In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I hope this guy rots...
kyplumber
Member Posts: 11,111
Never mind the fact she was pregnant, He obviously had control of her then tazed her... what a #^$
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4897
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4897
Comments
I'm skeptical about the charge of excessive force used on a resistive suspect.
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
I agree, lets go back to the days of hitting folks over the head with a blackjack, or clubbing them like Rodney King until they give in. Beating the living hell out of someone is WAY better than getting shocked in 5 second intervals.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
Oh and by the way, why should a citizen who wants to LAWFULLY go about his or her business be required to submit to unlawful force used against him by a representative of the government? I believe that there are some states that have laws on the books allowing the use of physical force against a cop in a defense against a criminal charge IF the cop's use of force, or arrest attempt, is unlawful. If so, amen to those states.
This is a qualified statement, since I am not clear on the circumstances of this particular case.
Barring the violation of one of the plethora of "laws" foisted upon we citizens, you are under NO obligation to talk to a cop if you do not choose to.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
not to mention no one knows the womans story, maybe the husband was threatening her safety by being awarded custody, you never know whats going on... that cop should be strung up by his scrotum... and I hope the lady sues the * off the police dept.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Barring the violation of one of the plethora of "laws" foisted upon we citizens, you are under NO obligation to talk to a cop if you do not choose to.
For an officer to detain and especially to use force to accomplish the detention, there MUST be a basis in law to do so.
Not sure what the whole story is here, but it sure has the superficial appearance of unlawful detention and unlawful use of force.
If so, I say charge him and fire him.
I for one, am thoroughly sick and tired of abuses of police/government power and authority and the seeming lack of accountability when these abuses occur.
not to mention no one knows the womans story, maybe the husband was threatening her safety by being awarded custody, you never know whats going on... that cop should be strung up by his scrotum... and I hope the lady sues the * off the police dept.
Maybe, IF there was no lawful reason to detain.
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......
My point is we would still blame the police, they cant win no matter what they do.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by EhlerDave
And if this woman had walked out of the police station and hurt that child because she does not get along with the dad everyone would blame the cops for not doing anything to stop her.
Sorry sir. "Maybe", or a hypothetical, does not equate to a lawful reason to detain.
In answer to your postulation/question...IF she had done so, then she should be swiftly and surely punished for it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't preempt crimes on a whim, or a thought that someone "may" do something, absent a lawful reason, period.
This is America, or at least it used to be and the government has ZERO right to restrict your freedom of movement under the US Constitution, UNLESS a lawful reason exists.
Being angry, or agitated that nobody is listening, or sympathizing with you over your story, does NOT amount to a lawful reason for detention by an agent of the government.
Last I checked, I was allowed to be irritated. Course, times have changed and we ARE living under the heel of a predatory government, so......
My point is we would still blame the police, they cant win no matter what they do.
They can if they do the right thing and I should know.
It is a simple proposition, follow to constitution, follow the rules, do the right thing, maintain your integrity, understand your role in society and stay within those bounds and everything else falls into place.
If she did something stupid after she left and they had no reason to detain her, then the fact that there was no lawful reason to detain her is the bottom line, period. Anybody who couldn't accept that fact is not worth giving another though to.
Simple.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
I agree, lets go back to the days of hitting folks over the head with a blackjack, or clubbing them like Rodney King until they give in. Beating the living hell out of someone is WAY better than getting shocked in 5 second intervals.
FLASHLIGHT THERAPY [:D]
I honestly doubt if the news tomorrow said "Woman kills child after taking him to police dept. then leaving" That a single person on here would stand up and say well at least the police followed the Constitution.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.
You are right. I would bet that not one soul would say that the police at least followed the constitution. All the do-gooders would climb out of the woodwork and try to make hay out of it and/or call for some "new legislation" to address it. They'd name the "new legislation" after the kid I am quite sure.
So what?
Your speculation about what "would happen" is no different than me preaching what "should happen".
If your scenario took place, then someone like me "should" step out and tell it like it is, regardless of the fact that this would not be what most would want to hear.
It is long overdue to take a stand and begin educating the populace as to our system of government and about personal responsibility. This must happen at all levels, private and public, private sector and government.
