LEOs, what would you have done?


PDA






The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 10:37 AM
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/NEWS/506280317

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs, what would you have done?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Steve in PA
June 28, 2005, 12:44 PM
So, he was told to step back (a lawful order) and not interfere, which he did not. Then he supposedly reached through the window and grabbed the officers shirt to get his name and badge number. Subsequenlty the officer decided to arrest the man and the man resisted. They struggled and the man was eventually arrested. As for the "supposed" medical condions, didn't stop hiim from arguing with the officer did it? So exactly what rights were violated?

1) He could have stepped back away from the car/officer. He had no business sticking his nose into the traffic stop.

2) He reached out and grabbed the officers shirt, supposedly to get his name/badge. Every PD I know of requires an officer to provide this information when asked. There was no need for him to put his hands on the officer.

3) He apparently was told he was going to be arrested and resisted. What should the officer have done, let him go?

4) He has a "heart condition", but didn't immediately go to the hospital to be checked out, instead he waited until the next day (Monday). Hmmmm.

The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 12:45 PM
Steve in PA, if you're looking for an argument from me you'll need to go elsewhere. I agree 100%. You assault an officer you get whats coming.

Spreadfire Arms
June 28, 2005, 12:50 PM
2) He reached out and grabbed the officers shirt, supposedly to get his name/badge. Every PD I know of requires an officer to provide this information when asked. There was no need for him to put his hands on the officer.

not to mention it would have been on any written warning that may have been issued by the officer, if they give those out in writing instead of verbally. :(

oops sorry im not current LE....should i have responded to this thread? sorry.

BostonGeorge
June 28, 2005, 01:07 PM
I would just like to point out, as the LEO apologizers are often quick to do, that only one side of the story, the officer's, is represented in this piece.

However, if that's what really took place (and everything that happened), the Rabbi got exactly what he had coming to him.

GunGoBoom
June 28, 2005, 01:21 PM
2) He reached out and grabbed the officers shirt, supposedly to get his name/badge. Every PD I know of requires an officer to provide this information when asked. There was no need for him to put his hands on the officer.

Wrong. Just because a PD "requires" an officer to do it, doesn't mean they're necessarily going to follow the policies. Some officers are rogues - I've seen it before. As for it being written on the ticket, that's a joke too....I've gotten more than one ticket where the officer's number or name is written is such poor handwriting it's completely illegible.

3) He apparently was told he was going to be arrested and resisted. What should the officer have done, let him go?

Arrested for what? Assault? That ain't assault to try to look at a badge, I don't think, if the officer refuses to give the badge number, *if* that's what in fact happened. And therefore, it is LEGAL to resist an unlawful arrest. Not all 'touches' are assaults. That's the key, is was there or was there not an assault? If there was not, then he cannot be guilty of resisting arrest or obstructing justice, because it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest.

just pointin out...I'm not saying that he had any right to interfere just because it was his niece - maybe he did not - I'm just playing the devils advocate a little bit, for amusement purposes. Come to think of it, if he really had no right to request a badge number as not being the detainee, then perhaps that could make the arrest justified - I dunno. But I certainly would not be at all surprised if the officer refused to tell the guy his badge number (whether rightly or wrongly per dept. policies, since he wasn't the detainee), based on my history with the ultra arrogant attitude of certain bad apples in that profession. But it comes down to whether or not an "assault" occurred, as that is specifically defined by state law.

Pilgrim
June 28, 2005, 01:21 PM
I don't know. It is hard to say.

I lived in New Jersey at the Naval Air Engineering Center at Lakehurst back in 1976-1978. I was twenty-eight years old. I was rather astounded at the antics senior citizens got away with because they were, well, senior.

Shortly after arriving in Lakehurst, I took my wife to the Ocean County mall to buy curtains and curtain rods for our quarters in base housing. After parking our pickup truck, a senior man drove up and berated me for taking his parking place. He had had his eye on the open space near the store, but was delayed in taking it because of another senior citizen driver who blocked his approach while trying to park her car. The fellow looked to be in his sixties and "by God I should go back and vacate the parking space" so he could have it. The fellow acted like he was willing to fight me right then and there for showing him such disrespect.

Inside the store my wife and I were talking to the salesperson about the curtains when another senior, a woman, pushed her way between my wife and I and demanded to be waited upon. The salesperson said afterwards that it happens all the time.

I am familiar with the Lakewood area, along with Manchester Township. There are/were a large number of retirement communities along the highways. The senior drivers were terrible. One of their common acts was to pull on to the two lane highway dangerously close in front of drivers, drive one block at 25 mph in a 55 mph zone, then turn back into the retirement community. My wife asked a Manchester Township cop on the CB radio who witnessed this act pulled right in front of her if he was going to do anything about it. The cop answered back that it did no good to cite the senior drivers. They went to court, pulled a "poor senior citizen act" in front of the judge, and invariably the judge let them off with a warning.

Back then seniors renewed their drivers licenses providing a doctor's note saying that they met all the medical requirements necessary to be a safe driver. A rash of traffic accidents involving seniors caused the department of motor vehicles to decide to at least give vision checks to the renewing seniors in spite of the doctor's certificates. You never saw such a s--t storm as the one raised by the seniors. The department went ahead with requiring a vision test in front of a DMV employee and a number of doctors were suddenly in trouble for signing off their patients as safe to drive when in fact they couldn't see.

I can certainly see a senior in New Jersey getting in a cop's face thinking he was "senior bullet proof" and ending up going to jail.

