Imo cop screwed up and made the other guy pay with his life. No need for the knee drop. Everything went south after that. Perp wasn't doing much of anything before that except trying to initiate drunken reasoning. The cop was scared because his weak technique wouldn't work on a relaxed drunk guy so he knee-bombed the guy. He could have just as well maintained the situation and waited for backup. Instead he decided to be a macho man and try to submit the guy like he was an old school ufc fighter, but he got his butt handed to him on a plate and shot the perp when things went south.
This is exactly the wrong answer and it's exactly this attitude of entitlement and superiority that causes the problem. Police in the US (and indeed the UK) need to sort out their attitude and realise that - where they have no reasonable cause to suspect a person is committing or has committed a crime they have NO POWERS to interfere with that person going about his lawful business. When the police do interfere then it's they who are in the wrong. Under US law the police had NO POWERS to require this guy to produce ID if he didn't wish to. Most citizen of civilised countries do not come under the authority of a police officer which extends ONLY to individuals engaged in criminal conduct. I am not a criminal and consequently have no legal obligation to follow the instructions of (or even listen to) a police officer, produce ID, answer questions, etc. Cenk is absolutely right - you get this kind of excessive force (9 out of 10) because the police officer(s) feel disrespected when their lack of authority is exposed.
Protocol? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqtwjOJ9FCQ"]New Mexico police stop mother Oriana Ferrell; shoot minivan full of kids - YouTube[/ame] I understand that this woman is breaking the law. Same with the shooting of the firefighter. I agree that they should be held responsible for that. However, how does that warrant lethal force being applied in a situation that can so obviously affect other innocent civilians? Breaking the glass of the window when someone is known to be sitting there and then shooting at a fleeing car with children inside? How does that protect and serve? Again, the woman should face penalties for her behavior, but it is odd to say that she is the only person endangering the life of others when those upheld to protect our citizens respond in such a manner.
For many states in the US this is just not true. If police are responding to some incident and you are standing there watching they have a right to ask for your ID. You are there, you could be involved. It's not that unreasonable of a request. Note: This is not a defense of what the cops did in the video. I didn't even watch it yet.
Fourth Amendment What you should have said is "For many states in the US, the police just believe this is not true".
Wrong So many "armchair lawyers" are clueless....if people ARE going to educate themselves in legal nuances then at least make sure you read all of it and not just the bits that suit your rhetoric This is not to excuse the subsequent action, but many people believe "I don't have to tell you my name" - well not always, but even if you are not involved if the police are basing their enquiry on "good faith" then yes you do
Whoa, hang on a sec. Watch the video and assess the actions of the officers in context. He broke the window next to where the 14-year old son (you know, the one who attacked the officer?) was sat. The officer who opened fire was clearly aiming for the rear tyres. Their actions were reasonable imo.
Exactly! E.g. from the decision you refer to this only applies where there is already: "reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement".
You mean such as a call to a domestic disturbance and belief an individual may be linked to it? So we have a call to a domestic confrontation, cops arrive see a big dude chasing his wife and refusing to stop when they arrive to determine circumstances - 100% legal request for ID Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it? And you were still wrong on this being a 4A issue - it isn't
I know The problem is people look at the end result (man not involved dies) and instantly assume the police saw the first big dude they could find and whipped him down They were ENTIRELY lawful in their initial detention and request and HIS actions and non compliance led to the confrontation....now the tactics used is a different issue of course
Which context about there being children in the car did you ignore? Again, if the woman was speeding, she should face the responsibilities of her actions, including driving off while the officer was attempting to cite her. The son's actions, although understandable(attempting to protect his mother), also were out of line and helped exacerbate the situation. So bashing in the window of the side of the car you saw the 14 year old in stops the car from fleeing exactly how?:dunno: In their defense, the police who arrived as backup may have not known how many people were in the car, or that there were kids present. However, the policeman who did know that there was a minor and other children present, still determined that it was a good idea to break the window with his baton(which could've cut the children innocent of any crime as well as obviously not having anything to do with stopping the vehicle's ability to egress). So, again if they didn't know the inhabitants of the vehicle, how does shooting at the car make any sense? I can't see that he was aiming at the tires but even if he was, a bullet could easily richochet into the cabin of the vehicle. If they did know the inhabitants of the vehicle, it would make the logic all the more unconscionable. Yes, the context of the situation is that you have a woman that is acting erratically and her upset son is obviously trying to help her. Tasing either of them in that context I see. That is an action that could stop the behavior. Laying down a spike strip to stop the car from fleeing before it has picked up momentum, no issues there as long as it would prevent the car from fleeing and wouldn't cause it to flip or something due to the low speeds. Breaking the window? Why? Shooting at the fleeing vehicle when you may not know who is inside it and cannot guarantee their safety? Again, why? The car was stopped at a nearby hotel without requiring gunshots or the jaws of life or anything that dramatic, so please explain why any of these acts were required, justifiable, or did anything to help in the conducting of the arrest. Just to be clear again though, you are saying that if you were acting in a similar way to the mother and your 14 year old son got out of the car to come to your aid when he saw the police grabbing you, you think it would be justifiable for an officer to beat on the window where your children sat or shoot at your fleeing car, where they risked shooting your even younger children?
It was kind of a rhetorical question but assuming there is somebody in the world that you care about and they do, pretend you're riding with them.
I would likely cooperate with the men with guns and a bad temper until such time I could move to canada.
I don't believe that for a second. If that applies in Canada and the UK, which I do not believe it does, it certainly does not apply in the US. The cases of police turning on their own are quite rare and only the most extreme and rare examples of cop serial killers or active shooter scenarios. Remember, 88 officers from 25 different agencies illegally accessed this lady cop's information 200 times to help intimidate and harass her for arresting a fellow off duty cop who was traveling 120 mph in his cruiser racing to get to his second non-cop job. The only reason we even know about it is because she herself used her police resources to investigate it. We'll never know how often that sort of thing happens to civilians who cannot access electronic proof of their harassment. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-6T11fVxZA"]Cop Arrests Cop & That's When Her Troubles Begin... [RARE VIDEO] - YouTube[/ame] 1 Johnson, L.B. (1991). On the front lines: Police stress and family well-being. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives: 102 Congress First Session May 20 (p. 32-48). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 2 Neidig, P.H., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. Police Studies, Vol. 15 (1), p. 30-38.
