Photography is Not a Crime

105 responses so far ↓

• 1 capn_amurka // Jul 14, 2010 at 3:58 PM

  This makes me wonder if there are some good test cases regarding the question: at what point, if any, is a party subject to lawful arrest legally permitted to resist his arresting officer for reasons of self defense?

  It seems that in a case like the one described, or any other where an officer is using excessive force, the arrested individual would enjoy the liberty at least to resist the force that was excessive and perhaps, if reasonably in fear of further excessive force during subsequent restraint, to flee.

• 2 Matt Warren // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:01 PM

  I am bewildered by this. Thanks for bring this to my attention.
  Matt Warren recently posted..Boomer- Gen X- and Millennial Slapfight

• 3 RThomas // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:02 PM

  Again, we see the police themselves giving ordinary people all the reason in the world not to trust them.

• 4 ongtroi // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

  Hold your horses! Wait for Johnny!

• 5 Maz // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:11 PM

  I like how it’s improper use of force for cops and ‘assault’ for us regular mortals.

• 6 Shawn // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:11 PM

  Well, it’s good to know that the higher-ups didn’t try to justify this.

• 7 Pinandpuller // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM

  Not counting when he assaulted a lady in front of her home for no good reason-he was a great officer.

• 8 Rail Car Fan // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM

  ongtroi // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

  Hold your horses! Wait for Johnny!

  ***************************************

  Oh Darn..

  You beat me to it Ongtroi.

  Seeing we know how “Johnny Law” usually responds, maybe I can do it for him.

  Hmmmmm.. let’s see.

  “We don’t know what was done or said beforehand.”
  “We haven’t see all the video.”
  “We need to read the incident report.”
  “Let’s wait until all the facts are in.”
  “It’s not that bad.. Officer Smith’s working at CCSO.”
  “_____________________.”
  (Fill in blank with whatever excuse “Johnny Law” always comes up with.)

  Rail Car Fan

• 9 Roger // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM

  This is one of the reasons I think no one should be hired as a cop below the age of 25. Also not right out of school or the Army etc. I feel that they should work a year or two at a job in contact with people first. Would give a little prospective.

• 10 RH // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:36 PM

  Thanks for posting this, I’ll be sharing it and alerting others as to the dangers these savages pose to our communities.

• 11 Sydney Carton // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

  Often, in internet discussions of police abuse, cops or people who mindlessly support cops in all actions will say to critics: “well, since you’re so critical of police, you should not expect them to help you out anymore!” They suggest that police will not help or assist crime victims who are otherwise critical of police abuse.

  But here we see that sometimes it IS dangerous to rely on the police. Calling the police is always risky, because they can turn on you on a dime. There are plenty of instances where people call police to their house only to find themselves arrested. You could be the victim of a burglery, and the police come to investigate, and they could end up shooting your dog or end up discovering that your underage kid had a joint (of which you had no knowledge) and all of a sudden you’re under arrest, in jail for several months, and fired from your job. A stolen television or a broken window isn’t worth that.

  The rule of thumb is: don’t talk to police, ever. Do not call them, ever. Learn to deal with problems yourself. Keep a gun for your own safety. Use an alarm system. Do not rely on the police. They are highly likely to hurt you or to kill your dog or arrest you for another offense in order to maintain their quota.

  For all of you who have not seen this video, please watch it:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related

• 12 Jaden // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:39 PM

  I haven’t trusted cops for years. Ever since one of them gave a friend of mine a ticket because he, and I quote, “Didn’t get his breakfast burrito this morning”

• 13 ongtroi // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:46 PM

  Now, the lady Wells should memorize this: Never mind prowler, beware of cop!

• 14 Pinandpuller // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM

  I’d say police work attracts a particular kind of sociopath. This kid hasn’t been on the job long enough for this to be callous indifference. They say the root of rape is control and these cops raped that woman with little metal pricks.

• 15 ongtroi // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:52 PM

  “It’s not that bad.. Officer Smith’s working at CCSO.”
  “_____________________.”
  (Fill in blank with whatever excuse “Johnny Law” always comes up with.)

  Rail Car Fan

  ****************
  Let me help him Rail.

  “The dash cam did not record correctly.”

  kakakaka

• 16 Prodigal Son // Jul 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM

  Well said Sydney and Pinandpuller, there are some serious problems with the way law enforcement is done in this country. A major problem is who the job attracts and the incentives that are in place.

• 17 Rance // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM

  This reminds me of the incident where a homeowner in Phoenix called 911 to report someone breaking into his house, and while he was still on the phone with 911, he was shot 6 times by the cops that entered his home.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_4owtZ8YYE

  It amazes me, that those people who very ignorantly think cops can do no wrong, still try to justify the brutality that cops dish out on a DAILY basis. I hope this poor woman costs the department millions, and brings criminal charges against the two officers. They deserve to spend some serious time in jail.

• 18 pinac // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:15 PM

  actually it’s Atlanta Journal Constitution; not Atlantic! you are an idiot

• 19 John Howard // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM

  Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In between. we find a bunch of sadistic bastards.

• 20 Carlos Miller // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:26 PM

  pinac,

  Random Pixels, is that you again, jumping all over me for a typo?

  You sure do spend a lot of time at Panera.

• 21 Difster // Jul 14, 2010 at 5:36 PM

  Carlos,

  You should contact the mayor of that town and try in interview him for your blog. Maybe some city council members.

  Likewise, you could contact the local newspaper there and see if they’re interested in a story that could affect the safety of their readers.
  Difster recently posted..Lessons From Mexico

• 22 Michaelk42 // Jul 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM

  In another fine example of police not being held accountable for… well, anything… guess who didn’t receive so much as probation for assault and perjury?

  Pogan better thank his union lawyers, and effectively, judge.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 23 Mike Gogulski // Jul 14, 2010 at 6:16 PM

  “He was an excellent officer other than that incident.”

  Oh, sure. Pour me another steaming hot cup of bullshit, please.

  But oh, WAIT. Maybe “excellent officer” here means one who does evil regularly, but is usually circumspect enough about it to not get caught on video.

  Hmm.
  Mike Gogulski recently posted..Meeting report – 12 July 2010

• 24 Pinandpuller // Jul 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM

  Police work-the perfect job for guys who suck at hockey.

• 25 Jay // Jul 14, 2010 at 9:46 PM

  These two pieces of shit disguising as public servants need to be charged and arrested.

• 26 RandomCitizen // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:11 PM

  Someone needs to fire Ogle too. In a case this blatant, and he admits he was in the process of firing the thug when he resigned, he should have politely ignored the resignation and fired him anyway so it went on his record.

  But no, he’s a cop, so he’s protecting a cop who’s proven he’s a thug and a torturer.

  In any normal business resignations aren’t accepted in cases of gross negligence, they _insist_ on firing you so that’s what the record shows. So everyone will know you got fired, that there was a REASON you left that job. But in law enforcement? Not a chance.

  Frankly I think we need two things — 1. cops that are under investigation CANNOT resign their position. If they want to find another job while the investigation is in process they can be put on unpaid leave, and once the investigation is over, if they’re found not guilty, THEN they can resign (but no retroactive pay, they have to make the decision to go on unpaid leave with that understanding). Otherwise they are fired and it goes on their record. And 2. we need a national registry of cops fired for cause. And that registry has to be checked by every law enforcement agency, and security agency, in the country before someone can be hired for a job in law enforcement/security. If someone’s on the registry, THEY CANNOT BE HIRED AS A COP EVER AGAIN.

  Bet you they’d be a lot less thuggish if they knew they were facing life banishment from their profession. And if not, well, the thugs will end up banned for life and things will improve gradually.

  But this will never happen unfortunately.

• 27 Roger // Jul 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM

  We need a national IA unit that has no conection with any department or city or state.