Pilgrim

Pilgrim
June 28, 2005, 01:39 PM
Arrested for what? Assault? That ain't assault to try to look at a badge, if the officer refuses to give the badge number, *if* that's what in fact happened. And therefore, it is LEGAL to resist an unlawful arrest. Not all 'touches' are assaults. That's the key, is was there or was there not an assault? If there was not, then he cannot be guilty of resisting arrest or obstructing justice, because it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest.

just pointin out...

A battery is unlawful contact by one person on the person of another. If I have not given you permission to touch me and you do so, that is a battery. Some states call it an assault. California differentiated between assault, which is an attempt to commit a battery, and the actual contact, which is a battery.

For those of you who don't remember your school yard fights, they didn't usually start as a knock down, kick butt fight. They started with pokings, pushing, shoving, grabbing, then the punches and kicks. An officer is foolish to let any contact get past the initial touch. He had better put a stop to it right now.

When I worked the streets, it was my experience that any one who touched me was testing me to see how I would react. It was very important to make it perfectly clear that the next time the person touched me he or she was going to jail. That put the responsibility on them to decide if they wanted to go to jail or settle the matter peacefully.

As far as my name and badge number was concerned, if it looked like someone was making a big show of trying to read my badge or name plate, I told them very clearly what my name is and what my badge number is. The citation, if they were getting one, would have both written down. If they desired, I would give them my business card with all the information they wanted.

In California it is not 'legal' to resist an unlawful or false arrest. One is only justified in resisting if the officer is using excessive force to affect the arrest. If you get it in your head to resist an arrest you think is false and are wrong, in all probability your attorney will suggest you take whatever deal the district attorney offers because you will spend some time in jail.

Pilgrim

Spreadfire Arms
June 28, 2005, 01:47 PM
gungoboom wrote:

As for it being written on the ticket, that's a joke too....I've gotten more than one ticket where the officer's number or name is written is such poor handwriting it's completely illegible.

well just because the handwriting may be illegible doesn't mean the PD can't look it up by the serial number on the form, or the radio traffic where the officer used his callsign to indicate a traffic stop on a particular license plate and a given location at a specific time of day.

i hardly think an officer can leave absolutely no trail whatsoever that someone couldn't file a complaint on an officer given the time of day, location, and license plate of the vehicle if the writing was illegible.

your turn to refute this...... :confused:

Steve in PA
June 28, 2005, 01:56 PM
"Steve in PA, if you're looking for an argument from me you'll need to go elsewhere. I agree 100%. You assault an officer you get whats coming."

Sorry Rabbi, I didn't mean for my response to sound that way.

"Assault" may have been the wrong term to use in this case. In PA an assault would require an attempt to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another.

However, it would meet the requirements for "harassment", subjecting another to physical contact. Its a lesser offense, but the person would still be arrested none the less.

Now maybe in the state where this took place his actions could be considered an assault, I don't know. Either way he was told he was under arrest.

GunGoBoom
June 28, 2005, 02:03 PM
Pilgrim and spreadfire, you may be right - probably are. But why should you have to hire a lawyer to file a case, in order to get a judge to order the PD to tell you what officer it was, just because the officer refused to tell you the number and he's not forced to write legibly? Cuz I know what would probably happen.... You walk into the station, and announce that you want to fill out a complaint on an officer for x,y, or z alleged bad acts. OK, sir, here's the form. First thing on the form is officer's name and or badge number. Sorry, sir, we cannot accept the form or investigate without this filled out completely so we know what officer it was. But I can't read the ticket - can you look it up for me? I can describe him, here's the ticket number, date and location it was issued, etc. Sorry, no can do. Go see a judge if you want that info. Not part of our SOP to look up stuff like that. Wouldn't be at all surprised, given how many beauracracies operate. But Pilgrim, you're right, a battery or 'assault' can be an unwanted touching of any kind in some jurisdictions, but not sure about all of them. It might have to be a potentially injurious or provocative unwanted touching in others - dunno. And in my state, the law DOES allow one to resist an unlawful arrest, 99% sure.

chaim
June 28, 2005, 02:13 PM
I'm of course not a cop, but I do know Lakewood well enough that I will comment (I know a few people in yeshiva there, and I've been there in the past).

So, he was told to step back (a lawful order) and not interfere, which he did not. Then he supposedly reached through the window and grabbed the officers shirt to get his name and badge number. Subsequenlty the officer decided to arrest the man and the man resisted

We don't know that is what happened. That is what the cops say happened, we don't have the whole story. I find it very doubtful that a Rosh Yeshiva in Lakewood laid hands on a cop. If it did happen this way, I do agree 100%, but we really don't know.


I will comment on Lakewood and the relationship with the Orthodox Jews there and everyone else.

There is a lot of tension between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox communities. 20-30 years ago Orthodox Jews made up a very small percentage of the town. Today they are at least 50% of the population with the political strength that goes with that. The majority of the city council is made up of Orthodox Jews. Many of the long-time residents aren't happy with the change in their town. Many of the non-Orthodox newcomers aren't happy with what they see as undue influence by the Jews at what they see as coming at the expense of their ethnic group.

Many of the Jews of Lakewood have experienced harrassment from some thugish members of the other communities (thugs of course being the exception, but common enough that many people have had experiences). Also, as the article alludes to (and the police deny) there have been quite a few instances of the police in Lakewood harrassing the Jews there.

On the other end, a Rosh Yeshiva is used to being treated with respect (his position is somewhat analagous with a Bishop or Archbishop in the Catholic Church). It is very possible that he didn't like the way the policeman treated him. I doubt very much that he put hands on the policeman, but I don't doubt that he didn't act like a serf either. He may well have stood his ground and even assert his perceived rights. It has been my experience that quite a few police officers have the same outlook, they expect to be treated with deference. Both men probably spoke to the other in a way where they expected to be the one treated as the "alpha male" and neither probably backed down. Few police officers I've met react well to that kind of situation.

