WOW is all I can say.....

[madmom]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/police-state-watch-1.html



Police State Watch II

A classic case of what it's like to live in today's America:

Police in Mobile, Ala., used pepper spray and a Taser on a deaf, mentally disabled man who they said wouldn't leave a store's bathroom ... Police tell the Press-Register of Mobile that officers shot pepper spray under the bathroom door after knocking several times. After forcing the door open, they used the stun gun on Love.

Then they tried the Crowley option: arresting him for disorderly conduct. Mercifully a judge threw the charge out. But notice the disorderly conduct charge filed even after all the facts are known. The crime - disabled while taking a shit - is just asking to be tasered and pepper-sprayed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. Must be an unwritten rule. "Charge 'em if you zap 'em" - no matter what.

[paulsby]

2. that;s a gross simplification. the cops did the right thing BASED on what they knew

the guy was in there for an hour, and the storeowners were unable to get him to respond and come out so they called the cops. the cops had to FORCE the door in with a crowbar and when they did, he pushed back against the door. the cops yelled "police" etc. but the guy was deaf.

they had no way of knowing that.

they did know that they saw a man inside the bathroom, resisting their attempt to make entry, that he was holding an umbrella, so they used pepper spray, a relatively low level of forceont he use of force continuum. when the pepper spray allowed them to make entry, he was still resistant, so they used the taser.

it was unfortunate, but it's hardly the cop's fault.

were they supposed to be clairvoyant. you got a guy who is as far as you can tell refusing to exit the room, and you have given multiple verbal warnings to do so. you force the door and he pushes back and so what do you DO?

cops aren't omniscient, but i see zero evidence they used any excessive force.

the judge was correct to throw out the charge, since the guy didn't have the mental capacity even (accoridng to interviews with his mother) to commit that cirme, but the force was fine.

sometimes uses of force are ugly and regrettalbe in hindsight. doesn't change the fact that cops act on the facts and circumstances know to them at the time, not what is known after 20/20 hindsight comes in.

maybe the cops should have just told the store owner "screw you. he's not answering the door. it's your problem"

they didnd't have that option.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. Why was he charged with disorderly? Why did it have to make it all the way to a judge?

[underseasurveyor]

5. It's not up to the cops to decide

guilt or innocence. There was a call, they responded and given the events that unfolded they had no choice but to take this poor guy in. That's why we have judges to make these determinations.

[paulsby]

10. bingo

and like i said in another post. by the time the case got to the judge, he was most likely privy to MUCH more information than the cops had when they arrested the guy. it's a sad case, but i see no mal or misfeasance.

[underseasurveyor]

12. Yea something about discovery, evidence and circumstances.

Hmmm, yea that's the ticket:hi:

[louis-t]

21. It should never have made it to the judge.

Once the cops found out he was deaf, and probably had no idea it was the police trying to gain access, they should not have areested him unless he saw that they were police and still resisted. Pretty hard to do when you have a face full of pepper spray.

[underseasurveyor]

26. So you think that cops should have the power to decide

innocence or guilt?

It's like being an EMT. I didn't have the power or the full knowledge to diagnose or treat anyone's illness or injury. All I had the power to do was try and stabilize the signs and symptoms I observed in the field and get the patient to the hospital. Treatment and diagnosis is left up to the doctors.

So perhaps you'd be willing to let an emt or a paramedic diagnose and treat your next medical emergency?
After all they'll be able to tell whether or not you truly needs the expertise of a doctor. Hell it'll save ya a trip to the over-crowded ER not to mention the money you'd save on medical expenses.

[louis-t]

35. I'm saying they should not have arrested him!

Calm down! Just like the Bates case, if cops deem a crime has been committed, they arrest a person. If they CREATE the situation or CAUSE it to get out of hand, they have no right to arrest them. Every time a call is made to the police, it does not mean someone has to be arrested. Got it?

[underseasurveyor]

40. Oooh yes, I guess I just did.... "Got it."

Now it's your turn to "calm down!"