• 28 Rance // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:41 AM

  @Roger – Oh super, more bureaucracies that won’t be held accountable for corruption within… Yeah that’s what we need. /sarcasm

• 29 Happy Tinfoil Cat // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:58 AM

  Johnny Law:

  “The old bag deserved it because she did not follow the lawful order of the police. Just get in the fucking car already! “

• 30 Roger // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:14 AM

  Point. Would need some form of accountability. Also need to break the police unions. Perhaps the way the old FCC ran radio techs and stations.

• 31 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:52 AM

  Sorry to keep you guys waiting. I don’t know if I have enough energy to deal with all the ignorant comments on here but since you asked:

  Does it strike anyone as strange that this lady would call the police and then refuse to cooperate? Why the hell didn’t she just give the guy’s name? If you don’t want to cooperate, why call 911?

  The officer arrived and saw a male and a female at the location and the male was leaving. The officer thought that this might be some kind of domestic disturbance. Carlos points out that he let the male go without identifying him. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. If the deputy is alone with back-up along way off and he thinks there may have been a disturbance, it’s not a smart thing to get into a confrontation with this guy so why not let him leave and talk to the female party? Once he determines what happened and gets the male’s identity from the female, he can always be arrested late once backup is available.

  Why did the officer think there may have been a domestic disturbance? Well I know this may come as a surprise but some sources have different information then Carlos’ version.

  According to CNN, the original call wasn’t about a prowler. It was about an “unwanted guest” at the house. When the officer got there, Wells said she wanted the man to leave so the officer asked him to leave. Once he did, then the officer started his investigation.

  I have never handled a domestic that way but I work in a large city where backup is usually only minutes away. Officers working rural areas typically have to approach things a bit differently.

  So the woman starts acting squirrelly and refused to cooperate. I don’t blame the officer for thinking that something was up. If I didn’t think a disturbance had occurred, her refusal would make me reconsider.

  So then she starts to get back away. The officer starts to detain her so he can determine what the hell is going on but she runs. There is nothing unreasonable about pepper spraying a fleeing subject.

  Once the officer caught Wells, she was still combative and the backup arrived and tased her. Some departments have policies about tasing a handcuffed prisoner and this is the only part of the incident where I can see the back-up officer may have done something wrong. I don’t think the taser should be used as a cattle prod but I don’t have a problem with it being used if the subject is kicking and thrashing (handcuffed or not). I couldn’t tell what was happening on the other side of that patrol car and neither could you.

  The sheriff is a real piece of shit. He has a previous relationship with this woman and is obviously letting his personal feelings for her get in the way. The sheriff (Jones) did not see the incident and should be ashamed for trying to make it a racial issue. Maybe he is getting close to re-election. I am sure him making a big stink about this is why the officer’s departments caved to the publicity. Every one of the sheriff’s deputies should resign before this bastard puts a knife in their backs.

• 32 Carlos Miller // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:59 AM

  JL,

  So let’s get this straight. In an attempt to protect the woman who was possibly a victim of domestic violence, it was necessary to pepper-spray and taser her repeatedly?

• 33 Bob // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:26 AM

  JL,

  Why can’t she leave? The cop may be “investigating” a possible crime, but if she is on her own property and does not want to speak to the police, I don’t see how she is obligated to stay there. Either arrest her with the evidence you have or find another source for your investigation. She is under no obligation to incriminate herself.

  I was also under the assumption that pepper spraying and tasering were only to be used when the officer feels threatened. The way you describe it, the officer should use it to change the behavior of an uncooperative suspect even if the suspect is not a danger to themselves or the officer. That seems like the definition of torture. Causing pain to a helpless victim to get answers.

• 34 Bob // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:34 AM

  I think the best course of action for this woman would have been to call the police anonymously, report the suspicious person, and then stayed inside her house. There is no need for her to interact with the police. The police are not there to help you. They are there to do their job which is to arrest those that they think have broken the law. If they think that you are getting in the way of that, they will show you no mercy.

  This woman should definitely bring a civil suit against the department and this officer. Someone needs to teach them some humility.

• 35 Bob // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:51 AM

  tinyurl.com/2ufjy2t

• 36 BSmith // Jul 15, 2010 at 5:34 AM

  http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/14/georgia.woman.tasered/

  From cnn.com: “Janice Wells, 57, called the police on April 26 because she thought there was a prowler on her property in west Georgia, her attorney, Gary Parker said.

  Police officer Tim Murphy of the Richland Police Department arrived and found Wells at her home with a guest who had been visiting but was leaving, Parker said. The officer asked for the guest’s name, and when Wells declined to give it to the officer, he threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice, Parker said.

  The police report of the incident has a slightly different take on it. According to the report, officer Murphy was responding to a call regarding an “unwanted guest” at Wells’ home. When the officer arrived, Wells said that she wanted the guest, a man, to leave her property, according to the report. The cop asked the man to leave, and then asked Wells what his full name was. She declined and he said he would arrest her.”

  According to the CNN website, there are contradictory stories from the about why she called the police.

• 37 Matt B // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:46 AM

  Yeah, because the police report is always truthful and the cops never lie to make it look like they were in the right.

  I’m amazed that anyone could defend these cops. Under NO circumstances was this right. NONE.

• 38 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM

  JL: “So then she starts to get back away. The officer starts to detain her so he can determine what the hell is going on but she runs. There is nothing unreasonable about pepper spraying a fleeing subject.”

  If you’re a cop, it’s amazing you haven’t been sued yet.

  A person can stop talking to the police at ANY TIME THEY WANT. Doesn’t matter if they’re a witness, the victim, or the accused. A police officer can try to run an investigation, but the person can shut the hell up. Furthermore, a police officer cannot “detain” someone for refusing to speak, because it is their 5th amendment right to remain silent and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly written, the exercise of fundamental rights is not grounds for suspicion for an arrest.

  So no, the officer had no right to “detain” the “subject” because she decided to end the conversation. He certainly had no grounds to pepper spray her because she had not committed a crime but was instead exercising her fundamental rights. And then, of course, he had no additional grounds to torture her by tasering her repeatedly.

  For his illegal detainment (which, under the law, is an arrest) and his illegal use of force in order to deny her the exercise of her fundamental 5th amendment rights, the officer is subject to a lawsuit under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code. Furthermore, because the rights he was violating were “clearly established,” he has no grounds for qualified immunity and can be sued personally and forced to pay out of his own pocket.

  Johnny Law, you’re not a lawyer and don’t pretend that you are. If you have a routine practice of detaining and using pepper spray on people who don’t talk to you, you’re going to get sued eventually. And this isn’t even a hard case at all, it’s easy.

• 39 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:09 AM

  Bob,

  As I said to Johnny Law, she can leave. She can stop talking to the police at any time she wants and can exercise her right to remain silent.

  Go view the youtube video that I linked to above. The best advice you will ever hear from a Supreme Court Justice, as described in the video, is to NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF YOU’RE THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF A CRIME.

• 40 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM

  Carlos you asked:

  “So let’s get this straight. In an attempt to protect the woman who was possibly a victim of domestic violence, it was necessary to pepper-spray and taser her repeatedly?”

  Gimme a break. The reason for the pepper spray and taser was because she decided to flee while being detained and then because she wanted to resist arrest. It doesn’t matter what the original reason for the contact was.

  Sydney,

  I hope you aren’t a lawyer. Police have a right to detain folks if they think they are witnesses to a crime. That is a basic thing. Some states make it illegal for a person who is legally detained to refuse to identify themselves as well. Maybe you should go back to law school.

  I just don’t understand why she called the police and then refused to cooperate. Maybe she thought that since she was so tight with this sheriff, she could use the police however she wanted.

• 41 Michaelk42 // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

  @Johnny Law

  Unfortunately, the officer had no legitimate reason to detain her. There has to be some reasonable indication that there actually has been a crime, and there is none here.

  “Police have a right to detain folks if they think they are witnesses to a crime.”

