^ Finding it hard to contain my disgust
9/4/2010 11:29:18 AM
9/5/2010 11:05:33 AM
^ Could not have said it better myself
9/5/2010 11:22:07 AM
After watching the video again, it appears the officers where there in reference a suicidal subject who made threats to shoot himself in the head. At this point, officers have the right to take a person in to custody (even without a commitment order); while not under arrest, you can use force to take that person into custody. The subject was repeatedly told to place his hands behind his back; he passively resists by sitting on the couch (a no tase situation). When he keeps refusing and then stands up and says "fuck you," you are now actively assaultive. Bear in mind that an assault does not have to be physical force, it can be the the threat of physical violence. While a level of force against another has to be reasonable; because someone is handcuffed does not mean that force cannot be used. In the video, the man, even handcuffed is able to freely kick potentially put EMS and others in danger of being assaulted. If you believe that a handcuffed person, kicking with 2 taser probes in him cannot harm you, you are mistaken. I also believe there is no case for civil liability. Graham v. Connor created the reasonable officer standard. Given the totality of the circumstances, you have to balance to the reasonableness of the seizure (threats to kill himself, actively resisting) v. the states stake (threat to himself or others) in claims of excessive force. Again, its a reasonable, trained officer not that of a reasonable person. Lastly, if law enforcement has a reasonable and articulable right to be on ones own private property (i.e. a 911 call) you cannot make the leave. LE has the right to check the welfare of the parties involved and to determine that no threat to public safety exists.
9/5/2010 6:20:56 PM
9/5/2010 6:26:27 PM
9/5/2010 7:19:29 PM