[paulsby]

48. cops arrest based on probable cause

they clearly had probable cause in this circumstance. when the guy was brought into arraignment, ADDITIONAL facts and circumstances came to light. it's good what the judge did. it doesn't mean the cops didn't act properly. everything the guy did was resistant to their LAWFUL actions.

[louis-t]

56. Probable cause of what?

He was either being disorderly under the law or he wasn't. Lawrence O'Donnell stated that "yelling isn't against the law or considered disorderly conduct in that state". Was he threatening someone or interfering with police business? I guess it depends on if the officer felt he was out of control. It's my understanding that he did refuse to come out onto the porch, which was his first mistake. It's not like he stole something and they had probable cause to arrest him for that.

[LaurenG]

25. Yes it is and we all know it.

A cop can give a verbal warning rather than a ticket too.

[underseasurveyor]

28. Yes a verbal warning to a person that is acting rationally

They didn't know at the time this guy was deaf and disabled and his observed behaviour was not that of a rational person.

It's nice to be all high and mighty when the facts are known.

Cops, it's a thankless job.
But not me... THANKS to all you Police Officers and all you do and ALL the crap you have to deal with:hug:

[LaurenG]

29. They knew when they got him outside that he was deaf. They didn't have to charge him,

they chose to. I happen to have been married to a police officer for 20 years so I do know a little about this. If they had found out that the man they were going to charge was a relative of a police officer, they wouldn't have charged him, there are several scenarios that would have helped to change their minds. As I stated above they did not HAVE to charge him, it was up to the officers to decide.

[underseasurveyor]

31. OK since we're throwing around the I was married to a cop so I know, etc.

My father was a cop, my sister works in a PD, my best friend of 25+ years father was a deputy sheriff, most of my friends are cops and dept. of fish & game officials, animal control, etc.

It still doesn't mean I have any more knowledge or insight about any given situation that a cop may face out on the street. On the street there are no scripts.

Hindsight is the key word here.

[LaurenG]

33. You are correct lets not throw around anything - and since

I'm not allowed to state whether they had to take him in or not, I can point out that you seem to think you know that they did have to take him in and you know what they were thinking...I find that interesting.

:shrug:

[underseasurveyor]

37. NO that's not what I said

Quite the contrary. What I said was that just because I have family and friends that are law enforcement that does not make my special powers of insight into this incident as it was happening anymore than yours simply just because you were married to a cop, as you were sure to point out. As if being married to a cop gives you anymore weight into a situation you have only read about only AFTER more facts have been disclosed. See I don't pretend to know exactly what's it like to be a cop on street even though I hear stories almost everyday.

And you are of course "allowed" to state whatever you think, why would you put yourself in the place of a poor victim? Sorry you feel that way. And you are more than welcome to point out anything you please but you can't even begin to pretend that you would know how to handle any given situation as it's unfolding in the heat of the moment.

I find it interesting that you some how imagine you could.

[LaurenG]

43. Do you have a hard time hearing what others are saying ?

Once again, they did not HAVE to take him in for disorderly conduct. You can lay on the floor and scream and get angry but your anger cannot and will not change the fact that police officers have the discretion, it's within their power not to charge people - ask your daddy, it happens ALL the time.


I am now imagining that this conversation is over...I won't be responding to you again. :hi:

[underseasurveyor]

46. First of all I would not ever "lay" on the floor

Good grammar dictates that I would "lie" on the floor. Chickens lay, I don't. And who's screaming and angry? You must be projecting because I can assure you it's not my style.

Certainly they didn't HAVE TO take this guy in but they did and they were well within their rights and duty to do so.

Are there bad cops? Of course. Do I think that all cops are bad? Pffft, not at all.

OK see ya bye!

[rateyes]

36. His observed behavior WAS that of a rational person

who was deaf and had no idea who was trying to get to him. The arrest was irrational behavior. And, that's why it was thrown out of court.

[underseasurveyor]

41. Well we know that NOW, after the facts have been disclosed.

A seemingly irrational person at the time that was later to have been discovered to be deaf and disabled. How in the Hell are the cops suppose to know that at that time?

