Deputy Shows Up At Wrong Address, Uses Taser Gun On Marine

[struggle4progress]

Reservist Says He Told Deputy He Was At Wrong Apartment

POSTED: 1:54 pm EDT April 4, 2005
UPDATED: 1:56 pm EDT April 4, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A Marine reservist who just returned from overseas was shocked with a Taser gun by a deputy who went to the wrong address in response to a domestic disturbance call. <snip>

Jackson says he tried to tell Deputy John Daly he was at the wrong apartment, but Daly told him three times to turn around. When he did not turn around, Jackson said Daly shocked him in his bare chest and abdomen with 50,000 watts of electricity as Jackson's wife and 3-year-old son watched.

Friday, Jackson, who had returned four days before from an assignment in Africa, filed a complaint about the incident.

Police said Jackson is charged with resisting arrest without violence. He pleaded not guilty. <snip>

http://www.local10.com/news/4344012/detail.html

[whistle]

1. You know, more people should be allowed to carry Tasers...

..that way had the deputy been fired back upon by the marine armed with a taser, the deputy could have just blown the marine away with his police revolver:sarcasm: :rant:

[Bluebear]

2. Well, since Bernard Kerik and Taser are making a "personal model"

maybe that scenario will come true! USA! USA! USA!

[struggle4progress]

7. I think the company is marketing to the general public.

[hector459]

67. So who will take this case now that Jonny C is gone?

Sounds like a huge law suit to me.

[Rose Siding]

3. They CHARGED him?

For trying to explain the bumbler's error? That will cost people of Tallahassee a few bucks.

[struggle4progress]

12. I'd guess ya haven't hadda lot of interaction with the police. I'd bet ...

... the sixties crowd ain't nearly so surprised ...

[Nay]

16. Nope, we aren't surprised. Ya live long enough to see shit happen

again and again, it's effing depressing.

[MADem]

113. I never thought we'd see this shit again, though

How foolish of me. I thought we kinda got it right, and the nation at last understood. I really thought that the worst thing that we would have to deal with yet again is "retro" fashions....oh well, live and learn.

[msanthrope]

38. Not the seventies crowd, either...n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

66. Nor some of the 80s crowd n/t

[youspeakmylanguage]

76. How about anyone in the past 40+ years?

;-)

[absolutezero]

4. that cop needs to lose his job n/t

[LiberalFighter]

64. More than that... jail time

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I hope the Jackson sues the ass off the police department.

Maybe then they will all reconsider using TASERs.

[Selteri]

6. Okay, let me get this straight

Marine comes home

Deputy knocks on the door and he answers

The deputy tells him he had a call while at the WRONG address anyway

Marine tries to explain to him that it is obviously a mistake

Deputy ignores him, telling him three times to turn around to be arrested (For what reason?)

Marine gets tasered

Marine gets arrested for resisting arrest when he didn't do anything to warrant being arrested past living in the wrong apartment building.

Who else thinks there is a massive breakdown of jurice prudence and this man's constitutional rights?

Points - The deputy was called for a domestic Disturbance - This can be anything from yelling to violence.
He did ask three times ebfore tasering him.

Counterpoints - The deputy had the wrong address

The marine tried to explain this to the deputy

The deputy tasered him for not turning around when ordered, to be arrested.

The Deputy then charged him for resisting arrest even though the reason for arresting him was because of a human error

--------

I hope a judge tosses the charges out and tosses the jacknife deputy in jail for assault with intent to harm.

[whistle]

17. That's logical and deductive Mr. Sherlock Holmes, but you are..

...forgetting one thing. PATRIOT ACT II. We are now living in a police state where the police have been authorized to take action first, ask questions later. :sarcasm: :rant:

[Trillo]

8. Welcome Home Soldier!

I'd say the Marine held his cool very well given his recent experiences. He could have cognitive dissonance with respect to Daly's force continuum, or Daly might have imagined repeating the command due to his own incident stress and training.

I hope he goes for a jury trial if the issue is prosecuted. I'd like to know whether he's guilty or innocent.

[bluestateguy]

9. People must have the right to fight back against police brutality

and that means with force themselves, if need be.

[Toots]

25. Where do you think you live,, America?.. You don't you live in Amerika

You have no right to protect yourself from the police in this new Bush* Amerika. None..zip..nada.....Patriot Act says so.....

[solinvictus]

10. Cops are out of control...

and have been since 2001. They need to be reigned back in as too much of this is happening lately.

[candy331]

11. A friend told me about this on yesterday, she knew the guy and said he

is some kind of mad about this.

"He would not comment on whether the charges would be dropped."

Are they serious about not knowing whether the charges will be dropped.I would hope the hell they would bring charges on the police. Yes, the guy was Black and they wander why Blacks are not signing up for the military, seems no amount of service releases Blacks from racism in this great nation.

[psychopomp]

13. Hope he does fight this bs

It does not surprise me that he is black, either.

[Tesha]

29. (Assuming he has a lawyer)...

> Are they serious about not knowing whether the charges will be dropped.

(Assuming he has a lawyer), of course the charges will be dropped.
And he'll probably agree not to sue the asses off of that police
department and the department will state how this still was a
righteous arrest "since Mr. whatever was in fact resisting arrest
at the time" but they'll agree "to implement new procedures to
prevent errors of this sort from happening going forward from
now" or some other happy horseshit.

And the whole exact thing will be repeated next year with some
other unlucky brown person.

Tesha

[AnneD]

89. Good for him.....

Hope he slaps a suit on them so fast and furious, deputy dawg wishes he shut his mouth and listened. Yeh, I am not suprised about the colour either. Pencil dicks!!!!!

[ChoralScholar]

14. First of all, why would a police officer

want someone to turn around to be handcuffed over a domestic disturbance CALL?

No laws were broken... yet... why was the guy being arrested? (before the taser incident)

[DELUSIONAL]

15. The cop is guilty of assault and battery

plus he was trespassing.

I good lawyer should be able to wipe the floor with this stupid jerk cop.

What do you want to bet that the cop was white?

[BiggJawn]

18. White, and with a shaved head.

And wearing "Tactical Gear" and maybe his biceps are just a little TOO large for working out once a week?

Fucking pigs will have no problem taking us out when the day comes. I've said it before, and I'll be screaminmg it from the Soylent Green scooper:
Never mind the soldiers when they declare Martial Law, worry about the Cops.

[LostinVA]

19. And his sleeves were rolled up

To show off his "guns."

[IA_Seth]

40. Hey Now

I am white, I have a shaved head, and if I keep up my workout routine, my biceps may appear "too big" sometime...

Let's not judge based on looks, ok?

