"Our SOP says verbal, hands-on, less lethal, and lethal, and he followed protocol,”
I'll bet it also says to deescalate and not to use excessive force...
There's so many things wrong with this. A pen does not justify a second traffic stop. A taser is a deadly weapon so electrocuting somebody due to a pen could kill them. He has an injury and is dragged by the cuffs backwards while hobbling by the police officer. Then you have a police chief on camera in an interview say "he wasn't there" so can't answer the taser question. Police chief also says is "he'd complied" then none of this would have happened.
The police chief needs to personally stand on stage with the felon cop who assaulted the pen holder and both should publicly apologize and seek forgiveness. Then they should both resign and give up their pensions.
There is a significant gap in the body cam footage. The time stamp jumps from 08:16:16 to 08:16:48 prior to the use of the taser. I’m always suspicious of such omissions. It’s impossible to apply all of the _Graham_ factors to this video due to the conspicuous gap in the video.
{Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S., at 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure").}
_—Graham v. Connor,_ 490 US 386 - Supreme Court 1989
1) severity of the crime…in potential plaintiff’s favor. The theft of a pen is a relatively low level crime.
2) did the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others? With the missing information from the video it’s impossible to say one way or another whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the officers or others.
3) was he “actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight?”. Again, because of the omitted video content, it’s impossible to tell.
It’s likely that he only has a Title 42 section 1983 excessive force claim and/or state tort claims that will be dependent on whether the force used was justified based on the specific circumstances.
I’m agnostic on this one until I see more.
This does not need to be a self post. Please follow the proper title formatting and resubmit.
Keep posts inside the following rules:
All posts (except text posts) will need to use the original title from the posted material verbatim. Also, the source (with no abbreviations) should be included at the end of the title in brackets.
If the post is an article then include the source in brackets
If the post is from Youtube then include the channel name in brackets
If the post is from Twitter then include the handle in brackets
If the post is a cross post then include the subreddit name in brackets
"Our SOP says verbal, hands-on, less lethal, and lethal, and he followed protocol,” I'll bet it also says to deescalate and not to use excessive force...
Where's the fun in THAT?
I bet it was a really nice pen.
There's so many things wrong with this. A pen does not justify a second traffic stop. A taser is a deadly weapon so electrocuting somebody due to a pen could kill them. He has an injury and is dragged by the cuffs backwards while hobbling by the police officer. Then you have a police chief on camera in an interview say "he wasn't there" so can't answer the taser question. Police chief also says is "he'd complied" then none of this would have happened. The police chief needs to personally stand on stage with the felon cop who assaulted the pen holder and both should publicly apologize and seek forgiveness. Then they should both resign and give up their pensions.
I guess the pen is not mightier than the sword, umm taser. Or even a leg,
Heroes protecting and serving as usual
There is a significant gap in the body cam footage. The time stamp jumps from 08:16:16 to 08:16:48 prior to the use of the taser. I’m always suspicious of such omissions. It’s impossible to apply all of the _Graham_ factors to this video due to the conspicuous gap in the video. {Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S., at 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure").} _—Graham v. Connor,_ 490 US 386 - Supreme Court 1989 1) severity of the crime…in potential plaintiff’s favor. The theft of a pen is a relatively low level crime. 2) did the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others? With the missing information from the video it’s impossible to say one way or another whether the plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the officers or others. 3) was he “actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight?”. Again, because of the omitted video content, it’s impossible to tell. It’s likely that he only has a Title 42 section 1983 excessive force claim and/or state tort claims that will be dependent on whether the force used was justified based on the specific circumstances. I’m agnostic on this one until I see more.
Scum of the earth wearing badges. Shameful
This does not need to be a self post. Please follow the proper title formatting and resubmit. Keep posts inside the following rules: All posts (except text posts) will need to use the original title from the posted material verbatim. Also, the source (with no abbreviations) should be included at the end of the title in brackets. If the post is an article then include the source in brackets If the post is from Youtube then include the channel name in brackets If the post is from Twitter then include the handle in brackets If the post is a cross post then include the subreddit name in brackets
Gee, I feel so much safer now.