Who's at fault? Police or Pastor?

[JeniferTS]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

[kalina]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

I really do feel for the pastor, but as a sensible person, I would've just let the police search my car to avoid any trouble. Maybe the pastor was hiding something is my gut feeling. What the police did to him was totally wrong.

[dan_drade]

They probably had reason to belive there was a 10 year old boy in the trunk.

[kalina]

They probably had reason to belive there was a 10 year old boy in the trunk.

No, no that would be a Catholic priest! :)
Baptist pastors are the marrying type :)

[dan_drade]

They probably had reason to belive there was a 10 year old boy in the trunk.

No, no that would be a Catholic priest! :)
Baptist pastors are the marrying type :)

LOL, its all the same.

[bte]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

If there was nothing in the car, then the pastor should have let the police search the car. At the same time, the police officer should have said "Sir we have reason to believe that there is contraband in your car. Can you get out of the vehicle." Or something to that effect. I don't think breaking the window and tasering the guy is an effective way to get someone out of the car.

[freak]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

If there was nothing in the car, then the pastor should have let the police search the car. At the same time, the police officer should have said "Sir we have reason to believe that there is contraband in your car. Can you get out of the vehicle." Or something to that effect. I don't think breaking the window and tasering the guy is an effective way to get someone out of the car.

NO!!! he should not have give up his rights, this was an illegal search, the police were braking the law.
When the DPS come to the location they also ask for the dog to come back out and the BP refused again, right there they DPS should have released the man. It looks as if the stop was random and they were too stubborn to admit they were wrong in the stop.
This is going to be a civil rights lawsuit, an abuse of authority and use of excessive force. The police should be brought up on Felony assault charges.

Just because you are not doing anything wrong doesn't mean you have to forfeit your rights. Today you let them search your car, tomorrow what is next? They come to your house and if you don't let them in they make up some false accusations and arrest you anyway.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

[2009AD]

[quote="bte"][quote=JeniferTS]Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

Kind of weird that Border Patrol agents are doing vehicle checks 50 miles north of the U.S-Mexico border.

Here's Anderson's interview with foxnews.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GftMwZj_C3o

[dan_drade]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

If there was nothing in the car, then the pastor should have let the police search the car. At the same time, the police officer should have said "Sir we have reason to believe that there is contraband in your car. Can you get out of the vehicle." Or something to that effect. I don't think breaking the window and tasering the guy is an effective way to get someone out of the car.

NO!!! he should not have give up his rights, this was an illegal search, the police were braking the law.
When the DPS come to the location they also ask for the dog to come back out and the BP refused again, right there they DPS should have released the man. It looks as if the stop was random and they were too stubborn to admit they were wrong in the stop.
This is going to be a civil rights lawsuit, an abuse of authority and use of excessive force. The police should be brought up on Felony assault charges.

Just because you are not doing anything wrong doesn't mean you have to forfeit your rights. Today you let them search your car, tomorrow what is next? They come to your house and if you don't let them in they make up some false accusations and arrest you anyway.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

You are right. We do all have rights. However, I kind of like my face and I want it to stay all in one peice. If he also likes his face and knew that he had nothing to hide, he should have gotten out of the car and let them search. Then he would have had all the evidence he needed to go to court.

There is one important peice of information missing though, and that is if they ever found anything in his car.

[eclipsemint]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

[dan_drade]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

Do two wongs make a white?

[kalina]

I still think he was scared that they would've found something in his car. Was he afraid they might test his blood alcohol level? Why not get out of the car and let them search for a few minutes and avoid possible confrontation? He could've gone on about his business unscathed if he really didn't have anything to hide.

Yes, the police were wrong for their brutality, but let's hear more of the story before concluding stuff based on two edited videos.

If it were me, I'd let them search my car. I don't have back seats and only 6 cubic feet of trunk space.

[kalina]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

Do two wongs make a white?

No, but a white and a wong make a twinkie :)

[eclipsemint]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

Do two wongs make a white?They used to.

In Australia, during the white Australia policy period of the fifties and sixties, an australian politician called Arthur Calwell coined the phrase "Two Wongs don't make it White".

But that policy is long dead and now 25% of Australian citizens were born overseas and emigrated to Australia.

So to answer your question...

Two Wongs may now make a White, any time they want. At least in Australia, they can.

[SarahG]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

Only in the United States, you're not required to obey anything a police officer says, just because he said so.