I never understand people who make assumptions based on looks.

[petronius]

65. I thought the "too large" comment

was an oblique way of saying that the cop could have had his belligerence enhanced by steroid use.

Philosophical question: is guessing how a person looks based on their action/character the same as guessing a person's actions/character based on their looks? There is a somewhat accurate physical stereotype for this category of cop-thugs; while it would be wrong to assume that a shaven-headed muscled guy is a thug, is it equally wrong to assume that a known thug is a shaven-headed muscled guy?

[BiggJawn]

94. We have a winner!

That's EXACTLY what I was implying. Huge arms, no nuts, BIG nasty 'Tude...

[BiggJawn]

95. Well, couldn't understand why I didn't get dates when I was a Biker.

Hey, I was a sweatheart, well-read, somewhat educated. I also looked like I was 110% 1%-er. Only thing missing was the tattoos.

Took me years to figure out why that look scared people.

If you think you look good bald and bulked, go for it. Don't get upset if you put some people off with that look, though.

[BiggJawn]

96. dad-gum double-post. I had network trouble.

Deeeeeee-LEET!

[PsychoDad]

33. Exactally, the cop was trespassing.

And being beligerant, assaulted an innocent man in front of his family in his home.

As I remember, you can get shot for crap like that.

[Tesha]

27. Many departments handcuff everyone arrested no matter the reason.

It's just SOP (and not really a bad one at that if uniformly applied).

Tesha

[sendero]

112. They have no business..

.... arresting ANYONE over a fucking phone call. Sorry, if that were the case I could get you arrested in 30 minutes with nothing but a prank call.

Give it up. There is no excuse for what this officer did and he should be in some other line of work, he is a moron at best and a racist asshole at worst.

[tuckessee]

32. Have you seen the COPS TV show?

Often the armed Goverment Law Enforcers will handcuff people during traffic stops, domestic calls, etc, telling them "You are not under arrest. I am doing this for both your and my safety. If there's nothing wrong here we'll take them off and you'll be free to go. Blah, blah, blah......."

I've seen and heard of this tactic for at least the last ten years.

A cops first urge is handcuff everyone with whom he comes into contact. If not handcuffing, then he seeks to taser them. If not tasering, he would like to shoot them.

[MADem]

115. It's not arrest at that point, it is what is charmingly termed

"restraint for the officer's safety." You see it all the time on COPS, along with people without shirts or teeth behaving badly.

You know, the cops have worked hard over the years to get rid of the "PIG" designation (remember that? Cheese it, man, the PIGS!!!) but it seems like they are losing the bubble of late and sliding back down into that piggy trough. That cop didn't listen, and the city should pay.

You have to wonder if all the good cops have been activated and sent to Iraq, and this is the second string holding the line at home??

[Silverhair]

20. The cop was wrong AND the Marine was dumb.

When confronted by a cop, first do what he says. Then get a lawyer afterwards. That keeps the confrontation at it lowest level, and gives you a better stance for your lawyer to work with. The Marine, by refusing to turn around, has weakened his legal standing. How badly he has damaged it would be for a lawyer to say.

A cop's first concern in a confrontation is to establish situation dominance. Unfortunately, Marines tend to want to take charge of a situation too. That is the way both are trained.

[Trillo]

24. As a practical matter:

If the Marine had complied immediately, what would have been the outcome? Perhaps nothing other than to establish the cop had the wrong address, and was in a bit of a bad mood. The Marine's ego might have been bruised.

If so, then why would that ever go to court? It would be a civil matter where it would be hard to prove damages, no? Further, there's no Office of Civil Prosecution to enforce civil laws anyway, so wouldn't it be hard or impossible to find a lawyer to take the case on?

In this hypothetical, can you explain how the Marine has a stronger legal standing then in the situation as it's alleged to have occurred, where you said "has weakened his legal standing"?

So far as I know, there's no law against the cop issuing zealous orders to a citizen. I've experienced it myself, hasn't everybody?

[Silverhair]

26. I am not a lawyer.

So I can't answer those questions. I do know that if you show resistance to a cop, it does make you look worse. It is better to go along, then get a lawyer. Face to face with the cop is not the time, nor the place, nor the proper venue to dabate the issue.

No, I have never been the subject of "zealous orders". I have always complied immediately and politely, before there was a need for things to become zealous. Furthermore, if you cooperate, cops will often, but not always, cut you some slack.

[Trillo]

42. Thanks--I am not a lawyer, either.

Consider yourself lucky that you haven't experienced over-zealous cops. Many have. 2 times since 2000 I've been harassed for no good reason by Border Patrol agents--they're a different kind of cop, but they have a badge. They always let me go without arresting me. In one incident one agent even pulled his gun on me, I was just sitting in my car, stopped by them because I had no choice in the matter. Got me out of my car, lying face down on the ground.

I steadfastly refused to unlock my trunk, unless they had a search warrant. When he had gotten me on the ground, he leaned over to my ear, I could smell his horrid breath, and he said, "now I have control."

It was just harassment. I live near a freeway border patrol checkpoint, and go through it often when going to the nearest large city to shop. There was nothing in the truck that was illegal, but that cop decided that threatening me with the gun wouldn't release them from needing a warrant, so they let me go.

If there hadn't been other border patrol agents there, and other citizens in cars watching, the egomaniac probably would have killed me. I said inwardly to myself goodbye to my loved ones during the incident. I figured I was dead.

There was no reason for the gun other than force continuum. I was 'resisting' opening my car's trunk voluntarily, that was his demand, and I wasn't "complying with his orders". He could have grabbed a crowbar and opened it himself, but you can damn well bet that I would have sued for damages, and he would have looked 'bad on paper' cause I would have won.

Now, I think there's a law that they don't need a search warrant to look in the trunk. Back then, there wasn't, so they used intimidation. For them, it's just biz as usual.

[Silverhair]

68. You chose the time of the confrontation to debate law.

Sometimes you have to, but in general it is a bad time. If I had been there, I would have politely opened the trunk. I don't keep anything in there anyway. If you had nothing in the trunk, then you were choosing to stand on principle for the sake of the principle. Either that, or you had something in the trunk. Let's be generous and say that you were defending the principle. It can be quite a hassle. And be truthful - What was your attitude?

I was arrested once, about 1972, possession of a concealed weapon. I had a machete hidden under my car seat. Stupid of me to do that, but that was 37 years ago. A cop saw it when I got into my car. I did my super polite routine, and as it was a small town back then, he let me off with a tongue lashing.

For some years I was a long-haul truck driver and we get frequent inspections by Dept of Transportation in various states. Never had a problem.

