RTP to the rescue...............

[motorman587]

Watch the video till the end see what rolls up.

 

http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html?mode=video

[Boone60]

Incredible video.

[Huzband]

More like Glock to the rescue!

[Fugu]

F-ing chilling video.

 

The officers involved OK? The first guy looks like he got hurt and/ or shot.

 

Crap like this is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with the rules of engagement you guys and gals in uniform do, and that I can just walk away from crazy, not be duty bound to go talk to it.

 

That guy was closing distance and the officer didn't open it back up because his only force option was a tazer.

 

And check out the windup going on by the bad guy while the officer is running his OODA loop.... It's painful to watch. It's almost like the tazer didn't fire.

 

Scary, scary crap.

 

 

Not as bad as the Dinkheller video but some days I'd rather not be reminded of this stuff.

 

Gah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[upflying]

Only problem I see is no one is giving the suspect first aid. Could be an issue in the almost certain "wrongful death" lawsuit.

Suspect is also on his stomach. Besides being shot, positional asphyxia could have contributed to the death.

[elkroeger]

...no one is giving the suspect first aid. Could be an issue in the almost certain "wrongful death" lawsuit.

Suspect is also on his stomach. Besides being shot, positional asphyxia could have contributed to the death.

 

Naw... he took two .40 caliber slugs to the abdomen. One went through his heart and lung, the other went through his spleen. The only first aid to be done is to tie a black triage ribbon on his arm.

 

Also, I'd disagree in that the officers had only just barely subdued the suspect. I'm no officer, but you gotta #1 gain control of the situation, #2 evaluate your own injuries, and then #3 think about first aid to the suspect. I'd say that they never really got past part #2.

[Twisties]

First, I don't think this is about an RTP and I feel strongly that the material should have been labeled for graphic violence and potentially offensive material. John, I might have watched it anyway, or maybe not, but suckering folks is plain unfair and I'll state plainly that I did not appreciate it.

 

So, you are walking down the street and an officer suddenly pulls over and orders you to the ground, without placing you under arrest.

 

Would the lawyers please explain your rights and responsibilities under these conditions.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

 

[tallman]

You never "have" to obey.

It is a free country after all.

 

The link shows it is about a justified shooting, that was a warning to me that there might be shooting involved.

 

John,

Thanks to all of you for risking your life everyday.

Hoping y'all get home safely after every shift.

[bmwsit]

First, I don't think this is about an RTP and I feel strongly that the material should have been labeled for graphic violence and potentially offensive material. John, I might have watched it anyway, or maybe not, but suckering folks is plain unfair and I'll state plainly that I did not appreciate it.

 

So, you are walking down the street and an officer suddenly pulls over and orders you to the ground, without placing you under arrest.

 

Would the lawyers please explain your rights and responsibilities under these conditions.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

 

The fellow was not just walking down the street, he was a suspect in an assault that occurred 15 minutes prior. A quick google search and a little background on the incident is a wonderful thing.

 

http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html

 

As for obeying an officer, you have to, whether he is right or wrong, it is against the law to resist an arrest, even if it is an unlawful arrest. If it is unlawful, the courts are the proper location for working that out, not on a bridge.

[Fugu]

From that article:

The Taser did not work. Investigators believe it failed because only one of the weapon's two prongs hit Mallory

 

Talk about an oh shoot moment. That's why it seemed on the video that the officer didn't react- he did but missed or the tazer didn't shoot straight.

 

Crap.

 

Good on both officers for surviving.

 

 

[Twisties]

First, I don't think this is about an RTP and I feel strongly that the material should have been labeled for graphic violence and potentially offensive material. John, I might have watched it anyway, or maybe not, but suckering folks is plain unfair and I'll state plainly that I did not appreciate it.

 

So, you are walking down the street and an officer suddenly pulls over and orders you to the ground, without placing you under arrest.

 

Would the lawyers please explain your rights and responsibilities under these conditions.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

 

The fellow was not just walking down the street, he was a suspect in an assault that occurred 15 minutes prior. A quick google search and a little background on the incident is a wonderful thing.

