Or that someone else had been driving the car for him, and he was just sitting in the car using the A/C. The officer did not witness a crime being committed, and you even seem to be effectively admitting that, but claiming that it’s fine to charge someone with a crime based on merely ‘guessing’. That is utter bullshit. You seem to simply be trolling.
Ah, yes, the “I was just holding it for a friend” defense. I’m sure the fact that the car was registered to him and that he had the keys in his possession was just a coincidence.
It never says he was jaywalking, it specifically says “[the seargent] he did not articulate any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot”. You’re trying to justify this based on a claim that the officer himself didn’t even make. You’re also trying to ignore the fact that the physical evidence (the ECW video) shows that the officer lied.
So… if someone runs from the police, they deserve to be shot? No. Officers are required to use a level of force that is appropriate to the situation… if a person does not appear to pose a physical threat, it is not allowed to use force, especially force (such as a ECW or a canine) that has the potential to cause lethal injury. As is discussed in the report, again if you bothered to read it, this FPD’s own general orders specifically mandate that force not be used in such situations. The FPD has a consistent history of using force in cases where the person was never charged with any crime other than “Failure to Comply” or “Resisting Arrest”, with no justification given of probable cause for stopping the person, or any other charge filed that justified arresting them. They apparently use those as ‘generic’ charges whenever they feel like it… a simple verbal statement of disapproval of an officer’s actions, such as “This is unconstitutional” becomes “Resisting Arrest.”
That is true, however if a officer has already searched a person, it is not reasonable to assume that they are armed. The officer had every reason to believe the person was not, and had the dog attack him anyhow. Officers are not entitled to ‘assume’ that a person is a criminal, or armed, unless they have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe they are.
As is also discussed in the report you have not bothered to read, the department has had a longstanding practice of issuing ‘wanted’ orders, requesting that a person be arrested by any police department that encounters them, not on the basis of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but, by their own statements, specifically BECAUSE they don’t have probable cause to obtain an actual warrant.
Don’t dodge: if your given name is Michael Smith, and everyone calls you Mike Smith, and a cop asks you your name, and you tell the cop the same name you’d tell anyone else, did you tell the officer your real name or not?
You did not.
Ah. I see you’re unaware of naming conventions among Americans. Go learn how those work, and then quote the case law that says you’re right, and come back.
Edit: to forestall the obvious stupid objection, if you look above, I quoted a DoJ report that very heavily implies that telling a police officer the common shortened version of your formal name that you go by is not illegal.
[QUOTE=The Report]
The officer deemed the subject, an African-American male who was walking down the street
[/QUOTE]
“Down the street”, I.e. not “on the sidewalk”, I.e. “jaywalking”.
Does the fact that the officer was unable to articulate the nature of the crime negate the fact that the crime occurred?
The video is incapable of showing what the officer believed was occurring at the time.
Yes.
Keep in mind when you say this that Tasers and dogs were brought in as a less lethal alternative to shooting. Would you prefer the cops went back to the old way?
How is it not?
Indeed, it’s again due to the systemic focus on generating revenue by ticketing… charge them with anything even remotely possible, in the secure knowledge (as discussed in the report) that your supervisor will never bother to review the incident report, and that the judge will not bother to listen to any testimony.
All persons in America have a name that they were born with, which appears on their birth certificate and other legal documents pertaining to their status as a citizen or resident, and by which they are known to the state. That is your name. Any other moniker you may go by is an alias. Giving an alias to an officer when asked for your name is an act of fraud.
“Heavily implies” != “states as a matter of law”.
Cite that giving your commonly-used shortened version of the name is an alias?
That’s not what “walking down the street” means.
Keep in mind that shooting was brought in as a less lethal alternative to clapping someone in irons, torturing them for weeks, then drawing and quartering them. That’s why I’m so grateful for cops shooting people!
Holy frijoles. I’m out.
If an officer stopped some one, and could not articulate a crime, then a crime occurred. The officer committed it.
Are you in favour of law breaking?
Cite?
…You’re asking me to cite that a person’s name is their name?
I’m asking if giving “Mike” instead of “Michael” is fraud.
No, actually, we’re asking you to cite that you have any fucking clue what the elements of fraud are. Once you look those up, a cite that you’re capable of apologizing for saying something so egregiously stupid would be nice, but also I’d like a pony.
It is if you are asserting to an agent of the state that your name as acknowledged by the state is “Mike” when it is not.
Tha’s an assertion. I asked for a cite.
Wait, does this mean that our former President widely referred to as “Bill Clinton” was not giving his correct name when he called himself that instead of “William Jefferson Clinton”.
According to Smapti, I guess the answer would be yes.
If he had been engaged by a cop and told the cop that his name was “Bill”, then yes he would have been.
Outside a legal context, he’s free to call himself whatever the hell he wants.
In order to have ‘probable cause’, the officer must be able to articulate the nature of the suspected crime. This is well established case law, as demonstrated by ample footnotes in the report. The report does not state that the person was charges with “Manner of Walking in the Roadway” (the actual name of the relevant charge in the Ferguson municipal ordinances).
No, it demonstrates the objective facts, such as “The video also shows that the sergeant applied the ECW nearly continuously for 20 seconds, longer than represented in his report.”
You are an idiot. Such use of force is blatantly unconstitutional.
‘less’ lethal, not ‘non-lethal’. The report makes it clear that FPD officers habitually use ECW’s merely for the sake of ‘convenience’, even when no use of force at all was justified, such as tasering a handcuffed person that refused to get out of the back of a patrol car at the jail. It’s clear from the report that ECWs are often used by the FPD in a punitive manner, to ‘punish’ a person for failing to comply, even in cases where the person is literally unable to comply. They tasered a man for biting a EMT (not even drawing blood) while having a diabetic seizure, and this was deemed to be a reasonable use of force by their superiors, even though it blatantly was not.
The First Amendment? A mere verbal statement is constitutionally protected, and the statutory definition of “Resisting Arrest” requires the person to either physically resist, flee, or lie about their identity.
You are either not an American, and grossly unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, or simply a troll.