Let me tell you one story. I had become a driver instructor. I was in the passenger seat with a student driver under the wheel. The student made a lane change to the right without properly checking his mirrors and made a Texas Highway Patrolman leave the road and put the cruiser in the ditch. The ditch was shallow and dry and with a cloud of dust he was back out with the lights flashing. I told the student to pull over. We got out as the officer walked up. He was visibly shaking with rage, and the student was shaking with fear. Again I did the super polite thing and explained that he was a student. I was amazed when he let the student off with a verbal.

Another time, again in Texas, the state DOT has a scale stop set up in a pull-over area. Portable scales. We pulled in, they looked at our manifest, and since the load was only a few thousand pounds, they declined to weigh us, told us to go. The student asked what to do. I said to go. He started going, but to the right to get on the scales instead of the left to get on the road. (Fortunately the windows were down and the cops could hear me.) I said, "No, Left". The student turned harder right. I said, "NO!! LEFT!!" and reached over and turned the wheel. Now he understood and began to really turn the wheel, just as the front wheel went onto the portable scale. As the wheel slowly passed over the scale, it was also twisting, which will throw a portable scale out of calibration, which put an end to the scale stop for awhile. The officer motioned for the truck to stop, and not even bothering to talk to the student, came around to my side. "Student driver?" he asked.
"Yes, Sir.", I replied. He shook his head and asked, "How do you do it? How do you put up with them? My hat is off to you. Go ahead and get out of here." "Thank you, Sir"

I am amazed at how many people want to debate with the officer on the scene. I remember once when saw three cop cars box a car in and bring it to a stop at a C-store I happened to be at at the moment. All three got out with their guns drawn, yelling, "Freeze". One cop, a man, was so excited and nervous that his voice had jumped up a register or two. He was saying, "Freeze" in a Tiny Tim falsetto. So what did the stopped driver do? He got out, waving his arms around and began to argue that he had not done anything. Maybe he hadn't, but that wasn't the smart thing to do at the moment. Anyway, they grabbed him and cuffed him. But not freezing with three guns aimed at you is NOT SMART.

Throughout all my life, when in any dealing with a cop, I have always gone super polite, very cooperative. And of course, ever since 1972, I have had nothing to hide either.

[amazona]

71. madness why bother having rights you're afraid to use?

People who make the argument, oh go ahead and let them search if you have nothing to hide, are hurting themselves and they're hurting America.

I have never given consent to search my vehicle, and I have never been thrown on the ground or physically abused as a result. I have to believe that racism is involved, as the other poster described in his experience with Border Patrol. I'm a white female, so when I politely say, "I think it would protect both of us if you got a search warrant" then it comes across differently.

But the more people who allow cops to do whatever they like and to search wherever they like, the more cops will assume they can continue to bend or break the law.

And, too often, the person who thought he had nothing to hide forgets that he has a used car with who-knows-what stale seed in the glove compartment, or a friend has used his car, and he doesn't really know what it is in his car that a cop might consider hinky. I've known people accused of transporting stolen electronics if they had a lot of junk (their own) in the car. Many cops feel that having more than a couple hundred dollars is suspicious and evidence of a crime. Keep in mind your money can be seized even if you are never arrested or convicted of anything. Don't say it doesn't happen, since I know people personally who have had it happen. And in all cases those people were innocent. Not only were they never charged with any crime, they were TRULY innocent and not involved in carrying money for drugs. They had their own money stolen.

Never consent to search unless you are SURE you have no money in your pocket, no old computer or audio equipment in the trunk, etc.

It's also unpleasant to have to say no to someone's request, but you can say no in a polite and courteous manner. Your advice to save it for the courtroom is crazy for most people. Lawyers, good ones, are too expensive. Prevention of being taken to the courtroom in the first place is the way to go if it's at all possible.

I know it's incredible to some, but you CAN find a courteous way to stand up for yourself. And I feel it's your sort of your duty, especially if you're white and the consequences of speaking up are less likely to turn deadly. I used to get stopped all the time because I had an old car. You really can be polite and still make an effort to protect our right to be secure against search.

Liberals should not act or believe that civil rights are only for criminals. We should all be exercising our rights.

[Silverhair]

74. Wait for hours while a search warrant arrives? No thanks.

If an officer wants to look in my trunk, and I decline to open it, he/she can detain me until a search warrant is obtained. Of course, they will have to show probable cause, but that isn't really that hard to do if they want to. So I would have to spend hours sitting around waiting for a warrant to see nothing. My time is valuable too.

Regarding the theft and rest of your post. Why do so many liberals automatically act as if all cops were evil? I have had many dealings with police over my many years and have yet to have anything taken from me nor have I ever been abused or mistreated.

Yes, some cops are bad. All professions have some bad actors, but they are far from the majority. So I do not understand why so many liberals seem to automatically hate law enforcement officers.

[Trillo]

97. Please be advised, I don't "hate" all cops.

In reply the question you asked in post #68, my attitude was firm, verbally. Physically, I was probably clenching my teeth, certainly not smiling, I never smile around cops. I was not physically or verbally threatening to him in any way.


He was not going to get my consent to open the trunk. He had the gun. He had control. He could have grabbed the keys at any moment and opened the trunk. He could have taken a crowbar and opened the trunk. It was all a mind schmuck. He wanted my 'permission' for whatever psychopathic reason he had.

My cars' trunks are usually a mess, sometimes I use them as extra storage for items I don't have room for in the house. There was nothing illegal in the trunk, but it likely contained some tools, cans of oil, 5 gallons of water, jumper cables, etc. I didn't care how long it would have taken to get the warrant, I could have waited. That would have been preferable to being forced to lie prone on the asphalt face down and getting my clothes all dirty.

One thing I find highly curious in your thoughts: Be cheerful in dealings with cops. I'm not sure you used that precise word, but that is the meaning I get in between the lines of your stories.

I do my best to appear unemotional when I'm stopped by a cop. If I were to put on a smile, it would be a lie, because I'm not happy at that moment. I'm never happy around cops, nor will I ever be.

'Politeness' is somewhat of a relative term, meaning essentially 'civil'. There are different degrees of civilness, one of which is to keep one's mouth shut and not say anything at all. It's illuminating to realize that when dealing with a cop, you're not really dealing with a 'civil' arm of our society, you're dealing with an armed, non-civil branch by definition. This brings up an obvious hypocrisy: one must be civil to a non-civil. That's not something to be cheerful about!

While your suggested tactic may work most of the time, sometimes people are just in the wrong place at the wrong time, the cop's an egomaniac with a gun (or a tazer), and superiors or other officers that could be witnesses aren't nearby.