 

http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_82a1f54e-82a3-11de-9019-001cc4c03286.html

 

As for obeying an officer, you have to, whether he is right or wrong, it is against the law to resist an arrest, even if it is an unlawful arrest. If it is unlawful, the courts are the proper location for working that out, not on a bridge.

 

It is against the law to resist an arrest. However the officer did not inform the individual that he was under arrest. Therefore there was no resisting arrest, and your point is completely irrelevant.

 

My question was specifically addressed to the lawyers, and was specific to the case where there has been no arrest attempt.

[Fugu]

Yes, clearly this upstanding citizen would not have assaulted and tried to kill the officer had the magic word arrest been used, and since arrest was not uttered, he was justified in trying to kill the officer.

 

What are you getting at Jan- I'm afraid what you're putting on this page thus far is doing you a discredit.

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the supreme court rulings regarding Terry stops- if not google it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tapatio]

 

So, you are walking down the street and an officer suddenly pulls over and orders you to the ground, without placing you under arrest.

 

Would the lawyers please explain your rights and responsibilities under these conditions.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

 

Twisties - you are way out of line. The officer is the victim, not the criminal who tried to kill him. That you would actually question the legality of the officers reaction sickens me. He puts his life on the line to protect innocent people like yourself.

 

My sympathies go out to officer Anderson and his family. He will be scarred mentally and physically for the rest of his life. I hope he makes a speedy recovery because he's the type of hero I want guarding my family and community.

 

 

 

 

[FLrider]

Bottom Line. Officer orders you comply with a reasonable instruction; Get down, put your hands behind your head, whatever..

 

You do it.

 

You come at him/her.... you deserve what you get, including getting shot.

 

My thoughts are with the officer and his family.

 

I hope that thug and every wannabe gangsta that sees the video learns a lesson.

[ghaverkamp]

My question was specifically addressed to the lawyers, and was specific to the case where there has been no arrest attempt.

 

I don't personally see an issue under the published facts. The subject had been identified by a witness as having been involved in an assault. Depending upon the nature of that identification, the officer probably had sufficient probable cause to arrest. Even if he didn't, he almost definitely had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

Well, the better question is how willing are you to get Tased and/or forcibly arrested in exchange for the potential of some likely limited monetary compensation if the officer was not justified?

 

In general, self-help in the event of an illegal arrest is not a defense. Instead, a person's remedy is to sue.

 

In short, must a person stop because an officer tells them to? Generally not, but there are a whole bunch of caveats.

 

Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant. Legal "reasonableness" is a fact-driven determination generally left to a jury.

[vizhip]

In general, self-help in the event of an illegal arrest is not a defense. Instead, a person's remedy is to sue.

 

There are two problems with that... one... you can't sue the government... you may try, but many states do not permit it and the judges will toss it out of the court...

 

Two, once you are arrested, even if you are innocent, you now have an arrest record that can only be expunged by a court of law... and typically those are so booked with everything else that it takes writing your congressmen to get any action taken on your behalf...

 

 

In short, must a person stop because an officer tells them to? Generally not, but there are a whole bunch of caveats.

 

I would beg to differ here... If an officer is on duty (there's that word) and acting in an official capacity, you must stop if you hear the officer commanding you to do so...

 

You do have the ability to ask the officer to call his supervisor to the scene to address any perceived wrongs... but the officer will be listened to first by the judge before your side will be told...

 

Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant. Legal "reasonableness" is a fact-driven determination generally left to a jury.

 

Most of this applies to your person, your home and your vehicle (boat, car, truck, motorcycle, etc)... but nothing stops the officer from making you stand there while he obtains a warrant to perform said search... he just has to tell you why he is detaining you... Only in the case where an actual arrest is made will a jury get involved... and that is if you as a citizen elect to be judged by a jury of your peers...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...no one is giving the suspect first aid. Could be an issue in the almost certain "wrongful death" lawsuit.

Suspect is also on his stomach. Besides being shot, positional asphyxia could have contributed to the death.

 

...

Also, I'd disagree in that the officers had only just barely subdued the suspect. I'm no officer, but you gotta #1 gain control of the situation, #2 evaluate your own injuries, and then #3 think about first aid to the suspect. I'd say that they never really got past part #2.

