It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mblahnikluver
What an idiot! Did he think he was in a Hollywood movie and he would look all cool tasing from the car?! He should be fired and charged. He was extremely careless! The guy was on a bike for heavens sake get out and run!
"I think we want to make sure we'll have all the facts before we release anything," said Kristen Perezluha, an FDLE spokeswoman.
Perezluha said investigators are still working to identify the man who was killed.
She would not release a description of the victim.
"We are not ready to release (a description). But if we reach a point that we need to, we will definitely let you know," Perezluha said. "It might change (today) where we have either been able to identify him or we need to ask for help identifying him."
Facts never stood in the way of a sheriff or prosecutor getting in front of the cameras when a perp commits a crime. Reporters were crawling all over each other to get the story about a snapping turtle getting captured and killed. This forum wanted the turtle killer prosecuted and no punishment was good enough.
A young man is tased from a moving squad and then ran over, and there is utter silence. No reporting. No family. No statements, and people think it is the PNJ posse who has the problem. They actually think additional facts will somehow rationalize this tragedy.
Some will frame this as a law and order issue. Others will frame it as a racial issue. Some will frame it as a training issue. However,when this story sits fallow for going on three days, I will frame this as symptomatic of a completely broken system where the citizens of this country have lost control of the standing army we created as sheep who have lost our way.
What if this guy was innocent of what he would have been charged for.
The policeman should be treated as any other citizen in this situation and fry. Well, time for the badge kissers to come out and completely derail this thread.
"42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides:
‘Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.'"(419)
"Section 1982, which first entered our jurisprudence as 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Act of Apr. 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, provides:
‘All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.'
"This provision was enacted as a means to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment's proclamation that ‘[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' See Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 437 -438 (1968). ‘As its text reveals, the Thirteenth [409 U.S. 418, 422] Amendment `is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883); see Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 105 (1971); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., supra, at 437-440; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207, 216 , 218 (1905). Thus, it cannot be doubted that the power vested in Congress to enforce this Amendment includes the power to enact laws of nationwide application." (421-22)
"The situation is wholly different, however, with respect to 1983. Unlike 1982, which derives from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1983 has its roots in 1 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, Act of Apr. 20, 1871, 1, 17 Stat. 13. This distinction has great significance, for unlike the 1866 Act, which was passed as a means to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment, the primary purpose of the 1871 Act was ‘to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.'" (423)
23. Griffin v. Breckenridge 403 U.S. 88 (1971): Negroes from Mississippi were stopped on the road and beaten severely. District and Circuit courts rulings were reversed. Right of negroes to sue under federal law upheld. Cites from the case:
"Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental interference. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 -631; id., at 642-644 (concurring opinion); United States [403 U.S. 88, 106] v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 -760 and n. 17; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97 ; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79-80; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44, 48-49; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (Taney, C.J., dissenting). The ‘right to pass freely from State to State' has been explicitly recognized as ‘among the rights and privileges of National citizenship.' Twining v. New Jersey, supra, at 97. That right, like other rights of national citizenship, is within the power of Congress to protect by appropriate legislation." (105-6)
As many as 40 percent of all motor vehicle police pursuits end in collisions  and some of these result in nearly 300 deaths each year of police officers, offenders, or innocent third party individuals.  Because many police pursuits result in accidents and injuries, agencies and officers become subjects of civil lawsuits. Initiated in state or federal courts, these lawsuits have resulted cumulatively in case law that directs law enforcement agencies to develop pursuit policies. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that has changed the threshold of negligence before an agency or officer can be held liable, which will impact police agencies across the United States. findarticles.com...
Local authorities have finally identified the man who died after they stunned him with a taser Friday afternoon. Panama City police and Bay County Sheriff's deputies were conducting a joint drug operation, when they pulled a suspect car at turtle lake apartments. Police have identified the man as 38 year old Rickey R. Massey, of Georgia.
They say he appeared to swallow some drugs he was carrying to keep them from officers and he was tased when he resisted.
Massey later died in a local hospital, but it was unclear if the taser caused his death.
Massey with an x26 taser in what's known as a drive stun.
Bay County Sheriff’s deputy Lt. David Baldwin said, "It's touched to someone's body. It can be used in a major muscle area to help control that person in the time that they are resisting."
Almost immediately after the shock. Massey suffered some type of medical distress.
Paramedics took him to a local hospital, where he later died.
Authorities Monday released the identity of the teenager killed early Saturday as he fled a police officer.
Victor Demarius Steen of Pensacola, 17, died after he was struck by a Pensacola police cruiser, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement said.
Investigators recovered a cellular phone at the scene and used it to contact one of Steen's family members, who was able to identify him.
Members of Steen's family called a news conference for this afternoon to discuss the incident.
Meanwhile, patrolman Jerald Ard, 35, who ran over Steen, was described by a police union lawyer as distraught after the incident.
The Pensacola Police Department revised its Taser policy Friday in the wake of an Oct. 3 pursuit that ended with the death of Pensacola teenager.
Assistant Chief Chip Simmons sent a memo saying officers are not allowed to fire their stun guns out of or into moving vehicles.
Simmons' memo says that officers are expected to act safely when dealing with suspects who resist and use only "the amount of force reasonable and necessary to deal with the situation."
"While shooting a Taser from a moving vehicle is not specifically prohibited, such use is not consistent with this standard," it reads.
By law, a bicycle is a moving vehicle, meaning an officer will not be allowed to fire a Taser at someone riding a bicycle.