My guess, knowing Lakewood, and with only the policeman's account, is that likely both were at fault for what happened (both likely let their egos get the best of them).

richyoung
June 28, 2005, 02:28 PM
In California it is not 'legal' to resist an unlawful or false arrest.


Wrong. It is legal to resist a false arest anywhere in the United States, courtesy of the Supreme Court. See John Bad Elk vs. United States - “At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter . . . [I]f the officer have no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.”

SCOTUS talking - last I heard, they have the final say in the matter.

One is only justified in resisting if the officer is using excessive force to affect the arrest. If you get it in your head to resist an arrest you think is false and are wrong, in all probability your attorney will suggest you take whatever deal the district attorney offers because you will spend some time in jail.


ONly if said attorney is ignorant of the law.

MikeIsaj
June 28, 2005, 03:40 PM
Some random thoughts on the subject in no particular order...

Keep your hands to yourself! That's what I remember learning in first grade.

"Don't touch and you won't be touched", that's what we tell the inmates.

When you reach into a police car, common sense says that bad things will soon happen to you.

"A Rosh Yeshiva is used to respect." Well my friends, you have to be respectful in order to warrent any respect being given. Do not treat me with contempt and disrespect and then cry because I do not treat you properly.

For all the LEO bashers; I work with FBI, U.S. Marshals, State Troopers, Sheriffs and Municipal Officers. They are overall professionals that respect the law they uphold. Of course there are a few idiots but, they are the slim minority. If you constantly have trouble with LEO's, I'd take a look in the mirror for the cause.

It is legal to resist a false arest anywhere in the United States

The Pa. Crimes code, ss504 Use of Force in Self Protection, (b), (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful

I suspect there is more to the Supreme Court decision cited.

TheFederalistWeasel
June 28, 2005, 03:50 PM
Actually the current doctrine which the courts including the Supreme Court holds is that fact that one can only use an necessary level of force to over come a level of force in any unlawful arrest.

What this means is this…

If I come to arrest you and tell you its time to go to jail and you believe that I have no grounds for the arrest and you resist violently against me and kill me then congratulations my friend you are going to jail for murder.

The only force I was using was verbal, and you reacted violently.

A recent case discussed here involved an agency close to mine…

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127339

So basically you resist you take your lives into your own hands as well as your freedom, think before you act.

The roadside is not the place to fight the cops that is what the courts are for because you WILL lose that fight on the side of the road guaranteed and you might even lose your life as well.

richyoung
June 28, 2005, 04:15 PM
Actually the current doctrine which the courts including the Supreme Court holds is that fact that one can only use an necessary level of force to over come a level of force in any unlawful arrest.

What this means is this…

If I come to arrest you and tell you its time to go to jail and you believe that I have no grounds for the arrest and you resist violently against me and kill me then congratulations my friend you are going to jail for murder.

Supreme Court sez manslaughter - read the cite from that decision...

The only force I was using was verbal, and you reacted violently.

...suppose I just don't go. What happens then? You just walk away?

A recent case discussed here involved an agency close to mine…

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127339

So basically you resist you take your lives into your own hands as well as your freedom, think before you act.

The case you reference involved officers with probable cause to make an arrest - such has not been adjudicated here - apples and oranges...

The roadside is not the place to fight the cops that is what the courts are for because you WILL lose that fight on the side of the road guaranteed and you might even lose your life as well.

If the law enforcement officer is not authorized in his actions by law, I'll resist at the point of offence - the minute the LEO steps outside of the law, (including hte Constitution), he is no more acting under its authority than I am. Did you read the excerpt I posted?

richyoung
June 28, 2005, 04:17 PM
The Pa. Crimes code, ss504 Use of Force in Self Protection, (b), (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful


....and in a conflict betwen Pa. law and the Supreme Court's decisions, which do you think over-rules the other?

TheFederalistWeasel
June 28, 2005, 05:36 PM
Here is the whole quote you excerpted and here is a link from (most likely the website you took it from.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/lsotherside1.htm


This position was upheld in the Supreme Court Decision, John Bad Elk vs. United States [177 U.S. 529 (1900)], which said, “"...where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” And, in defining a lawful arrest, the Court said, “"an arrest made with a defective warrant; or one issued without affidavit; or one that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is resisting, the killing will be no more than involuntary manslaughter.”

Now you say apples and oranges to which I reply it’s your life my friend, who do you think my backup is going to believe when they arrive?

Furthermore this cite limits itself to speculation [at best] narrowly focused upon a defective warrant or one issued w/o probable cause, in which case the charge you will face will be no more than manslaughter, which lends to the facts that even the USSC acknowledges in resisting even what on its face could be an unlawful arrest you can and would most likely still face criminal prosecution, just not for murder.

This case is from 1900, lets move forward to a more recent case handled by the Courts

A person unlawfully arrested by an officer may resist the arrest;
The means used to resist an unlawful arrest must be reasonable and proportioned to the injury attempted upon the party sought to be arrested. The use of force to prevent an unlawful arrest which threatens only a loss of freedom, if you so find, is not reasonable. Clerk‘s Papers at 71 (emphasis added).
In Rousseau, a 1952 case, we recited the common law rule prevalent in most jurisdictions at the time: "It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened." Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2d at 94 (citing John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 20 S. Ct. 729, 44 L. Ed. 874 (1900), and State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463 (1910)).

