Cop Tasers Person For Getting Their License Out Too Slowly

[treemanx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfPxHgWtug

Yikes! Supposedly this officer got three days suspension for this, and his excuse was that he was trying to hurry to another call, and his blood sugar was low. I cant verify that, but thats what I heard. Anyways, what do you guys think about this? The driver had no plate on the rear of the car, and might have been fumbling for his license (although the officer didnt really give him much time to get it out). The part I couldn't find some excuse for was when he asked the guy to get out of the car, then when the guy did, the cop yells at him to get back in! Then hits him with the door and tells him to get to the rear of the car! Everything after that is history, watch and see what you think. -tree

Read More

 

[Decker]

Wow, seriously wtf? I understand having a bad day and all but that's totally unacceptable and 3 day suspension isn't quite enough IMHO.

-d

 

[Benny503]

Bad cop = no donoughsss

 

[theflyguy]

That officer acted inappropriately! To place the guy under arrest, other than the infraction, the guy didn't commit any other crime.

3 day suspension....cops like this one give all LOE's a bad image!!!!

But then again, cops are just people....I know they have a tought job but is ONLY a job. How many cops have done drugs, killed spouses, beat up family members, I could go on an on... Just like the medical field they feel they are above the avg. everyday individual living there lives.

This cops should be removed from the dept. IMHO

 

[SquatchWorks]

I wonder why people hate the police???


I enjoyed reading the comments:

azis1100: "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
This is cut and dry, straight from the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Artilleryman]

The best way for law enforcement personnel to improve their image & regain public trust is for them to actively oppose this type of behavior & police their own ranks. Military personnel will hammer a slacker who steps out've line. Law enforcement should develop a similar approach.

 

[Father of four]

Most Leo's dont care. We are the sheep to them. We WILL obey!!!! Or ELSE!!!!!

 

[The B]

oh man... that's no bueno.. he needs to be fired hard

by the way... he doesn't order him/her (??) back into the vehicle, he orders him/her to the "back OF the vehicle." but, of course, he only gives the driver about 1.3 seconds to comply before tasing.


http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/09/0930video_affidavit.pdf

 

[The B]

I wonder why people hate the police???


I enjoyed reading the comments:

<broken link removed>

ORS prohibits resisting unlawful arrest.

162.315 Resisting arrest. (1) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known by the person to be a peace officer or parole and probation officer in making an arrest.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Arrest" has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005 and includes, but is not limited to, the booking process.
(b) "Parole and probation officer" has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610.
(c) "Resists" means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer. Passive resistance does not constitute behavior intended to prevent being taken into custody.
(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer or parole and probation officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the officer was acting under color of official authority.
(4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeano

according to case-law, this statute is unconstitutional.

 

[MountainBear]

Just like the medical field they feel they are above the avg. everyday individual living there lives.

Maybe some, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Most Leo's dont care. We are the sheep to them. We WILL obey!!!! Or ELSE!!!!!

Yeah, right. Actually, most LEO's DO CARE, that's why they do the job.


Stop with the bullbubblegum comments that MOST officers don't care. That is a gross misrepresentation of them. Most DO NOT like this type of behavior. Are guys who abuse their power wrong? Absolutely. But to group most LEO's into this category which some of you have done is not appropriate. If some of you are in such a hurry to see change, I suggest you check the job listings and put on a badge.

 

[ZachS]

<broken link removed>

ORS prohibits resisting unlawful arrest.

162.315 Resisting arrest. (1) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known by the person to be a peace officer or parole and probation officer in making an arrest.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) “Arrest” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005 and includes, but is not limited to, the booking process.
(b) “Parole and probation officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 181.610.
(c) “Resists” means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer. Passive resistance does not constitute behavior intended to prevent being taken into custody.
(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer or parole and probation officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the officer was acting under color of official authority.
(4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeano

according to case-law, this statute is unconstitutional.

What case law?

This statute - like most - has been defined and circumscribed by case law, but it doesn't look like it's ever been ruled unconstitutional (at least according to my perfunctory research).

 

[The B]

What case law?

This statute - like most - has been defined and circumscribed by case law, but it doesn't look like it's ever been ruled unconstitutional (at least according to my perfunctory research).

the cases are listed in the link. no, if the oregon statute had ever been declared unconsitutional, it's unlikely it would still be on the books. i'm saying that based on case law, the oregon statute appears wrong.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The best way for law enforcement personnel to improve their image & regain public trust is for them to actively oppose this type of behavior & police their own ranks. Military personnel will hammer a slacker who steps out've line. Law enforcement should develop a similar approach.

As has already been stated, most cops are not doing this.. tells you volumes about what matters to them, and it's not your liberty or safety!

 

[Father of four]

As has already been stated, most cops are not doing this.. tells you volumes about what matters to them, and it's not your liberty or safety!

= most Leo's dont care?

 

[Father of four]

Maybe some, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Yeah, right. Actually, most LEO's DO CARE, that's why they do the job.