If a cop pulled over a girl and ordered her to suck his cock, he can't do that. Period. And it's not resisting arrest if she refuses to do so.

If a cop stopped someone and demanded they say Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (which, btw, is a real word), they can't turn around and tase, beat, or detain someone for saying "are you out of your mind?!"

IDK how they do things in Australia, but in the US cops need more than a mere specific request to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

The problem is, our cops are trigger happy when it comes to tasing people (even if it would be deadly for anyone with an irregular heart beat). There's no accountability when stuff like this happens, if the guy wasn't a baptist priest, and didn't have a video camera- we wouldn't be having this debate.

And no, a cop can't tase someone for being rude or insulting either. Yet cops use tasers simply for revenge when people have an attitude. They probably would have tased this guy even if he complied with getting out of the car, if he had said "FUCK YOU" in the process.

[thx1138]

This occured some weeks ago. He got beat up pretty badly. And no, they found nothing in his car. The lesson is clear: don't fuck with the Gestapo, they have short fuses. I hope this guy got a good lawyer.

[eclipsemint]

The civilian had a duty to obey the law, which includes not obstructing justice. He should have let them search the car.

The police had a duty to uphold the law, which means only using reasonable force. They should not have used physical force where persuasion might have worked.

They were both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But two Wrights do make an airplane.

Only in the United States, you're not required to obey anything a police officer says, just because he said so.

If a cop pulled over a girl and ordered her to suck his cock, he can't do that. Period. And it's not resisting arrest if she refuses to do so.

If a cop stopped someone and demanded they say Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (which, btw, is a real word), they can't turn around and tase, beat, or detain someone for saying "are you out of your mind?!"

IDK how they do things in Australia, but in the US cops need more than a mere specific request to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

The problem is, our cops are trigger happy when it comes to tasing people (even if it would be deadly for anyone with an irregular heart beat). There's no accountability when stuff like this happens, if the guy wasn't a baptist priest, and didn't have a video camera- we wouldn't be having this debate.

And no, a cop can't tase someone for being rude or insulting either. Yet cops use tasers simply for revenge when people have an attitude. They probably would have tased this guy even if he complied with getting out of the car, if he had said "FUCK YOU" in the process.All I know about American Law is whatever I've seen on Law and Order: Criminal Intent.

Obstruction of justice is used to prosecute people who don't cooperate with reasonable requests made by police.

And Detective Goren is very smart and very creepy. And tricky.

[freak]

This is getting me sick reading this thread.

I can not believe that so many people want to live in a police state, where they have no rights against ILLEGAL searches.
As for the 2 wrongs, no he did nothing wrong, he asked for his rights to be respected, that is all.

As for letting them search then go to court, stop, no damages no foul, toss it out in 60 seconds.

The civilian had a duty to obey the law? True, as he was doing nothing wrong he was obeying the law. A civilian has rights against police brutality, illegal searches, right to privacy.

For all we know he may have had a blow up doll in the trunk and was embarrassed, he has the right not to be humiliated. They did humiliate him in custody, for there amusement anyway.

If you watch the whole video, 2nd one, he tells you what they found, NOTHING but tools.

This is a sad thread to read, how many of you are just willing to give up all your rights just because it is convenient.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

[SarahG]

All I know about American Law is whatever I've seen on Law and Order: Criminal Intent.

Obstruction of justice is used to prosecute people who don't cooperate with reasonable requests made by police.

And Detective Goren is very smart and very creepy. And tricky.

I never liked Criminal Intent as much as SVU, myself.

Law & order is a decent show, but it's not known for being realistic. As depicted in the show greatly differs from reality.

The biggest misleading thing law & order is known for, is the scenes they have (virtually every episode) where the DA's or detectives manage to get the suspect to crack in a room with their lawyers. In real life the negotiations process is nothing like that at all.

As to obstruction of justice, that charge is used to try to bully people into complying with requests, but 99% of the time it's a bluff tactic and would have no possible way of sticking IRL.

If they had wanted to arrest this preacher for obstruction of justice, for not getting out of the car- then the appropriate response would have been "you're under arrest FOR obstruction of justice" followed by Miranda, and then politely asking him to get out of the car. After that, if he doesn't comply, they can still use force... but that force would have ended as soon as he was in custody (break window, tase, grab, cuff, throw in a squad car- no group of cops beating him on the side of the road for noncompliance). And then the preacher would have gotten off, since it was clear he didn't do anything wrong, there was no crime to obstruct, and he could have sued for wrongful detainment, reputation damage, emotional distress, etc.