I remember, sometimes back in the early 90s I was stopped by a motorcycle SDPD cop for driving a little too fast. He apparently called his other officers, or they simply stopped having seen him there, it was close to a station. My attitude was as you suggested, polite, "Yes sir", "No sir", "Thank you sir,"etc. One of the his buddies, another cop, ridiculed me in a sharp tone, "Are you being a smartass?" This cruelty of theirs went on and on....

Are there good, honest cops? Yes. But not 'all' of them are honest. A few of them are psychopaths. Remember the CHP's Craig Peyer?
http://www.sandiegomag.com/issues/february04/featurec0204.asp

Yes, the incident with Border Patrol happened in North San Diego County, and I lived in the city of San Diego from 1960-1998, I vividly remember the Craig Peyer scandal.



The other incident, the first I think, happened at the freeway checkpoint itself. I had 3 others with me, we were going to work. Border Patrol wanted into the trunk, I said no, so they had me pull off the freeway, got all of us out of the car, sat us on a bench for, I think, 10 minutes or more. They grabbed a dog from somewhere nearby, and went through the whole vehicle and around the outside. I'm sure that dog smelled our puppy's scent. He seemed quite curious in the backseat area, I even think he was wagging his tail at that point!

Then they took their dog away. Later, they told us to leave. This incident was not as fearful from my perspective, since it occurred at a permanent station, there were lots of other staff around, and I'm sure the ones dealing with us were being careful to go by the book.

The car I was driving in both of these Border Patrol incidents was the same vehicle. I believe they were trying to catch someone with a similar car, that model and color was perhaps part of some profile they were looking for at the time. Of course, this is just a guess.

Several times while driving in the area during those days, my partner and I noticed a vehicle that appeared identical to ours, the same color and model. This car would be parked at the side of the road or freeway. Sometimes it was with another parked vehicle, and its trunk was once open. It occurred to us, intuitively, that perhaps some drug biz or something else illegal was happening.

I sold that particular car because of this. It was the best gas-mileage vehicle I had ever owned to this day.

As I've grown older and read news accounts of cops harassment of others over the years, I've come to realize this is something many people do experience (I really did used to think it was just me). If you haven't experienced it, you're either very lucky, or you're in some kind of ignorant bliss.

I just do my best to avoid them. I'll even get rid of a perfectly good economy car, just to avoid their stares of suspicion, as well as the traumatic shock and stress that dealing with them always causes me. Dealing with any cop always brings to the surface many painful past memories.

[Sterling]

99. A good lawyer would tell you to ask for the warrant.

You are giving very bad legal advice. Thank god you are not a lawyer.

[NNN0LHI]

101. The question after that should be to ask "politely" am I under arrest?

And when the officer says no to that question, its time to say thank you, and good night.

Don

[Silverhair]

108. If I have nothing to hide, why not get it over with quickly?

Of course, you seem to see all cops as evil, so to your eyes I am aiding evil. Note that you have not had one positive thing to say about LE officers.

And what advise have I given that has been bad legal advise? I have advised polite cooperation (With some possible exceptions.) and letting the lawyers argue things in court. If have advised actions that would usually hold the possibility for the use of force to it's lowest level.

[bpilgrim]

109. NEVER surrender your rights

especially 'QUICKLY'

it will only be the BEGINNING of your troubles once you do.

"And what advise have I given that has been bad legal advise?"

exactly why you shouldn't be giving advice, you don't even have a clue what is wrong with it.

:hi:

peace

[Silverhair]

110. I haven't had any troubles with police in my years.

My rights have always been respected. Fact is that I have never been asked to open my trunk, but if they did, I would open it. The question that I asked was a challenge to the other poster to state what he thought was bad legal advise. While I have admitted to know being a lawyer, I am confident that I would be in good legal standing.

And I honestly don't give a care if they want to look in my trunk. There is nothing in it except the spare tire and some emergency road stuff. Sometimes there may be groceries, but I will have the store receipt on me too.

I have never had trouble with the police by cooperating with them. So why should I invite trouble for you idea of making some sort of political point? I will not. I have the right to disagree with you, which I usually do.

[NNN0LHI]

114. Most of the guys in post #79 were just asked to come down to the station..

...to answer a few questions. They didn't realize until it was too late that the questions were going to be asked with electrodes attached to their genitals, or with a plastic typewriter cover placed over their heads, until it was too late. I am pretty sure if those details had all been explained to them beforehand they would have decided not to go down to the station to answer any questions.

Don

[IdaBriggs]

116. I'm "officially" a software smuggler, thanks to the trunk search thing.

My husband and I were on our way to Montreal from Detroit for a friend's wedding. We were caravaning with a bunch of other people, and were running late. (There had been an infertility appointment earlier that day, so my brain was kind of focused on 'get pregnant/get to the wedding.')

Anyway, our business was giving away free "How To Plan Your Wedding" Software (we made our money selling advertising on the CDs), and we had a case of them in the trunk. They were marked $39.95, but that was crossed out, and the word FREE was written over them in BIG RED LETTERS. (This was part of the printing.) The value was put on them for two reasons: 1) to demonstrate to the brides that they HAD value, and 2) in case someone ever stole them, we could say, look, its not like stealing sugar packets. (Our lawyer had told us to do this.)

We got randomly selected to be searched at the border -- this was BEFORE 9/11. Our friends were all pointing and laughing at us from over at the money exchange, and we weren't acting worried, since we knew we had nothing to hide -- except, it turned out we did.

Unbeknownst to us, we were attempting to smuggle a quarter of a million dollars worth of software into Canada. Our explanation of being on our way to A WEDDING was only further proof in the eyes of these idiots that we were intent on turning 600 or so Canadian brides into organized American brides! (shudder) After threatening us with jail, trying to get us to pay a $60K fine, then lowering it to $600 if we wanted to keep the CDs, and my beloved husband starting to lose his temper (WHICH WAS NOT GOOD), we ended up agreeing to let them confiscate the dratted things. Our logical explanations of "BUT THEY SAY FREE!" didn't make any sense to the border folks, while my insistence that they weren't going to be of any help to the bride we were going to visit because her wedding was the next day didn't seem to be flying either.

Did I mention they were promising to put us in jail for a few days because of this? And let me assure you that I was in the Super Polite category!

Somewhere in a Canadian warehouse sits a box full of Wedding Planning CDs filled with advertisements for Michigan vendors, and my husband and I will forever have the shame of being FAILED SMUGGLERS in our minds. (snicker)

The wedding, however, was lovely.

EDIT: For Spelling. :)

[Silverhair]

122. There is no warrant needed for customs inspections.

If you want to enter a country, a customs inspection is part of the routine.

