RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket....

RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

McKwaig -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (11/30/2007 11:28:35 PM)
Does anyone doubt that we are living in a police state? Right now it is legal for the police to pull someone over for no reason, other than they are driving a car. I believe that this is legal in 44 states right now, if not more. What happened to the 4th 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.--4th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791 And we can all thank MADD for helping to destry this amendment!

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (11/30/2007 11:31:56 PM)
laurell3: I don't see what your drama is. You would sue a state trooper in the way of a Bivens action for violating your civil rights under Title 42 of the federal code. Sect 1983 is one section that would apply and is sufficient for overcoming the hurdle of presumed immunity in a conversation like this one. What exactly are you expecting here? I am not necessarily going to provide it, but I just don't get where you are coming from. We are discussing tasers and their abuse by the police. You want to act as if the cops have immunity for abusive behavior when you know they don't. Title 42, Section 1983 tells you why they don't. That's it. And no, it's not a full case laid out to every detail. But it is sufficient to overcome your assertion that they have immunity or some kind of shield from being held liable under tort concepts like the eggshell skull rule. [8\|]

laurell3 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (11/30/2007 11:43:53 PM)
I agree. You derailed the original OP by citing the law. I merely informed you that you are misinterpreting it. That is no way says I have any personal belief one way or the other about this officer's actions. The issue of damages does not arise nor the thinskull/eggshell plaintiff rule until liablity is clear, it's citation is irrelevant to the current conversation, I agree with that. You cited it, not me. §1983 does allow for actions against police officers, I agree. However, absent showing gross negligence or a clear deviance from accepted standards, officers and the tax payers (who actually suffer the loss of such suits as we fund our local government) are protected by immunity. These two concepts are completely seperate from each other. One is a hurdle you have to get past to get to the other. I am somewhat doubtful that this officer's conduct would get past that hurdle. However, again, I'm not sure the law is paticularly relevant to what we on the CM board believe is right or wrong in the situation. You cited the law (and incorrectly), not I. I merely pointed out that you were misstating and/or misinterpreting it. However, it is not all that easy to decipher from just googling certain sections. Hell, even sitting down reading the entire thing and the case citations is confusing, which I have done on more than one occasion.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 12:15:04 AM)
Yeah, you know - your saying something doesn't make it so, laurell3. Do I have to connect all of the dots for you to be able to understand my posts? How sad. You are starting to become boring. Try exercising that thing between your ears. Hint: I was replying to something Invictus said. It was relevant. Sorry that you can't see that... My point was that a cop has responsibility for whatever damage he does, even if under the color of law. Again, the citation of the law is relevant. You insisting that it isn't doesn't make it so.

laurell3 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 12:16:54 AM)
All of those statements could be true of you as well Sugar. However, again, I'm quite confident that my statement of the law is at least correct. If you don't want someone to correct you on your misstatement, don't do it. I do however, find it humorous that you are now quoting Bivens and saying presumed immunity does exist which is completely contrary to what you said before. Edited to add: I do agree however, this is beside the point of what the OP was discussing so I am done.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 1:28:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Yeah, you know - your saying something doesn't make it so, laurell3. Do I have to connect all of the dots for you to be able to understand my posts? How sad. You are starting to become boring. Try exercising that thing between your ears. Hint: I was replying to something Invictus said. It was relevant. Sorry that you can't see that... My point was that a cop has responsibility for whatever damage he does, even if under the color of law. Again, the citation of the law is relevant. You insisting that it isn't doesn't make it so. Sugar..... Brother....how many times have I told ya : Never mess with a female attorney from the midwest [8\|][sm=flowers.gif] - R

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 4:28:04 AM)
quote: This doctrine doesn't actually apply until there is clear liability. As police officers generally enjoy immunity for any actions that are within the course of duty other than gross negligence, it's citation is completely irrelevant to the situation. If you read thorough my summaries, it's pretty clear that a good lawyer could make a VERY GOOD case that Gross Negligence and acting Under Color of Law were exactly what occurred.

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 4:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 You do realize that §1983 is several books long correct? Now read the section on immunity. Exceptions are considered case-by-case. In this instance, due to the negligence and incompetence displayed by the officer, it's doubtful they would enjoy any immunity. In fact, I expect the UHP is busy figuring out how to best hang the officer out to dry, so they can cover their own ass.