 

+1. After the shooting, the two officers involved in the gunfight were just maintaining control of the situation, with the injured officer sitting on the suspect while the other kept the gun on him. With the two of them like that, I don't think they would have been able to safely handcuff the suspect, as the injured officer wasn't in a condition to keep a gun drawn on the suspect while the healthy officer cuffed him. Since they were occupied keeping the suspect as subdued as they could, they were not in a position to render first aid - not to the uncuffed suspect, and not to the injured officer. With suspect uncuffed, they could not roll him onto his back without compromising their control of the situation. Is he unconscious? Maybe, or maybe he's faking, hoping for an opportunity to strike back. Safest bet is to keep him face down until he can be cuffed.

 

As you noted, they had only barely begun to evaluate the injured officer's injuries when reinforcements arrived. As soon as the suspect is cuffed, the motor officer begins putting on gloves to apply first aid measures; that's when the video ends.

[4wheeldog]

So, you are walking down the street and an officer suddenly pulls over and orders you to the ground, without placing you under arrest.

 

Would the lawyers please explain your rights and responsibilities under these conditions.

 

To what extent must you obey, and at what point is an officer justified in tazing you?

 

I am not a lawyer or a lawman, but.......I have managed to walk the earth for 57 years without being arrested or shot. So....

 

Short answer......The officer has the right to contain any threat that he reasonably believes you may present. If you think challenging this is worth raising the ante from tazer to .40, then the result is obvious.

 

Me, I would have gotten on my knees .

[ghaverkamp]

In general, self-help in the event of an illegal arrest is not a defense. Instead, a person's remedy is to sue.

 

There are two problems with that... one... you can't sue the government... you may try, but many states do not permit it and the judges will toss it out of the court...

 

The first isn't an issue. Standing and damages is an issue. State sovereignty or immunity is not.

 

Two, once you are arrested, even if you are innocent, you now have an arrest record that can only be expunged by a court of law... and typically those are so booked with everything else that it takes writing your congressmen to get any action taken on your behalf...

 

That doesn't mean you can slug a cop who is arresting you illegally. As an aside, I've always felt "Law & Order" has it backwards. The police ensure order, and we give them the benefit of the doubt up front. Then the laws decide the outcome.

 

In short, must a person stop because an officer tells them to? Generally not, but there are a whole bunch of caveats.

 

I would beg to differ here... If an officer is on duty (there's that word) and acting in an official capacity, you must stop if you hear the officer commanding you to do so...

 

I disagree. If you can provide a legal citation to the contrary, I might reconsider.

 

We aren't beholden to agents of the government. An officer my choose to stop, detain, or arrest, and if such actions turn out to be legal, not obeying the order may be costly in the end. But that's a different story.

 

 

Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant. Legal "reasonableness" is a fact-driven determination generally left to a jury.

 

Most of this applies to your person, your home and your vehicle (boat, car, truck, motorcycle, etc)... but nothing stops the officer from making you stand there while he obtains a warrant to perform said search... he just has to tell you why he is detaining you... Only in the case where an actual arrest is made will a jury get involved... and that is if you as a citizen elect to be judged by a jury of your peers...

 

Yes. It applies to "your" person. That's what prevents an officer from illegally detaining a person under the Fourth Amendment.

[randys]

"Mallory had bitten an eyebrow off Anderson, punched him, choked him and slammed his head against the pavement. The fight ended after Jim Weakley, an East Moline detective who happened to be passing by on the bridge, stopped and attempted to get Mallory off Anderson. Weakley couldn't, but Anderson then was able to remove his gun from his holster and shoot Mallory, officials said. Anderson will require plastic surgery."

 

 

Yeah, I think the officer was justified

[motorman587]

Holly cow.............sorry I started this one. Still think the RTP coming up at the end is way cool.

 

Stop arguing about the laws/policies, because each state/city is going to different. Bottom line is an officer has the same rights as "you" to defend his/her life.

[vizhip]

Stop arguing about the laws/policies, because each state/city is going to different. Bottom line is an officer has the same rights as "you" to defend his/her life.

 

That... and how we were raised and our life experiences...

 

okies... will back off... but it was getting fun... )))

 

Regards -

-Bob

[bmwsit]

Holly cow.............sorry I started this one. Still think the RTP coming up at the end is way cool.