You ran afoul of the bureaucracy. If you want to fight it you will have to get a lawyer and go to Canadian court.

I am NOT saying that being super polite will make everything turn out happy. I AM saying that it WILL almost always keep the violence down. If the Marine had been cooperative, he would not have been tased. Then everything could have been straightened out a little bit later, with no injuries except to the Marine's pride.

[Demeter]

30. Except: Would YOU Turn YOUR Back on a Cop Like That?

a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[NNN0LHI]

31. The Supreme Court has said many times that the above poster is wrong

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

more

[northzax]

39. you can be right

and you can be dead right, you know?

and I would surmise that in order for it to be an illegal arrest, the officer would have to know that he/she is arresting a person for no reason. The suspect simply saying "I didn't do it, you've got the wrong guy/house" is probably not good enough.

[NNN0LHI]

41. And then on the other hand...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Fake+police+officers&btnG=Google+Search

[Silverhair]

44. There are no guarantees in life. Everything is a chance.

The greatest probability is that the cop is real, so that is the way I will place my bet. If I am wrong, that's my bad luck. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand.

[Sterling]

100. the officer would have to know that he/she is arresting a person for no re

That is not what the cases he cited say at all.

[Silverhair]

43. Nice in theory, bad in practice.

That approach on an arresting officer is a guarantee to escalate the conflict, and people can get hurt that way. Keep the conflict at it's lowest level and the likelihood of injury is lower. My interest at that moment is survival and minimize the violence. I will worry about the legal niceties later.

The courtroom is the place for debate, the scene of the confrontation is NOT the time or place for a legal debate.

[Sterling]

102. Ever heard of MLK, or Ghandi?

You have been made frightened and timid by the authorities and have decided it is inconvenient and troublesome to use and defend your rights as an American. It's a shame because that attitude always this kind of problem to continue.

Maybe you should reassess your duty as a citizen? Sometimes it involves a little sacrifice?
Besides your legal advice is dead wrong. If you consent to an illegal search you may wave your right to use it as a defense. Cops do plant “evidence” and these days they are paid well for doing so.

[Silverhair]

107. So you consider all cops to be evil evidence planting bastards?

Would you be happier if all police forces were disbanded?

Yes, I know that if I give consent to a search that anything can be used against me. I also know that I don't have anything in my trunk. I the cop wants to plant something on my car, he doesn't have to open the trunk to do so. He can just claim that he saw something in the passenger compartment in plain sight, (Legal doctrine: The eye of the law commits no trespass.)and opened the car to get it.

The poster I was responding to seemed to be advocating that one should physically resist LE. Bad idea.

So far, over the course of my life, my way has worked for me. I will NOT give up a something that works because some others here hate police.

[DS1]

21. Stupid pigs. There's an escalation of force that is supposed to be

followed, you DON'T skip right to Taser!

[rfkrfk]

22. RW media presents Cop's BS as fact

Notice the spin.
{is this stuff on video tape?, otherwise, we don't know
what really happened}
The cop's exculpatory claim {told three times} is being presented
as a fact.
Don't believe everything you read.

[skypilot]

23. I guess I've seen too many episodes of "COPS"...

...because in the ones I've seen where the police respond to a domestic violence call the cops would show up (at the correct house) and first question the occupants about what, if anything, had occured there. They would talk to the woman and then to the man to see if what had transpired actually rose to the level of domestic violence and then they'd determined who was at fault before anyone was asked to turn around and be handcuffed. This article makes it sound as though the cop showed up and immediately wanted to handcuff the guy before getting any details. And being at the wrong house is a pretty big detail.

[Occulus]

34. I would say, in this particular case,

ANY arrest attempt made by the officer would be unlawful. Given that, this marine had every right to beat the cop into a bloody pulp if necessary.

See the SCOTUS decisions above.

[Silverhair]

70. That would be a very bad decision.

Always try to find the least violent way to handle something, even if it may mean some humiliation or inconvenience for yourself. As long as it only means that, of course. After all, you might lose the fight with the cop. He does care OC, the taser, a club, a gun, and usually has a radio on too. And it would be a real bad thing to learn that there was an aspect of the law that you didn't know about that put you in the wrong.

Don't rely on that one court decision. It may well be modified by other court decisions. That's what lawyers are for.

In the Army we called the people that gave advise like yours, "Guard house lawyers", because that is often where their clients ended up.

Real world: "No problem officer. I will cooperate easily. However, could you please check with your dispatch and verify the address? It will only take a few seconds." If he refuses - DON'T ARGUE. Just go along, and things can be straightened out later, with no one injured. And avoiding injury is a good thing.

[NNN0LHI]

28. On a more positive note at least they didn't shoot him n/t

[candy331]

36. Kind of sad when here was one of the " support our troops" and

to thank that it is good that he didn't get shot after returning from a far away country supporting his country is just plain maddening.

[Renew Deal]

35. Why does this sort of thing always happen in Florida?

Seriously.

[arikara]

37. I thought that 2 cops were automatically sent

to domestic calls because they are the most dangerous to attend. I'm not excusing his behaviour because I think that all this tasering is awful but the cop was probably scared himself.

[Karenina]

75. The MOST effective

are specially-trained CO-ED police teams. That was also my first :wtf:
A single cop sent to a domestic dispute call??? :wtf: BAD POLICY all around.

[Judi Lynn]

45. Fla. Marine: Deputies Had No Reason To Use Stun Gun

Fla. Marine: Deputies Had No Reason To Use Stun Gun

POSTED: 11:56 am EDT April 4, 2005
UPDATED: 12:17 pm EDT April 4, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A sheriff's deputy shocked a Marine reservist with a Taser stun gun in a case of mistaken identity just days after the reservist had returned from an overseas assignment.

Leon County deputies responding to reports of a domestic disturbance wrongly went to Demar Jackson's apartment instead of the correct one next door.

Jackson tried to tell Deputy John Daly he was at the wrong apartment, but Daly told him three times to turn around. When Jackson did not turn, Daly shot him with his Taser, sending 50,000 volts of electricity into Jackson's bare chest and abdomen as his wife and 3-year-old son watched.

The Marine, who had returned four days earlier from an assignment in Africa, filed a complaint Friday about the March 7 incident. He pleaded not guilty to charges of resisting arrest without violence.
(snip/...)

http://www.local6.com/news/4343403/detail.html

[htuttle]

46. Welcome back to the Land of the Free, Marine

Unfortunately, some things have changed since you've been gone...

[saigon68]

55. I'll bet Demar Jackson is Black

You know how dangerous those violent darkies are !!! </sarcasm>.