I quietly step down off my forum soapbox now.[:D]
The fact that the interiewed Chief says the lawfulness of the detention is not an issue tells me that the arresting officer was able to articulate that he beleived the women posed a threat to herself or her child. That IS a lawful reason for detention.
Sounded more to me like he was not wanting to focus on that aspect and wanted to focus instead on the use of force based on her resistance. This indicates that the lawfulness of the detention is weak, or non-existent.
I'll have to watch again and report back.
I can understand the officers concern about the safety of the child, since she wanted to turn it over to the cops initially.
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
Not sure, based on the limited info, if reasonable suspicion existed or not. If it did, they are on firm ground. If it didn't, they are wrong.
Can't make an informed judgment based on the limited info.
As to the use of the taser, I think it is one of the best tools to come along in quite some time. It prevents "hands-on" scuffles where people used to get physically hurt, or worse.
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
I guess it depends on the Chief, locally it seems the department supervisors are more than happy to throw cops to the media wolves if there is even a hint of a mistake or wrong-doing.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
It still sounds as if the Chief/Spokesman wants to skip the lawfulness of the detention and focus on the use of force based on the resistance. That is a major red-flag to me.
I guess it depends on the Chief, locally it seems the department supervisors are more than happy to throw cops to the media wolves if there is even a hint of a mistake or wrong-doing.
That is a true statement and applies to most agencies. Political expediency rules the day.
Too many complaints from the public about tazers. Get rid of the tazers and go back to shooting people.
Damn it JAMES!
I spit perfectly good Glenfiddich all over my screen!
[:D]
LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH RIGHT NOW!!!
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) * to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not. News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.
No, that woman went in there to rid herself of her child who had become an inconvenience. When asked who she was, she attempted to leave with the child. Now she will probably be rich.
Till later, thanks Mateo for spitting good Glenfiddich on your screen. That was worth reading about.
I honestly doubt if the news tomorrow said "Woman kills child after taking him to police dept. then leaving" That a single person on here would stand up and say well at least the police followed the Constitution.
Lets not get into what we should do I am suggesting what would happen.
We don't have a "Minority Report" unit either. Until a person actually commits a provable crime, why the hell can't they be left alone? Have we reached a point where "what if" or "well, they could" superceeds and overrides actual facts? Being proactive is the same as becoming "thought police". The Constitution makes no allowance for this.
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
---
LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH RIGHT NOW!!!
---70% of all police officers are a threat to the community they "serve". ("Serve" being the LA street gang term for "dominate".)
---Police, fire, dogcatchers, prison guards, etc. all mentally believe they are part of some paramilitary brotherhood and that they are some sort of elite group. They refer to citizens as "civilians", as if they (these cop, government employee) were some sort of military group. ALL police are civilians.....READ THIS TO MEAN ALL!!. Get it boys? This means you!
---When called to task for their actions, their union kicks in to protect them along with the police department managers (they call themselves "chief", "lieutenant", "captain", etc.). YOU ARE NOT MILITARY....GET IT!!
---When called to task, they whine about having to face the dangers of the street and that they only see the "underbelly" of society, etc. Police CAUSE 75% of the problems they face in the street. If they don't like the work, GET OUT!! Why do they stay? So they can retire at age 40-45 with a full disability (stress) pension. They get all benefits, pay, etc. and play for the rest of their lives at our expense.
---Police are actually tax collectors and janitors. That's it. They hand out tickets for "gotcha!" offenses, which do not endanger anyone. Tickets are a MAJOR source of revenue for municipalities, don't let anyone fool you. When you hear the police whine about not having enough officers, it's because the municiplaity is down on the manager's (oh! excuse me! "Chief's".) * to raise revenue by handing out more tickets. Their janitorial functions consist of cleaning up messes. Police rarely prevent crime, accidents, etc. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens.
---Cops are told and they believe this; citizens are expendable and they are not. News flash for police officers!! YOU are expendible. That's what you are paid for. That's why you get more pay and benefits than comparable government employees in non-police positions.
As for that woman in the police station: She was right! She went in there for help and they attacked her. Pure and simple.
Nov 29, 11:29 PM (ET)
EASTPOINTE, Mich. (AP) - Police used a battering ram to break down an apartment door and arrest a woman they say grabbed food from a pizza delivery man but failed to pay him.