 

Stop arguing about the laws/policies, because each state/city is going to different. Bottom line is an officer has the same rights as "you" to defend his/her life.

 

RTP coming right up to it was pretty cool. Was fully expecting the guy to jump off of it without taking time to put kickstand down though.

[ghaverkamp]

Holly cow.............sorry I started this one.

 

By now, you should definitely know that threads go where they will.

 

 

Stop arguing about the laws/policies, because each state/city is going to different. Bottom line is an officer has the same rights as "you" to defend his/her life.

 

No state or city (in the U.S., anyway) can trump the Fourth Amendment.

[Lawman]

For people traveling through Texas,

 

Not sure how it works in other places but around here if a policeman tases you and you are able to fight through it and you choose to attack the officer he is likely to shoot you if he can, especially if you have bitten him. He will likely not discuss his right to go home at the end of his shift or the Fourth Amendment before doing so. This can be important to know..

 

[RandyBailey]

We're trained not to deploy Tazer when in solo contact with a suspect; only when there is a cover officer. Tazer is a single shot and can be very difficult to deploy successfully, even at close range. If you do miss you are stuck with this useless device and it can slow the transition to the handgun.

 

Without passing any judgement on the officer's technique and only based on what's seen in the video, I might have had kept the suspect on the walkway with the barrier between us and called for backup. If the suspect decided to engage, I would have followed the force continum, which might have included deadly force.

 

We had a deputy roll on a domestic violence call solo and with his Tazer attempt to subdue a teenager who was swinging a baseball bat. The kid managed to strike the deputy several times, breaking bones, before the deputy could deploy deadly force to end the assault.

 

Thanks for posting the link to the video. It's always good to see how other officers deal with situations like this.

[Huzband]

For people traveling through Texas,

 

Not sure how it works in other places but around here if a policeman tases you and you are able to fight through it and you choose to attack the officer he is likely to shoot you if he can, especially if you have bitten him. He will likely not discuss his right to go home at the end of his shift or the Fourth Amendment before doing so. This can be important to know..

 

I trust you've forwarded this tidbit on to Whip.

[bmwsit]

We are trained to deploy the tazer when ever we need it, but we use our weak hand, keeping our stong hand available for a quicker transition. It is preferred to have lethal cover though.

[Matts_12GS]

For people traveling through Texas,

 

Not sure how it works in other places but around here if a policeman tases you and you are able to fight through it and you choose to attack the officer he is likely to shoot you if he can, especially if you have bitten him. He will likely not discuss his right to go home at the end of his shift or the Fourth Amendment before doing so. This can be important to know..

 

[DonB]

THAT is Intense.

 

The tasing officer failed to maintain a safe tactical distance among other things. He should have given ground and waited for backup.

 

If anyone can comment I find it strange the assualted officer did not receive any medical attention right away. HE could have been wounded and bleeding out the whole time.

 

The perp received what he deserved.

[upflying]

Different approach?

How about having the officer just sit in his car and observe the suspect until a cover officer arrives?

Where is the suspect going to go? Over the edge of the bridge?

Second guessing always occurs after an OIS.

Had it been me, I would have low keyed the contact until cover arrived. I think the officer was a bit heavy with the verbal compliance commands initially.

But I wasn't there nor do I know much about the crime the suspect just fled from.

[Pigdog7]

I might be wrong, but I think initially it was an attempt at a lawful detention. I believe anytime a detention results in the use of force it automatically turns into an arrest. Most people do not need to be told they are under arrest if they are shot and are in handcuffs, although the conversation would eventually take place related to charges, etc.

 

If an officer gives you an order to stop and comply, it is in everyone's best interest if you do so and get an explanation after. If you do not, you likely will be arrested until the situation is sorted out. The officer may use the amount of force reasonably necessary to make that arrest. They typically do not arrest you on the spot in most cases while conducting an investigation unless you are violent or fleeing. If you are violent and fleeing, it lends itself to be interpreted as the actions of a guilty person further establishing probable cause for the arrest. The actions may also be interpreted as obstructing or delaying an officer.

