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

[Vichan]

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

can't find anything citing the actual terms of the waiver just talking about cases that they were used in

- - - Updated - - -

Waivers like those would be individual state laws.

kind of figured that, it'd explain why it's hard to find the exact wording of it since almost everything google is bringing up is just talking about cases

[starlord]

Agree.

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

which as i said, gave them grounds to approach him and ask questions. they did not have any legal ground to arrest him. you seem to think reasonable suspicion is a catch-all, when its only applicable in cases when there isnt a warrant. there was a warrant. Not for him, but he had a right to see what he was accused of.

[Bullettime]

can't find anything citing the actual terms of the waiver just talking about cases that they were used in

- - - Updated - - -



kind of figured that, it'd explain why it's hard to find the exact wording of it since almost everything google is bringing up is just talking about cases

Note that it's only a few states, that I can remember, that do that anymore. Most states began to repeal that waiver policy because it was leading to a lot of police overreach.

I doubt it would have applied to this case though as if it did, the case wouldn't have made it as far down the line and would have been nipped instantly.

[Paula12345]

which as i said, gave them grounds to approach him and ask questions. they did not have any legal ground to arrest him. you seem to think reasonable suspicion is a catch-all, when its only applicable in cases when there isnt a warrant. there was a warrant. Not for him, but he had a right to see what he was accused of.

They detained a suspect for being uncooperative.

Had he been the target, the police were within their rights.
Had he not been the target, the police were within their rights. Coupled with a request to open lines of enquiry of suspicion of abetting the target.

This case can be thrown out the window. Patrick doesn't have one, other than if he was a pawn being used by Michael.

[Mehrunes]

So asking for a warrant is now not cooperating. Swell. And the police was "only doing their jobs". Even though he informed them that he was just with his probation officer that did not inform him of any warrant, which a police officer should know a probation officer is required to do when such a warrant exists. Combined with his name not matching that of the name on the warrant, it should make them think a bit. And make them ask for ID. And they are obligated to show the warrant as soon as it is practical. The guy was on the passenger side of a car that wasn't turned on. What was so impractical about the situation that they couldn't have shown it to him? He'd bolt to the driver's seat and turn the car on in a millisecond, then drive away? Pull the hidden gun out of his mouth and shoot them in the back? Transform into a dragon and burn them to ash? But naah, police is infallible.

And yet he was just with his probation officer and knew the police didnt have a warrant.

Your last sentence logically contradicts that fact, and therefore wrong.

And he informed them of that too and they didn't react. What kind of botched logic are you using?

Please explain why he was sitting outside Michaels house. I challenge you.

He was obviously plotting the downfall of the white race.

[starlord]

They detained a suspect for being uncooperative.

Had he been the target, the police were within their rights.
Had he not been the target, the police were within their rights. Coupled with a request to open lines of enquiry of suspicion of abetting the target.

This case can be thrown out the window. Patrick doesn't have one, other than if he was a pawn being used by Michael.

i thought we just agreed that not answering questions isnt grounds for suspicion? the courts dont seem to think that that's "being uncooperative".

[Paula12345]

So asking for a warrant is now not cooperating. Swell. And the police was "only doing their jobs". Even though he informed them that he was just with his probation officer that did not inform him of any warrant, which a police officer should know a probation officer is required to do when such a warrant exists. Combined with his name not matching that of the name on the warrant, it should make them think a bit. And make them ask for ID. And they are obligated to show the warrant as soon as it is practical. The guy was on the passenger side of a car that wasn't turned on. What was so impractical about the situation that they couldn't have shown it to him? He'd bolt to the driver's seat and turn the car on in a millisecond, then drive away? Pull the hidden gun out of his mouth and shoot them in the back? Transform into a dragon and burn them to ash? But naah, police is infallible.




And he informed them of that too and they didn't react. What kind of botched logic are you using?




He was obviously plotting the downfall of the white race.

Dear police,

I would never lie to you.


Sincerely,


Suspect 101


Derp derp.

[Tempguy]

i thought we just agreed that not answering questions isnt grounds for suspicion? the courts dont seem to think that that's "being uncooperative".

I think that changes when you're a suspect. If you don't speak, of course they are gonna detain you.

Now, if you are not a suspect and they ask if you saw anything, you are free to say "I ain't see nothing ".