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 4:35:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Invictus754 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What crime do you allege was being attempted or committed, which would permit the exclusion? 1st - speeding 2nd - resisting arrest (by walking away) You are not automatically under arrest when you are pulled over for a traffic infraction, and since he wasn't, under Utah 77-7-6 ARRESTED prior to being Tased, you are incorrect all around. And if he was arrested for speeding, shouldn't he have been informed of that fact ( in compliance with 77-7-6 ) PRIOR to being ordered out of his car, and put in danger of being struck by an oncoming vehicle? In fact, if he was arrested for speeding, there was a LONG TIME in which the officer could have complied with Utah Law, but chose not to. So, I ask again, AT WHAT MOMENT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF "UNDER ARREST", if not by an explicit act of the Arresting Officer? Do you just ASSUME you are under arrest at all times, like some sort of slave, or does tinker bell come along and sprinkle "Custody Dust", or what?

laurell3 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 4:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 You do realize that §1983 is several books long correct? Now read the section on immunity. Exceptions are considered case-by-case. In this instance, due to the negligence and incompetence displayed by the officer, it's doubtful they would enjoy any immunity. In fact, I expect the UHP is busy figuring out how to best hang the officer out to dry, so they can cover their own ass. Everything is considered on a case by case basis. That's hardly the point of my post.

laurell3 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 4:51:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Yeah, you know - your saying something doesn't make it so, laurell3. Do I have to connect all of the dots for you to be able to understand my posts? How sad. You are starting to become boring. Try exercising that thing between your ears. Hint: I was replying to something Invictus said. It was relevant. Sorry that you can't see that... My point was that a cop has responsibility for whatever damage he does, even if under the color of law. Again, the citation of the law is relevant. You insisting that it isn't doesn't make it so. Sugar..... Brother....how many times have I told ya : Never mess with a female attorney from the midwest [8\|][sm=flowers.gif] - R Specculate all you want about what my occupation is...that's also not the point.

Alumbrado -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 6:16:34 AM)
quote: I never said that 77-7-6 contains the words 'prior to'. You need to pay closer attention to what you're reading. quote: And if he was arrested for speeding, shouldn't he have been informed of that fact ( in compliance with 77-7-6 ) PRIOR to being ordered out of his car, and put in danger of being struck by an oncoming vehicle? You know, on second thought, don't bother explaining how the USSC got it all wrong in Mendenhall... I suspect most people would be as baffled by that as by your 'logic' above.

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 8:15:37 AM)
Why are you continuing to suggest that the constitutionality of Utah 77-7-6 is in dispute? Or in any way requiring Federal Review? I don't get the connection between this officers clear failure to follow UNDENIABLY CONSTITUTIONAL Utah State Code, and the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that voluntarily going to a screening room with a DEA agent isn't a "Seizure"... Like the dissenters, I'd remind you that there are different values for $VOLUNTARILY. Or is this another HUGE LEAP, as in considering the Victim to be a danger to the officer, or that the Victim was fleeing? Since you're so stuck on Mendenhall, did you notice its citation of Terry? But "[o]bviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves `seizures' of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a `seizure' has occurred." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 19, n. 16. And of course, physical force is limited in it's application under Utah 77-7-6, as it should be in any Constitutional Republic with Equal Protection and Due Process integrated into the government. Or is you point that because the cops did the wrong thing in Dunaway, the wrong thing should be done here? Remember the Court in Dunaway said that the cops were WRONG in not informing him of his status as an arrestee, or more precisely, that he was free to go, and he was not under arrest. The point being, again, that until you're TOLD that you are lawfully under arrest, why should any individual ever consider themselves to have BEEN arrested? The coercive circumstances in Dunaway, Terry, Mendenhall, and in this instance further illustrate why it's part of all lawful arrests, excepting exceptional circumstances... ( And even when pursuing a fleeing arrestee, wouldn't you yell at the motherfucker -- STOP RUNNING, YOU'RE UNDER ARREST! )

