Police arrest wrong guy and use stun gun on him, even after showing ID

[starlord]

Just like almost every moron that things go badly on in these stories or on different videos, they resisted. If he just gave them his id and cooperated for a few minutes none of this would have happened.

heres the thing though, if they dont have a valid legal reason he's not required to cooperate for anything. which they didnt.
people are very quick to throw away their rights in fear of being arrested/shot/tasered, when thats not how it should be.

[lockedout]

Yep, otherwise its harassment.

No they don't, you wath to much TV.

[Paula12345]

heres the thing though, if they dont have a valid legal reason he's not required to cooperate for anything. which they didnt.
people are very quick to throw away their rights in fear of being arrested/shot/tasered, when thats not how it should be.

Correct.

They did have a valid reason though.

They were searching for Michael.

[lockedout]

Correct.

They did have a valid reason though.

They were searching for Michael.

He was on probation though so it's actually different.

[Jakexe]

Step by step process -

1) Have been an infraction free member of MMO-C since the website was created.
2) Got my first infraction and ban from Endus
3) Am not able to make posts without them

You can thank Endus for all these burner accounts people are forced to make. They are the result of failed social cleansing moderation.

Burner account yes.
Grudge no.

The system is working pretty good for me here.

No Grudge you say, well, what ever you have to tell yourself.

[starlord]

Correct.

They did have a valid reason though.

They were searching for Michael.

nope, search & seizure laws apply. unless they had a warrant for patrick they were not allowed to cuff him, and he didnt have to "cooperate."

[Paula12345]

He was on probation though so it's actually different.

Who are you referring to? What was different?

- - - Updated - - -

nope, search & seizure laws apply. unless they had a warrant for patrick they were not allowed to cuff him, and he didnt have to "cooperate."

In order to eliminate suspicion of him being Michael or an accomplice, they need to identify who was sitting in the car.

Which means he is legally obliged to cooperate.

Notice how the police didnt immediately question the female. She was already eliminated from being Michael due to being a different sex.

[Bullettime]

Correct.

They did have a valid reason though.

They were searching for Michael.

That's still not necessarily valid. When he asked for the warrant to be provided because the cops straight up accused him off the bat, which is where they messed up to begin with, the cops actually have to stop and provide the warrant whether or not he gave his ID up to that point because he was already accused of a crime. This is where the cops lost the case straight up. While he was a bit of a douche about the whole thing, legally, he didn't have to actually provide his ID until they could show proof of a warrant. At that point, ID is required.

[Wells]

In order to eliminate suspicion of him being Michael or an accomplice, they need to identify who was sitting in the car.

Which means he is legally obliged to cooperate.

Notice how the police didnt immediately question the female. She was already eliminated from being Michael due to being a different sex.

They never gave him a chance to identify himself before escalating force.

[Paula12345]

That's still not necessarily valid. When he asked for the warrant to be provided because the cops straight up accused him off the bat, which is where they messed up to begin with, the cops actually have to stop and provide the warrant whether or not he gave his ID up to that point because he was already accused of a crime. This is where the cops lost the case straight up. While he was a bit of a douche about the whole thing, legally, he didn't have to actually provide his ID until they could show proof of a warrant. At that point, ID is required.

Cops dont need to immediately show warrants when asked.

There are a million reasons why.

One being if they feel they are in immediate danger.

[Vichan]

I'm not seeing anything about this on any of the local news websites(i live near Savannah). Either way, He didn't want to cooperate and didn't want to show I.D, what do you expect is going to happen

[Wells]

Cops dont need to immediately show warrants when asked.

There are a million reasons why.

One being if they feel they are in immediate danger.

Have a reason that's relevant here?

[Paula12345]

They never gave him a chance to identify himself before escalating force.

The 31 minute video demonstrates otherwise.

[Vichan]

That's still not necessarily valid. When he asked for the warrant to be provided because the cops straight up accused him off the bat, which is where they messed up to begin with, the cops actually have to stop and provide the warrant whether or not he gave his ID up to that point because he was already accused of a crime. This is where the cops lost the case straight up. While he was a bit of a douche about the whole thing, legally, he didn't have to actually provide his ID until they could show proof of a warrant. At that point, ID is required.

Why argue with the cops like an idiot and risk it? hand over your i.d and go on about your life. yet again, don't put yourself in the situation and things like this won't happen

also, them thinking you're the person they are executing the warrant on is good enough for probable cause

[Wells]

The 31 minute video demonstrates otherwise.

Nope. That someone can look at this and think the cops did their job correctly is beyond me. They assaulted that man.

[Paula12345]

Have a reason that's relevant here?

They had suspision he was Michael.
They had suspision Michael had accomplices.

Both Michael and accomplices are assumed threats.

Until the situation is deemed safe, demands for warrants to be shown do not need to be met.

[Wells]

Why argue with the cops like an idiot and risk it? hand over your i.d and go on about your life. yet again, don't put yourself in the situation and things like this won't happen

This is basically "how to survive a dictatorship 101". Not how community policing is supposed to work.

- - - Updated - - -

They had suspision he was Michael.
They had suspision Michael had accomplices.

Both Michael and accomplices are assumed threats.

Until the situation is deemed safe, demands for warrants to be shown do not need to be met.

Just so we're clear here, you think that even though he'd taken no aggressive action whatsoever towards them mere suspicion that he might have accomplices, hidden in the bushes I guess, represents such a clear threat that they don't need to present a warrant to an entirely passive target?

Because you're lowering the standard of "threat" so low that the bar is "I say this is a threat".

[Paula12345]

Nope. That someone can look at this and think the cops did their job correctly is beyond me. They assaulted that man.

Which is why you arent judge nor jury.

Cry about the jurisdiction system being cirrupt though if you wish. Im sure you will.

[Wells]

Which is why you arent judge nor jury.

Cry about the jurisdiction system being cirrupt though if you wish. Im sure you will.

I can see why you need a burner. They didn't even go through the due diligence necessary to ID a passive suspect before assaulting him. They turned a nonviolent situation into a violent one. Good policing requires avoiding unnecessary escalation of force.

[Vichan]

Nope. That someone can look at this and think the cops did their job correctly is beyond me. They assaulted that man.

they did their job perfectly fine.