  Oops. Reading fail again, Johnny – as Carlos wrote above:

  “When Officer Murphy arrived, he asked Robinson a few questions, but did not think to ask him his name, not that it would have mattered because there was no indication that he was the reason Wells had called police.”

  There’s no reasonable indication of any domestic violence anywhere in this story. She called to report a prowler, not any sort of violence.

  “I just don’t understand why she called the police and then refused to cooperate.”

  Because she called them to report a prowler and the responding officer conjured some sort of domestic violence situation out of apparent thing air. Not hard to understand at all.

  The only violence of any sort introduced to this situation was brought by the officers who responded.

  If anything, any citizen witnessing this illegal detention and torture should be able to use force to put a stop to it without fear of reprisal. And that’s in addition to the victim’s legal right to resist an unlawful arrest.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 42 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:55 AM

  Mike,

  Maybe you should read the article from CNN that BSmith was nice enough to link. It changes some of the information you are talking about. The actual call was about a person trespassing but refusing to leave and not some window peeping prowler. The officer would have been negligent if he didn’t ask some investigative questions.

  The section from Carlos that you quoted is just his commentary. He has no idea if the officer “did not think to ask his name”. Carlos is just putting his anti-cop spin on it. The officer explained why he let the guy go and started questioning the female. It was a sound tactic and makes sense. I like how you ignore the explanation of the actual person involved and quote Carlos instead.

• 43 Michaelk42 // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM

  I did read it; it was the officer who magically transformed the friend she refused to identify into that person she called about. Still no indication of any domestic violence. Nothing changed here.

  Refusing to answer “invesitgative questions” (which you seem to assume are somehow automatically valid) is no valid reason for an arrest.

  Carlos has an good take on it, and it doesn’t matter if you don’t like it. What the officer did still makes no sense, and does not amount to a lawful detention.

  And this STILL doesn’t justify a grown male police officer using a taser as a torture tool.

  But then Johnny, if any of your justifications were valid, those two officers wouldn’t have had to leave their employment.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 44 Michaelk42 // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM

  EDIT

  “And this STILL doesn’t justify a grown male police officer using a taser as a torture tool (on a woman begging for him to stop and offering no legitimate threat).”
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 45 Carlos Miller // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

  JL,

  She was tortured because she refused to answer a question while she stood on her own private property.

  What ever happened to the right to remain silent?

• 46 ongtroi // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

  According to Johnny the shit Law:

  American citizens have no right to remain silent if asked by police.

• 47 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

  Johnny,

  I am a lawyer, and you are wrong. Detention of a material witness to a crime, under Federal Law at least, requires a warrant from a judicial officer. In order for that to happen, an officer has to file an affidavit with the Court swearing under oath that the person has material information AND ALSO that the information is impracticable to secure under a subponea. Obviously, that is not what happened here.

  And, even if you secure a material witness, they can still plead the 5th amendment and refuse to answer questions. If they do that, a judge will have to review the question and the circumstances and if permitted, will order the witness to answer. Obviously, that’s not what happened here either. See, there’s this thing called “due process” and other things called “fundamental rights.” I suggest you read up on them.

  You’re also lying about the facts here to suit your interpretation of the law: failure to identify laws only pertain to ONESELF. There is no such law requiring someone to identify another person. Georgia has a stop-and-identify law, as part of its loitering law, but again it only applies to failure to identify onesself. So again, you are wrong. If a police officer asks you, “who is that person over there” you have the right to remain silent.

  Do you really think you’re going to outsmart me on this? Let me clue you in: you’re not.

• 48 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM

  The fact that I’m a lawyer should’ve been evident from my alias alone.

  ongtroi,

  He’s wrong. Look at the youtube video I posted above in my first comment on this thread. It is the best video out there on this subject.

• 49 ongtroi // Jul 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

  Sydney,

  If Johnny is a Johnny American Law he is deadly wrong. On the contrary, he is the Johnny shit Law!!!

• 50 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM

  Carlos asked:

  “She was tortured because she refused to answer a question while she stood on her own private property.”

  She was not tortured. And the use of force was not because she refused to answer questions. It was because she attempted to evade detention and resist arrest.

  Sydney, we aren’t talking about federal laws. This is a local/state matter. Perhaps you are so misinformed because you are commenting on an area outside of your expertise? And I know that fail to id deals with yourself. I was merely pointing out that you were incorrect when you stated “Furthermore, a police officer cannot “detain” someone for refusing to speak”. Obviously they can under certain circumstances.

  Even if the woman is not obligated to give the other persons name to the officer, she is not able to run away during the course of the investigation because she is being detained as a witness. If she is being detained, then the officer can use force to keep her there. Once they decide to arrest her for evading, then they can use force to place her in the car. Quite simple really.

  The only reason the officers left is because the sheriff is using personal feelings to make this into a bullshit racial issue.

• 51 ongtroi // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:20 PM

  Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM
  Once they decide to arrest her for evading, then they can use force to place her in the car.
  *******************************************
  Evading her own home?
  What kind of logic are you using?

• 52 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM

  JL,

  A person can only be detained upon reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring. If such suspicion exists, a police officer cannot keep a person detained for more than a reasonable amount of time. If a person exercises their right to remain silent, the exercise of which the Supreme Court has held is not evidence itself of a crime, then absent any other circumstances a police officer has no grounds to detain someone and that person must be free to leave. This is bedrock law that all but the most idiotic cops should understand. So don’t play dumb with me. From the facts at hand, it is evident that there were no other circumstances which permitted the officer to detain the woman. She had the right to leave.

  You really are muddling through many legal concepts in an attempt to justify the officer’s actions here. “Evading”, as a legal term, is not what happened here so it is entirely inapplicable to the facts at hand or any legal analysis. The officer had no right to detain her and as a result his resulting arrest of her was illegal. That means the lawbreaker here is not the woman, but the police officer. The cop is the criminal here. Furthermore, as I said, a the circumstances in which a police officer can detain someone who refuses to speak does not apply here (whether we’re discussing Federal Law or Georgia law), so your “merely pointing out” comment is irrelevant B.S.

  And as for the “torture,” I’d call repeated electronic shocks against a helpless person pleading for mercy to be torture. That word seems precisely to fit the description of what happened here.

• 53 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM

  Sydney,

  You’ve reached some interesting conclusions.

  “A person can only be detained upon reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring. If such suspicion exists, a police officer cannot keep a person detained for more than a reasonable amount of time.”

  True but based on the CNN version of events, there was enough going on for the officer to conduct a preliminary investigation. Why do you keep ignoring the original call that someone was refusing to leave the house? For anyone who has worked domestic disturbances, that is a pretty good indicator and the officer wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t ask questions.

  “If a person exercises their right to remain silent, the exercise of which the Supreme Court has held is not evidence itself of a crime, then absent any other circumstances a police officer has no grounds to detain someone and that person must be free to leave.”

  We have already established that there are circumstances when a person has to provide some information to the police. Once again, since the woman was legally detained, she was not free to leave.

  “You really are muddling through many legal concepts in an attempt to justify the officer’s actions here”

  We are muddling through many legal concepts because there was a lot going on in this incident. It was a situation unfolding in real time and not in some law book. The officer was trying to determine what happened and I have no idea what this idiot lady was trying to accomplish.

  “Furthermore, as I said, a the circumstances in which a police officer can detain someone who refuses to speak does not apply here (whether we’re discussing Federal Law or Georgia law), so your “merely pointing out” comment is irrelevant B.S”

  You were pointing out a requirement of federal law. Why bring that up when we aren’t talking about a federal case? Which of us is really trying to muddle through many legal concepts to justify their position?

  “And as for the “torture,” I’d call repeated electronic shocks against a helpless person pleading for mercy to be torture.”

  Was she kicking? Actively resisting? I don’t know. Do you? I will say that I don’t think the taser should be used as a prod on passively non-complainant subjects. If that is the case, then the taser use (at least a portion of it) was excessive. That is the only thing that I think the officers may have done wrong (plus the idiot sheriff).

