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

[Paula12345]

He wasn't trying to avoid arrest until they were already trying to arrest him. You're screwing up a very basic order of operations here. They attempted to arrest him before requesting an ID.

False.

There were multiple enquiry lines the suspect was asked to produce validity of who he was before he got tasered.

[Vichan]

Why he'd risk it is irrelevant. They're still obliged to attempt to confirm that he actually has a warrant for his arrest before arresting him, let alone producing said warrant.

they did attempt and he wouldn't cooperate, even if he would have said whole name it would have been slightly better and sound a little less made up on the spot. and if he would have just stepped out the car while saying it there would likely have been absolutely no problem

[Wells]

False.

There were multiple enquiry lines the suspect was asked to produce validity of who he was before he got tasered.

No one knows what the fuck you're talking about, and I include you in that category.

- - - Updated - - -

they did attempt and he wouldn't cooperate, even if he would have said whole name it would have been slightly better and sound a little less made up on the spot. and if he would have just stepped out the car while saying it there would likely have been absolutely no problem

Nope. It was only a few seconds between them asking him what his name was and attempting to arrest him through force. No request for an ID. No production of a warrant. This is basic shit and it doesn't go away just because he's on parole.

[Paula12345]

No one knows what the fuck you're talking about, and I include you in that category.

Good fallacy comeback.

There were multiple times the suspect was given opportunity to eliminate himself from being Michael before he was tasered.

Patrick did not comply to these opportunities, he was uncooperateive. That is fact.

What we are establishing here is if he had RIGHT to be uncooperative.

And the answer is NO, because he was a SUSPECT.

[Bullettime]

False.

There were multiple enquiry lines the suspect was asked to produce validity of who he was before he got tasered.

They accused him of being the man the warrant for and tried to execute the warrant before verifying him. The cops fucked up by making mention of the arrest warrant, which is what you do not do, until verification is made.

Had they not jumped the gun wanting the arrest, the man would have been forced into providing his ID.

[starlord]

it doesn't matter if they didn't know, HE should know this is part of his probation and automatically comply, even with the charges are dropped, it can still have his probation/parole revoked so why would you risk it?

it does matter, quite a bit. thats what you seem to keep missing. they didnt go after him because he was on probation... it was because they said he had a warrant. police cant just roll up on you and charge you for things after the fact if they mishandle it.

thats why anything they could have brought against him will get thrown out.

[Wells]

Good fallacy comeback.

There were multiple times the suspect was given opportunity to eliminate himself from being Michael before he was tasered.

Patrick did not comply to these opportunities, he was uncooperateive. That is fact.

What we are establishing here is if ge gad RIGHT to be uncooperative.

And the answer is NO, because he was a SUSPECT.

The only order he didn't comply with was to present himself for arrest. They go immediately from asking his name to attempting to arrest him. Which he is not obliged to do at the time they attempt. As for this "he was uncooperative" nonsense, being a suspect for arrest doesn't preclude your basic civil rights. Your position would mean those rights functionally never exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Watching authoritarians construct a post hoc legal system that would allow for the polices' behavior has been interesting though.

[Vichan]

it does matter, quite a bit. thats what you seem to keep missing. they didnt go after him because he was on probation... it was because they said he had a warrant. police cant just roll up on you and charge you for things after the fact if they mishandle it.

thats why anything they could have brought against him will get thrown out.

i already said, they dropped the charge, most likely not because of any wrong doings but because a simple obstruction charge isn't worth pursuing. he'll probably still have his parole revoked

[Paula12345]

The only order he didn't comply with was to present himself for arrest. They go immediately from asking his name to attempting to arrest him. Which he is not obliged to do at the time they attempt. As for this "he was uncooperative" nonsense, being a suspect for arrest doesn't preclude your basic civil rights. Your position would mean those rights functionally never exist.

False.

You watched the edited video.

There was a large period of communication between Patrick and police before Patrick got tasered.

Your whole debate is nullified, simply because you havnt watched both videos.

Stop posting for 31 minutes so we know you have seen it.

[Bullettime]

it does matter, quite a bit. thats what you seem to keep missing. they didnt go after him because he was on probation... it was because they said he had a warrant. police cant just roll up on you and charge you for things after the fact if they mishandle it.

thats why anything they could have brought against him will get thrown out.

Correct, the man will win his case. If a cop shows up to your door and says "Do you have an ID? We have a warrant for your arrest" then you absolutely can refuse and demand to see a copy of the arrest warrant before continuing the process. Most won't, but it is a legal right. If the police continue to push for the arrest, as long as you're not threatening them, there's nothing they can do until home sends a copy or they had one in their vehicle. They blew it, even if you're not the person, and the stop is over until/unless they produce it, at which point you do have to provide ID and comply with direction.