[eclipsemint]

Sorry, Freak, as an outsider from another country I should not have made light of your countries laws.

I apologise.

[Silcc69]

This is getting me sick reading this thread.

I can not believe that so many people want to live in a police state, where they have no rights against ILLEGAL searches.
As for the 2 wrongs, no he did nothing wrong, he asked for his rights to be respected, that is all.

As for letting them search then go to court, stop, no damages no foul, toss it out in 60 seconds.

The civilian had a duty to obey the law? True, as he was doing nothing wrong he was obeying the law. A civilian has rights against police brutality, illegal searches, right to privacy.

For all we know he may have had a blow up doll in the trunk and was embarrassed, he has the right not to be humiliated. They did humiliate him in custody, for there amusement anyway.

If you watch the whole video, 2nd one, he tells you what they found, NOTHING but tools.

This is a sad thread to read, how many of you are just willing to give up all your rights just because it is convenient.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

I think it's jsut for the convience to avoid an ass whoopin.

[bte]

Do you think excessive force was used?

http://www.phillyd.tv/2009/05/13/police-beat-up-pastor-on-camera/

If there was nothing in the car, then the pastor should have let the police search the car. At the same time, the police officer should have said "Sir we have reason to believe that there is contraband in your car. Can you get out of the vehicle." Or something to that effect. I don't think breaking the window and tasering the guy is an effective way to get someone out of the car.

NO!!! he should not have give up his rights, this was an illegal search, the police were braking the law.
When the DPS come to the location they also ask for the dog to come back out and the BP refused again, right there they DPS should have released the man. It looks as if the stop was random and they were too stubborn to admit they were wrong in the stop.
This is going to be a civil rights lawsuit, an abuse of authority and use of excessive force. The police should be brought up on Felony assault charges.

Just because you are not doing anything wrong doesn't mean you have to forfeit your rights. Today you let them search your car, tomorrow what is next? They come to your house and if you don't let them in they make up some false accusations and arrest you anyway.
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

I do stand up for my rights and I encourage everyone to do so, but don't make the situation worse by not complying with the officer. All the window breaking and tasering would have been avoided if the guy would have got out of the car. He stood up for himself by stating his rights, but he got a window bashed out and tasered for it.

[eclipsemint]

Hear, Hear!

I have the right to cross the road at any zebra crossing, but I am not tussle with a car that doesn't give me right of way just to prove I am in the right.

You have to be prudent, too.

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run...

[SarahG]

This is a sad thread to read, how many of you are just willing to give up all your rights just because it is convenient.


See this is where I disagree.

Convenient? No, people don't care because:

1- They think it won't happen to them
2- They think it's a big fucking joke ("don't taze me bro!")
3- They are desensitized to the brutality of it due to stuff like youtube.

Seriously, searching police brutality and you can find so much online- the shock factor is gone. People are like "well, that's the way it works" and therefore perpetuate the crimes.

We'll never have riots again after a Rodney King style beating, not because the beatings have stopped, but because it would no longer be able to shock people enough to get violent.

The reaction to the BART EXECUTION was no different from the punk who was tased interrupting John Kerry. Some people whined about it online, some people blamed the victim online, no one actually DID anything about it.

In the end, you get the government you deserve, and we have a country full of sheep.

[freak]

I do stand up for my rights and I encourage everyone to do so, but don't make the situation worse by not complying with the officer. All the window breaking and tasering would have been avoided if the guy would have got out of the car. He stood up for himself by stating his rights, but he got a window bashed out and tasered for it.

NO you don't stand up for your rights, stop lying to yourself.
By complying he is forfeiting his right against illegal search, think about it.
Yes it would have been avoided but he would have lost his rights, the rights you say you stand up for.

Without people like this pastor you will lose all your rights faster then we already are.

[thx1138]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/05/13/mexico.fox.marijuana/index.html He seems a bit gay - a fact that didn't exactly endear himself to the police. Some police feel very threatened by a gay man. I think it's because their own gay feelings are awaked. They resort to excessive violence in order to repress those feelings.

[kalina]

I think it's jsut for the convience to avoid an ass whoopin.

