I will have to review the video but wasn’t part of the initial exchange as to why she was pulled over I thought she said something like “probably to try and rape me” or something like that. I could be totally wrong, maybe a doper better at muffled voices can pick out her words better.
I don’t agree. Belligerence certainly includes non-physical aggressiveness.
There’s no rule that says the cops have to wait for someone to actually get physical before they may get physical. A combative attitude combined with a refusal to follow lawful directives is sufficient.
Hm, I went back and turned my speakers up and still couldn’t make out what she said. The best I could get was “mumble mumble mumble hard p or t sound me”. Its certainly possible that she said rape me but it would be quite odd if she did.
Objection, assuming facts not in evidence
She did not display a combative attitude all she displayed was an ‘attitude’.
She didn’t ask, she told the officer what was allowed. I’d say that qualifies.
when he was at the rear of the vehicle she continuously interuppted him while he was on his radio demanding he answer her question. She raised her voice to do so. She also told him this was **bullshit ** twice. That qualifies as verbal abuse. Everything about her attitude from the first word out of her mouth was hostile and combative. Not physically until later, but she set the hostile atmosphere not the officer.
Certainly she is not required to be respectful and polite to an officer. He’s also not required to be patient in the face of her crappy attitude.
She doesn’t have to fulfill all definitions of beligerent. One will do. In this case she was eager to fight in the argumentative sense as well.
Yes it is. She obviously meets the definition of beligerent.
he did not use the taser because she was mouthy. He used it because she physically resisted his efforts to remove her from the car. That moves it from verbal to physical.
The instant?? He asked her several times to close her door and when she did she was still argueing “I don’t have to” Thats combative.
You seem to define beligerent as right on the edge of physical confrontation. Thats not the technical or commonly unerstood definition. Being verbally combative and argumentative also qualifies. I’m sure you’ve heard the term a “hostile witness” in relation to court rooms. It’s attitude.
Officer shot 3 times
This is why, at a traffic stop, it is unwise to play games with a police officer, and why a police officer might not be willing to play games with you. This is why the officer isn’t going to ask ‘pretty please with sugar on top’.
On the positive side, the officer was released from the hospital today, and should fully recover. His partner, however, fled the scene of the shooting, and will probably never patrol again.
The notion that resisting after being Taser’ed is impossible is incorrect. Good ol’ Rodney King was Taser’ed, twice, and still managed to resist arrest.
IANAPoliceOfficer. I have, however, taught come along and arrest techniques to a few. [ul][li]It is diifficult to subdue someone if you are unwilling to hurt them.[]It is even more difficult to subdue someone if they know you are unwilling to hurt them.[]Pain compliance holds also carry a non-zero risk of injury. The “drag her out and cuff her” tactic also carries a non-zero risk of injury.[/ul] The last thing is an opinion not based on personal experience. [/li]
Some people are going to complain about being arrested no matter what you do.
Regards,
Shodan
Res ipsa. Her attitude speaks for itself.
You and I clearly have far different ideas about what constitutes a combative attitude. But I am willing to bet that if you showed this video to a sample of 100 randomly chosen American adults, more than 80 would agree with me, not you.
So what Bricker, let me randomly chose Americans living in East New York Brooklyn or Hollis Queens and see what happens to your 80.
Then what? Is the officer no longer justified?
Not to hijack, but this former native of East New York Brooklyn thought that she was lucky to not to have gotten dragged out of the car and smacked around just for her trouble. Poor minority urban dwellers enjoy watching COPS for the beat downs of dumb-asses too, you know.
I think that **Bricker’s ** point was that there is no objective sense of ‘excessive’- but the law needs to be able to count on a reasonable standard for many things. I find the officers’ actions here to be completely reasonable, and I think that most people would as well, given her actions.
There is no “may have been” about it. The people got tasered, and they died in the aftermath of being tasered. But for the taser, they would not have died, even if drugs and alcohol and weak hearts made them unusually susceptible to death by taser. And given the demeanor of the mouthy pain in the ass in question, it would not seem unlikely to me that she was high on something or other.
All of which are tied together by the use of a taser on the deceased. Unless you’re suggesting it’s just a coincidence that they all died after being tasered?
So the deadliness of a particular kind of force is irrelevant to when and whether its use is appropriate?
Wow.
Dunno. I was talking about deaths. If there are folks with long-lasting health problems caused by tasers, that would also weigh against their use for the purpose of removing stubborn mouthy pains in the ass from their vehicles.
What, you think I think pepper spray or tear gas would have been appropriate here? Surely you jest?
Legal note: There is, if I recall correctly, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that makes the eminently sensible point that police officers get paid to put up with verbal abuse that would ordinarily constitute prohibited “fighting words,” and that such verbal abuse directed at a police officer is not cause for the officer to use violence against the speaker.
We don’t derive our standards of reasonable conduct from one neighborhood. We derive them across a state, or across the country.
