This is just so wrong...
You know, I avoid these types of threads, at least I REALLY try to, but I just can't take it anymore. This response will be long, sorry. Also, in fairness and full disclosure I should say that I was the recipient of a roadside beating by four sherriff's deputies at the age of 19. My opinions are influenced by the personal interactions I have had with LEO's including those four.
The difference in the address (from article) was apartment A and B. We're not talking about down the street here. We're talking 30 or 40 feet left right or up and down. Also I believe the marine was outside when the deputy arrived. The article said his wife and child came outside to see him tasered. It also said the deputy explained why he was there and why he was asking for compliance. He also gave a warning as to what he would do.
Really, this means nothing. This was a consentual encounter. PC did not exist, neither did reasonable suspicion. The deputy had no authority at any point from what I read to make it anything beyond a consentual encounter. More on that in a sec.
The department policy as given in the longer article basicly was to use the taser before resorting to hands on control. The PC for using the taser in this case was that the subject was refusing to comply with being detained until things were sorted out. He was at what might be a crime scene, 911 calls usually have some basis in fact even when it turns out to not be a crime. A basic "Terry stop", I.D. and question, was in order and I believe the deputy had the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify it.
And you believe wrong. First of all I am sick and tired of "Terry stop" being the universal crutch for what I call PPP - P*** Poor Policing. Rather than actually DO their jobs and investigate things it's "roll up, hands up, shut up, put up" while they decide why they are even there.
At best it's horrificly bad PR at worst(this case) it's criminal. At any rate Terry DOES NOT EVEN APPLY in this case because it was an anonymous 911 call. The deputy did not personally observe anything that indicated reasonable suspicion OF A CRIME. There must actually be a crime you are suspected of. "Domestic disturbance" is not a crime. Domestic violence may well be, but you can't stretch a verbal argument that you didn't personally witness into anything beyond a consentual "what's going on" encounter.
Remember reasonable suspicion is based on what the deputy knew at the time. The marine threw his ID at the deputy's feet which depending on his attitude at the time could have been interprited as threatening to the officer (prelude to attack). The deputy's backup didn't arrive until after the taser was used. In my county, there may be ten or twenty minutes lag time on the second deputy arriving.
Ok, what did the deputy know? He knew "anonymous" called 911 to report loud arguing, a "domestic disturbance", at an apparrently not well described location. There was no actual crime reported. There was no description of a suspect. Since
Florida vs. J.L. is the authority on anonymous 911 calls let's look a what it requires:
Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 .
Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop.
The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.
Clearly there was NO assertion of a crime here, MUCH LESS a description of the suspect. Reasonable suspicion of CRIME could not be established therefore this was a consentual encounter.
It's very easy for the marine to say to the reporter, "I wasn't doing nuthin and the dude just shot me with the taser. That guy's out of control". Reporter will print it. The department is going to say, "the matter is under investigation and we will reserve comment until the investigation is complete". I doubt anyone witnessed the actual attempt to detain and interview the marine. His wife only came out as he was being tased. Does anyone know what his disposition was when the deputy asked him to stay put and wait for him to figure out what was up. What if he said "I ain't doin nuthin pig". Or "kiss my ....". I'm not saying that's what happened, just what if.
Indeed "what if?", what if he was harrassed by a different JBT previously? And I'm not lightly tossing that out there either, there can be no question of it's application in this case.
The thing is, and this is another easy out crutch for LEO's, INNOCENT PEOPLE PROCLAIM THEIR INNOCENCE! It's easy for LEO's to say "what are we supposed to do believe every thug who says 'It wudn't me'?" It's a crutch for poor police work. What you're supposed to do is use your eye's, your ears, and your brain before resorting to your nightstick. If he did as you suggested and "arms up, shut-up, put up" and then sued you afterward, you would be the first one in line saying "he never said he was innocent your honor".
I've already admitted that I may indeed be guilty of circling the wagons at the onset of this thread. I felt like based on what was originally offered in print the deputy was getting a raw deal. I still think his department is letting him down. Some remedial training is in order, maybe a suspension too. But forced resignation is in my opinion just the administration giving way to political pressure. The marine is certainly due a public apology, and compensation. However I would imagine that his marine training exposed him to mush worse treatment than the 5 seconds with the taser. A multimillion dollar lawsuit is not in order although it will probably happen and the County attorney will probably offer a very big settlement to stay out of court.
I think that there are several people who have posted here who really do hate police of any kind and authority of any kind. If you are the victim of a crime, do you want an officer to come to investigate it that is in control and investigates or one that lets everybody say, "hey ain't me" and walk off. Hindsight being 20/20, it's very easy to be indignant when you KNOW a mistake was made. Not so easy to know if it's gonna be a mistake when your the guy on the spot. There are good officers out there, bad ones too. It's always been that way and always will. I would suggest to any of those who feel like all officers are just flexing their badge and gun should look into local ride along programs and see what it's really like before coming to judgement.
That's really what it ALWAYS comes down to isn't it, circling the wagons. The blue wall of silence, us vs. them. It sickens me. I don't hate cops in general, but I don't respect them either because 95% of them don't deserve it. Maybe the deputy is getting a raw deal? What I know for sure 100% is that that marine did get a raw deal. No doubt about it.
You know, I've been on ride alongs as part of the 3 year political/legal war I had with local sherriffs after my roadside attack. It was less than cordial to be be sure. What those and the citizens academy taught me is that this pervasive "LEO god complex" is taught in basic LEO academy. Prospective LEO's are shown graphic pictures of "cops who trusted John Q. Subject", given lecture after lecture about the bad things that happen to cops who let Mr. or mrs. citizen-subject inside their 21 foot circle of domination without due attention. In essence cops are "taught" to be bad cops. That's why the younger greener ones are the worst, the Academy brainwashing hasn't had time to wear off yet.
I'll state agian, even with all I've been through I don't hate cops. If this situation is to ever get better though the onus is law eforcement to clean it's own house. John Q.
CITIZEN has had all he can take.
And DV, this is not personally directed at you or anyone else. I intend you no disrespect. Your's was just the straw thst broke the camel's back.
I.C.
The problem is that the cop, upon discovering the mistake, continued to basically beat the citizen into submission. Despite knowing he had the wrong guy, he arrested the guy for non-compliance of ... what? We are not subjects, we are citizens. Wrongful arrest wrecks a person's legal future; the Marine had the right to insist "I'm not who you're looking for ... DON'T GO THERE." The cop went there anyway - and kept going when he knew he was wrong. 