Invictus754 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 9:12:57 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You are not automatically under arrest when you are pulled over for a traffic infraction, and since he wasn't, under Utah 77-7-6 ARRESTED prior to being Tased, you are incorrect all around. I stand corrected - I thought he told him he was under arrest before he tased him. I looked at the video again, and all he said was "put your hands behind your back". So, he didn't tell him, but the kid could have guessed. quote: And if he was arrested for speeding, shouldn't he have been informed of that fact ( in compliance with 77-7-6 ) PRIOR to being ordered out of his car, and put in danger of being struck by an oncoming vehicle? He was - it was on the ticket. [:D] I am pretty sure that in every state of the union, there is some law (or portion thereof) that says that you have to comply with an officer of the law who directs you to do something while performing his sworn duties. The little dork didn't - twice - and paid for it. Here is the follow up news story. The cop is in the clear. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=989_1196519715

luckydog1 -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 9:25:04 AM)
Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a `seizure' has occurred." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 19, n. 16. Wouldn't the flashing lights adn being pulled over constitutie a show of authority?

Alumbrado -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 10:00:23 AM)
quote: The point being, again, that until you're TOLD that you are lawfully under arrest, why should any individual ever consider themselves to have BEEN arrested? The coercive circumstances in Dunaway, Terry, Mendenhall, and in this instance further illustrate why it's part of all lawful arrests, excepting exceptional circumstances... Except of course, that those cases say exactly the opposite... thanks for being so predictably disingenuous. [8\|] As already pointed out to you, and as clearly written in the words of the USSC, a 'show of authority' tells a reasonable person that they are under arrest... and that show of authority was all over the video... badge displayed, uniform, weapon pointed, voice of command, et al. Nowhere in those decisions, or the quotes from the Utah code that you so carefully edited before posting, is there any requirement that an officer act out a TV script before taking action. Feel free to keep on working from the viewpoint of the unreasonable person.[:D]

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 10:00:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a `seizure' has occurred." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 19, n. 16. Wouldn't the flashing lights adn being pulled over constitutie a show of authority? Someone wearing what appears to be the correct uniform, driving what appears to be a properly designated vehicle does have authority to pull you over. That's agreed to when you sign your driver's license application and vehicle registrations, and isn't in dispute. Being detained isn't equal to being Arrested. That's why the process for effecting an arrest is codified. I don't dispute, either, that the officer had grounds to effect an arrest. My contention is that an arrest HAD NOT HAPPENED at the time the victim was tortured, which MIGHT HAVE BEEN a mitigating factor in the torture of the victim. The issue here is the officer tortured him to teach him obedience. You don't get to punish people without Due Process.

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 10:27:11 AM)
I don't know why I hope any differently in this closed, totalitarian society, but the UHP decided it was a clean shoot, that the trooper was right to be freaked out by the victim turning his back and moving his hand.

Alumbrado -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 10:33:38 AM)
One of the rigid requirements for doing something effective about this closed, totalitarian society. would be knowing exactly how the rules work, and not wasting time ranting about how they ought to work.

farglebargle -> RE: Police taser man for alleged speeding ticket.... (12/1/2007 10:44:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado One of the rigid requirements for doing something effective about this closed, totalitarian society. would be knowing exactly how the rules work, and not wasting time ranting about how they ought to work. You can't do anything about the totalitarian regime. It's over. The purpose of having Tasers/Mace is achieved. The Troops can now "Teach Obedience" to "The People", who apparently are happy enough to endure such treatment. Given the support the totalitarians have gotten in this thread, it's disturbing, as a trend, to see such acceptance, but here we are. As a Jew and a Hippie, I've always kept a low-profile. Now that dissent is Officially Not Tolerated? It doesn't affect me much. My goal has ALWAYS been to get the fuck out of there ASAP, whenever confronted with a High Speed Driving Award. That doesn't read well on edit, I should say, "My goal is to facilitate the officer's goal of issuing me my citation, so he CAN GO THE FUCK AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE!" We always come back as long as they still PRETEND, I'll pretend. When they stop pretending, then I'm a refugee in Canada. But I might make sure to keep passports ON ME all the time in case we have to leave quickly. On that note, I need to update my profile. Looking for a Canadian slave....

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875