[rateyes]

42. Want to bet they knew it sometime before they let the charges

go to the judge? Wanna bet they figured out he was deaf before they even put him in the squad car?

I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

[MadBadger]

58. He was charged after they found out he was deaf

not sure what info your looking at.

[paulsby]

7. probably because they didn't have the facts and circumstances

about his mental condition etc. AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST. also, generally speaking, we don't make determinations as to mental status at time of arrest. that is generally an issue for the courts, iow a judge. i can arrest a schizophrenic for assault if i see him punching somebody. even if somebody walks up to me and says "oh that guys schizo " i don't unarrest him based on that. like i said, people here love to use 20/20 hindsight. what the cops knew justified their force. arrests are based on PC. did they have PC? i see nothing in the article that says they didn't. the judge most likely had additional input from prosecutors, legal advocates, possibly somebody who had interviewed the suspect post arrest (probably using sign language), the guys mother, etc. this is a CLASSIC lawful but awful arrest, as the phrase goes.

[nykym]

4. I agree with most of your statement

but as you pointed out

" sometimes uses of force are ugly and regrettable in hindsight. doesn't change the fact that cops act on the facts and circumstances know to them at the time, not what is known after 20/20 hindsight comes in.

this is when there should be a learning experience for the police, something they can use and benefit from for the future. Often it just vaporizes and it will happen again.

[paulsby]

13. i am not sure what exactly could be done in the future

the guy was deaf, and apparently reacted hostilely to cops trying to enter. also, why was he in there for an HOUR in the first place. most deaf peopel don't hole away for an hour in a bathroom in a private business. the cops and storeowners have a right to be concerned. is he passed out, dead? furthermore, the cops were all standing outside the door, the door wsa knocked on. deaf people are generally pretty sensitive to vibration. if you were in the bathroom for an HOUR and you felt the knocking, wouldn't you OPEN THE DOOR ON YOUR OWN. it wasn't just that he was deaf. it was that he was deaf and acting irrationally. but yea, it's true. deaf people are at more danger of having their actions misinterpreted by cops. they can't hear somebody yelling at them to "drop the weapon" or "stop" for example. there is no easy solution, frankly.

[safeinOhio]

6. Sorry, once they saw the person was ok

and did not want to exit, they should have just waited. No spray or taser. Cops see almost every person as a dirt bag criminal. I know I was married to one. To consider any other option is just foreign to them. In the stall, won't come out, use force right now. Just plain poor training. Hope the guy sues the crap out of them. That seems like the only way to get departments to train their people. I'd bet if they ran into the same situation the next day they would have learned from that experience and acted different. That is called training.

[underseasurveyor]

9. Just because your ex saw almost everyone as a dirtbag criminal

doesn't mean that ALL cops think that way. Unless you know ALL the cops and have asked them.

[safeinOhio]

14. My wife did.

[underseasurveyor]

18. And that was 'your' wife.

"Cops see almost every person as a dirt bag criminal. I know I was married to one."

That may or may not be true from your perspective and experience but from my personal perspective and experience your statement is not.

Statements like this are more inclusive than just 'your wife' so perhaps in the future you might keep "cops," as in all or most, out of it and just stick to your wife.
Thanks.

[spiritsong13]

62. STFU underseasurveyor

You are nothing but an arguminitive prick, so just go away and leave conversation to the intelligent people. Anytime someone says something about their experience of knowing a cop you blast them, of course this is after you have claimed special knowledge due to relatives in law enforcement.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN IN CASE YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT THE FIRST TIME.