Gum, in turn, relied heavily on cases from Iowa, State v. Row, 81 Iowa 138, 46 N.W. 872 (1890); California, People v. Denby, 108 Cal. 54, 40 P. 1051 (1895); and Florida, Roberson v. State, 43 Fla. 156, 29 So. 535 (1901).
All of which have since been reversed by the United States Supreme Court
Gum, in fact, quoted from the Florida case the language we adopted in {*10} Rousseau. Gum, 68 W. Va. at 112. Although the law regarding this issue has not changed in West Virginia since 1910, the West Virginia Supreme Court has had occasion to address it only once since then, nearly half a century ago in State v. McCauley, 130 W. Va. 401, 43 S.E.2d 454 (1947).
By contrast, the law in the three states on which Gum most relied -- Iowa, California, and Florida -- has changed. It is now illegal in each of those states to resist even an unlawful arrest.6 Likewise, Rousseau also relied on State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 A.2d 260 (1950), for the proposition that an illegal arrest is an assault and battery, thereby justifying the use force to resist.
Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2d at 95. The Robinson court said "an illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery."
Robinson, 72 A.2d at 262. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine set Robinson aside in 1978, however, holding "Robinson no longer states the law of Maine." State v. Austin, 381 A.2d 652, 653 (Me. 1978).
Construing as a whole several sections of Maine‘s penal code, the court concluded, "The legislature has thus cast the advantage on the side of law enforcement officers, leaving the person arrested in most cases to pursue his rights, not through violent self-help, but through prompt hearing before a magistrate with prompt consideration for release on bail or personal recognizance." Austin, 381 A.2d at 655 (footnote omitted).

The Trend Away From the Common Law Rule.
In 1966, the right to resist an unlawful arrest was recognized in 45 out of 50 states.
At that time the five states that had abrogated the right were Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Delaware, California, and New Jersey. Max Hochanadel & Harry W. Stege, Note, Criminal Law: The Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest: An Out-Dated Concept?, 3 Tulsa L. J. 40, 46 (1966).
By 1983, however, 25 of those 45 states had revoked the common law rule either by statute11 or decision,12 and today, only 20 states have it in place, while resisting even an unlawful arrest is prohibited by law in 30 states. "This common law principle has suffered a devastating deluge of criticism."
State v. Thomas, 262 N.W.2d 607, 610 (Iowa 1978) (rule is "an anachronistic {*18} and dangerous concept"). Thus, the hold of the common law rule has weakened substantially in the last 30 years as jurisdiction after jurisdiction has modernized its jurisprudence to reflect the differences in criminal procedure in late twentieth century America as compared to early eighteenth century England. "The trend in this country has been away from the old rule and toward the resolution of disputes in court." Moreira, 447 N.E.2d at 1226.
Courts addressing the question have set out many cogent and compelling reasons for consigning the common law rule to the dustbin of history. For example:

While society has an interest in securing for its members the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, society also has an interest in the orderly resolution of disputes between its citizens and the government. ( United States v. Ferrone (3d Cir. 1971) 438 F.2d 381, 390.) Given such competing interests, we opt for the orderly resolution through the courts over what is essentially "street justice."13 Evans v. City of Bakersfield, 22 Cal. App. 4th 321, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406, 412 (1994).

While defendant‘s rights are no doubt violated when he is arrested and detained a matter of days or hours without probable cause, we conclude the state in removing the right to resist does not contribute to or effectuate this deprivation of liberty. In a day when police are armed with lethal and chemical weapons, and possess scientific communication and detection devices readily available for use, it has become highly unlikely that a suspect, using reasonable force, can escape from or effectively deter an arrest, whether lawful or unlawful. His accomplishment is generally limited to {*19} temporary evasion, merely rendering the officer’s task more difficult or prolonged. Thus self-help as a practical remedy is anachronistic, whatever may have been its original justification or efficacy in an era when the common law doctrine permitting resistance evolved. . . . Indeed, self-help not infrequently causes far graver consequences for both the officer and the suspect than does the unlawful arrest itself.
Accordingly, the state, in deleting the right to resist, has not actually altered or diminished the remedies available against the illegality of an arrest without probable cause; it has merely required a person to submit peacefully to the inevitable and to pursue his available remedies through the orderly judicial process. People v. Curtis, 70 Cal. 2d 347, 450 P.2d 33, 36-37, 74 Cal. Rptr. 713 (1969) (footnote and citation omitted).
Briefly stated, a far more reasonable course is to resolve an often difficult arrest legality issue in the courts rather than on often hectic and emotion laden streets. Modern urbanized society has a strong interest in encouraging orderly dispute {*20} resolution. Confronting this is the outmoded common law rule which fosters unnecessary violence in the name of an obsolete self-help concept which should be promptly discarded. Thomas, 262 N.W.2d at 611. We agree with all of these sentiments. Finally, we also associate ourselves with Judge Learned Hand, who said, The idea that you may resist peaceful arrest -- and mind you, that is all it is -- because you are in debate about whether it is lawful or not, instead of going to the authorities which can determine, seems to me not a blow for liberty but, on the contrary, a blow for attempted anarchy. 35 A.L.I. Proc. 254 (1958).