• 54 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM

  Johnny: “We have already established that there are circumstances when a person has to provide some information to the police. Once again, since the woman was legally detained, she was not free to leave.”

  No, you haven’t established that. Under what circumstances was this woman required to say anything to this police officer? She identified herself. That’s all she needed to say, period.

  I do not practice in Georgia but a quick set of research indicates that their material witness statute generally mirrors the Federal requirements, which means that in order to compell the woman to speak they need to satifsy the burdensome requirements of obtaining a warrant after the submission of a certificate as to the necessity of the witness’s testimony.

  So, tell me. What required her to say anything else to the officer?

• 55 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:31 PM

  I should re-state the question clearly: Under what legal requirement was the women compelled to answer the officer’s questions?

• 56 Rail Car Fan // Jul 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM

  “Johnny Law”..

  Your above comments on this incident is exactly why I have “NO”(!!!!) use for you.

  Even when you see with your own eyes what happened.. and you refuse to accept the explanation of “Sydney Carton” (who I accept at face value as being a Attorney), you still make excuses for your “Brothers in Blue” with the (unspoken comment of) “Cops can do NO Wrong”!

  Even I (a non-attorney) know I have a right to remain “SILENT”! Once again “Johnny Law”, your posts just shows all of us the attitude of “it’s us (The Police).. against them (the lowly citizen).

  I really do feel sorry for you, but then again, what can you expect.. considering!

  Rail Car Fan

• 57 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM

  Thanks, Rail Car Fan. For the sake of completness, I’m a mutual fund corporate lawyer in Manhattan. My expertise is in dealing with mutual funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. But this kind of law is so basic that even a first-year law student, or a non-lawyer like yourself, knows that the right to remain silent exists. Furthermore, because I find it interesting I generally fulfill my continuing legal education requirements by attending seminars related to criminal law because I’ve basically taken almost all of them that relate to mutual funds and you can’t take the same seminar twice.

  Johnny won’t be able to answer my question as to what legal requirement compled the woman to answer the officer’s questions, because there is no such requirement. He knows it, too.

  Checkmate, Johnny.

• 58 Carlos Miller // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM

  JL,

  So you’re saying the man was clearly a suspect because he was an unwanted guest.

  Then why would he let him go?

  If I was a person of interest in a crime, I would imagine police would make their best efforts to obtain my ID so they can check me out.

  They do this anyway just because I take photos in a public parking lot.

  And the cop acknowledges that he had this opportunity only he chose not to do that because of yada, yada, yada.

  If there was no evidence of violence between the two parties, then I don’t see what the big hurry was to separate the two where you allow the “suspect” to leave.

  And if there was evidence of domestic violence, then you surely don’t allow the suspect to leave.

  Either way, the cop screwed up and he tried to make up for it by arresting the woman.

  And you’re giving the sheriff a hard time for allowing his personal feelings get in the way but that is exactly what you’re doing.

  Remember, even the police chief did not approve of these actions and I imagine he is white and probably doesn’t know the woman.
  Carlos Miller recently posted..USA Today denounces wiretapping arrests Cops offer flimsy argument

• 59 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 5:59 PM

  Sydney, you are a mutual fund lawyer? Well that certainly explains a few things. You have as much of a grasp on police matters as an angry photographer.

  I never said that the woman was required to give the guys name to the officers. I was merely pointing out you are wrong about your blanket statement that she didn’t have to say anything to the police.

  However the main point is that she was legally detained at the time as a possible witness. Witnesses can’t just wander off while the police investigate. You seem to be constantly confusing a field investigation with court proceedings. That’s understandable now based on your background in mutual funds.

  Yatzee, Sydney

  Carlos, just because you refuse to accept the reasons behind the officers tactics in letting the guy leave doesn’t mean they were bad tactics. If he tried to stop the guy and he was a dick and refused, then what? We would be talking about the make being tased. Why risk the fight when there is a safer option.

  If you are going to use the decision by the chief to justify your position, does that mean you will accept police management decisions
  when they side with the officer? I doubt it so it isn’t really relevant now.

• 60 Michaelk42 // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM

  @Johnny

  Ah, you can’t attack Sydney’s position effectively, so you attack his credentials. He’s already clearly made a far better case than you have. Besides, I think what you’re trying to call out as a failing is exactly the opposite: at least with criminal law laypeople are nominally supposed to be able to understand it, otherwise how would they obey the law? I’d say there’s a good chance Sydney is overqualified to deal with the likes of you and your misunderstanding of the law.

  You have yet to even establish that she was legally detained, as I brought up earlier. No reasonable person would conclude this was a domestic violence situation based on the information available at the time.

  And Sydney is correct in stating that she was under no obligation to identify the friend who that officer had already interviewed and allowed to leave. In any case, she did answer the question. “It’s none of your business” is an answer to the question. Tough if the cop doesn’t like that answer.

  But you still haven’t answered Sydney’s question, but as we’ve seen before, avoiding answering direct questions is exactly what you do.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 61 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:43 PM

  Mike I did answer Sydney. Perhaps reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. Read it again slower this time.

  I have laid out why it was a legal detention. You just don’t agree with it. The facts are the facts whether or not you accept them as strong enough.

• 62 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 6:58 PM

  JL,

  Heh. Didn’t answer my question, huh? Ok, I know a defeated man when I see one. Still…

  I am not confusing police investigations with court proceedings. A witness to a crime does not have to answer ANYTHING to a cop conducting an investigation, other than his name (and only if required to by an individual state law). You can try to attack my credentials but as I said earlier this is so basic that even a first year law student at Backwater University would be able to provide a correct answer. This isn’t rocket science, or even mutual fund regulation. The law has to be easy so that even your average cop (who isn’t a rocket scientist or mutual fund lawyer) can understand it, after all. This is basic Criminal Law 101 that every law student or layperson with a bit of training or research can understand. Plenty of people on this thread get it.

  I can understand your frustration over the fact that people have the right to remain silent, since it obviously would hamper police investigations. But that’s just tough. These are fundamental Constitutional rights we’re talking about, something that you swore to uphold.

  Anyway, as for your de minimus point on my “blanket statement”, yes – for the record, a person MAY be compelled to provide an answer to the police, but only after a warrant is signed by a court officer requiring it, because a cop swore in an affidavit that the information was necessary and could not be provided any other way. But that has nothing to do with a “field investigation”, in which the only requirement otherwise under state law that has been sustained by the Supreme Court is the requirement to give your name. So if you’re stopped by the police in a “field investigation” because you saw a burglery, after providing your name you can shut up and no one can make you say otherwise. Instead of providing saying anything else, you can say “I’m John Smith and I exercise my right to remain silent and want a lawyer.” Keep repeating. If you’re arrested because you won’t answer other questions, it is an illegal arrest and you can sue the police officer personally.

  JL, you really should watch that video I linked to above. It’s well worth it. There’s also a Part 2 on youtube in which a Police Officer basically agrees with everything that law professor says, as you appear to be one to dismiss something said merely because you don’t like the messenger (you should get over that, it’s really ridiculously close minded and childish).

• 63 Sydney Carton // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:07 PM

  JL,

  You’re assuming facts in order to jump to the conclusion that the detainment was legal. The legal standard for a detainment is: “A person can only be detained upon reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is occurring. If such suspicion exists, a police officer cannot keep a person detained for more than a reasonable amount of time.” You agreed with that. You said, “True.”

  And then you assumed facts to jump to the conclusion that the detainment was legal: “but based on the CNN version of events, there was enough going on for the officer to conduct a preliminary investigation. Why do you keep ignoring the original call that someone was refusing to leave the house? For anyone who has worked domestic disturbances, that is a pretty good indicator and the officer wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t ask questions.”