Stop with the bullbubblegum comments that MOST officers don't care. That is a gross misrepresentation of them. Most DO NOT like this type of behavior. Are guys who abuse their power wrong? Absolutely. But to group most LEO's into this category which some of you have done is not appropriate. If some of you are in such a hurry to see change, I suggest you check the job listings and put on a badge.

The bull---- is the way ALOT!!!! of them treat the average citizen! And instead of just laying around and defending their UNLAWFUL actions I say its wrong! With your way of thinking do I also need to become a doctor , a lawyer, a judge, work a mc donalds if i see them doing something wrong?

What needs to be done is the Good Leo's need to really stand up and stop letting the bad ones keep doing bad things!!!!!!!! And I say MOST of them dont really care or it wouldnt be like it is!

 

[MountainBear]

The bull---- is the way ALOT!!!! of them treat the average citizen! And instead of just laying around and defending their UNLAWFUL actions I say its wrong! With your way of thinking do I also need to become a doctor , a lawyer, a judge, work a mc donalds if i see them doing something wrong?

What needs to be done is the Good Leo's need to really stand up and stop letting the bad ones keep doing bad things!!!!!!!! And I say MOST of them dont really care or it wouldnt be like it is!

Yeah. But obviously you've never been around them or you wouldn't feel like this. I have. I've been there and for a while I did that (and probably will again). Cops care about people or they wouldn't be doing the job. Unlike the movies, where some of you seem to get you opinions, most officers do not join to be bullies. They join because they want to do a job that matters. They care about keeping people safe.

 

[Father of four]

Ok. I believe that alot of them are Good guys! But you tell me that I am mistaken about all of the times I see and read of the numerous amounts of them breaking the laws. Form the top Chiefs all the way to the new recruits. First year to 24 year veterans. Nothing needs to be fixed? Most of the Leos care?

 

[Father of four]

Watching that video on the first post..what do you think? Did the guy deserve it? Was the Cop treating him with respect? Would most cops " got his back" over the citizen because it is their fellow Leo?

 

[Father of four]

And we do not need "Movies" to see how they are acting these days. How can anyone trust them? Just read the newspapers, watch the news, read about the court cases, even go on their own web sites. Yeah they are not trusted. Take a poll...

 

[ZachS]

the cases are listed in the link. no, if the oregon statute had ever been declared unconsitutional, it's unlikely it would still be on the books. i'm saying that based on case law, the oregon statute appears wrong.

Except for John Bad Elk, the cases listed at that link are from other states, and have no effect whatsoever on Oregon law.

Oregon courts have ruled that civilians do have the right to defend themselves despite the statute's seeming prohibition.

Here's Westlaw's summary of the holdings in the most importan case in this regard, State v. Wright, 310 Or. 430 - due to its age, the entire opinion is not online. If anybody wants me to post the whole thing, I can (it's quite a bit of work to reformat these things), but the stuff below should be all you need:

Summary

Defendant was convicted of resisting arrest, in the District Court, Coos County, Robert E. Jones, J., and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, 100 Or.App. 22, 784 P.2d 445, reversed and remanded. State petitioned for review. The Supreme Court, Van Hoomissen, J., held that arrestee could use only such physical force as was reasonably necessary under circumstances to defend himself against any excessive force being used by arresting officer.

West Headnotes

Arrestee may not lawfully resist arrest, even if arresting officer lacked legal authority to make arrest, provided that officer was acting under color of official authority. ORS 161.260, 162.315(1, 3). Restatement of statutory language.

Remedy for unlawful arrest is action in tort, not resistance to arrest. ORS 161.260, 162.315(1, 3). That is to say: If excessive force is not used in the arrest, you have to suck it up and sue the police later.

Peace officer may not use excessive force in accomplishing arrest. ORS 161.235.

Use of physical force in resisting arrest is unlawful. ORS 161.260, 162.315(1).

If peace officer uses excessive force in making arrest, arrestee has right to use physical force in self-defense against excessive force being used by officer; arrestee is not “resisting arrest,” but instead is defending against excessive force used by officer. ORS 161.205, 161.260, 162.315(1). The important part of the decision followed by the legal reasoning used to justify it in light of the statute.

If peace officer making arrest uses excessive force, permissible use of physical force by arrestee is limited to use of such force as is reasonably necessary under circumstances for self-defense against excessive force being used by officer. ORS 161.205, 161.209, 161.260, 162.315(1). Use of force must be "reasonably necessary." I don't think this substantially differentiates these cases from those not involving arrest, but I'm not sure.

Trial court properly declined to give instruction proffered by defendant in trial for resisting arrest that any person has right to resist arrest, even if arrest is lawful, if that arrest is made with excessive force; instruction was incorrect statement of law in that it failed to state that arrestee's right to use physical force in self-defense must be reasonable under circumstances. ORS 161.205, 161.209, 161.260, 162.315(1). Jury must be instructed to decide whether defendant's use of force is reasonable.

It's all just a convoluted way of saying "you get to defend yourself against a rogue officer, but the statute stays the way it is." The decision came down this way because the Constitution required it. A little strange, but that's how case law works.