Video of Cop Tasing Unresponsive Diabetic "I didn't know he was a freakin' diabetic!"

reply to post by HandyDandy


Your own source -

The Miranda Warning is used to inform a suspect of his or her right to remain silent after being placed under arrest

and even then only if the person arrested will be asked guilt seeking questions...

A traffic stop / motor vehicle accident is NOT an arrest.
Requesting pedigree information does NOT amount to guilt seeking questions.
Asking the drivers about what they drank / took is NOT an interrogation.

try again..

reply to post by Xcathdra


What part of Miranda Warning /= Miranda Rights do you not understand?

If my rights only began when you give me my warning and arrest me, how can I give up those rights when you haven't even warned me yet or arrested me?

Warning /= Rights

Warning is you telling me of my rights that are already present.

Try again.

If I Am Not Under Arrest, Do I Have To Answer A Police Officer's Questions?

By: LawInfo

No. Unless you are placed under arrest you are free to leave at any time. However, if a police officer stops you while you are walking, and asks you for identification, it is probably in your best interest to provide such information. The courts have allowed police officers to detain people for extended periods of time in an effort to determine the identity of the individual.

resources.lawinfo.com...

The only question I must answer is of my identity.



Why is this so hard for a cop to understand? I wonder......

The Right to Remain Silent

We have all heard the sentence “you have the right to remain silent” a thousand times on TV and in movies. Some of us have heard it in person during an arrest. Police officers—not just those on TV—are required to read you your rights any time you are being arrested. But your right to remain silent extends before an arrest, as well. Any time you talk to the police, you have the right to counsel.

www.tombruno.com...

Maybe this little quote from a lawyer will show Xcathdra the truth of the matter?

reply to post by HandyDandy

Why is this so hard for a cop to understand? I wonder......

because the same logic pathways permit them to find it acceptable or within protocol to taze an unresponsive diabetic.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

Why is this so hard for a cop to understand? I wonder......

because the same logic pathways permit them to find it acceptable or within protocol to taze an unresponsive diabetic.

I know, right....

The fact that I had to show a cop that I have the right to remain silent (before he tells me of this right) without being tazed is alarming.

Also what is alarming is that he is justifying tazing into submission.

And this cop said he is a veteran of at least a decade........

meh nevermind.. not worth the time to argue with intentional ignorance.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
meh nevermind.. not worth the time to argue with intentional ignorance.

edit on 31-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

What a cop-out.

Please site the law (even any law) that states I must answer your silly questions without an attorney present and I'll drop it.

But, as of now, you are 5 citations to 0 in my favor.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
What a cop-out.

Not at all.. Ive provided you and others with the info, yet you ignore it simply because you want to argue for arguments sake. Hence willfull ignorance...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please site the law (even any law) that states I must answer your silly questions without an attorney present and I'll drop it.

Off the top of my head and in general depending on state -

* - Failure to provide identification to law enforcement
* - Failure to identify as a witness
* - Concealing an offense
* - Obstruction
* - Hindering prosecution
* - Perjury
* - False declarations
* - False Affidavits
* - False Reports
* - False impersonation (not of emergency services)
* - Failure to obey lawful command
* - Resisting / interfering with a lawful detention / stop / arrest.
etc etc etc....

Specifically -

Refusal to identify as a witness.
575.190. 1. A person commits the crime of refusal to identify as a witness if, knowing he has witnessed any portion of a crime, or of any other incident resulting in physical injury or substantial property damage, upon demand by a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties, he refuses to report or gives a false report of his name and present address to such officer.

2. Refusal to identify as a witness is a class C misdemeanor.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Let me expand on this since it seems to be missed by people... If you are the target of a criminal investigation, you are arrested and you are being asked guilt seeking questions, you can refuse and ask for a lawyer.

Absent the above its incumbent to cooperate with investigations if you have information that has a direct bearing on the investigation itself. Information you have that can be used to clarify / determine guilt / innocence etc must be turned over. Not because Law Enforcement says so but because every person in this country has the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and speedy trial, access to all information / evidence collected during an investigation and the right to face their accusers and to cross examine them on the stand.

This leads to, and again in general -

A Material Witness Warrant -

A material witness is a person who is presumed to have information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution which is critical to the outcome of the case or trial. Thus, the court must make every reasonable effort to allow such a witness to testify, including a continuance (delay in a trial) to accommodate him/her if late or temporarily unavailable.

Under a 1984 federal statute, prosecutors may seek an arrest warrant if a potential witness's testimony is "material" to a criminal proceeding and the individual is likely to flee. A judge must approve the warrant, and the witness is entitled to a bond hearing and a court-appointed attorney. The limit of the bond amount varies by jurisdiction and the judge's discretion. Federal law requires that authorities get a judicial officer's permission to hold a material witness for any length of time. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until trial testimony or the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Back to the Topic at hand and why the above info applies and how your argument of miranda and refusal to provide info is flawed and wrong in this case topic-

A motor vehicle accident is not automatically criminal. Law Enforcement is required by law to respond and investigate, however, property damage between 2 parties in this manner is by defintion civil in nature. Exceptions will be C and I, DWI/DUI/DWR/DWS, no proof of insurance, to fast for conditions etc etc etc.