  What you’re doing here is assuming that the need to ask questions means that there is a legal obligation by the woman to answer questions or that there is a requirement for her to remain. There is no such thing, because she is not a suspect of a crime. Of course there’s a need to ask questions, but the woman can refuse to answer and say she’s exercising her 5th amendment rights. Since she’s not a suspect in anything, after a reasonable time she has to be free to go. Period.

• 64 Michaelk42 // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM

  @Johnny

  Actually, no, you didn’t answer his question. But it looks like he’s gone over that just above.

  “I have laid out why I think it was a legal detention”

  There Johnny, fixed that for you.

  In any case, there can’t really be a legal preliminary investigation of a crime that only exists in the officer’s head or that he comes up with later in his report to justify his misconduct.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 65 Johnny Law // Jul 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM

  Sydney,

  Once again, I never said she had to cooperate with the police. You originally said she didn’t have to tell the police anything and then you admitted you were wrong and she had to at least identify herself. I’m sorry if that sidetracked you.

  You can keep harping on this red herring all you want but it doesn’t change any facts of this case. She was still legally detained and her trying to run is what set all this in motion.

• 66 K // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:03 PM

  Hmm, so she was tasered for refusing to give her name and someone else’s name. Why would she not want to identify a gentleman caller late at night? I can think of 5,000 reasons, most of them having something to do with the oldest profession.

  But I find it interesting that JL feels someone is required to give their name. Looking it up from Wikipedia, the typical Miranda warning states, “Anything you say can and WILL be used against you in a court of law.” If that statement is accurate, that means that saying your name is “John Smith”, even though your name is, in fact “John Smith” will somehow be used AGAINST you in a court of law. If you say, “Hello.”, it WILL be used against you in a court of law.

  Otherwise, they’re just issuing idle threats, which would not be atypical of the cops that make it to this blog.

• 67 Dodge Ball // Jul 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM

  Let’s take an objective look at this. The woman was only TRYING to run while not presenting a direct threat to any officer. She was trying to flee alright……probably back to her house. That was surely cause to douse her with a chemical agent and light her up. Was the twerp afraid of getting his ass kicked by a 57 year old woman? Come on.

  The cerebrally challenged cop proved that he couldn’t deal with the level of difficulty, that he couldn’t manage the situation as a professional, and that he employed an obvious dose of excessive force just because he thought he could. That’s what kind of dangerous crap happens when a stupid person with an effed up mindset is put on the payroll as a cop.

  Neither cop deserves a bit of defense for their actions in this incident. In fact, the USDOJ will most likely generate a case.

• 68 figMiNT // Jul 15, 2010 at 10:00 PM

  Anyone who has seen COPS knows that it’s not very difficult to say “I’m not resisting” or “please stop” while kicking your feet or doing some other action that is meant to stop the officer from cuffing you (resisting arrest). Unfortunately, the other squad car is blocking view of what happened, so we truly do not know.

  The other cop saying that when he arrived and the woman said, “I’m not gonna tell you nothin’ ” is heresy. Their is no proof that she said that. However, her calling the police to come out there and handle the situation is what resulted in the police asking her what happened and what’s going on so he can do his job.

  I do not know if he legally detained her or used excessive force. All I can do is read what is reported.

  Too many people are already blind because of a few out of many incidents regarding unprofessional encounters.

  I had a very bad experience with a thoracic surgeon. Because of that, do I refuse lung surgery or to ever consult with a doctor ever again?

  Put the pitchforks down and try to be reasonable and objective.

• 69 oscar finch // Jul 15, 2010 at 11:46 PM

  Sydney, I think your confusing her right to remain silent with her right to leave.

  Just because somebody chooses to remain silent doesn’t mean they are free to go. If she simply refused to answer questions and was arrested that would be a different story but once she ran away he had the right to stop her. She wasn’t arrested for not talking she was arrested for running away.

• 70 Johnny Law // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:19 AM

  They understand that oscar. Well maybe Rail Car Fan doesn’t but most do. They are just deliberately misunderstanding the point because it doesn’t fit their point of view.

  figMINT, asking for an objective mindset from this crew is a waste of time. It doesn’t matter what the situation is because idiots like Rail Car will be sure to condemn the police no matter what the facts are. Heck, Dodge Ball even said he didn’t need to know the facts to make a decision.

  What you have here is a bunch of close-minded self-proclaimed experts who love to criticize but have no idea what they are talking about. I can’t decide if it is funny, pathetic, or sad.

  To the folks who have been able to rationally discuss things (such as Roger and figMINT), you are a welcome exception to that above statement.

• 71 Pinandpuller // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:58 AM

  figMint

  Well if you hired the doctor to operate on your lung and he took out your liver would you be questioning his professional expertise?

• 72 Pinandpuller // Jul 16, 2010 at 3:05 AM

  figMINT

  Also, I think you mean “hearsay”.

  Heresy is not obeying a cop. They burn you for that.

• 73 Richard // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:08 AM

  I’ll say it again. That cop was wrong for tasing her. The other cop was wrong for not stopping him. But up until that point, the first responding officer was 100% correct in what he did.

  Ms. Wells is not being truthful about what she initially reported, or what transpired after the first cop showed up.

• 74 Pinandpuller // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:26 AM

  Speaking of tasing-I love this story right here: http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x961151232/Off-duty-cop-Tasered-by-other-in-neighborhood-fracas

  An off duty NH cop tases an off duty MA cop. We have similar conflicting stories about possible domestic abuse. The NH cop faces charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

  Here’s the best part for me and perhaps others following the cops v civilians argument:

  Haverhill Deputy Police Chief Donald Thompson said Wallar is not authorized to use a Taser in Massachusetts. While police are authorized to use Tasers if necessary, “He (Wallar) is not a police officer in Massachusetts. He’s a civilian,” Thompson pointed out.

• 75 Michaelk42 // Jul 16, 2010 at 4:55 AM

  @Johnny

  “What you have here is a bunch of close-minded self-proclaimed experts who love to criticize but have no idea what they are talking about.”

  This? From you? Oh, this helps your case. Just insult anyone in the thread that disagrees with you.

  That is funny, pathetic, and sad.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 76 Dodge Ball // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM

  Michael, the responses resemble those of a cornered animal, placed there by ones who are far more experienced in law and the justice system as well as having a better grasp of logic.

  Several years as a street cop doesn’t carry much foundation in this argument. I’d say that two attorneys and a former USDOJ officer with a criminal justice degree “crosses the T” on his little boat.

  Pick up your marbles and go home, JL.

• 77 Nullifidian // Jul 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM

  Johnny Law,

  I’m sure you see this a lot around these parts, but from the perspective of an observer who has never before visited this site, the best thing you could do for the reputation of the police is to leave. Every time you try to justify the illegal acts of a criminal cop, which is something I gather that you do here with regularity, you demonstrate that there is an institutional culture that is hostile to basic civil rights. Without you here, some might write it off as just another jumped-up authority junkie who got in over his head.

• 78 tij // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:12 PM

  The Black woman may have been practicing her right to remain silent during interrogation but instead got pepper sprayed and tasered. I thought we have the right to remain silent when approached by the police.

• 79 tij // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM

  The lady did not do anything wrong to be arrested that was why she was resisting. She did not prowl, she did not steal anything. She did not do anything wrong. All she did was remained silent and that is NOT a crime or probably cause of a crime.

  Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• 80 Booker // Jul 16, 2010 at 2:54 PM

  Hey Johnny, long time no see…

  Just to be accurate here, the CNN story says:

  “Wells called police on April 26 because she thought there was a prowler on her property in west Georgia…”

  It also says:

  “The police report of the incident has a slightly different take on the situation. According to the report, officer Murphy was responding to a call regarding an “unwanted guest” at Wells’ home…”

  Nowhere does CNN state which version they find more credible. CNN does not back your assertions of “potential domestic abuse”. They provided conflicting information, but at this point that is all we have.