Jessica Gray, 19, of Eastpointe was arrested Wednesday after she and the occupants of her apartment refused to pay for a delivery of pizza, ribs, chicken, shrimp and a soda valued at $17.18, police say.
According to police, Gray answered the door when a 21-year-old, combo meal-carrying delivery man arrived at her apartment about 7 p.m.
Gray took the meal, then slammed the door and joined four other female occupants inside - ranging in age from 14 to 21 - in yelling insults and threats when he didn't leave, police say.
"She was rough when she took it from him," Detective Lt. Leo Borowsky told The Detroit News. "And she was large enough where he didn't want to fight her."
The Associated Press was unable to reach Gray for comment because she has no listed phone number.
A police report says responding officers "could hear the occupants laughing and whispering inside but refusing to answer the door. The officers advised the occupants that if they refused to come to the door, it would be opened by force."
Police then broke down the door, and the delivery man identified Gray as the person who took the meal. Police recovered rib bones, chicken bones and shrimp tails as evidence.
Gray was arraigned Thursday on a felony charge of larceny from a person, then released after posting a $5,000 bond.
"We take this kind of stuff seriously. It is a crime," Borowsky said. "These (delivery) people are on business and if you steal from them, we're going to prosecute."
Here's another one to add to the stirring of the cop pot. Cops used a battering ram to break down a door for $17.18 worth of food! Tell me they couldn't find a landlord to supply a key to the door. Utterly ridiculous.
Would you have viewed this differently if it was a woman who had her pocket book with $17.18 taken from her, and the man who did it ran into his apartment then refused to open the door?
No, I' not debating the issue of whether they should have arrested the miscreant, only the method of entry-a battering ram. A murder suspect gets negotiated with for hours on end when locked in an apartment and a bunch of giggly females get an apartment door demolished for seventeen bucks worth of pizza.
A murder suspect gets negotiated with only when he/she has hostages. A bunch of punk teenage theifs get their door busted down after repeated warnings that it would be busted down if they did not open it. I don't see the problem here....
My position. Limit Taser use to people committing criminal acts. It should never be used this capriciously, not matter how well meaning the officer that he was in doing so.
Third paragraph down
"The officer feared allowing her to leave could jeopardize the child and he decided to detain her to get more information."
BTW, she did not want help from the police, she wanted them to babysit for her because she was tired of playing games with her baby's daddy.
quote:Originally posted by Boomerang
My only question: What crime did she commit to warrant the action by the police? From what was reported I could not see that the use of the Taser was necessary. This woman was frustrated and wanted help from the police. Then she came to her senses and got tasered when she tried to leave. She had every right to leave and not be tasered for wanting to do so.
My position. Limit Taser use to people committing criminal acts. It should never be used this capriciously, not matter how well meaning the officer that he was in doing so.
Do you believe this is what he actually said, or was it the PD lawyers attempt to do damage control on what was truly an over reaction by this police officer?
quote:BTW, she did not want help from the police, she wanted them to babysit for her because she was tired of playing games with her baby's daddy.Again this is damage control spin. We are only getting one side of the story at this point. I would say there is much more to this than what is currently reported. This women was evidently frustrated, but does frustration mean she is a danger to herself or her baby?
Here's another one to add to the stirring of the cop pot. Cops used a battering ram to break down a door for $17.18 worth of food! Tell me they couldn't find a landlord to supply a key to the door. Utterly ridiculous.
Nov 29, 11:29 PM (ET)
EASTPOINTE, Mich. (AP) - Police used a battering ram to break down an apartment door and arrest a woman they say grabbed food from a pizza delivery man but failed to pay him.
Jessica Gray, 19, of Eastpointe was arrested Wednesday after she and the occupants of her apartment refused to pay for a delivery of pizza, ribs, chicken, shrimp and a soda valued at $17.18, police say.
According to police, Gray answered the door when a 21-year-old, combo meal-carrying delivery man arrived at her apartment about 7 p.m.
Gray took the meal, then slammed the door and joined four other female occupants inside - ranging in age from 14 to 21 - in yelling insults and threats when he didn't leave, police say.