Exactly. I mean, look at me. I would not stand any chance against any cop, especially with a weapon. Why should I get my face bashed and tasered so I could prove I have rights in this country? I could walk away unscathed from the whole ordeal by just letting them conduct their search and driving away. Who knows, maybe they were legitimately looking for something and it was better to be careful and search everyone who passed their way.

Until you are placed in the very same situation, don't start with blabbing about who has rights. Most people would be scared shitless and just get out of the car and comply.

That makes me think about the airport situation a couple of years ago when a male security person asked me to take off my shoes and then frisked me. If I said no, then what? "Oh, I have rights and you can't frisk me." That would be STUPID to say. They would just take me to a private room and do a more extensive search.

[thx1138]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

[bte]

I do stand up for my rights and I encourage everyone to do so, but don't make the situation worse by not complying with the officer. All the window breaking and tasering would have been avoided if the guy would have got out of the car. He stood up for himself by stating his rights, but he got a window bashed out and tasered for it.

NO you don't stand up for your rights, stop lying to yourself.
By complying he is forfeiting his right against illegal search, think about it.
Yes it would have been avoided but he would have lost his rights, the rights you say you stand up for.

Without people like this pastor you will lose all your rights faster then we already are.

I don't think you know me well enough to make an assumption. In my opinion, if he had nothing to hide, which he didn't, then he would have gotten out of the car and the whole matter would have resolved. You have your opinions and I have mine.

[trish]

dan_drade writes (a few pages back)

You are right. We do all have rights. However, I kind of like my face and I want it to stay all in one peice. If he also likes his face and knew that he had nothing to hide, he should have gotten out of the car and let them search. Then he would have had all the evidence he needed to go to court.

There is one important peice of information missing though, and that is if they ever found anything in his car.

But dan, you should be able to exercise your rights and keep your good looks too. Whether there’s something illegal in your trunk or not, the police need probable cause or a warrant to search your car.

Personally, I would have opened the trunk for them, and I would be exercising my right to cooperate by doing so. But I also have the right to demand a warrant and exercising that right, should I decide to do so, does not constitute probable cause, nor is it an invitation to getting beat up and tased.

[SarahG]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/05/13/mexico.fox.marijuana/index.html He seems a bit gay - a fact that didn't exactly endear himself to the police. Some police feel very threatened by a gay man. I think it's because their own gay feelings are awaked. They resort to excessive violence in order to repress those feelings.

It's not that they feel threatened by gay men so much as, it is typical for people in power to PROVE the extent of that power by singling out people who are sexually atypical (gays, trans people, women, etc).

This wasn't merely a guy who came off as a flamer, this was a guy who came off as a flamer CHALLENGING THEIR AUTHORITY AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The only response, to those in power, to reclaim their position, would be to beat him, rape him, or ridicule him. That's what the videos show, and that's what history shows.



What the feminists don't devote any attention to (for the most part anyway), my friend related, was the abuse of gender-power in abusing minorities, but beyond that- men. This is where the "its only gay if you don't beat him afterwords" comes from- men are systematically throughout history, sexually raped, assaulted, etc then murdered or outcast when they fail to fit sex-stereotypes much in the way women who violate those norms are.

So in stressing the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse... but more specifically, the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse yielding reproduction- men cannot be as easily targeted the way women are. Thus, the balance of societal power is not put at risk...

Political institutions (churches, governments, etc.) have a concern here is for similar reasons. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th estates will enact rules relating to sexual activity that is not related to the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse because in so doing it establishes & perpetuates that the purpose of these individuals, their power, their bodies, and their sexuality is to serve "a higher power" (be it god, king or country). Thus power is preserved, reproduction is stressed to supply more people to perpetuate the process and repeat.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=44954&start=60

[freak]

I don't think you know me well enough to make an assumption. In my opinion, if he had nothing to hide, which he didn't, then he would have gotten out of the car and the whole matter would have resolved. You have your opinions and I have mine.

I don't have to know you, I am reading what you are writing. I can easily see you have no idea of what you are saying.

Now that is matter resolved

[thx1138]

police kick perp in the head. Is it soccer season? http://www.prisonplanet.com/head-kick-officer-caught-on-camera.html

[barefootjoe69]

This guy was told why they were going to search his car and he refused repeatedly to get out of his car, what do you think they should have done? Just let him go?
At this point the cops have no idea who he is or why he is refusing their instructions. He could have a gun and he don't want them to find it or he could have drugs or he could be a mass murderer.
Bottom line is if you follow their instructions no one is going to get hurt at the end of the day. The cops want to go home to their families at the end of the day just like anyone else!
If you think they were wrong in their search we have a court system to deal with it later.
Its called an Illegal search and it violates someones civil liberties.
Problem is this guy doesn't want to follow the rules that protect his rights.
He deserved what he got!!!!!!