 

After all that, my thoughts are with the officer and his family. He will carry this incident with him for the rest of his life. Thanks to the original poster, as there are many important aspects of the video that will be discussed by others - especially in public safety.

 

 

 

 

[Lawman]

Different approach?

How about having the officer just sit in his car and observe the suspect until a cover officer arrives?

Where is the suspect going to go? Over the edge of the bridge?

Second guessing always occurs after an OIS.

Had it been me, I would have low keyed the contact until cover arrived. I think the officer was a bit heavy with the verbal compliance commands initially.

But I wasn't there nor do I know much about the crime the suspect just fled from.

 

Not me...If I can help it I'm not gonna be sitting in my car as a violent suspect is approaching me. He might would have been better served to have ordered the turd to the ground before coming over the rail. But since he was non compliant it probably would not have mattered. The turd wasn't going to submit to arrest/detention. The mistake was made by letting the turd get too close but the taser range is very limited... Officer's too often get hurt because they take risks they shouldn't be expected to take. And they take those risks because too many people share the attitudes of some here that they don't have the right to adaquately protect themselves..Truth be known they would rather see a few officers injured or killed than permit any degree of what they view as excessive force..

[Roadwolf]

The turd wasn't going to submit to arrest/detention.

 

Um, nice way to refer to a dead human being, no matter what he did.

 

Sheesh.

[Fugu]

The turd wasn't going to submit to arrest/detention.

 

Um, nice way to refer to a dead human being, no matter what he did.

 

Sheesh.

 

The guy had a violent record a mile long and tried to kill a cop.

 

Turd is putting it mildly. Good riddance to him.

 

 

[pbbeck]

I'm okay with turd. There are lots of dead human beings that were turds in life.

[ragtoplvr]

Having once been the subject of a stop because my car was the same color as a fleeing felon, you comply with the officer. I was treated respectfully and allowed to sit with my back to the officers, while they ran my plates and verified I was not it. One of them commented, they were pretty sure I was not the one, but they have to make sure. Now had I chose to fight and bite off the eyebrow of an office, most likely I would not be posting this. I have no problem with that. Had I made the officers nervous in any way, I would have been handcuffed. Much less comfortable. They made me very late for a chemistry test, and one of the police called the professor and explained the situation. I got to take a make up test.

 

There are always exceptions, but start off on the wrong foot and you scream I am a criminal. Start of nice, and it stays pretty nice. Sometimes police have to question people, it works best if you are innocent when you cooperate. If you are guilty, even if you do not answer a question, or allow a search, at least you are alive and uninjured, and can let your lawyer do the talking.

 

I do think the injured officer could have managed the situation better, BUT that is 20 20 hindsight. in his position, he does not know how soon back up will arrive, if there are accomplices, if the perp is armed, and he does want to go home intact that night.

 

We also do not see how close innocent rubber necking public is.

 

so I am happy with the result, and see no grounds for lawsuit.

 

Rod.

 

 

 

[Boone60]

Big kudos to the detective from the neighboring town that stopped and helped this officer. When things are going really bad, it is always good to have some help.

[bmwsit]

Shortly after being hired, my partner and I were involved in a fight on an overpass. At one point we did all go against the railing, luckily it was a high railing and no one went over. Fortunately, an off duty Captain going home drove by and helped out. I always slow and observe stops I come across and mentally change gears mentally (briefly) anticipating help may be needed.

[Fugu]

Different approach?

How about having the officer just sit in his car and observe the suspect until a cover officer arrives?

Where is the suspect going to go? Over the edge of the bridge?

 

Into traffic to stop somebody to carjack

 

Anything the guy does would have been on the cop's shoulders- film at 11- cops stand by while crazy SOB who just assaulted somebody at the soup kitchen stabs a little old lady for her Tercel. Why didn't they act to protect and serve? A channel 6 investigative report follows.

 

 

 

[upflying]

Different approach?

How about having the officer just sit in his car and observe the suspect until a cover officer arrives?

Where is the suspect going to go? Over the edge of the bridge?

 

Into traffic to stop somebody to carjack

 

Anything the guy does would have been on the cop's shoulders- film at 11- cops stand by while crazy SOB who just assaulted somebody at the soup kitchen stabs a little old lady for her Tercel. Why didn't they act to protect and serve? A channel 6 investigative report follows.