In the final analysis, the policy supporting abrogation of the common law rule is sound. That policy was well enunciated by Division Two of the Court of Appeals in State v. Westlund, 13 Wash. App. 460, 467, 536 P.2d 20, 77 A.L.R.3d 270, review denied, 85 Wash. 2d 1014 (1975), where the court said:
The arrestee’s right to freedom from arrest without excessive force that falls short of causing serious injury or death can be protected and vindicated through legal processes, whereas loss of life or serious physical injury cannot be repaired in the courtroom. However, in the vast majority of cases, as illustrated by the one at bar, resistance and intervention make matters worse, not better. They create violence where none would have otherwise existed or encourage further violence, resulting in a situation of arrest by combat. Police today are sometimes required to use lethal weapons for self-protection. If there is resistance on behalf of the person lawfully arrested and others go to his aid, the situation can degenerate to the point that what should have been a simple lawful arrest leads to serious injury or death to the arrestee, the police or innocent bystanders. Orderly and safe law enforcement demands that an arrestee not resist a lawful arrest and a bystander not intervene on his behalf unless the arrestee is actually about to be seriously injured or killed. We found these policy reasons "convincing" and adopted {*21} the holding of Westlund in State v. Holeman, 103 Wash. 2d 426, 430, 693 P.2d 89 (1985). We affirm today our statements in Holeman.

GunGoBoom
June 28, 2005, 06:02 PM
The roadside is not the place to fight the cops that is what the courts are for because you WILL lose that fight on the side of the road guaranteed

Nope, not always. Usually, but not always. I've seen plenty o' dash videos and such where officer loses fight; suspects get away; officer may or may not be hurt or dead (regardless of whether the resistance was lawful - it's usually not of course). So it's not guaranteed. But if you mean to say that it ain't real wise to fight with the po po, you got that straight.

BostonGeorge
June 28, 2005, 06:13 PM
The roadside is not the place to fight the cops that is what the courts are for because you WILL lose that fight on the side of the road guaranteed and you might even lose your life as well.

What if I'm holding Kryptonite?

The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 06:17 PM
This is why I addressed the query to LEOs. What would you do if someone came over and grabbed at your shirt through the car window, even if that person were a dignified 65 year old man?

AK-74me
June 28, 2005, 07:26 PM
I agee with MikeIsaj anytime you reach into a patrol car after an officer and it is not to pat him on the back to tell him good job, you deserve what is coming to you.

TheFederalistWeasel
June 28, 2005, 07:30 PM
This is why I addressed the query to LEOs. What would you do if someone came over and grabbed at your shirt through the car window, even if that person were a dignified 65 year old man?

The same thing I did when a punk 15-year-old kid I was dealing with nutted up and hit me while dealing with him on a juvenile domestic call. He approached me like a man ready to fight, presented himself to me stated he was going to beat my white ass black and blue and took the first swing.

I aggressively introduced him to the floor face first, cuffed him and stuffed him into the back of my patrol car, charged him with Felony Obstruction, Terroristic Threats and Acts and Simple Battery as well as Simple Assault under the states Family Violence Act.

I can take all the verbal abuse in the world and I feel that is fair game and to be expected in my line of work, it’s nothing personal, in all likelihood I’ve never met you before answering that call for service which placed us together or made that traffic stop.

But once you cross that line and place your hands on me, or my Brother and Sister officers then it becomes personal.

The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 08:25 PM
Works for me.

DMF
June 28, 2005, 09:19 PM
This is why I addressed the query to LEOs. What would you do if someone came over and grabbed at your shirt through the car window, even if that person were a dignified 65 year old man?
Sorry, but age doesn't matter, actions do, and anyone that feels like they can grab me without some legal justification to do so is most definitely NOT dignified. I don't care whether we're talking about a rabbi, priest, another cop, a nun, or a school teacher. IF the account of his actions are true and correct, he was far from dignified.

Dbl0Kevin
June 28, 2005, 09:44 PM
We don't know that is what happened. That is what the cops say happened, we don't have the whole story. I find it very doubtful that a Rosh Yeshiva in Lakewood laid hands on a cop. If it did happen this way, I do agree 100%, but we really don't know.

First of all it tells me a LOT that he STOPPED while a police traffic stop was taking place in order to interrupt the officer. That right there makes it VERY easy for me to believe that he would get ignorant and possibly reach through the window. Anyone who is arrogant enough to pull over and walk up on a police stop sounds like someone who would do what they are alleging IMO.

Just walking up to me while I'm on a stop is enough to get me peeved....if someone were to reach into my window and grab my shirt they'd get pretty much the same treatment this guy got.

And +1 to the fact that you are NOT allowed to resist an unlawful arrest. That is what court is for, you don't get to fight it out on the street.

Khaotic
June 28, 2005, 10:34 PM
2) He reached out and grabbed the officers shirt, supposedly to get his name/badge. Every PD I know of requires an officer to provide this information when asked. There was no need for him to put his hands on the officer.

Then would you be kind enough to inform members of the Baltimore City MD, Police Dept that covering their badge numbers with black electrical tape is impolitic ?

It's SOP in south baltimore to this very day.

-K

MechAg94
June 28, 2005, 11:58 PM
In this case, he should have waited until the traffic stop was done. He could have simply talked to his niece to find out what was going on.

An arrogant attitude will get you all kinds of trouble most days.

GT
June 29, 2005, 12:20 AM
This brings to mind the tasered black lady in the police video clip (the one that had me rolling around laughing for hours).

What you have here is a failure to communicate.

A person passes through life and has their world-view shaped by others reactions.
A person, a Rabbi maybe, or an African-American lady with lots of attitude may get a long way by brow-beating and/or out thinking other people. Something that many of us have not been able to do.
So something is lacking in their education.

In other words, people create their own reality and then attempt to live in it.
Sooner or later they will come up against a stronger reality. The result of this "conflict of realities" will, generally, result in the person with the weaker reality adjusting their perspective.

Now imagine a person who has rarely come up against a stronger reality and has managed to get their own way more often than not.

That's what we have here. You could call it "Don't you know who I am?" syndrome.