[dan_drade]

dan_drade writes (a few pages back)

You are right. We do all have rights. However, I kind of like my face and I want it to stay all in one peice. If he also likes his face and knew that he had nothing to hide, he should have gotten out of the car and let them search. Then he would have had all the evidence he needed to go to court.

There is one important peice of information missing though, and that is if they ever found anything in his car.

But dan, you should be able to exercise your rights and keep your good looks too. Whether there’s something illegal in your trunk or not, the police need probable cause or a warrant to search your car.

Personally, I would have opened the trunk for them, and I would be exercising my right to cooperate by doing so. But I also have the right to demand a warrant and exercising that right, should I decide to do so, does not constitute probable cause, nor is it an invitation to getting beat up and tased.

You may be right that we all have the right to refuse an illegal search. But, if I had a bunch of cops telling me to get out of my car and they have one hand on their guns and others are comming at my windows with hammers, I'm probably gonna get out the car and open the trunk. If I was truly innocent and I have a recording of the incedent, you can be sure I would be making a trip to see my lawyer as soon as I got home. Although I suppose there would be a bigger financial gain if I just took the beating.

But I still think he had a little boy in there somewhere. LOL.

[SarahG]

He could have a gun and he don't want them to find it or he could have drugs or he could be a mass murderer.

Or he could have had a stash of gay porn in his trunk.

He's a preacher, if a cop dash cam showing a BAPTIST preacher with a trunk load of gay porn made its way to the internets, the guy would have lost his job and career (potentially anyway).

There are legitimate reasons for not wanting someone to search your car, house, whatever.

If a bunch of cops wanted to, without a search warrant, search your house- would you let them? What if they wanted to search your computer? What if they wanted a full body cavity search?

If the cops have a real concern, then they can get a REAL search warrant. Seriously, it's not that hard. Any judge will issue a warrant for searching a car that's been stopped, it's not like it's a hard requirement to meet!


Bottom line is if you follow their instructions no one is going to get hurt at the end of the day.

There are plenty of videos where people have been beaten or tased by cops simply for being rude to them. Full compliance, while being rude does not entitle cops to do whatever they want to a suspect. Period.


The cops want to go home to their families at the end of the day just like anyone else!

If they actually care about their families, they'll respect people and refrain from avoidable violence. If they do otherwise, it only increases the odds that their OWN family members will eventually be victims of police brutality.

Not to mention, if they do something stupid and it's posted all over the internet, they risk losing their jobs, pensions, and health care. Which means they won't be able to provide for their families, they won't have health insurance to pay the bills if one of their kids gets seriously hurt... they're putting their families lives & future in danger simply for the shake of beating someone. That's hardly a reasonable trade...

[barefootjoe69]

He could have a gun and he don't want them to find it or he could have drugs or he could be a mass murderer.

Or he could have had a stash of gay porn in his trunk.

He's a preacher, if a cop dash cam showing a BAPTIST preacher with a trunk load of gay porn made its way to the internets, the guy would have lost his job and career (potentially anyway).

There are legitimate reasons for not wanting someone to search your car, house, whatever.

If a bunch of cops wanted to, without a search warrant, search your house- would you let them? What if they wanted to search your computer? What if they wanted a full body cavity search?

If the cops have a real concern, then they can get a REAL search warrant. Seriously, it's not that hard. Any judge will issue a warrant for searching a car that's been stopped, it's not like it's a hard requirement to meet!


Bottom line is if you follow their instructions no one is going to get hurt at the end of the day.

There are plenty of videos where people have been beaten or tased by cops simply for being rude to them. Full compliance, while being rude does not entitle cops to do whatever they want to a suspect. Period.


The cops want to go home to their families at the end of the day just like anyone else!

If they actually care about their families, they'll respect people and refrain from avoidable violence. If they do otherwise, it only increases the odds that their OWN family members will eventually be victims of police brutality.

Not to mention, if they do something stupid and it's posted all over the internet, they risk losing their jobs, pensions, and health care. Which means they won't be able to provide for their families, they won't have health insurance to pay the bills if one of their kids gets seriously hurt... they're putting their families lives & future in danger simply for the shake of beating someone. That's hardly a reasonable trade...