 

 

 

Something like this actually happened in the Bay Area a few weeks ago. A mad gunman shoots and kills two people at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza. Apparently the motive was over a relationship he had with the bridge toll employee. This occurred in front of two on-duty and armed Marin County sheriff's deputies who decided to protect the crime scene rather than engage the gunman or chase him after he left in his van. Lot's of LEO quarterbacking occurred about the decision by the deputies not to get involved. Only they know why they didn't get involved. Maybe stray gunfire might have harmed innocent bystanders in the area.

LEO's are taught their self-protection is the #1 priority. The lives of innocent citizens is secondary to your own life. If it means whether I get to go home tonight or not, it seems prudent to wait for backup before you confront a potentially crazed criminal by yourself. Would waiting for cover resulted in a different outcome for this turd?

A potential disaster awaits any cop who goes to a domestic violence call by themselves without waiting for backup. Even if you hear screaming inside the house, wait for your cover.

 

[SWB]

Different approach?

How about having the officer just sit in his car and observe the suspect until a cover officer arrives?

Where is the suspect going to go? Over the edge of the bridge?

Second guessing always occurs after an OIS.

Had it been me, I would have low keyed the contact until cover arrived. I think the officer was a bit heavy with the verbal compliance commands initially.

But I wasn't there nor do I know much about the crime the suspect just fled from.

 

The officer might have been a bit amped up by the call, e.g. suspect had just committed the assault, and from the officer's demeanor, it was pretty sure he knew this guy was dangerous. Otherwise, I'd wholly agree that an officer just walking up to the average citizen, drawing a Tazer, and shouting at him to assume the position would be considered a bit less than "community friendly".

 

As soon as I saw the guys look and first move (over the railing backwards, but moving towards the cop), I knew he was an ex-con. He was clearly trying to close the distance to the officer, i.e. stalling, walking sideways, then backwards.

 

The only thing wrong I see is the Taser. I didn't know about the cover policy that some departments apparently have - makes a heck of a lot of sense. Taser's scare me. This officer relied on it and it almost cost him his life.

 

I understand that many departments have phased out bataans. I didn't see this guy wearing one, so I assume the Davenport PD no longer allows them. That's unfortunate. The perp might be alive and the officer a good deal more healthy if the officer had the bataan instead of the Taser. The guy wouldn't have just walked into that officer without knowing he was in for a broke right arm and maybe a knee.

 

And yeah, your idea was probably the best. Sit in the car. Use the speaker. Give him the orders via speaker. If he's clearly belligerent, the officer has more time to plan, response, call for additional backup. But then again, who knows what the alternative endings might have been. If the guys armed and attacks from the bridge catwalk, the officer sitting in the vehicle is in a poor position to respond, while the perp is in a position of partial concealment. Maybe getting the guy into the roadway and away from the edge makes sense. Then again, if the officer just sits there in the vehicle, and the bad guy dives over the side and dies, the officer could be criticized for being to lazy to get out of his car and assess the mental health of the perp. If he waits for backup, maybe the perp car-jacks a vehicle and captures or hurts a civilian (which could happen in 10 seconds). Too may variables for second guessing. The officer demonstrated terrific restraint, the Taser almost got him killed, and the perp saw the Taser as an opportunity to take out the cop. Unless they find a better way to guarantee contact with the skin, taser's are a risk to the officer's relying on them.

 

As far as medical care, the injured officer was obviously in shock, the detective had his hands full, and there were only a few seconds of tape after the arrival of backup to tell if anyone rendered timely aid to the perp. And then again, did the officer kneeling over the suspect check for a pulse - that might have been the reason for no aid. (I thought I saw the perp expire within about 3 breaths after he collapsed.) What do you do for a guy who's chest shot with no pulse and no breathing, who just tried to kill you. Cuff him or turn him over and risk giving him CPR? Obviously, neither officer was going to move until backup took over.

 

But what do I know ...

 

In the end - just glad the good guy went home to his family and the bad guy failed.

 

Compliments to all you guys in blue doing the job, and doing it right.