STFU @sshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[underseasurveyor]

64. Temper Temper

It's ironic you should call anyone out on their so called lack of intelligence. I don't claim to be the smartest person by any means however IF you RE-read my comments you'll note that I am NOT claiming any special knowledge or insight into the minds and actions of cops just because I have relations and friends in law enforcement like some others. Here let me assist you.... "It still doesn't mean I have any more knowledge or insight about any given situation that a cop may face out on the street. On the street there are no scripts."....
Quite the contrary dear spiritsong13... I specifically state that I can not even begin to pretend that I know what it's like to be a cop nor did I claim to know how all cops think just because I am related to or around them... RE-read what I said. But I do know that all cops are not assholes. Perhaps these ones were and apparently many here think so. I can only try and put myself in their position at the time but in the end I can only guess what it's like. But out of all the many thousands of cops on the streets we hear about the few bad apples then it's all or nothing. It's the same way in the biker world... we're all low life, bad-ass, drug using thugs. It's that 1% that gives us all a bad rap.

And as far as me going away? Let me think about it..... Mmmmmmm no, I'm not going away. See the little 'ignore' thingy? Use it.

And BTW perhaps you should RE-read the DU rules. Name calling? tsk tsk. Besides I'm not a prick... However I do admit to being a bitch at times but.... whatevah. MuuuuWAH:*

[paulsby]

15. this is such rubbish

they have given lawful otdersl acting as agents of the store owner. the guy wanted the guy OUT of his bathroom. the suspect had a duty to comply. in retrospect it appears he was confused and not willfully trying to disobey the cops, but that's IN HINDSIGHT. the guy will almsot certainly lose any lawsuit. as it should be. cops have plenty of training in dealing with the deaf. i've dealt with deaf people many times. none have acted as irrationally and hostilely as this guy did. in the next situation, are they to aSSUME that a guy who refuses to come out of the room, and when they try to enter, resists by pushing back agains the door IS deaf? that would be a dumb and possibly dangerous assumption. deaf people don't carry bright signs on their chest "I am deaf",. they acted based on what they saw. they acted reasonably. it's sad, but that's the reality.

[MadBadger]

60. In what world do you live in where its considered "acting reasonably" to charge him with a crime?

[madmom]

8. Once they saw he was ok and not a threat they did not have to charge him. That was a judgment call.

It was a misunderstanding and they escalated it.

[paulsby]

16. when did they see the guy was not a threat

when they had to force the door and he PUSHED BACK AGAINST THEm as they tried to make entry? get real. furthermore, why not charge him? they have given multiple demands ot open the door. he didn't. the store owner wants him out. he's been in there an hour. he was holding an umbrella, they managed to get the door open despite his shoving back against them, so they tased him. what were they supposed to do. let him close the door on him, retreat and wait for a hostage negotiator? for a guy holing up in a bathroom? that's absurd. again, there is all this ridiculous 20/.20 hindsight going on they acted on what they saw, and it was reasonable. in retrospect, it's regrettable. that's great, but hardly relevant to whether their use of force was justified, which it clearly was.

[MadBadger]

59. They found out he was deaf before they charged him. You think that was necessary?

[truedelphi]

27. I find this ridiculous that you would defend this.

Having worked with the mentally disabled, and having friends who are in dicey health, the fact that someone is acting bizarre could indicate a lot of things - including a stroke or a seizure disorder.

Do you want this type of thing to happen to you when/if you ever have a stroke or seizure? (And don't explain to me that you couldn't have that happen - as you are in fine health. Those afflictions can stem for one slip in your shower stall, or one car or bike accident.)

Yes, if they were told the guy had a friggin' automatic weapon, I would find police activity to be justified.

but this is not an instance for police involvement.

When something like this happens, the paramedics should be called. If the store owner doesn't call them, then maybe the police should.

But the cops are shooting the mentally disabled at a huge percentage increase over the last ten years. Part of the problem is this is no longer a country in which there is community. For instance, the shop owner didn't recognize that person. ina community, people know each other.

In the Chicago neighborhood I grew up in during the early sixties, the store owner would have known this person.