P. S. Ask Rodney king about Tasers

Sgt Stacy Kuhn Hit Rodney with a Taser. Then every time Stacy Dialed up the volume. The rest of the gang OF POLICE THUGS beat him back to the ground.

[montana_hazeleyes]

57. I'll bet he was black also.

And I read the story and there was no photo of him. If he was black and the story was about HIM hurting someone I bet anything they'd have his mug shot right up there.

[Postmanx]

47. And some people say

that only the police should have guns. PAPERS, WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS!

[gratuitous]

48. Isn't that nice?

You're sitting around at home, there's a knock on the door. It's a sheriff's deputy, investigating a report of domestic violence. He's got the wrong house, but starts ordering you around. You don't comply with his orders and try to set him right about the correct address, at which point he stun guns you in front of your wife and 3-year-old. Then you get to appear in court because you're charged with "resisting arrest."

You gotta love Bush America!

[Postmanx]

50. As convenient as it may be

to blame EVERYTHING on Bush, you are cheating yourself if you think cops only just began acting this way 6 years ago.

[gratuitous]

54. Oh no, no illusions about THAT

Although it DID happen in Florida, home of JEB!'s governship.

But the culture gives rise to the actions, and the permissibility of things flows from the top. I can't say with certainty that any particular action is directly tied to the Bush Family Evil Empire (sort of like smokers' deaths from lung cancer), but they've sure provided the atmosphere that invites instances of official misconduct.

But what I was most amazed at is that after all this, the fellow has to go to court to answer to the charge of resisting arrest.

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. I hope he now has a better understanding

of how the Iraqis feel when we blow up the wrong house or raid private homes in the middle of the night.

[ashmanonar]

56. he was in africa, apparently...

but yes, i would say he has a new viewpoint on this kinda stuff.

[wakeme2008]

51. If this was not a returning Marine just Joe Blow

He would be found guilty and hung, but the Police have a little problem going to the wrong house and tasering a "war hero"

[UpInArms]

52. I guess Demar Jackson has a brand new understanding

of those "Freedoms" he was fighting (or not) for. :sarcasm:

[tubbacheez]

53. Even if the cop has his facts wrong, a private citizen is supposed to obey

until the situation gets sorted out.


The first rule in dealing with the police is to remember that they will always insist on establishing physical control of the situation. Denying them this control is a perilous path to walk, no matter how justified you may feel.





I'm not saying this in any way, shape, or form does a thing for justice. But this is the world we live in.

Don't be "dead right".

[MSgt213]

58. No kidding. Because you can't count on the Police to have any common

sense or in this case even the right address.

[tubbacheez]

61. That's correct.

Arriving fresh on scene, police are not there to solve any problems. They are there to keep existing problems, known and unknown, from getting worse.




It would be a mistake to treat police like a judge, a jury, a mediator, a counselor, an ombudsman, or anyone who would be actively trying to solve the problem at hand.

That's not their role. And even the bestest-most-greatest-and-nicest police officer in the world would balk at taking on such a role so early after arriving on scene.

[progressivebydesign]

84. I hope you never need a cop. n/t

[Sterling]

103. You would think you would hope no one ever needs a cop.....

If you need a cop you are having a bad day. Sometimes cops can create bad days for you too when you are not doing anything wrong.

[Silverhair]

60. Truly spoken.

BTW - That applies to ALL police, even in other democracies. They are NOT there to debate with you. Save the debate for the court.

[progressivebydesign]

83. Domestic calls are often deadly to cops. It's a fact.

It sux that they had the wrong address. That happens sometimes in the heat of a police call, or badly lit homes, excited witness, etc. You should ABSOLUTELY do what is asked of you, then sort it out later. ONCE the cop had the guy cuffed or under control, he would have sorted it out. Sadly, too many cops are killed during domestic dispute calls... it's probably the most dangerous. Either the dispatcher made the mistake or the house was not clearly marked, he didn't know what the situation was...

If a cop asks me to turn around.. 3 times.. I"m gonna listen, then sort it out later.

[Judi Lynn]

59. Kick!

[saigon68]

62. Kick

[Judi Lynn]

63. Kick!

[lonestarnot]

69. Guess this GI won't need to worry about VA benefits! Go GI!

[Daphne08]

72. Florida and Tasers... again?

[genieroze]

73. charged with resisting arrest without violence?

Why was he arrested? He was arrested for for being the wrong person and letting the cop know it? I would resist too. I hope they put that cop on dog poop duty.

[Tsiyu]

77. People, this is not fast Food

"Oops. Wrong house!" is NOT the same thing as "Oops. Left out the fries!"

If a doctor medicates the wrong patient, is it an "Oops?"

How can you trust people who can't even get an address straight? And why would you justify allowing them to make an innocent person suffer for their lack of attention to detail?

Dispatchers and Cops: DO YOUR JOBS. CHECK THE FACTS.

Americans: WAKE UP AND TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS.

[progressivebydesign]

86. Is your house clearly marked at night? Are you sure?

In the heat of calling 911 about a neighbor who may be abusing his wife, can you be sure of their address? Were you the dispatcher taking the call? Do you know for a fact the cop made the mistake? Or are we just blindly bashing the police again?

I bet EVERY ONE of the DUers here to bash cops as a reflex have benefitted from the services of their local police department, whether they realize it or not.

Perhaps I'm just one of a few liberals here who happens to think my life is BETTER because we have people WILLING to put their life on the line every day... and deal with things that none of us could handle. When someone was trying to get into my house at night, I didn't call a fry cook.

I worked at a home for abused children. I came to absolutely respect the police who worked the cases on behalf of these children. The crimes committed against them usually by their own family were so horrendous that they still haunt me. But.. the police, who people here are so quick to bash, dedicated themselves to seeing these people brought to justice, and protecting the kids from further harm. I know of numerous times that the police would take up a collection amongst themselves to buy food and gifts for crime victims, and help in many ways.

Just as so many here hate to be dismissed and dissed as a group because they are liberals, I think it's just as narrow-minded and bigoted to to the same to people that choose to become police officers.

[Tsiyu]

98. Sorry, Not a cop basher here.

I have the utmost respect for cops, and I live in a state where most of them are decent, caring, hardworking people.

But there are far too many cases of "Oops! Wrong Address!" Or have you not heard of any? Doing your job means checking the facts out before acting. if a physician took out your kidney when he was supposed to take out the kidney of your roomate, would you say that someone who bashed that physician hated all doctors?

Get real, please.

[Sterling]

104. "bash cops as a reflex "

I think it's the cops bash reflex that is the point here, don't you?

[BreweryYardRat]

78. Damn...

The is clearly in the wrong. As one person here said, a few second call to the dispatcher could have straightened out the whole situation.

