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

[Bullettime]

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".

Everyone is referred to as a suspect until convicted of a crime, even if they're the target of the warrant. You're nitpicking at this point.

[Tempguy]

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.

It's just that, the only reason I can see why a person would withhold theirnidentity is if they know that on probation they are subject to search and don't wanna get gibbed for possessing something. But even I those situations, you should comply with everything the cops order. Like get out of your car. Not cooperating is NEVER the right choice.


So not showing ID gets you arrested possibly. And at no time should you resist or ignore orders.


So I am failing to see how this man is in the right and the cops are wrong.

[Deleted]

Land of the Free

[Bullettime]

It's just that, the only reason I can see why a person would withhold theirnidentity is if they know that on probation they are subject to search and don't wanna get gibbed for possessing something. But even I those situations, you should comply with everything the cops order. Like get out of your car. Not cooperating is NEVER the right choice.


So not showing ID gets you arrested possibly. And at no time should you resist or ignore orders.


So I am failing to see how this man is in the right and the cops are wrong.

The man was an idiot.

The police mishandled procedure on proper approach and verification which allowed for the man's idiocy and noncooperation to be legal, hence the escalation resorting to a court case.

[mstock66]

another person completely disobeying LAWFUL commands of an officer. nothing to see here,, move on.... do what your told.. fight it in court.. not on the street. breathe easy, obey the lawlful commands of a police officer.

[Lost Zero]

As someone who has been tazed before...it's insanely painful and leaves you feeling sick and woozy for hours.

That said, nobody seems to have behaved correctly here. The cops were a tad overzealous, and the individual involved acted like an idiot. You don't mouth off to the cops, that's just common sense.

[Paula12345]

He is right. (Meaning you . Talking to bullet )

Even the mass shooters are considered suspects. Despite having just killed people.

I am nitpicking yes, so I'll clarify.

The police don't walk up to a suspect and say "we accuse you of being a suspect". The sentence is incoherent.

To make the sentence coherent in context, it would simply be "You are a suspect".

In context, the word "accuse" was misplaced.

I was nitpicking though.

[Bullettime]

It's just that, the only reason I can see why a person would withhold theirnidentity is if they know that on probation they are subject to search and don't wanna get gibbed for possessing something. But even I those situations, you should comply with everything the cops order. Like get out of your car. Not cooperating is NEVER the right choice.


So not showing ID gets you arrested possibly. And at no time should you resist or ignore orders.


So I am failing to see how this man is in the right and the cops are wrong.

Requoting since one of the reasons for the procedure is that it guarantees rights for both sides. It guarantees police that they'll have cooperation in their investigation and it also avoids crooked cops bullying someone into an arrest.

Using proper procedure and wording makes the other person more likely to want to cooperate since there's no hostility right off the bat, and the person is forced to cooperate because no accusations are being made. The police can ask for your ID and you do have to cooperate with that. The moment you make an accusation, you have to have evidence to support your claim or it can be drug out into a shit fest that more often goes in favor of the non officer.

This also allows for noncooperation to be legal in cases where say an officer may be trying to bully you into an arrest or detain you for information that you do not have.

You have cases like this where the guy is an idiot and is trying to push his luck, but the rules in place are generally set to go in favor of the non officer and an overstep by an officer invalidates most "wrong doing" in the stop bar actually threatening the officer or committing a crime in their face.

[Paula12345]

Requoting since one of the reasons for the procedure is that it guarantees rights for both sides. It guarantees police that they'll have cooperation in their investigation and it also avoids crooked cops bullying someone into an arrest.

Using proper procedure and wording makes the other person more likely to want to cooperate since there's no hostility right off the bat, and the person is forced to cooperate because no accusations are being made. The police can ask for your ID and you do have to cooperate with that. The moment you make an accusation, you have to have evidence to support your claim or it can be drug out into a shit fest that more often goes in favor of the non officer.

This also allows for noncooperation to be legal in cases where say an officer may be trying to bully you into an arrest or detain you for information that you do not have.

You have cases like this where the guy is an idiot and is trying to push his luck, but the rules in place are generally set to go in favor of the non officer and an overstep by an officer invalidates most "wrong doing" in the stop bar actually threatening the officer or committing a crime in their face.

Agree with this.

The officers' safety is still paramount and it doesn't deter from the fact police officers are not obliged to always immediately produce warrant upon demand made by an unknown suspect.