[Vichan]

False.

You watched the edited video.

There was a large period of communication between Patrick and police before Patrick got tasered.

Your whole debate is nullified, simply because you havnt watched both videos.

Stop posting for 31 minutes so we know you have seen it.

this /10char

[Vichan]

Correct, the man will win his case. If a cop shows up to your door and says "Do you have an ID? We have a warrant for your arrest" then you absolutely can refuse and demand to see a copy of the arrest warrant before continuing the process. Most won't, but it is a legal right. If the police continue to push for the arrest, as long as you're not threatening them, there's nothing they can do until home sends a copy or they had one in their vehicle. They blew it, even if you're not the person, and the stop is over until/unless they produce it, at which point you do have to provide ID and comply with direction.

did you miss the part about him having a 4th amendment waiver as part of his parole or whatever it was? i posted it before but you didn't seem to notice it.

[Paula12345]

Correct, the man will win his case. If a cop shows up to your door and says "Do you have an ID? We have a warrant for your arrest" then you absolutely can refuse and demand to see a copy of the arrest warrant before continuing the process. Most won't, but it is a legal right. If the police continue to push for the arrest, as long as you're not threatening them, there's nothing they can do until home sends a copy or they had one in their vehicle. They blew it, even if you're not the person, and the stop is over until/unless they produce it, at which point you do have to provide ID and comply with direction.

The police do not need to provide a warrant until the situation is deemed safe to do so.

Patrick also did not comply.

I think its a safe bet the police will not be sentenced to wrongdoing.

[starlord]

i already said, they dropped the charge, most likely not because of any wrong doings but because a simple obstruction charge isn't worth pursuing. he'll probably still have his parole revoked

nah they did quite a bit wrongdoings.

To justify a stop under the Supreme Court’s Terry decision, a police officer must have “a reasonable suspicion” of some wrongdoing. In determining reasonableness, an officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts” that warrant the governmental intrusion; reliance on “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or [a] ‘hunch’ ” is not permissible.[8] Furthermore, the scope of any resulting police search must be narrowly tailored to match the original reason for the stop. The Court emphasized that a search must always be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justif[ied] its initiation.”[9] In Terry, the Court identified the police officer’s safety as the primary purpose for the search, and concluded that a frisk is permissible if “a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.”[10] However, this case established the legal precedent that police officers could draw conclusions based on their experiences to ascertain if an alleged suspect’s conduct is an indication of criminal activity.[11] If a police officer surmises that an individual’s conduct is ambiguous, then the officer can briefly detain the person and conduct a limited search for the safety of him/herself and others.[12]

Moreover, police officers do not infringe upon an individual’s constitutional rights if they approach alleged suspects in a public location, and inquire whether he or she would be willing to answer some questions.[13] However, the Court in Florida v. Royer further explained that

[t]he person approached . . . need not answer any question put to him; . . . he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. . . . He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. . . . If there is no detention—no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—then no constitutional rights have been infringed.[14]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nypolice/ch5.htm

- - - Updated - - -

did you miss the part about him having a 4th amendment waiver as part of his parole or whatever it was? i posted it before but you didn't seem to notice it.

could you provide a source for this? it seems to be a state law that varies from what i can tell.

[Vichan]

nah they did quite a bit wrongdoings.


http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nypolice/ch5.htm

sitting in the suspects yard and looking similar would be considered reasonable suspicion

[Bullettime]

did you miss the part about him having a 4th amendment waiver as part of his parole or whatever it was? i posted it before but you didn't seem to notice it.

Waivers like those would be individual state laws.

[starlord]

sitting in the suspects yard and looking similar would be considered reasonable suspicion

its reasonable for them to approach him and ask questions, yes. not to arrest him without a warrant.

key part here:

[t]he person approached need not answer any question put to him; . . . he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. . . . He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. . . . If there is no detention—no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—then no constitutional rights have been infringed.[14]

[Paula12345]

sitting in the suspects yard and looking similar would be considered reasonable suspicion

Throw in the fact the suspect failed to identify himself when requested AND he was uncooperative provides reasonable line of enquiry if he was abetting Michael.

- - - Updated - - -

its reasonable for them to approach him and ask questions, yes. not to arrest him without a warrant.

key part here:

Obstructing police business by way of abetting the target is grounds for a new enquiry.

[starlord]

Throw in the fact the suspect failed to identify himself when requested AND he was uncooperative provides reasonable line of enquiry if he was abetting Michael.

Obstructing police business by way of abetting the target is grounds for a new enquiry.

the quote is from a court case that determined that not answering police questions is not in fact grounds for suspicion.

[Paula12345]

the quote is from a court case that determined that not answering police questions is not in fact grounds for suspicion.

Agree.

Placing yourself on scene and bearing resemblance to the target is though.