The patrol cop's reality is always stronger. Unless and until you are ready to die or go to jail then you should appreciate that.

Shame the old dude got this far without getting that "short, sharp shock" that we all need once in a while to reinforce our sense of humility and understanding of our position in life

G

PS. No disrespect to Rabbis or Black ladies with attitude. I just saw a parallel here and wanted to comment on it.

peacefuljeffrey
June 29, 2005, 12:32 AM
The thing that struck me most intensely about this article/issue, is that a community full of people gathered to protest something they were not there to witness and therefore had no reason to believe was the complete and factual story.

What justification does someone have for chanting that the rabbi's rights were abused when they have not heard the officer's story, have not seen whether there was video of the incident, and have heard only word-of-mouth about what went on?

They are as bad as any person who sees a short story in the newspaper about an arrested individual and "convicts" him without all the facts. Asinine. They're like a ...mob. That's all they are. Circling wagons around one of their own, the old, "He's one of us, so he can't possibly be guilty of any wrongdoing." It's similar to the, "My baby is a good boy, and couldn't possibly have beaten/raped/robbed/killed/sold drugs" syndrome...

-Jeffrey

robert garner
June 29, 2005, 01:53 AM
but I don't doubt that he didn't act like a serf either (LoL)
Alpha Male? yep, I commiserate;However I would never presume to lay hold of an officer under ANY circumstance
Coupla Alphs well they can dance an sing an even come away with some mutual respect,but I would wager neither would resort to GIVING an opening to the other. Bad JuJu!
Cops gotta deal with folks most here wouldn't dream of
existing in our universe much less in our safe an sane communities. Lets not give 'em a real hard time,after you get your ticket or whatever take it up with proper channels if ya feel you must.
Resisting an (un)lawfull arrest round here , if ya survive,
would be a real learning experience!

richyoung
June 29, 2005, 05:02 PM
FedralistWeasel, I don't know how things work in YOUR town, but where I live, (Lawton, OK) they don't can you from the force until you shoot your SECOND suspect in the back. Around here, "illegal arrest" is sometimes fatal. I appreciate being corrected on the current legal doctrine - seems the common law priciple behind resisting such an arrest is going the way of most of our rights and freedoms - welcome to the New World Order.

Werewolf
June 29, 2005, 05:36 PM
In a book I'm currently reading there is a phrase very apropo to this thread and the Rabi grabbing the LEO...

If you plan on grabbing a tiger by his @ss you better have a plan to deal with his teeth!

jcoiii
June 29, 2005, 05:46 PM
If I am about the aforementioned task and a third party tries to intervene, I will tell them to step away and I'll talk to them in just a second. This individual, whoever he may be in the community, decides to not step away, but instead to reach into my patrol car and grab me (anywhere). I would then step out of my car and we would talk. If he then continued to argue with me, I would inform him that I was placing him under arrest. If he then refused to comply, then I have the ability to use the force necessary to place him in custody. You want to claim false arrest? Fine,that's what attourneys are for. You resist, you get arrested anyway. boo hoo.

Now, someone mentioned that we don't have the Rabbi's story yet. This is true. And if he can prove that he did not resist arrest and the Officer just took him down to the ground for spite, then that officer needs some time off without pay (maybe permanently.) But Joe Rabbi does not get the privalidge of grabbing an officer and resisting arrest just because of his position in the community. And all this trouble because his neice was getting a WARNING for tailgating? Hope it's worth it.

And for you idiots out there, yes if you come to my CO/office and report me for misconduct, I will be given the day off (and maybe more) while they investigate. The majority of Officers/Departments aren't like the movies, you moron! (/end rant)

richyoung
June 30, 2005, 01:17 PM
jcoiii, I don't want to tar all LEO with one brush - some of Lawton's police and sheriff officers are the finest human beings immaginable. Having said that, here's a brief overview of what happens where I live.

1. The current county sheriff was elected due to a scandal in the previous administration. A senior deputy was prowling lover's lanes - when he would find a couple, he would hassle the male, (who was usually the driver), and send him home alone. He would then rape the girl in his patrol car. My little sister's best friend was one of the victims - she was never the same after that...
2. My little brother gets in a high school fight with the son of a local police officer. Said officer pulls my brother over on a pretext, and kicks in the driver's door. I don't mean dent - KICKED IN! (1975 Camaro with steel side impact beam, BTW)...
3. Like I said before, PO fired after shooting his SECOND suspect in the back,..this one still had the handcuffs on - another LEO showed up before he could uncuff him...
4. My best friend detained and almost arrest for the crime of walking on the sidewalk in front of Home Depot.
5. Couple of "suicides" while in custody...in supposedly suicide-proof cells.
6. A high-profile incident where the discoverer of a murder victim is charged with the murder..on the basis that the child's footprints wer on his car windows...(The victim and his daughter were best friends, and the families often car-pooled together...)

I won't even bother to detail the numerous examples of "You match the description of...." , "Your vehicle matches the description of...", "You were weaving...", or examples of local LEOs supplimenting their incomes by functioning as pimps, procurors, bodyguards, etc for Lawton's "massage"/sex industry. Ask for a badge number around here and you put your life at risk...the police situation is so bad we are on our third police chief in the last 15 years - all that seems to change is the color of the uniforms. Under these circumstances, you may not LIVE to get to contest that false arrest in court.

Tall Man
June 30, 2005, 01:55 PM
Rabbi Moshe Zev Weisberg, a prominent Orthodox leader, said the Vaad, an influential council of leaders in the community, will be involved with the issue.

"This is not an incident that involves an individual," Weisberg said. "It's an incident that involves the entire community."