The above falls under Implied Consent Laws which have been upheld by the US Supreme Court as a NON violationion of a persons 4th amendment / 5th amendment.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
But, as of now, you are 5 citations to 0 in my favor.

My job is not a popularity contest for starters.. Secondly a wrong personal opinion based on ignorance of the law and how its applied, which in tuurn is supported by others who are just as ignorant on the law and star your posts, does not make you right.

You and others really should research the information and legalities involved and understand the difference between the function of law enforcement and a lawyer, which branch each work for, what setting is appropriate to make an argument along the lines you are arguing and who the ultimate authority is on an answer.

You also need to understand that lawyers, both defense and prosecution, are officers of the court. A defense attorney who advises a client to break the law can be charged as well.

Finally -
Hiibel vs. State of Nevada

The U.S. Supreme Court decision expands the right of police to detain and obtain information from individuals without arresting them. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “,officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.”,

The U.S. Supreme Court had been asked to rule that forcing a person to provide a name violated the person’,s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

Justice Kennedy stated that Mr. Hiibel did not explain how disclosing his name could be used against him.

Justice Kennedy was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquest and Justices Sandra Day O’,Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The ruling by the US Supreme Court says the very thing you are saying you dont have to do - supply basic pedigree information to law enforcement during an investigation, like a traffic stop or traffic accident.

Care to clarify your false accusations / assumptions in your post here -
Your assumption and lie

You really need to move past the immature habbit of trying to make an argument by purposely ignoring what people state only to fill in the blanks you ignored by interjecting your own wrong opinion as something they said. You and Honor both have a bad habbit of doing so and it needs to stop. If thats the only manner in which you guys can make your arguments then I completely understand why you both hold the views you do and why you choose willfull ignornace over facts.

reply to post by Xcathdra

if it weren't so garsh darn funny, i would have left your nonsense behind long ago.
however, since you INSIST on dragging me (by name) into your post to someone else, (totally classless & clueless by the way), then i must agree ...

it needs to stop

yes it does.

your failed attempts to put the cart before the horse won't fly with many.
miranda NEVER applies until after you're placed under arrest.

fishing expeditions are quite popular ON and off duty for officers of the law.
should you choose to bite their hook, miranda won't apply anyway because you bit it, hook, line and sinker.

for those who are getting foggy about this, just remember one thing ... be polite and ask for your attorney to be present, end of story.
Material Witness --> for those paying attention, oh for the last 50yrs or so, our officials have taught us well how to rectify such an intrusion ... how you may ask ??
"your honor, i have no recollection of ______"
it works, use it at your discretion.


ETA: uh, speaking of memories ... i saw a thread earlier and tried to absorb the situation so i could comment, however, it is sooooo rattling that i cannot finish reading the story.
[this is about the court filing, the incident happened in May, although i missed it then]

Higgins is now suing the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and Officer Webb on behalf of the child in Santa Fe County Court,

from the rt.com link listed in OP of linked thread.

XCathdra, i expect you'll be on that thread as well so, since i like my membership, i likely won't be there.
Cop tazes a 10yr old ... why ?
in the court complaint, it's stated he said: 'Let me show you what happens to people who do not listen to the police.' ... ... a 10 yr old child
www.abovetopsecret.com...

anyone besides me ever notice that an anagram of cops is ... c pos

reply to post by Honor93


Thank you for proving my point that you ignore the facts and substitute it with your own wrong info.

As for the other thread what about it? Are you incapable of having a conversation without dragging issues from one thread to another?

What part of the Supreme Court ruling is confusing you? Its pretty straight forward and clear on what info a person is required to show law enforcement during non arrest situations.

like car accidents..

reply to post by Xcathdra


Um...I already stated I had to identify myself. That is it. Your diatribe just reinforced this. Beyond that I can remain silent until my attorney is present.

I may eventually have to answer these questions....but I said without my attorney present.

Show me ONE law that states I must answer anything other than my identity without my attorney present.

Willfull ignorance indeed.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What part of the Supreme Court ruling is confusing you? Its pretty straight forward and clear on what info a person is required to show law enforcement during non arrest situations.

like car accidents..

Yup...it's pretty clear. Identification, Identification, Identification. That's it.

I don't have to answer any more of your questions without my attorney present (even if I'm a material witness). Again...why can't you understand this? Every site and/or lawyer I have spoken to/read has said this. Only a cop thinks differently. Why?

Try to make me comply by proding me and answer anything other than my ID (without my attorney present) and I will own YOUR city as well.