[paulsby]

47. i defend it

because it's consistent with the use of force continuum in most agencies, and meets common sense "reasonable officer" standards. they did not know the guy was mentally ill at the time, and considering he was holed up in the bathroom, they did not exactly have much opportunity to observe him and make that conclusion. if i am having a stroke and unable to come to the door, i WANT the cops to force the door so medical care can be administered. when the cops forced the door AFTER numerous request, the guy PUSHED the door closed against them. that was reasonably seen as a resistant/aggressive action. look at this from basic use of force theory, which is the ONLY metric that matters, from a legal and common sense percentage. yes, the cops shoot the mentally ill sometimes. my good friend on the dept. was executed (the guy stood over the cop on the ground and emptied his gun into his head) by a mentally ill person. EDP's fwiw, as DOJ stats show , contribute to a significant portion of officer injuries and deaths. and again, the cops did not KNOW he was mentally ill. they acted reasonably based on what they knew

[progressoid]

53. Agreed

There will always be a group that immediately assumes that the police are fascist thugs, no matter what the circumstance. I'm sort of pleased that only 20 found this worth rec'ing. Maybe we all aren't as knee-jerk reactionary as I thought.

[paulsby]

54. it becomes like the "boy who cried wolf"

if the kneejerkers complain even in cases such as this, where it certainly seems the officers were in the right, then their complaints become like white noise. WHEN any unfortunate RESULT (and the result was unfortunate) = police abuse in their eyes, you just glaze over when listening to such people. because their bias and refusal to look at fact patterns makes them worthless as commenters. you see this frequently, also a "results " based analysis, when there is no doubt that use of force is correctly assessed via a PROCESS analysis, not a results analysis. there are ample cases of police abuse. but cases like this, are NOT examples of same.

[fascisthunter]

55. make that one more rec

the context of this article makes your general statement moot.

[truedelphi]

63. Statistically, one day your words here may very well

come back to haunt you

The next time this happens, it might be you or spouse or one of your kids.

And I could care less whether or not this police behavior is allowed due to provisions and is codified or not. Codifying insanity does not make the insantiy any less reprehensible.

It should not be codified like this.

Someone having a stroke - the last thing they need is a cannister of pepper spray to inhale.

Think about it.

[NoSheep]

49. No TASERS for rednecks, goddamn it

[Control-Z]

51. If the guy was actually suspected

of criminal activity by some kind of evidence, you might have a point. But when someone is in a bathroom for an extended period of time, it is usually because of illness, and any intrusion or question about their prolonged occupation should and would, by any normal person, be out of concern for their health, not suspicion of their activity.

With no reason for suspicion - no hostage, no threats from the guy, no suspicious contraband, behavior, or noise, how the hell do they have the right to assume anything other than the guy might be sick, or, dare I add, possibly disabled?

So I say bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. NO, it is not illegal to be in a bathroom (even for extended lengths of time), and unless there is probable cause, there is no excuse to treat anyone in a bathroom as anything other than a possible victim/patient.

[Subdivisions]

11. A caller to a radio show yesterday from Mobile was describing

"SWAT-looking", black uniform-clad, para-military-looking police were staged on the streets in the predominantly black areas of town armed with automatic weapons. Said it looked like they expected trouble.

Edited to add: Anyone who can confirm or debunk this is welcome to comment.

[Echo In Light]

17. "Nazi punks, Nazi punks, Nazi punks...FUCK OFF!"

[Ignis]

44. I'll mosh to that, bruv!

:headbang:

[Echo In Light]

45. As Jello Biafra says, "Burn, Baby, Burn!" haha

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Links to some news stories with different details and Love's version of events.

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/national/south/nat_wala_mobile_deaf_man_tased_pepper_sprayed_20090728927_2693456

Love described how things unfolded. His brother interpreted for him. "He saw smoke. He said, 'What's that smell?' He started putting water on the floor and tissue trying to block the smoke out. He put water on his mouth and face and started to hold his breath."

What Love described was pepper spray. Police sprayed it under the door before breaking the door down. Love said he had no idea what was going on as the smoke poured in and the bashed-in door hit him in the head.

Things quickly went from bad to worse. His brother translated, "Tased him in his chest. He was shaking saying, 'Stop! Stop!' He couldn't move. They dragged him from the bathroom to the front."