The entire community? Why? Did Officer Erik Menck deny the Holocaust as he forcibly restrained Rabbi Bursztyn?

peacefuljeffrey's most recent post makes some salient points here. And yes, I hope the niece's warning was worth it.

TM

El Rojo
June 30, 2005, 02:03 PM
jcoiii, I don't want to tar all LEO with one brush - some of Lawton's police and sheriff officers are the finest human beings immaginable. Having said that, here's a brief overview of what happens where I live.So the cops are bad in your neighborhood, get a tape recorder and carry it with you in your car. When you get pulled over, start it and have it concealed in the vehicle. Be polite and don't tell them they are being recorded. If they violate your rights, you have the recording to play in court. I don't see how crooked cops in Oklahoma should play into a story of a cop in New Jersey. If we should paint all cops with a wide brush, then I guess all Mexicans are dirty, all blacks are lazy, all Jews are crooked, and all whites are racist. Why would that be offensive but labeling all cops as power hungry maniacs is not?

This point is made in general to all of the cop bashers here at THR, not anyone in particular.

richyoung
June 30, 2005, 02:56 PM
...I hope the proliferation of dash cameras in police cars will eventually solve the problems..that seems to be the ultimate "weed out the bad apples" tool. As far as tape recordes go, it gets over 100 in the summer here - winters it can get as low as 10 below zero sometime...the tapes don't live long in such an environment - perhaps if someone comes out with an affordable digital recorder...

Mad Man
June 30, 2005, 04:24 PM
400th post!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, cop, or judge.


Wrong. It is legal to resist a false arest anywhere in the United States, courtesy of the Supreme Court.



I don't know about other states, but in Colorado it seams that you can be charged with obstruction for resisting false arrest:



18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer. (http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/29898/2c983/2c9e7/2ca23)

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2) (http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/29898/2c983/2c9e7/2ca09).

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.


I don't know why the section about "acting in an illegal manner" doesn't mention other rescue workers.

In any case, it seems the officer did the right thing. But then again, I wasn't there, I don't have all the facts, I've only read the biased media account, blah blah blah.

DT Guy
June 30, 2005, 04:40 PM
If this poor officer had only had a Taser (TM) we could probably have avoided all this....



:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


Larry

(Who, when he was an LEO, NEVER let anyone lay hands on him-by direct order of his Chief.)

Mad Man
June 30, 2005, 08:14 PM
richyoung wrote:

I hope the proliferation of dash cameras in police cars will eventually solve the problems.


http://reason.com/brickbats/bb-2005.shtml


Candid Cop Camera (6/28)

John Bell took a photograph of a Hudson, Ohio, police cruiser being towed out of mud. David Devore, the police officer whose u-turn put the car into the mud, apparently didn't appreciate the move. And Devore's cruiser camera captured the exchange. "Camera and film now. I'm not going to ask you again. I'll give you the count of three or I can make your life a living hell. You made the decision, I'll give you that choice," he told Bell. Then he took the memory card from Bell's digital camera and erased the image (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4544803/detail.html). Devore was suspended for one day for his action. But Bell says that isn't enough. He has sued Devore and the city claiming he was stopped without probable cause, wrongfully detained, verbally abused and deprived of his property.

Mad Man
June 30, 2005, 08:20 PM
El Rojo wrote:

So the cops are bad in your neighborhood, get a tape recorder and carry it with you in your car. When you get pulled over, start it and have it concealed in the vehicle. Be polite and don't tell them they are being recorded. If they violate your rights, you have the recording to play in court.




http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/25-4/lib-twocourt.html



Fall 2001

Massachusetts court upholds conviction over recording of conversation

A motorist who secretly tape recorded a confrontation with police officers broke a state law that strictly forbids such recordings, the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston ruled on July 13.

The state law "makes no exception for a motorist who, having been stopped by police officers, surreptitiously tape records the encounter," wrote Justice John M. Greaney.

A dissent by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall warned of the implications for news reporters.

The ruling "threatens the ability of the press -- print and electronic -- to perform its constitutional role of watchdog," Marshall wrote. "If the statute reaches actions by police officials acting in their public capacities in the plain view of the public, the legitimate news gathering of the media is most assuredly implicated."

Marshall compared the case to the videotaped police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1991. If the beating had occurred in Massachusetts, the man who secretly videotaped the police misconduct would have been indicted, Marshall wrote.

The Massachusetts case began as a routine traffic stop. Abington police officers stopped Michael Hyde on Oct. 26, 1998, because his Porsche had a loud exhaust system and an unlit license plate. The stop quickly turned confrontational, with Hyde and the officers cursing and the officers asking Hyde whether he had any cocaine in the car. The officers let Hyde go without issuing any traffic citations or charging Hyde with a crime.

Hyde, who recorded the confrontation with a hand-held tape recorder, filed a complaint of unfair treatment against the officers. They, in turn, brought criminal charges against Hyde for violating the state's wiretapping law. (Commonwealth v. Hyde)


It's nice to know that at least one judge was concerned about the "implications for news reporters."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aervulEx104o&refer=us


Police Need Not Say Why Arrest Made: U.S. High Court Overview

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Police officers don't have to give a reason at the time they arrest someone, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a ruling that shields officers from false-arrest lawsuits.

The justices, voting 8-0, threw out a suit against Washington state police officers who stopped a motorist and then told him he was being arrested for tape-recording their conversation. Although the recording was legal, the high court said the arrest was valid because the man could have been arrested instead for impersonating a police officer.

In an opinion for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the officers didn't have to provide a reason for arresting the man at all, as long as they had probable cause to do so.