  I’ll meet you halfway… though I think you are wimping out on the “I let him go even though I thought he might have committed a crime” angle.

  If they release the 911 call AND the dispatch recording, and both indicate “unwanted visitor”, I will concede there might be a basis for detainment (we will leave the escalation to tasering and continued use of the taser after she is in the car thing for another time).

  If the 911 call and the dispatch recording both indicate “prowler” or “burglar”, then the cop had no reasonable suspicion that some sort of domestic incident might have occurred, and might have “remembered inaccurately” when filing the report.

  Can you meet me there?

• 81 Glenn Dale // Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM

  Here is the link to a pretty good review of the legal question re Police powers to detain witnesses.

  http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/detaining_witnesses.pdf

  Like many things it is not entirely clear cut.

  At Johnny Law: Police aren’t free to detain anyone, using any method, for an indeterminate amount of time simply b/c they want to ask questions. Whether and the extent of any detention and the amount of force used to make the detention depend on the need for the investigation.

  At others: you don’t necessarily need to get a warrant and under appropriate circumstances police can briefly detain witnesses to attempt to get a statement. There is no bright line principal that non-suspect witnesses are absolutely free to leave and may never be detained.

  I think under the facts here, the police probably overeacted and used excessive force and made an illegal detention.

  From the AJC article:

  Some of the details contained in police department records conflict with those provided in interviews. . . .
  But all agree that the struggle between Wells, 57, and Murphy, 52, started because she would not tell him the name of a friend who was at her house in Richland, 35 miles southeast of Columbus, when Murphy arrived around 9:30 p.m. on April 26.

  Wells, who teaches in Columbus, said she had called to report a prowler. Murphy wrote in his police report that he was dispatched to check out a report of an “unwanted guest.”

  John Robinson was at Wells’ house when Murphy pulled up. Robinson told the AJC his friend of 26 years had called him to be with her until the police arrived. Robinson lives 10 miles from Wells and her husband was in McRae, almost 90 miles away.

  According to Robinson, Wells and the police reports, the officer only asked Robinson how long he had known Wells, the status of their relationship and where he lived. Murphy asked nothing more, not even Robinson’s name.

  Moments later Robinson left. Murphy wrote he let the man leave because it is best to seperate people in domestic violence situations.

  “I could always arrest him later if I needed to since he lived nearby,” Murphy wrote in a report obtained by the AJC.

  Given that the crime was not serious (either prowling, or a domestic incident with no evidence of physical injury), and that there was little need for the police to question the lady (since the police admit they could have easily contacted the “suspect” later, since he lived nearby, and police proby had license plate info)

  AND furthermore, since the witness they were trying to interrogate was at her home, so there was little chance she would disappear. They knew were to find her if they wanted to conduct a more formal investigation later. Detention wasn’t necessary to stop the witness from disappearing and police losing all chance to interview.

• 82 figMiNT // Jul 17, 2010 at 1:59 AM

  Pinandpuller,

  If the doctor acted carelessly when I was entrusting him with my life of course I am going to question his expertise. He was protected because what I signed mentioned the chance for risks and whatnot, but he explained to me what he was going to do during the procedure and ended up doing something quite different. My point was that you cannot condemn the whole of a profession for a fractions abuse.

  I rather liked having two cops follow procedure out of the Super Troopers (2001) handbook–even though when I was pulled over the movie hadn’t come out yet and I thought I was going to get killed for going 65 in a 20, instead of getting pranked. I swear I think the Washington State Patrol inspired that movie.

  I have met several officers who were more than permitted to cite or arrest me, and so long as I treated them with respect I got it back and was educated (which I checked in the Colorado Code to make sure I was indeed violating those statutes, which I was) on the law. So sometimes the police can be way more than cool. They aren’t always out to get you.
  Maybe that’ll help you see my point.

  As far as I know, the police cannot detain you unless there is probable cause. But I do find it hilarious when a police talks to some people and all they do is look blankly at him/her and just do some facial expressions. I thought the 5th was in instances where you would be a witness to yourself in an incriminating way. I don’t think saying, “Hello Officer.” counts as self-incrimination. Hahahahaha! I just thought about the season premiere of Psych when Shaun says that he always keeps a lawyer on retainer with him at all times because he can never know these days. Hahahaha!

  Good times.

  P.S. I did mean hearsay. Arg! I have this thing about grammatical errors.
  figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Sun 18 @ 6:43 GMT (Refreshes in 22.73 Hours)

• 83 Obiwan // Jul 17, 2010 at 6:11 AM

  The most interesting thing to me about this whole discussion is the fact that nobody here has the facts. It seems to me that a young police officer let his adrenaline get the best of him in a difficult situation which caused him to act irrationally. Regardless if she was being detained and being uncooperative this is just another story of police using excessive force. If you are a police officer you want to justify it and if you are a civilian you want to get out the rope and linch the perp. Why can’t both sides see it for what it is? Inexperience on the side of the policeman with the taser. We just see it because there was a mistake made on the part of law enforcement. How many times does a police man resolve a situation without this horrific display inexperience? We just don’t see that. There is one fact here that is evident. Law enforcement f-ed up. That is why resignations were made.

• 84 Nullifidian // Jul 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM

  It seems to me that a young police officer let his adrenaline get the best of him in a difficult situation which caused him to act irrationally.

  He was talking to the woman who had called in a suspected prowler. What is “difficult” about that? Was the cop frustrated because he hadn’t mastered subject-verb agreement yet?

  I am sick of hearing how “difficult” it is for cops. If the popo can’t handle a slight difficulty without resorting to tasers, pepper spray, and guns, then they should all be fired and turned into suburban mall cops, where they won’t face so many “difficult” moments.

• 85 lisa // Jul 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

  wow this is scary to know that a 22 year old cop is still employed in another county and that this could happen again since he did make a statement that he would do it again if he had to. where is the justice in this, does the sheriff even have a heart or soul to have hired this fella. god bless them all.

• 86 TootsNYC // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

  The person who “lost it” first was the older cop–in his 50s. He created the entire situation.

  The only reason HE wasn’t fired for using a Taser is that he left his in the car. so HE used pepper spray on an unarmed citizen.

  And he says:
  “I could always arrest him later if I needed to since he lived nearby,” Murphy wrote in a report obtained by the AJC.

  And yet, her refusal to give him the man’s name is met with his demand for *immediate* compliance? He didn’t think he could come back later and get his name from her? After all, she lives in the neighborhood, too.

  Obiwan–we have the facts. We have the video.

  The youngr officer got out of that car w/ his Taser in his hand, ready to go–and he shocked her as soon as he arrived there.

  SIX SECONDS–six seconds elapse from the time the car lurches to a stop, and she is screaming. He walks to the other cop car, leans down and immediately shocks her. He doesn’t say a word–nor does the other cop. He walks up, leans over, and shocks her.

  Not one piece of information is exchanged at the site.

  Then, *while* he is shocking her, he is demanding that she get up off the ground and get in the car? How physically capable of it was she? A taser essentially overwhelms the electrical system the body uses to move its muscles–it creates temporary paralysis.

  You never do see her above the top of the car; she wasn’t capable of standing up. He is demanding something of her while he is physically preventing her from doing it.

  From a stun-gun retailer’s website:
  http://www.yoursecurityguide.com/physical-effects.aspx
  “communication between the brain and muscles is momentarily ‘scrambled.’ ” . . . “the muscles are instantly disabled” . . . “muscles . . . are exhausted virtually instantaneously.”

• 87 Nemo // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM

  “Get in the car! Get in the car! You gonna get it again!” *taser activates*. In other words, comply with the officer’s orders, or you will be tortured, pure and simple. No wonder Johnny tap-dances around whether or not arresting the victim was “justified”, it’s an easy way of avoiding how the cop tortured the woman who called them for help.

