Disobeying the law is an ACTION, not a verbal expression.
sigh You know, there are many very understandable reasons that you could believe that the police messed up here. Suggesting that there are no possible legal ramifications of refusing to comply with a lawful order, without even doing 8 seconds of research is certainly… a position.
But since that’s your position, let me oblige.
I’ll do it this time since I’ll admit I was curious to see Alabama’s exact language in this case, but I hope you won’t continue to ask others to narrate the internet for you.
I also posted this:
I found this more general statement: " Disobeying a lawful order of a police officer carries higher penalties to those who refuse to follow orders lawfully issued by an officer of the law. It’s a second-degree misdemeanor, meaning its punishable by up to 60 days in jail, six months of probation and/ or a $500 fine."
Now, again I say, YOUR TURN.
Still waiting for some citation on that. I ask because the interference laws in nearly every state require actual actions, not a failure to act.
Again, thats a traffic regulation. Hint, the word traffic is right in the citation you posted. See any vehicles in the video?
I’ll only explain statutes to you once: when this is in the heading: “Title 32 - Motor Vehicles and Traffic.
Chapter 5A - Rules of the Road.” it doens’t apply to band leaders in a stadium.
This kind of mess is how change happens. Licking the boot on your throat does not result in change. Abuses of power on a daily basis even if reported and properly adjudicated almost never result in actual punishment of the abuser. Unless there’s a big brouhaha. Like this.
Disobeying a police directive is a “failure to act” in accordance with that directive and, as we can clearly see, it is against the law. Therefore, your statement has no relevance in this debate.
You have provided absolutely no evidence for this. Not a single statute that he violated, except a traffic law.
I’ve provided a lot of evidence, you just don’t want to acknowledge it. I posted once citation twice, and you continue to ignore it. Adios, amigo.
You posted a TRAFFIC REGULATION. They were not on a public street. You have posted no other statutes. Not one. Sorry.
In my experience, searching a states legal code is frustrating and slow. So i don’t expect anyone to immediately respond to that kind of request. But i have to agree that the traffic law is irrelevant.
Can you add the source and context of the second cite?
I agree, but then they shouldnt be posting about what the law IS if they havent read the law.
That’s not true either. He was tazed because a trio of cops with Small Dick Energy wanted to prove that they were big manly men.
Anyways, “He was resisting arrest” is not a valid reason to taze someone. "He was resisting arrest which made him a threat to my or a civilian’s life " would be, but even the lying pieces of shit in this story aren’t trying to peddle that.
Which is even more proof that no tazer was needed. You’re telling me that all those people couldn’t control the situation without potentially lethal force?
They made the policeman feel like he wasn’t a big strong manly man! 
Ever heard of “abuse of power”? Once you start obeying the police unquestioningly and insist that others are bad people of they don’t do the same, you’re opening the door to a police state.
Anyway, here’s my scorecard, so far:
-
Police were wrong to issue an arbitrary order in an overly aggressive way.
-
Mims was right to question it, but wrong to then resist arrest. He should have gone quietly to the station after the game.
-
police were wrong to tase a non-violent man standing in front of them.
Honestly, 1 & 2 are boring routine things. People fuck up all the time. Police are impatient to clear the field, director knows he was wronged and argues instead of meekly submitting to arrest. People are assholes. It’s common.
But 3 is horribly dangerously wrong. 3 implies we are are living in a police state. 3 is the police violating the trust the people put in them when issuing those weapons.
And that’s why i think the police should be clearly, strongly, and publicly punished for overstepping their appointed role.
Tasing was hailed as a step forward when it was believed that cops would only use tasers in situations where the alternative is lethal force with a firearm.
Do you think this was an appropriate use for a firearm? Or was this one of the very, very, very many moments when police jumped straight to a taser because it’s easier than dealing with people and less paperwork than killing someone?
Neither should police, the actual professionals in this situation.
By the way, for anyone who prefers the style of the pit for this type of discussion, it’s also come up in the omnibus police misconduct pit thread.
And tasing is a huge step forward from using a firearm. I’m a fan of police being armed with tasers. That’s why I find it extremely upsetting when they abuse tasers.
The definition of “traffic” is not absolutely limited to motor vehicle traffic. It includes pedestrian traffic, and it’s not limited to roads. It can apply to driveways, parking lots, and adjacent spaces that can influence or impinge on the flow of traffic. For example, directing people at a high school football game to clear the field, so that the parking lot can be cleared of traffic, so that the surrounding roads can be cleared of the temporary congestion that follows football games.
All of those tasks very much fall under the authority of traffic control, this is not considered fringe or controversial outside of message board threads. I am not going to suggest that this is the strongest law in the books in this case, but I’m also not paid for paralegal work, and I’m definitely not paid to connect easily connectible dots. However can observe that there’s an individual who does get paid for this (defense counsel), and in his public interviews he has at no point suggested that the police were outside their authority to arrest, or that his client’s activities were lawful. That should be a big fat hint right there.
I agree, which is why if police did what they were supposed to and used tasers as a substitute for firearms in situations that require immediate neutralizing force but not lethal force - then tasers would be a huge boon for policing in America.
Instead, many officers seem to take their new “less-than-lethal” option as license to become far more trigger happy. When cops tase someone in a situation where no weapon at all was required, their having a taser goes from being a good thing that allows them not to shoot someone to being a bad thing that escalates situations.
I agree that in theory tasers are better than guns, but if they mean cops go for their weapons ten times as often because they know it (most likely) won’t be lethal, that’s a problem.
The bar for using a taser should be as high as the bar for using any weapon - imminent threat of harm to the officer or bystander.