Instead, what does the cop do? Reacts excessively. Jackson could sue and win. He did nothing sufficient to warrant stopping a taser blast.

This seems to be an example of a cop abusing his powers. Not a common thing, despite what some of the other people on here seem to think.

Shame this happened. At the very least, the cop's earned a reprimand and a suspension.

[progressivebydesign]

88. Uh yeah. YOU got to a house with a suspected domestic violence call..

..and stand there with someone that may or may not be violent, while you 'straighten it out'. In the meantime, you.. the woman.. the child.. could have been killed.

Secure the situation and sort it out in a moment. How many domestic calls do you think the police respond to where even the victim tells the cop initially that it's the wrong house?

[Sterling]

105. "may or may not be violent"

That would be a big may not in this case. I am not sure that you understand what police work is?

In this case the victim was not violent he simply refused to follow the police officers unlawful and misguided demands in his own home. If the man had attacked the office the tazer would be justified but tazing someone who is resisting non violently is low and disgusting.


Martin Luther King ring a bell?

[NNN0LHI]

79. Look what being compliant got these 65 guys. A hand of Aces and Eights

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo53.htm

Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States

Chicago:

Torture

The repeated practice of torture by Chicago police came to light in the late 1980s and early 1990s.3 One case involved Andrew Wilson, who was accused (and later convicted) of shooting and killing police officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien on February 9, 1982.4 When Wilson was questioned on February 14 at the South Side Area 2 station, he suffered multiple injuries: he claimed that officers supervised by Commander Jon Burge tortured and brutalized him during an interrogation that lasted for seventeen hours.5 He claimed electric shocks were administered to his head and genitals and that police cranked a "black box" to produce electric currents after clips were attached to parts of his body; Wilson was also allegedly stretched over a hot radiator and burned.6

snip the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), found that physical abuse "did occur and that it was systematic.... {T}he type of abuse described was not limited to the usual beating, but went into such esoteric areas as psychological techniques and planned torture. The evidence presented by some individuals convinced juries and appellate courts that personnel assigned to Area 2 engaged in methodical abuse."8

After the city settled the claim of thirteen-year-old Marcus Wiggins, who alleged electric shock by Burge's detectives,... snip

Andrew Wilson's first civil case alleging torture by the police resulted in a hung jury; his retrial did not find the officers personally responsible but did find a de facto policy within the Chicago police department to ill-treat certain suspects. After a complicated series of court challenges, Wilson won a judgment of over $1.1 million ($100,000 for damages and $1 million for attorneys' fees).11 At least three other plaintiffs were awarded damages in civil lawsuits related to the torture allegations for an additional $250,000.12
snip "{I}mmediately following his arrest, plaintiff Wilson was placed in the custody of Chicago police. While in police custody, defendant Burge physically abused plaintiff Wilson by a variety of means including kicking him, electro-shocking and burning him by attaching him to a radiator...."13

snip no other detectives or others on the force had been disciplined for any of the other sixty-four cases where torture was alleged.15 Indeed, several of Burge's colleagues involved in the torture cases had been promoted, commended or allowed to retire with full benefits.16 OPS investigators reopened twelve of the torture cases and reportedly recommended discipline for several officers, but the OPS director overruled the recommendations.17 In the cases of two sergeants identified as abusers involved with Burge, OPS investigators sustained complaints and recommended discipline; instead one sergeant was decorated for valor by the mayor (who also recommended him promoted to lieutenant) while the other retired with full benefits.18

No criminal prosecutions were pursued against the officers involved in the torture incidents. The U.S. Attorney's office reportedly learned of the Area 2 torture cases after the five-year statute of limitations for civil rights cases had passed; when it was suggested that conspiracy charges could still be brought against those involved who continued to cover up their involvement, there was still no action toward pursuing the cases.19 Meanwhile, prisoners remain on death row following confessions forced by Burge and others on the police force through torture techniques.20 Burge attempted to get reinstated, but his dismissal was upheld in February 1994. The police union expressed outrage when he was not reinstated: snip

Marine should feel real lucky he was only tasered. Had this happened in Chicago he might very well have found himself with his gentiles attached to an electro-shock machine and be sitting on death row here in Illinois for some crime he didn't even know about much less committed. Yes, you were very lucky Mr. Jackson.

[B3Nut]

80. And Daley's supposed to be a Democrat?

Why does crap like this go on on his watch? Oh wait, he's the one who committed an act of what could be termed destruction of federal property for his covert vandalism of Meigs Field. Isn't destroying federally-controlled aviation infrastructure potentially an act of terrorism? But this...this is beyond sickening. There is absolutely no excuse for any of this. None.

T in Beerbratistan

[NNN0LHI]

81. Richie Daley was the State's Attorney while this was happening

His office was prosecuting these "cases". He knew exactly what was going on and is no better than Burge. Probably worse.

Don

[NNN0LHI]

82. Where did all the "its best to do what officer friendly says" folks go? n/t

[Silverhair]

85. Still here.

You will always be able to find examples of police abuse. I am not saying that they don't happen. But as a personal tactic, being very polite and cooperative is almost always the best way to keep the violence to a minimum. If you want to resist an officer, you are taking two very huge gambles. 1) That you can win physically. 2) That you are legally right.

It would really suck big time to lose physically, and then discover that you didn't know as much law as you thought you did.

[progressivebydesign]

87. Still here, too.

I am cooperative and polite if I have any dealings with the police. Yes, there are cases of abuse, as there are in the military, security guards, clergy, teachers, any type of position with authority.

The point is that just as we dont' want to be painted with a broad brush because we are liberals, we should not paint all police officers with the same brush. The good ones far outweight the bad ones.. and I don't think the officer in this story is a bad one. I think it's the case of mistaken identity and refusal to cooperate in an explosive situation, when cooperating would have allowed the police officer to respond safely.

Domestic calls are the most dangerous to cops, I don't question his precaution in wanting to handcuff the guy...

[NNN0LHI]

92. It is not abuse what these cops were doing

It was torture and premeditated murder. It may not be easy for some to rap their mind about that and admit it. But that is what it was. There are some good cops. How can one distinguish which ones are good or bad though? These Chicago cops looked completely normal. I personally knew some of them. Drank beer with some of them. But they were not what I would call good cops. See the problem we are up against here?

The police need to weed the scum out of their ranks. But they don't. They protect one another in these kinds of cases. That is not a good thing for any of us. All it does is cause more mistrust. The thin blue line needs to go the way of the high buckled shoes. And the sooner the better for everyone involved. That includes the clean cops, and the people like me who never intentionally break any laws.