And, what’s your point? People in this country have different relationships with the police. They are not the majority, so when you do a state or countrywide “survey” for rightness, you will by the nature of the beast ignore people who by their lack of being the majority, are unable to input on those standards of reasonable conduct.
** cosmosdan’s** expectation of what it means when a officer asks him to exit his car door and mine are different. If i react differently because of my region, does that make me unreasonable? Would my reaction, which is diffect than cosmosdan’s office expects, be enough to warrant suspicion?
If an officer asked me to exit my car I would ask why. I would not instantly comply, because in my mind (let’s assume I’m not guilty) I’m being arrested. Now of course he won’t have to ask me a third time, but they’re won’t be the instant compliance that some of you guys seem is expected of me.
He needs in my mind, to tell me what my crime is, BEFORE he removes me from my car. Now you may believe differently, which one of us is unreasonable according to statewide survey?
Your number did not establish that. If that style of argument had merit the 741 people who died in California car accidents alone in 2003 should make cars at least 7 times as deadly as tasers.
If 100 people died out of 1000 uses I would say 10%+ fatality rate is unacceptable. If 100 people died in 10,000 uses a 1% fatality rate is far more acceptable. I’d be willing to bet the fatality for taser hits is more in the .1% range.
So would I especially when they are under arrest.
Actually without the option to use a taser I would say yes. Messier with different tactical problems but another minimally lethal form of applying force.
Resisting arrest OTOH does.
Are UNABLE?
Yes, because the standard is an OBJECTIVE one, not a subjective one. If someone honestly and truly believes it’s reasonable to stay in the car if they haven’t done anything REALLY wrong, that’s completely irrelevant. The standard we apply is an objective one, and the subjective expectations of an individual are meaningless.
Not one person in this thread has mandated instant compliance. I think every reader, and most every citizen, would not find a single, “What’s wrong; why am I being arrested?” to be unreasonable. At the same time, most every reader, and most every citizen, would find ignoring FOUR orders to be unreasonable.
You may scoff at a state-wide survey, but we are talking here about society’s expectations – what conduct society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. State- and country-wide attitudes are dispositive of that question.
What’s with the UNABLE? If you survey 100 people and I am the lone naysayer, and you make standards based on the majority, I am unable to influence policy. Yes?
I forgot you’re a majority rule, follow the law, until it’s changed kinda guy. I scoff at a state-wide survey’s and society expectations, because I know what they’re worth. I know, I know, my individual expections are meaningless and every standard is purely objective. It’s not like people ever placed self-interest, bias or greed into community standards…
YMMV, of course.
Please post a link for this conclusion. I read several articles and all of them said the official medical conclusion was exactly what I posted. If a guy has a heart attack while resisting arrest was he killed by the police or by his bad heart? Does that mean the police should not use any force just in case that person has a condition they don’t know about?
Here I agree with you. That explains why she didn’t get backhanded right away for her bad attitude. The officer remained professional although he was obviously sick of her lip. He used the taser only after she physically resisted and the situation went from verbal to physical.
Apples and oranges, a complete non sequitur. Unless you’re trying to establish that the cop should not have driven his car over the mouthy pain in the ass, a proposition with which I agree.
So it’s okay with you for the police to use tasers to remove stubborn people from cars if it only kills one out of every thousand people?
Wow.
I don’t post links for common bloody sense, amigo. Do you seriously dispute the notion that if a person is tasered and drops dead, it was because of the taser? Keep in mind that I’m not disputing that it was because of the taser in combination with other factors unique to the deceased person, such as a weak heart.
Both.
Of course not. But it does mean that they should tailor their level of force to the situation so as to appropriately minimize the risk of death and injury to the suspect.
You keep saying that she physically resisted, but I simply do not see it before he tasered her sorry ass.
I agree that the area should be of some consideration when developing guidelines. Local police who know their area can make those judgements. In this case I have a hard time understanding how anyone can look at her behavior and think she was being rational and reasonable for any area. I seem to recall after the Rodney King thing judges did allow for black motorists who didn’t pull over in isolated locations and made the police pursue them to a more public place.
I tend to agree with you on officers telling you why if they’re arresting you. If you were cooperative instead of physically resisting {as she did} then chances are they’d tell you. I’ve been pulled dozens of times when I was on the road late at night after the bars closed. Some officers were very professional and polite in return. Some were a little rude and nasty and a few bit my head off if I had the nerve to ask a question. I remained polite and let them know that I meant no disrespect by asking.
My question is , what is the law? Are officers required by law to explain if they ask you to exit the vehicle? From what I’ve read here the answer is no. Are they required to explain if they are arresting you? I hope the answer is yes but if it isn’t then my or your opinion doesn’t matter. If they tell me to turn around and put my hands on the car and I refuse until they explain I can anticipate an ass whuppin.
If they are resisting an otherwise lawful arrest…absolutely.