I don't know. I'm pretty sure if I had both my hands under me, even with somebody on my neck and somebody trying to grab my arms, I could probably still pull a gun. They did some research on this after the shooting happened, and somebody can draw and fire in about .3 seconds from that position.

    Yes, the guy was unsecured when one of the dudes holding him down stood up to execute him. That's not circular logic at all.

    That is circular logic, but that is not what was stated.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Sign In or Register to comment.