Don

[NNN0LHI]

90. Abuse? Did you read what I just posted?

I will explain it to you again if you didn't read it all. The cops were torturing these people into confessing to crimes that they never committed. Then sending them off to die on death row by lethal injection for that same crime they never committed.

That is not abuse in my world. I guess it is in yours? In my world that is called premeditated murder. Would you allow yourself to be cuffed and stuffed by someone who you knew was completely capable of premeditated murder if you had done nothing wrong?

And I can fully understand why you wouldn't be saying that this doesn't happen when the evidence is right of front of you. You can handle these types of situations anyway you wish to. I will handle them my way.

It would suck really bad to be brought to a police station and have some cop torture you into confessing to a death eligible crime that you didn't commit and then discover that you didn't know as much about how police can and do operate as you thought you did.

Don

[Silverhair]

106. What exactly does that story have to do with the taser incident?

I suspect that you want all cops viewed as evil pigs. I suppose you would be happier if all police forces were disbanded.

[NNN0LHI]

111. It shows that surrendering your rights can get you killed with some cops

I am surprised that an intelligent fellow like yourself wasn't able to figure that out?

Don

[Silverhair]

117. And how would you have fought in that situation?

In that type of situation your are SOL, because they are going to take your rights away. If they are going to do the things that you say they are, do you think that they will stop because you talk about your rights?

That had nothing to do with the Taser incident.

It appears that you want to take that and use it as a broad brush to bash all police.

[NNN0LHI]

118. I wouldn't have fought

When the cop came to my house I would have asked if he had a warrant. If he would have said no to that my next question to him would have been am I under arrest for something. If he would have said no to that question I would have asked him to leave my premises immediately and tried to close my door.

If he would have still insisted on arresting me after that I would have sued his and his departments ass off for trespassing, false arrest, assault, and any other charges my lawyer could think of that might be applicable. That is the way I would have handled this situation.

Don

[Silverhair]

120. I was referring to the situation that you posted about in Chicago

when I asked the question about how you would have fought.

Regarding the Florida incident, you may find that your legal stance is not as strong as you think it would have been. When an officer responds to a complaint, his authority to check out what is really happening is greater. Exactly where the line falls, I am not good enough to say.

Consider this scenario based on what you think should happen: Officer responds to a complaint of domestic violence. Man answers the door and asks if the officer has a warrant. Obviously he will not have a warrant since it is just a complaint and he is there to investigate the complaint. So now the man tells the cop to go away. Officer leaves. Man goes back to beating the wife and kills her. Story makes the news. You then post about how stupid the officer was and how he was derelict in his duty.

[NNN0LHI]

123. Same answer for both situations

I have already considered the Florida scenario and I actually had been wondering what was happening at the correct address where the actual complaint came from while this officer was busy tying to handcuff and tasering the innocent Marine. I had actually wondered if there may have been some man beating his wife to death at the correct address while this officer was wasting his time with the Marine? I guess we will never know the answer to that question. So that can cut both ways.

As for the Chicago incidents keep in mind most of the fellows in Chicago were never under arrest for anything until after the police had the time to torture false confessions out of them. They were merely asked to come down to the station and answer a few questions. And most of them did go down to the station willingly knowing they had not broken any laws just to help out the police with their investigation. I also wonder what became of the actual perpetrator's of the crimes these guys were falsely convicted of? Chances are the actual perpetrator's of those crimes are still out on the streets today killing more people today. That is not a very pleasant thought.

Don

[Silverhair]

124. You didn't answer my question.

I shall repeat it. For the sake of discussion, we shall assume that the officer has the correct address, as in most cases the police do have the correct address. The thrust of the question is to your assertion that if they don't have a warrant you can tell them to go away.

"Officer responds to a complaint of domestic violence. Man answers the door and asks if the officer has a warrant. Obviously he will not have a warrant since it is just a complaint and he is there to investigate the complaint. So now the man tells the cop to go away. Officer leaves. Man goes back to beating the wife and kills her. Story makes the news. You then post about how stupid the officer was and how he was derelict in his duty."

Obviously, in real life, the cops aren't going to just weakly go away. Further, I would maintain that society does not want them to go away when responding to a complaint like that. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude, even though I am NOT a lawyer, that society has given them the legal authority to make some level of on-the-spot investigation, even if the guy who answers the door is telling them to go away. Exactly what that authority is, I am not competent to say, but I am confident that they don't need a warrant for your arrest to be able to check out a domestic violence complaint.

Furthermore, please remember that domestic violence complaints ARE among the most dangerous for police officers to respond to.

[NNN0LHI]

125. Sure I answered your question

If a cop shows up at my door without me calling them first I am not going to answer any of his questions. Not even one. Period. Cop shows up at door I am going to be the one asking questions. End of story. Same goes for the rest of your question and answer games too. Capiche?

And just so you know every cop I ever known (and I have known plenty) never drove straight to a house to respond to a domestic violence complaint. Everyone of them has told me they always drive around the block several times to give the people inside some time to settle things themselves and cool down. See ya.

Don

[Silverhair]

126. You still ducked it.

The cop shows up at a real scene of domestic violence. The wife beater answers the door and tells him to go away because he doesn't have a warrant. Does he have to go away and leave the wife beater alone?

Regarding your statement about driving around the block. There are lots and lots of apartment complexes with no view of the street.

For that matter, in most houses the windows are usually covered by curtains, so the guy won't see the cops driving around anyway.

You won't answer the question of the first paragraph because you know that the cop doesn't have to go away.

[despairing optimist]

91. Another story for the Can't Win for Trying file

It's dumb but not surprising. Someone gets charged for a police error, but that's because the deputy was in the middle of a governmental process and even innocent people can be charged with interference under those circumstances. I hope the marine wins and collects damages in a civil suit against the city.

[AnneD]

93. Our family experience with this cast a long shadow....

My Grandfather (sole support of his 3 kids and aging parents and actually assigned state side in WWII) and Uncle were arrested. Uncle was released. Grandpa was found dead and it was assumed it was a hit and run...until the mortician noticed the bullet holes and bruises. Believe it our not this was investigated by FBI, but to this day everyone in the town believes the police did this while he was in custody and it was covered up. Papa took no guff of the police and the sheriff was crooked (and as was the judge). It was hard for great grand parents to both live in the town and raise the grandkids. You have to chose your battles and remember, you can always fight another day.

[inflection]

119. why does it seem like some cops aren't human? just machines..

that can't make their own fair judgement, they can only follow written instruction. they don't have a heart??

[Silverhair]

121. Because the law is a machine.

You want the law enforced equally. Also, if they don't stay one bit from department policy, they can't be charged or sued.