[starlord]

I think that changes when you're a suspect. If you don't speak, of course they are gonna detain you.

Now, if you are not a suspect and they ask if you saw anything, you are free to say "I ain't see nothing ".

it doesn't change.

[Paula12345]

i thought we just agreed that not answering questions isnt grounds for suspicion? the courts dont seem to think that that's "being uncooperative".

Agree.

Placing yourself at scene and bearing resemblance to target does though.

For your selective reading skills, I award an A star.

[starlord]

Agree.

Placing yourself at scene and bearing resemblance to target does though.

For your selective reading skills, I award an A star.

i guess i missed where you explained how thats being uncooperative.

[Tempguy]

it doesn't change.

You misunderstand then.

I'll ask. If the cops think you may be who they are looking for, and you do not cooperate at all. What should they do?

For the life of me I have no idea how they are expected to do their job so please explain how they deal it's an non cooperative suspect?

[starlord]

You misunderstand then.

I'll ask. If the cops think you may be who they are looking for, and you do not cooperate at all. What should they do?

i think bulletime explained that a few pages ago.

[Paula12345]

i guess i missed where you explained how thats being uncooperative.

Not missed no.

Being an uncooperative suspect provides police ground for an arrest attempt.

[Bullettime]

You misunderstand then.

I'll ask. If the cops think you may be who they are looking for, and you do not cooperate at all. What should they do?

For the life of me I have no idea how they are expected to do their job so please explain how they deal it's an non cooperative suspect?

You approach them and state "Excuse me sir do you have any sort of identity verification? We're looking for a Michael ___ who has residency here." You do not mention the warrant until you verify them. If you ask for ID then immediately mention the warrant or accuse the person of being the suspect without verification, the stop basically shuts down as the suspect no longer has to cooperate until a copy of the warrant is provided.

If you word it the first way, then it forces cooperation from the start and avoids escalation or conflict. There are some different times when this isn't appropriate, obviously, such as the suspect you're approaching being an immediate threat, but for stops or investigative purposes like this where the person is not a threat at the time of approach, that's how you're supposed to handle it.

[Tempguy]

You approach them and state "Excuse me sir do you have any sort of identity verification? We're looking for a Michael ___ who has residency here." You do not mention the warrant until you verify them. If you ask for ID then immediately mention the warrant or accuse the person of being the suspect without verification, the stop basically shuts down.

That's with someone who cooperates. This guy did not cooperate. It's already been established that they did ask for ID. He refused.

How do you deal with someone who DOES NOT cooperate?


Also, your saying that the order in which you ask for identification determines whether someone has to show it or not? I coulda sworn on all state IDs it states it is govt property and should be relinquished when asked for by officials.

[Bullettime]

That's with someone who cooperates. This guy did not cooperate.

How do you deal with someone who DOES NOT cooperate?

If the person doesn't cooperate even with the appropriate police procedures and conduct, then you usually would make them step out of the vehicle (if applicable,) ask again for identity verification, and this next part MAY be dependent on your state laws (some states have odd policies) but radio home for a copy of the warrant anyways if you did not bring a copy, which you honestly should have had with you if you're going out specifically to execute a warrant. You do not accuse the person of being the one the warrant is for, but they do have to provide identification in the face of a warrant given they were found at the same residency of the suspect the warrant was for.

[Tempguy]

Just looked it up. And yeah, Supreme Court pretty much says that anyone who does not show ID when there is reasonable suspect a crime has or is taking place is grounds for arrest.

So there is that...

[Bullettime]

Just looked it up. And yeah, Supreme Court pretty much says that anyone who does not show ID when there is reasonable suspect a crime has or is taking place is grounds for arrest.

So there is that...

Sort of correct for this particular situation. The problem was more the initial handling on the approach by the police in bringing up the warrant and accusing the man of being the suspect which throws things into a cluster fuck.

There also was no actual crime taking place at the time. They were trying to execute a warrant on another person. The person they approached could have been the neighbor dropping something off for all they knew.

[Paula12345]

Sort of correct for this particular situation. The problem was more the initial handling on the approach by the police in bringing up the warrant and accusing the man of being the suspect which throws things into a cluster fuck.

There also was no actual crime taking place at the time, they were trying to execute a warrant on another person.

You can't "accuse somebody of being the suspect".

They either are A suspect, or they are not.

I think you meant to say "accusing the man of being the TARGET".