Nor does it deter from the fact that an officer may make an arrest attempt on an uncooperative suspect. SUSPECT being the key word.

The average civilian needs to be reminded that being falsely arrested gives them the right to sue the police for damage compensation.

[munkeyinorbit]

Obey lawful orders from the police and let them do their jobs, yes. He could easily and calmly have explained who he was and showed them his I.D. after they detained him.

If people just acted reasonably when confronted by police instead of having a giant chip on their shoulder most of the problems being whined about in the U.S. wouldn't exist.

The police didn't act lawfully. They have to tell you why you are being arrested. The police can't be all "You're under arrest.". The citizen had every right not to comply with the police because they were acting unlawfully. I hope the police officers involved get fired and the department sued for millions.

[Paula12345]

The police didn't act lawfully. They have to tell you why you are being arrested. The police can't be all "You're under arrest.". The citizen had every right not to comply with the police because they were acting unlawfully. I hope the police officers involved get fired and the department sued for millions.

I dont believe a hearing has concluded, so it is incorrect to make a statement about the legality.

Its also worth mentioning the police explained multiple times he would be detained if he didnt comply.

This policing behaviour towards a suspect is perfectly legal.

[Gsara]

He did get out of the car, and then they immediately tried to (presumably by telling him to turn around and put his hands on the car) search or cuff him.
Maybe if, after he got out of the car, they asked him for ID he might have shown it. But that isn't what happened.

They asked him several times who he was and he refused then they had to tazer him to get him out of the car and search him for his ID. Watch the entire bodycam video and it becomes quit clear he was refusing to comply long before they got him out of the car.
The kid was fully in the wrong and video is very clear on this.

[Deleted]

I dont believe a hearing has concluded, so it is incorrect to make a statement about the legality.

Its also worth mentioning the police explained multiple times he would be detained if he didnt comply.

This policing behaviour towards a suspect is perfectly legal.

I'm sorry, you were saying?

[Rooflesstoofless]

This is what happens when you militarize the police and train them to be aggressive.

^Straight up this.

If the cops had bothered to actually identify the perp before going off the deep end with their aggression this whole thing could have been avoided.

[Themius]

One would think knowing who you're arresting first would be proper conduct.

[WskyDK]

Too much extra fluff in this case. Police asked for ID; he's legally obligated to provide identification when asked to by law enforcement. That he happened to be the wrong guy they were looking for in the beginning is incidental.

Edit: disregard. GA law doesn't require ID to be produced except for when operating a vehicle; didn't see the guy was just chillin in the passenger seat.

[TITAN308]

Never questions the police? Is that the takeaway?

Just playing devil's advocate, but to answer your question bluntly; No, not outside a courtroom.

It is like those guys who want to argue about a speeding ticket on the side of the road.

I know my answer isn't going to sit well with some people, but I'm trying to base my comments on reality, not a perfect world.

You can ask for a supervisor to be summoned, but outside of that, trying to argue outside of a court room is like hiring yourself as your own lawyer.

Again, I am not siding one way or the other, just offering real world advice.

[Shiatan]

How much of a retard is that guy, how many times was he asked by officer's to step out of the car?
This would of been over within 2 mins if he just did as was asked.

[Deleted]

How much of a retard is that guy, how many times was he asked by officer's to step out of the car?
This would of been over within 2 mins if he just did as was asked.

I really don't get the attitude of Americans to the police. they create the problems then bitch about them.

Had he just got out the damned car, it would have been easy issue to resolve. Instead he became uncooperative against ppl doing their job. They have a warrant for someone who obviously must fit his description. If he had just got out the car and acted like a normal human. he wouldn't have been tased

[MattEffect]

That's like opening your housedoor and letting cops search your home without a warrent simply becaused they asked to.

"hur dur you should just have listened to the police hur dur". He asked to see a warrent and they had none.

No. Patrick pulled up to the suspect Michael's house, at that point they can operate on reasonable cause. Even neighbors come by and say "Patrick calm down you're only making things worse."

He does look absolutely terrified.

All I see here are people arguing 4th Amendment, but you obviously don't understand probable cause.

You also are not forced to cooperate with police, but they are fully within their rights to detain you for "Obstruction of justice," when they are acting on a warrant or probable cause.

The obstruction charges against Patrick were dropped.