 

- Scott

[Roadwolf]

Apparently I am in the minority here that all human beings have intrinsic worth, no matter what their actions before death may have been. Guy was obviously wrong in what he did to the officer and the officer's gut instinct took over for self preservation, no argument there. The fight-for-your-life reflex took over... it's natural.

 

Still, the term "turd" has so much baggage to me, it denotes an attitude of because of the actions of this black man towards this officer (and maybe BECAUSE he is an police officer), he is sub-human, which I find offensive. He is dead. Period. A life is over. And that is sad. Just the way I view it.

[Fugu]

Yes. The fact that this man atracked and tried to kill a human being without cause makes him sub human.

 

His record reinforces that.

 

His skin color has nothing to do with it. It is sad he chose to waste his life, and become a turd.

 

 

If you demote yourself to preying on weaker people you become an animal. I wish the officer who killed this rabid dog could see it that way, but the reality is that it will likely haunt him despite his actions being righteous. What a shame, all the lives impacted by this turd. His own, his victims, and now the cops.

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Well, we will agree to disagree then. I know I can't see it that way (the reason are myriad... my faith, the way I was raised, etc.).

 

Peace out.

[vizhip]

No state or city (in the U.S., anyway) can trump the Fourth Amendment.

 

We are not saying that it DOES trump the 4th amendment...

 

But... any action you take towards a officer of the law (city, county, state, federal, etc) can add to the already questionable circumstance of your detention, thus making a search of your person reasonable...

 

The full text of the 4th amendment reads as follows:

 

"Right of Search and Seizure Regulated

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 probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

You will notice that this is titled as the Right of Search and Seizure... it does not cover being detained by an officer for questioning...

 

In this particular case, I do not think that the subjects rights were violated in any way...

 

btw... thank you... I haven't taken the time to read the constitution in a few years... and this post got me thinking about it once again...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Schupo]

Since some here are concerned about 4th amendment issues, here are some general principles:

 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio established over 40 years ago that law enforcement officers can detain a citizen if they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe that the individual involved has just been, is about to be, or currently is involved in the commission of a crime. The purpose of this detentionis to investigate said crime. Reasonable suspicion consists of articulable facts, not hunches, i.e. suspect descriptions, proximity of time and place, etc. The subject in the video matched the suspect description and was walking away from the crime scene within an appropriate time frame; a "terry-stop" was totally justified. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that reasonable force is justified to detain a subject for investigation of a crime. The amount of force deemed "reasonable" is predicated on the level of the subject's resistance.

 

Keep in mind that a subject coming at an officer who is threatening or trying to deploy a Taser is most likely going to attempt to take the Taser and use it on the officer in order to take the officer's firearm prior to backup arriving. 90% of officers who are disarmed are murdered with their own weapon. What we witnessed in this video was a murderous assault on a police officer.

 

Law enforcement officers arrest citizens based on "probable cause", a higher standard of proof than "reasonable suspicion". I have often watched defense attorneys in court attempt to confuse juries, witnesses, and officers as to detention versus arrest just to introduce the types misconceptions regarding lawful seizure that have surfaced in this thread and thereby create reasonable doubt. Terry stops (investigative detentions) don't automatically turn into arrests; an arrest is effected when the investigating officer has established probable cause.

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

We are not saying that it DOES trump the 4th amendment...

 

My response was directed to a specific comment, in the context of that comment, which implied that the 4th wasn't worth talking about because policies and laws would vary.

 

You will notice that this is titled as the Right of Search and Seizure... it does not cover being detained by an officer for questioning...

 

First, the "title" is not a part of the text of the amendment.

 

Second, yes it does.

[bmwsit]

Scott,

 

Even batons do not always work and you must be much closer to a person in order to stike them. Tasers allow you to be much futher away, and actually require you to be futher away so the probes can separate some before hitting the target. Probes that stay close together do not deliver as good of a shock as those that separate. I have used my ASP baton on people who have been motivated and it did not affect them. My ASP is actually bent from the 30 or so blows to one fellow during a rather lengthy fight after he tried running over another officer. None of the blows stopped him. As for the taser, have seen several people take both probes and still fight through it. Nothing is fool proof.

[Schupo]

Detention or arrest = seizure