quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



you would think the tazer mfg's would be nearly sued out of business my now

quote:

can be an indication of probable trouble

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
Refusal to comply with verbal instructions can be an indication of probable trouble, and therefor a threat under the use of force guidlines and  force may be used to stop the non-compliance, even prior to an arrest being announced.

quote:

And, if the suspect moved away from the officer after being told to stop, the officer might reasonably conclude the suspect was resisting the investigative stop and then physically stop him. The amount of force the officer uses must be objectively reasonable. In judging whether an officer used reasonable force, the courts have traditionally considered such factors as the seriousness of the crime; whether the suspect is resisting arrest; the threat the suspect poses to the officer or others; and whether the suspect is fleeing from arrest.....

quote:

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard....

Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.

The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...

With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody  allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

quote:

In judging whether an officer used reasonable force, the courts have traditionally considered such factors as the seriousness of the crime;

quote:


whether the suspect is resisting arrest;

quote:


the threat the suspect poses to the officer or others;

quote:


and whether the suspect is fleeing from arrest.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Non-stop dishonesty form FB... imagine my surprise.[8|]

The code you cited but failed to link to doesn't say that any officer must announce the intention to arrest before defending themselves,

quote:


or otherwise using force, it says that one of the times they can use force is if the subject forcibly resists after being told that.

quote:


It also says that the police can use force to stop someone from fleeing while effecting an arrest... nothing about announcing it first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

In the TV world, effecting an arrest may be a simple matter of saying 'Book 'em Dano', or delivering a Chuck Norris flying wheel kick to the head, but for those who actually deal in reality, effecting an arrest is a multi step process that includes obtaining compliance... sometimes against the will of the subject.

There is no requirement to announce the arrest prior to any other part of the arrest process.

quote:


77-7-1. "Arrest" defined -- Restraint allowed.
An arrest is an actual restraint of the person arrested or submission to custody. The person shall not be subjected to any more restraint than is necessary for his arrest and detention.

quote:


77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers.
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when he has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;
(3) when he has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense, and there is reasonable cause for believing the person may:
(a) flee or conceal himself to avoid arrest;
(b) destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the offense; or
(c) injure another person or damage property belonging to another person.

quote:


77-7-6. Manner of making arrest.
(1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when:
(a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape;
(b) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or
(c) the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape.
(2) (a) If a hearing-impaired person, as defined in Subsection 78-24a-1(2), is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, including a local ordinance, the arresting officer shall assess the communicative abilities of the hearing-impaired person and conduct this notification, and any further notifications of rights, warnings, interrogations, or taking of statements, in a manner that accurately and effectively communicates with the hearing-impaired person including qualified interpreters, lip reading, pen and paper, typewriters, computers with print-out capability, and telecommunications devices for the deaf.
(b) Compliance with this subsection is a factor to be considered by any court when evaluating whether statements of a hearing-impaired person were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

quote:


Just like your 'warrant for all searches' fabrication.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You must have inadvertently forgotten to include:

"Such notice shall not be required when:
(a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape"

Once again your claim that the officer must announce the arrest before taking any actions is in direct contradiction to reality.
If there is a chance to do so that is all well and good, but the notion that police are fobidden from using force for any reason until after quoting a TV character, is a myth.

quote:


or another person

quote:


or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

'Obviously wasn't armed' and 'obviously not a threat', 'clearly wasn't going to flee' 'could have easily subdued', 'no need for force'etc., are your perceptions. Without X-ray vision or mind reading abilities, you can only obtain them by armchair quarterbacking, which the USSC has rejected as a test for excessive force.

quote:


Using such perceptions to make a blanket claim that no officer can ever order someone to comply (or use force to enforce that order) without first stating the arrest mantra is a fiction.

quote:


And by promoting the notion that no one has to listen to the pigs, or obey, or stick around, you are contributing to the chances of someone getting hurt or killed in the future, should they be foolish enough to fall for your 'advice'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Guys, he wasn't fleeing - he stepped out of the car as per the officer's instructions. Because the officer did not have anything like control of the scene, the man was effectively wandering around. He was going back to the car when he perceived the cop might shoot him with what he thought was some kind of gun.

FWIW, Alumbrado - I have never seen anyone cherry-pick their "facts" or quotes or use as many weasel words as yourself. I have understood that you teach law or are a lawyer or whatever - but if you were the attorney for the person arrested your strategy generally seems to be to just cave in to the full authority of the state with the state itself having no obligation to follow the form of law in any way. Playing dead is no way to win a case or a lawsuit.

Please explain your views on pro forma as it applies to this case. The person being arrested while not fully cooperative is hardly hostile - he's clearly more confused than anything as the officer has been strikingly silent on what exactly he is doing and why. Returning to the safety of his vehicle is hardly flight, at no time is the person supposedly being arrested aware of being arrested.