  As for the people saying that it’s ridiculous to believe that saying “Hello, officer” could be used against you, keep in mind that this woman called 911 asking for help, and all it got her was being peppersprayed, tasered and arrested. I’ll say it again: the cop arrested the woman who’d called them for help. What a “hero”.

• 88 Johnny Law // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

  Toots,

  “The only reason HE wasn’t fired for using a Taser is that he left his in the car. so HE used pepper spray on an unarmed citizen.”

  So pepperspray should be used against armed citizens (sorry-citizens who are not employed as police officers)? I like how you made that statement and phrased it in a way calculated to inflame folks.

  OC spray isn’t meant to be used on armed persons. Just to clarify. As for her being incapable to getting in the car, bullshit. The incapacitation caused by the taser goes away as soon as the current stops flowing. The officer would taser her then stop and give verbal commands. She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.

  @booker

  Yes I will meet you halfway and that is a reasonable way to look at it. If the call actually was only for a prowler, the officer better have some articulable facts on why he thought there may have been a disturbance.

• 89 Johnny Law // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM

  Toots,

  “The only reason HE wasn’t fired for using a Taser is that he left his in the car. so HE used pepper spray on an unarmed citizen.”

  So pepperspray should be used against armed citizens (sorry-citizens who are not employed as police officers)? I like how you made that statement and phrased it in a way calculated to inflame folks.

  OC spray isn’t meant to be used on armed persons. Just to clarify. As for her being incapable to getting in the car, bullshit. The incapacitation caused by the taser goes away as soon as the current stops flowing. The officer would taser her then stop and give verbal commands. She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.

  @booker

  Yes I will meet you halfway and that is a reasonable way to look at it. If the call actually was only for a prowler, the officer better have some articulable facts on why he thought there may have been a disturbance at the location.

• 90 Nemo // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

  See? Johnny admits that using a taser to torture people into compliance is OK in his book.

  “The officer would taser her then stop and give verbal commands. She was more than capable of doing what he said.”

• 91 Johnny Law // Jul 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM

  Nah. Read some of my previous posts before you yell “gotcha!” I am just pointing out to him that she wasn’t incapable of following the directions of the officer. I’ve said all along that the taser shouldn’t be used as a cattle prod to produce compliance and I also said that if that was the case in this incident, that was excessive.

  However I also said that we can’t see what she was doing. All we know is she was yelling like a banshee. For all we know, she may have been kicking and thrashing. If that was the case, then I think the taser was appropriate.

• 92 Dodge Ball // Jul 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM

  JL, you solidified your role as a uniformed buffoon by attempting to project unqualified knowledge that a person is functional right after getting hit with a taser. Total incapacitation may vanish immediately after the current is turned off, but coherency and motor skills are still greatly diminished for a short period.

  You unintelligently use the terms such as “may have” and “if that was the case” to fortify your defense in the officers’ misconduct. Face it, no matter what you believe what she could have or allegedly been doing, the OC and voltage was completely unnecessary based on the immediate circumstances present. More viable options were were at hand.

  What you’re putting out only amounts to this: If your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.

  Your village is looking for you.

• 93 Nemo // Jul 17, 2010 at 8:10 PM

  JL: “I’ve said all along that the taser shouldn’t be used as a cattle prod to produce compliance and I also said that if that was the case in this incident, that was excessive”. And yet, when faced with a woman being tortured with a taser, your reaction is to call her a “drama queen”. Instead of taking the cop to task, you defend him and speculate that his actions may have been appropriate.

  Keep in mind that this woman’s not a criminal. She’s the victim of a cop who (to use Johnny’s “logic” against the cop instead of the victim) “just wanted to torture someone”.

• 94 Johnny Law // Jul 17, 2010 at 10:40 PM

  Nemo, you obviously refuse to even entertain the idea that we don’t know all of what was going on behind that car to cause the tasing. I wish you could consider things objectively but apparently you can’t. Also, where did you get the quote “just wanted to torture someone”? Are you using Rail Car Fan’s rules of quotation again (making them up”?

  Dodge Ball,

  I have been tased, I have tased folks, and I have been a witness in multiple tasing. Once the taser is off, the pain and muscle contraction stops. And pardon me for not rushing to judgement. I’m afraid that, unlike you, I prefer to know the details of something before I condemn it. It must be nice to be able to see things in such absolute black and white despite actually knowing the facts of the incident. You would make an excellent IA investigator.

• 95 Michaelk42 // Jul 17, 2010 at 11:10 PM

  @Johnny

  “The incapacitation caused by the taser goes away as soon as the current stops flowing. The officer would taser her then stop and give verbal commands. She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.”

  As stated by others above: bullshit.

  Total incapacitation, perhaps. But obviously no average human is going to instantly recover from a TASER shock as if nothing had happened. How did you suddenly gain specific medical knowledge as to this specific woman’s response to electrical shock?

  Ah, that’s right. You don’t have any.

  But you do love to blame the victim.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 96 Nemo // Jul 17, 2010 at 11:12 PM

  @JL

  You made things up about the victim, saying that the only reason she didn’t comply with her torturer was because she (to paraphrase slightly) “wanted to be a drama queen”. I merely returned the favor. You liked that less than your own non-factual assertion, didn’t you? You had no idea what was going through the victim’s mind at the time, so you /made something up/. Hypocrite.

  As for what was going on behind the car, we have the officer’s own words. “Get in the car! Get in the car! You gonna get it again!” *taser activates*. That’s clearly a case of the cop using the taser to torture her into compliance, and not the language of a real LEO using a taser to take down a combative suspect. Hell, the only thing the poor victim was “suspect” of was not Respecting Officer Cartman’s Authoritah.

  The short story here is that the woman called the police for help, and your “hero” ended up arresting her after pepper spraying her and tasering her multiple times, without any evidence that she had, in fact, committed a crime. In the face of those Facts, you’ve been inventing things to justify his behavior, putting your bias firmly on the side of a soi-disant “police officer” who used torture techniques in arresting the victim. And after all that, escewing objectivity in favor of defense of one side, you have the nerve to lecture me about being objective? Once again you show your hypocrisy. Your biases are as clear as ever, in that you speculate that the victim might have (must have) done something wrong in order to get tasered, and the cop might have (must have) been justified in torturing the woman.

  Given the facts available at this point, there was never a need to arrest this woman. She called for help, and was arrested for a non-crime.

• 97 Johnny Law // Jul 18, 2010 at 12:06 AM

  Nemo,

  You keep misquoting me. I haven’t made anything up about the “victim”. I am just saying that we have conflicting accounts of the information the police officer had about the nature of the call. I am also pointing out that our view of the tasing was blocked by the car and we don’t know what was going on over there. All we have is some audio that hardly provides the full picture.

  You want to rush to judgement and blame the police no matter what? Go ahead. I can tell nothing is going to cause you to be objective about this. You keep saying “clearly” this and “clearly” that but the only thing clear is that you are determined to blame the police and don’t care to learn the whole story.

  Your “short story” is an interesting take on things. Too bad it is complete speculation and biased opinions. I haven’t invented anything. All I have done is try to look at things from the perspective of the officer on scene and the totality of the circumstances instead of your habit of trying to oversimplify things and making misleading statements and inaccurate quotes.

• 98 Dodge Ball // Jul 18, 2010 at 12:38 AM

  JL, I have been involved in shoving USC up a few officers’ asses for criminal acts and color of the law violations such as this. Your view of an IA investigator is obviously a result of some kind of guilt. How many rights have you violated in your short career? That is, of course, no surprise.

• 99 Michaelk42 // Jul 18, 2010 at 12:38 AM

  @Johnny

  “You keep misquoting me. I haven’t made anything up about the ‘victim’.”

  Hmm.

  “So the woman starts acting squirrelly and refused to cooperate.”

  “Maybe she thought that since she was so tight with this sheriff, she could use the police however she wanted.”

  “She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.”