Got it yet? Just in case....here's another source: That's what? 6 to 0 now? And no, it's not a popularity contest....it's proving what you say with back-up information.

2. Never Talk To A Police Officer - The only questions you need to answer is your name, address, date of birth, sometimes your social security number but NOTHING else! Instead of telling the police officer who you are, give him your drivers license or your I.D. card. All the information the police officer needs to know about you, can be found on your i.d. card or drivers license. Don't volunteer any information to a police officer, if the cop ask you a question politely ask him "Am I free to go?" If he says yes then leave, if he says no then say I'm Going to Remain Silent.

3. I'm Going to Remain Silence - The Supreme Court says you should never talk to a police officer without an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled you must speak up and SAY to the police officer "I'm going to remain silent" and then keep your mouth shut! How can you be falsely accused and charged with a crime, if you don't say anything? Never talk to a police officer, anything you say or do can and will be used against you at any time by the police.

www.policecrimes.com...

reply to post by HandyDandy


and you would be wrong while moving the goal posts.. First you argue in correctly a person can refuse to speak to the police.. You demand laws where its required.. I provide them and now its some other excuse you give because you got called out.

What you stated -

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please site the law (even any law) that states I must answer your silly questions without an attorney present and I'll drop it.

Feel free to highlight where you stated ID in that sentence. From the start ive stated the response deals with the topic, yet again you ignore it.

As I stated... this is not worth my time anymore since its obvious your only arguing for arguments sake. The info is there, you are wrong.. As for your other failed attempt with the lawyer portion you need to learn how the system works. What part of a zealous defense in favor of their client confuses you? Their job is to ensure the best possible outcome, and if that means attacking an action that is legal, arguing its not, doesnt mean the law / ruling is invalid.

As for your hillariously dramatic comment about owning the city that would be where failure to idenbtify as a witness, failing to provide information about what occured if you are a third party beyond just your basic info. You are required by LAW to identify and provide material information if you are a witness to a crime involving injuries.. Again a part you ignored. People are required by law to comply during traffic stops / accident investigations. Again something you are ignoring.

So no, you and your lawyer wont own the city... No matter how many times you attempt to move the goal post every time your proven wrong.

Get it yet?



Have a good day.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What you stated -

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please site the law (even any law) that states I must answer your silly questions without an attorney present and I'll drop it.

Feel free to highlight where you stated ID in that sentence. From the start ive stated the response deals with the topic, yet again you ignore it.

Funny how you quote my sentence that doesn't have the ID part but ALL along I have stated I had to show my ID.

Should I quote the rest of my posts?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
The only question I must answer is of my identity.

I guess you missed this one prior to the one you quoted?

Willful Ignorance indeed.

And you keep saying I'm not worth your time but yet you still keep coming back to be shown again and again that I only need show my ID and/or state my identification AND THAT IS IT!!!!!!!!!! Yes...I eventually have to answer your silly questions....but with my lawyer present and I don't even have to speak at all.




Have a good day tazering the elderly, kids, small girls, etc.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
First you argue in correctly a person can refuse to speak to the police.

One CAN refuse to talk to the police. People have made printed cards just for this to hand to the officer. They usually read something along the lines of "my name is so and so and I refuse to talk to you without my attorney present because I fear for my life around you and I refuse a search of my person and property". With handing an officer an ID and this card I can theoretically not have to say a word to him/her without being tazed.

reply to post by HandyDandy

reply to post by Xcathdra


How does an incapacitated person in a car wreck show you a license?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

How does an incapacitated person in a car wreck show you a license?

CJ

That's the crux of the matter.

This particular officer thought that the unresponsiveness was a sign of being unruly (there's that diagnosis that cop's aren't allowed to perform Xcath) and decided to taze him into submission.

And Xcathdra says it is a "tough call".

And the only other poster defending this officer's actions was Domo1 who stated that the kid may have been rummaging around and not responding to the officer. Well, to that, I say, maybe the kid was rummaging around for his Miranda Rights card. Does he need tazed for that too?

reply to post by Xcathdra

is required to show law enforcement

hmmmmm, required to "show" ??
what was that you said above ?? oh yeah ...

you ignore the facts and substitute it with your own wrong info

yeppers, you are awfully good at that technique, that's for sure.

what about the SC ruling applies here ?
identifying onself doesn't even involve an official ID of any kind so what's your point ?
i can tell you i'm Cindy Lauper ... unless you are placing me under arrest, that'd be up to you to prove otherwise before you can arrest or prosecute those things you like to flaunt as "authority".

so, what again about identifying onself (when coherent - as this man wasn't) applies here ?
what part of miranda applies here ? he wasn't under arrest when he was tazed.

perhaps, if you were more in line with the topic of this thread, maybe your reasoning would apply. in this particular case, it's nonsense.

reply to post by HandyDandy

People have made printed cards just for this to hand to the officer

not just people, but organizations/associations have as well. if you are a gun owner, USCCA is well worth the investment.