"She was rough when she took it from him," Detective Lt. Leo Borowsky told The Detroit News. "And she was large enough where he didn't want to fight her."
The Associated Press was unable to reach Gray for comment because she has no listed phone number.
A police report says responding officers "could hear the occupants laughing and whispering inside but refusing to answer the door. The officers advised the occupants that if they refused to come to the door, it would be opened by force."
Police then broke down the door, and the delivery man identified Gray as the person who took the meal. Police recovered rib bones, chicken bones and shrimp tails as evidence.
Gray was arraigned Thursday on a felony charge of larceny from a person, then released after posting a $5,000 bond.
"We take this kind of stuff seriously. It is a crime," Borowsky said. "These (delivery) people are on business and if you steal from them, we're going to prosecute."
The circumstances as described do NOT authorize the police to make a warrantless entry, period.
IF they were bound and determined to enter the apartment and it does sound as if there was probable cause to believe the perp was inside, then a search warrant would be mandatory.
There are damn few exceptions to the warrant rule. Among those reasons are some sort of "exigent circumstance" such as "hot pursuit", or an immediate threat to someone inside etc, or you can obtain informed "consent".
Once again, this has the appearance of an abuse of police powers. Won't make that a difinative statement on that because I don't have all the facts, but it sure smells bad.
quote:Originally posted by susie
Here's another one to add to the stirring of the cop pot. Cops used a battering ram to break down a door for $17.18 worth of food! Tell me they couldn't find a landlord to supply a key to the door. Utterly ridiculous.
Would you have viewed this differently if it was a woman who had her pocket book with $17.18 taken from her, and the man who did it ran into his apartment then refused to open the door?
Would have made no difference to me. If there was P.C. to believe the prick that stole it was inside and there was no exigency, then the proper and constitutional method of policing would require a search warrant to enter and put the "habeus grabbis" on Mr. Mope.
Pretty cut and dried with no ifs, ands, or buts.
IF they were bound and determined to enter the apartment and it does sound as if there was probable cause to believe the perp was inside, then a search warrant would be mandatory.
Really? in Illinois warrantless entry can be made if an officer has probable cause to beleive a felony has just occured within the dwelling and evidence will be destroyed if immediate entry is not made.
Also just like with our US military the media only shows the bad and we seldom see the good. Nobody cares when a cop or a soldeir does something to help, only when that cop or soldier does something that our sissified society thinks is a terrible thing. You will almost never hear of the cop helping a stranded motorist, same with our soldiers helping an Iraqi on the road. You will almost never hear about a cop saving someones life, same with a US soldier saving an Iraqi after an attack.
Police do alot of good but we never hear about it, only when things go south do we hear it. Same with the soldier, let him have to make a snap decision and things go south that is when the media tells us about them.
How many of you ever been outside of the US? How many have ever been in Germany and seen cops carrying machine guns slung over their shoulders on patrol? How many have been to England and been subject to random questioning and profiling, something that the media would freak about here?
Some of you will never know just how good we have it here. I've been to lawless places and believe me, it aint no damned fun. If you feel that you want to live in a land with no law well by god I can point you to some nice row houses that are vacant in downtown Baghdad so you can live in a land without law. Then we will see you begging to come back here where we do have police protection.
To our cops, thank you.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
IF they were bound and determined to enter the apartment and it does sound as if there was probable cause to believe the perp was inside, then a search warrant would be mandatory.
Really? in Illinois warrantless entry can be made if an officer has probable cause to beleive a felony has just occured within the dwelling and evidence will be destroyed if immediate entry is not made.
What evidence were they going to destroy, the $17 and change pizza and chicken wings??
Delivery man had the food taken from him and the door shut in his face, but "she was rough" in the way she did it. By the letter of the law was this a robbery? In my state it probably is. By the spirit of the law, does this necessitate forcible entry into a residence? Not in my book.
Smart-* suspects still giggling inside, limited ingress and egress points, a small amount of money to "destroy" = search warrant in the book of the constitution.
What evidence were they going to destroy, the $17 and change??
Smart-* suspects still giggling inside, limited ingress and egress points, a small amount of money to "destroy" = search warrant in the book of the constitution.
Did you read the story? There was no money involved, that was the crime itself.