  …

  Yeah, sure you haven’t Johnny.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 100 Dodge Ball // Jul 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM

  JL, I have been involved in shoving USC up a few officers’ asses for criminal acts and color of the law violations such as this. Your view of an IA investigator is obviously the result of some kind of guilt. How many rights have you violated in your short career? That is, of course, no surprise.

• 101 Nemo // Jul 18, 2010 at 1:14 AM

  JL: “She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.” You made up her intent. You have no idea what was going through the mind of the innocent woman at the time she was being tortured into compliance. Therefore “I haven’t made anything up about the “victim”. ” is a lie.

  “You want to rush to judgement and blame the police no matter what?” You made that up, too. Give me solid evidence that the cops on the scene were tasering someone threatening them, and I’ll back the cops. You can’t, because there’s no evidence that the cops were being threatened. Your “no matter what” argument falls. As it should, since it assumes an attitude that doesn’t exist.

  Your descrition of the incident was more biased than mine, and shorter on facts and longer on speculation. The woman called 911. Fact. The cop pepper sprayed her. Fact. The other cop tasered her to get her to obey orders (tortured her). Fact. She was taken into custody. Fact. The cop on the scene could not charge her with a real crime (“obstruction” doesn’t count, she was not required to answer his questions about the “suspect” he had let go). Fact.

  You invented the speculation that she was fighting: “she may have been kicking and thrashing”. Unsupported speculation. “The only reason the officers left is because the sheriff is using personal feelings to make this into a bullshit racial issue”. Unsupported speculation. “The actual call was about a person trespassing but refusing to leave and not some window peeping prowler”. Ignores a disputed assertion. She said it was a prowler, the cop said it was a tresspasser. If the trespasser was there, why did the cop go after her? If the trespasser was not there, why did he go after her? Neither makes sense, if the cop’s story were assumed to be true. Either way, the cop was wrong.

  So, I have demonstrated that you are lying when you said “I haven’t invented anything”. You have, repeatedly.

  “All I have done is try to look at things from the perspective of the officer on scene”, true, but you overlook the fact that doing such carries an inherent bias. The “perspective of the officer on scene” carries the bias that the cop is doing the right thing, not throwing his weight around and trying to prove he’s got the biggest dick on the block. When the cop on the scene is /not/ doing the right thing, your premise breaks down, because your assumptions are /wrong/. You begin to assume motives and attitudes that don’t exist. In short, you assume that the cop is right and the victim of the cop is wrong. That is also “making things up”.

  Face it, the cop didn’t have a legal leg to stand on in arresting her, he just jugged her for “contempt of cop”. I checked over at policeone.com, and your fellow “heroes” are busy consoling the poor, innocnet guy who lost his job over a bad arrest of an innocent victim. I’m sure they make you proud, the way they ignore facts and allow their biases to pass judgement: “Cop good, civilian bad”.

  No, Johnny, when it comes to objectivity, I’m far, far more objective than you. It just seems to piss you off when an objective opinion damns the thugs that you are so desperate to “prove” “innocent”.

• 102 Johnny Law // Jul 18, 2010 at 1:45 AM

  Nemo,

  “She was more than capable of doing what he said. She just wanted to lay there and play drama queen.” You made up her intent. You have no idea what was going through the mind of the innocent woman at the time she was being tortured into compliance.

  The whole point of that discussion was the fact that she was not incapable of following the demands of the officer due to the taser. She was screaming like she was trying for an academy award. You know the best way to stop the taser? Do what the officer directs you to do. Simple and much more effective than screaming your head off.

  ” Give me solid evidence that the cops on the scene were tasering someone threatening them, and I’ll back the cops. You can’t, because there’s no evidence that the cops were being threatened.”

  I fee like we are going in circles here. You so desperately want to prove that you are so objective and fair minded yet you condemn the officers even though its not clear what the true nature of the call was and what transpired behind the unit. Yet when I point of this lack of knowledge, you declare it shows my bias? Give me a freaking break. You don’t know all the facts but you have made a rock solid decision on this case anyway. You can write a block of text all you want but you know there is no honest way you can call yourself objective and open minded on this.

  You list of facts leave out all the details and that makes the difference. You can say she called police and then was tased but that leaves out a hell of alot of important information. Of course that suits you because you have already made a decision on this and who needs those pesky details anyway? Dodge Ball sure doesn’t and I doubt you do either.

  My speculation isn’t making a judgement call one way or the other. It is trying to explain to you folks with the pitchforks that this incident isn’t quite so clear cut as you wish it was.

  Most use of force incidents (or any police incident) aren’t near as simple as folks like Carlos of Dodge Ball would like you to think. I know it is hard to look at these things from different angles but you really should try if you are going to continue to claim you have some small bit of objectivity.

• 103 Nemo // Jul 18, 2010 at 2:30 AM

  “The whole point of that discussion was the fact that she was not incapable of following the demands of the officer due to the taser. She was screaming like she was trying for an academy award. You know the best way to stop the taser? Do what the officer directs you to do. Simple and much more effective than screaming your head off.”

  Don’t scream when tortured, do as the torturer demands, eh? And you’re /still/ making things up. Why wouldn’t she scream when tortured? Do they give an academy award for screaming?

  “You so desperately want to prove that you are so objective and fair minded yet you condemn the officers even though its not clear what the true nature of the call was and what transpired behind the unit. Yet when I point of this lack of knowledge, you declare it shows my bias?”

  I don’t have to “prove” my superior objectivity, iut shows in every post. You’re the one desperately grasping at straws clinging to your “cop good, victim bad” bias. What crime was she committing? Murder? Assault? Selling drugs? Theft? Or was she just getting uppity with a thug? Oh, that’s right…

  “You can say she called police and then was tased but that leaves out a hell of alot of important information. ” Like she backed away from an overly-aggressive cop, perchance? He just couldn’t wait to cuff her, after all. She took a “fight or flight stance”, or so said the cop. His opinion justified the cuffing, right?

  Oh, and lets not forget that Officer Clumsy tripped and hurt his knee. Definitely grounds for arrest there. (/sarcasm)

  “You list of facts leave out all the details and that makes the difference.” /Your/ list leaves out a lot of details, too. So? That justifies you making things up?

  “My speculation isn’t making a judgement call one way or the other”. Yes, it is. It’s defending the cops who arrested and tortured the victim who called for help. She did nothing wrong, save for running away from the mean who was threatening her.

  “Most use of force incidents (or any police incident) aren’t near as simple as folks like Carlos of Dodge Ball would like you to think”. In other words, you assert that police get to abuse anyone, for any reason, and then lie and play games to justify it. Bullshit. The woman arrested here wasn’t a criminal, a fact you conveniently forget. She called for help from the police, and the police “helped” her into the back of the squad car. Why? Because she didn’t kiss ass enough? Bullshit. The cop on-site mismanged his call, and made her pay the price for his incompetence. Fact.

  As for your attacking me on “objectivity”, I’ll take that as an acknowledgement that you are not objective at all. The only way you’ll accept police wrongdoing is with overwhelming evidence /proving/ the officer’s guilt. With a citizen, you’ll just need a whiff of something. As in this case. A mountain of evidence against the cops, and a molehill against the victim, and all you can do is desperately defend the cops, claiming “it’s complicated”. Too complicated for you, obviously.

  “Objective” my ass. You dn’t want objective, you want a bunch of cheerleaders to look the other way when your “brothers” break the law. Feh.

• 104 Dodge Ball // Jul 19, 2010 at 7:33 AM

  Nemo, it’s not just breaking the law. It’s the shredding of simple decency. Sinister acts like these should demand more than just being run through the court system or being terminated from employment. A video taped beat down or a pistol-whipping is what the thugs need.

• 105 DJ Todd // Jul 20, 2010 at 11:36 PM

  JL – I too prefer to know all the facts before I come to a conclusion. Therefore you are a jackboot tard and will be one for a long time until the proof comes in that you are not one.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website