``While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required,'' Scalia wrote.

odysseus
June 30, 2005, 08:39 PM
You have very serious allegations here. Very serious. You should not be writing this here, but with the state police or Federal officers. You have rape and RICO here... sounds like a movie from the 70's I have seen or something. It's hard to believe so there better be some facts.



1. The current county sheriff was elected due to a scandal in the previous administration. A senior deputy was prowling lover's lanes - when he would find a couple, he would hassle the male, (who was usually the driver), and send him home alone. He would then rape the girl in his patrol car. My little sister's best friend was one of the victims - she was never the same after that...
2. My little brother gets in a high school fight with the son of a local police officer. Said officer pulls my brother over on a pretext, and kicks in the driver's door. I don't mean dent - KICKED IN! (1975 Camaro with steel side impact beam, BTW)...
3. Like I said before, PO fired after shooting his SECOND suspect in the back,..this one still had the handcuffs on - another LEO showed up before he could uncuff him...
4. My best friend detained and almost arrest for the crime of walking on the sidewalk in front of Home Depot.
5. Couple of "suicides" while in custody...in supposedly suicide-proof cells.
6. A high-profile incident where the discoverer of a murder victim is charged with the murder..on the basis that the child's footprints wer on his car windows...(The victim and his daughter were best friends, and the families often car-pooled together...)

I won't even bother to detail the numerous examples of "You match the description of...." , "Your vehicle matches the description of...", "You were weaving...", or examples of local LEOs supplimenting their incomes by functioning as pimps, procurors, bodyguards, etc for Lawton's "massage"/sex industry. Ask for a badge number around here and you put your life at risk...the police situation is so bad we are on our third police chief in the last 15 years - all that seems to change is the color of the uniforms. Under these circumstances, you may not LIVE to get to contest that false arrest in court.

BostonGeorge
July 1, 2005, 12:00 AM
Massachusetts court upholds conviction over recording of conversation

A motorist who secretly tape recorded a confrontation with police officers broke a state law that strictly forbids such recordings, the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston ruled on July 13.

That case was a travesty. The police tore up the entire interior of the man's Porche looking for cocaine that wasn't there. When he tried to sue for civil rights violations, they charged him with illegal wiretap. Fortunatly for the rest of you it's only a state law. If you want to record a traffic stop here, you have to tell the officers they're being reocorded. Talking after the notice is considered implied consent, they can either walk away, or be recorded.

HonorsDaddy
July 1, 2005, 11:14 AM
This is why I addressed the query to LEOs. What would you do if someone came over and grabbed at your shirt through the car window, even if that person were a dignified 65 year old man?

Sorry - 65 year old man or not, LEO or not, you reach your hands inside a car window and place them on someone who didnt invite the contact, and you should count yourself lucky if you survive.

This isnt even remotely a case of a LEO overstepping his authority. Its a case of a man expecting respect due to his age and position, while at the same time not respecting others. (Art's Grammaw removed a dubious statement.)

HonorsDaddy
July 1, 2005, 11:52 AM
I dont live in Boston, George.

Reach into someone's car in Texas after you've been told to step back and you WILL get a whuppin'.

(Art's Grammaw did some moppin'...)

richyoung
July 1, 2005, 12:52 PM
You have very serious allegations here. Very serious. You should not be writing this here, but with the state police or Federal officers. You have rape and RICO here... sounds like a movie from the 70's I have seen or something. It's hard to believe so there better be some facts.

The deputy rapist was eventually caught - but the investigation/testimony really traumatized the victims. As I said, this, as well as a few other scandals, swept the current sheriff, Kenney Stradley, into office - (a fine man BTW - his wife is a good person too.) The only recent county sheriff office impropriety involved a deputy who allegedly prevented his son from being charged with child abuse about 7 years ago - I don't know how that one turned out. Sherif Stradley was once a Lawton police officer - he was injured in the line of duty and medically retired. The "Lover's Lane Rapist" scandal was a major factor in his defeating the incumbent for the positon in either 89 or 90 - I can't remember. Ask anyone who has lived here a while - the county and Lawton DAs, city council, county commish, some of the judges (we JUST had one forced to resign - got caught with a "ghost employee" on the payroll & charging personal stuff to his official credit card...), coounty and city LEos and the BBB - all thick as thieves here...

Art Eatman
July 1, 2005, 08:35 PM
Seems to me the best way to deal with hostile "gonna do" stuff in somebody's post is to either ignore it or tell one of us high-paid Mods...

:), Art

peacefuljeffrey
July 1, 2005, 09:28 PM
jcoiii wrote:
Now, someone mentioned that we don't have the Rabbi's story yet. This is true. And if he can prove that he did not resist arrest and the Officer just took him down to the ground for spite, then that officer needs some time off without pay (maybe permanently.) But Joe Rabbi does not get the privalidge of grabbing an officer and resisting arrest just because of his position in the community. And all this trouble because his neice was getting a WARNING for tailgating? Hope it's worth it.

Oh, I see, we have to prove something that simply cannot be proved in order to hold a police officer who did wrong accountable?

How, exactly, would one prove after the fact that one "did not resist arrest" before being taken to the ground by an officer? Shall we use a crystal ball to see into the past? :rolleyes: :mad:


And for you idiots out there, yes if you come to my CO/office and report me for misconduct, I will be given the day off (and maybe more) while they investigate. The majority of Officers/Departments aren't like the movies, you moron! (/end rant)
__________________
jc

Your attitude disgusts me. You say you're a cop? And your attitude is that anyone who would report you for misconduct is an "idiot"?

No wonder so many people hate and disrespect pi- er, cops. :fire:

-Jeffrey

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs, what would you have done?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!