Love was tased three times. He said police didn't realize he was deaf until they got him outside the store. That's when they looked in his wallet and found a card detailing his handicap. Love said an EMT was dispatched, and after he was checked out, he was then put into the back of a police car and taken to Metro jail where he sat until police finally took him home later that afternoon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/antonio-love-ala-police-u_n_246081.html

MOBILE, Ala. — Officers who used pepper spray and a Taser to remove a man from a store bathroom found out only later he was deaf and mentally disabled and didn't understand they wanted him to open the door, police said Tuesday.

A spokesman for the Mobile Police Department said the officers' actions were justified because the man was armed with a potential weapon – an umbrella.

The woman said her son hears only faintly, has the mental capacity of a 10-year-old and didn't realize that it was the police who were trying enter the bathroom.

"He thought the devil was out there trying to get in to get him," she said.

Officers used a tire iron to open the door, but the man pushed back to keep it shut. Officers saw the umbrella and sprayed pepper spray through a crack trying to subdue the man, Levy said. They shot the man with a Taser when they finally got inside, he said.

Officers didn't realize Love was deaf or had mental problems until he showed them a card he carries in his wallet, Levy said. He was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, but officers released him and took him home after a magistrate refused to issue a warrant.

http://www.wkrg.com/alabama/article/tased-off-the-toilet/217854/Jul-28-2009_6-28-pm

Officer Chris Levy with Mobile Police tells us that an umbrella can be used as a weapon. "They didn't know why he was locking himself in the bathroom or what his situation was but had come to the decision that an umbrella possibly could be used as a weapon. So they formulated an idea to make a safe entry and it involved the tasing of the suspect."

Phyllis Love says her son was tased on the chest, stomach and hand. Antonio Love is still shaken but is physically okay after the ordeal. The Love family has filed a formal complaint with the Mobile Police Internal Affairs Department.

Love claims there were about 5 or 6 officers at the bathroom door that day. Mobile Police won't tell us how many actually responded.

So the disorderly arrest appears to be CYA. I can understand the use of pepper spray and breaking down the door but the fancy footwork to assign weapon status to an umbrella and the attempt to hang a disorderly charge on him AFTER they determined the man was deaf? Fucking ridiculous. As for the taser, it's about time that use of force guidelines restrict tasers a bit. The way they're used so freely on anyone (child and weak senior citizen among them ) and use for any lame reason is an embarrassment to law enforcement.

[Echo In Light]

20. *

[truedelphi]

24. I want tasers out lawed period. The cops treat them

Like a toy, and I heard that ion onbe case of Police Brutality, the cvop, "Finally got to uswe it."

[anonymous171]

34. Me too. Cops should be forced to use lethal force if they need to stop a suspect.

I would much rather be shot than electrocuted.

[crim son]

61. What was used before tasers?

Before tasers, this guy wouldn't have been shot; I'm absolutely certain of that.

[H2O Man]

22. Oh, sure .....

suppose he used too much toilet paper, and clogged the darned thing? Then who would you be blaming?

[timeforpeace]

23. WJW

[hunter]

30. What the hell?

At this very instant there are probably hundreds of people who have been in store bathrooms too long.

I once worked in a place where we'd have homeless guys bathing and washing their clothes in there.

Dude, open the door, I gotta take a piss!

More than anything else I'd be worried about the health and safety of somebody locked in the bathroom that long -- like maybe they passed out, fell down and hit their head, or something like that. Pepper spray under the door isn't going to help in any situation I can think of.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Yep. Cops love tazing deaf folks, pregnant women, people having seizures...

people's balls,....

Cop = terrorist.

[Odin2005]

39. +1

[Fire1]

52. Doc- You are a FOOL!!! ROFLMAO!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Odin2005]

38. This disabled American thinks these Nazi Fucks can go to Hell.

Christ, I wonder how many fellow autistic people have been abused by cops because they had a sensory meltdown? :puke:

[ljm2002]

50. "...they used the stun gun on Love"...

...I didn't know that was one of the settings?

:silly:

[fascisthunter]

57. Some Cops Really Shouldn't be Cops at All

there needs to be a better way to weed these idiots out of the police force.