First off, If I am instructed by a police officer to do something I am going to follow his instructions. Like I said before, If their actions are unjustified then I can file both civil and criminal charges against them at a later date.
And yes they can search whatever they want, I have nothing to hide! And even if I did and their search found contraband and was unjustified ,then that evidence is thrown out and can't be used against you, That beats acting like an idiot and trying to explain your rights to the cops. Don't you think they know your rights and what they can and cannot do?
The dog hit on the car so they have every right to search that vehicle without getting a warrant. It's called probable cause!

And the cops did try to avoid violence! They repeatedly asked him to step out of the vehicle and he refused to follow their lawful instructions, Thats why they tasered him! If all they wanted to do was beat him they had enough guys to drag him out of his car and do that. The reason they use tasers is to avoid more serious injuries on both sides.

Also, DId you ever stop and wonder what the pastor was doing with a video camera in his car? Most common Law abiding citizens don't have Cameras recording in their cars! Looks to me like he was setting up this confrontation from the very beginning and he got the outcome he wanted to get.
Now he has his 2 minutes of fame! Whoopie

[sunairco]

Guess I'm a little late into this one. I watched the video and the very first problem here is just what the cop said, "failure to obey". Like it or not, he broke the law right there. Whatever reason he had for not wanting them to search his car whether it was legal principle or hidden contraband was immaterial at that point. He could have exited the car and complied, but they couldn't have legally searched his car without probable cause. The dog is legal in most states, even at a random checkpoint. Most states require a visible reason for an officer to search such as paraphenelia or weapon in full view. From what I can see of the video, no excessive force was used on the LE video. They broke the window,subdued and secured him "for their safety." He refused to comply with a lawful order and resisted arrest. Pain compliance was used to enforce the order. Injuries sustained amounted to eating the pavement when several officers are trying to subdue a convulsing individual. Standard procedure. Had this been years ago, he probably would have sustained a concussion and/or skull injury and broken bones from several officers using batons to enforce compliance...and no camera would have wittnessed the action.

Simply put, this guy was stupid and suffered the consequences because he thought he knew his "rights".

You can be right and know your rights. You can be in your full rights and also be stupid. That still doesn't mean that you're not going to get the shit beat out of you,handcuffed,and spend the night in jail until arraigned by a judge the next morning. Many police forces are taking the attitude now to just go ahead and arrest and let the State's Att'y and judge figure out the rest in the morning. No matter what, they have several catch-alls to charge you with in the states....and they will stick in a court of law no matter how right you were. It has nothing to do with the original intent of the police officer's suspicion of what might be inside the car. Failure to comply/obey, Delaying an officer, Resisting arrest,and Interference are all seperate charges and vailid if for no other reason then to arrest you. Once an officer tells you you're under arrest, that's it. Right or wrong in your opinion, you comply or suffer addtional action. Despite what you read or see on TV, the bar for an officer to declare you under arrest is very, very low. Just reasonable suspicion is enough in most states to be placed under arrest. If you don't comply, the inital charge is insignificant, you now have a whole bevy of others now to contend with. It's one thing to know your rights. Unless you're a lawyer or someone with lots of money,want the thrill of being arrested,subdued by force, plenty time on your hands to pay legal fees and go through the system to prove you're "right" and make a point, you comply or get fucked. Being placed under arrest simply means you're no longer free to leave and are detained. It is not an idictment of a specific charge at that point. Once that happens, compliance is a whole different issue.

I spent years as a street photographer. One of the first lessons that I learned was you don't fuck with cops, you always loose. About two years ago, I was inside a grocery store and a woman and a cop rushed past me in an isle with the woman yelling, "that looks like him". The cop asked this guy to come outside, that they wanted to speak with him. Naturally, if someone's accusing you and a cop is giving you an order, you want to know why especially if you're positive you've done nothing wrong. This gentleman started to get loud,demanding what this was all about. I left the store with a bunch of other because of the commotion. Outside, a woman cop was trying to ascertain if a car in the lot belonged to the guy. Someone left two kids inside a hot car and the civilian lady shopper fingered him as the owner of the car. It obviously wasn't him and he was pissed for good reason and getting very vocal that the car and kids weren't his and was pointing to the garage along side the lot where his car was parked. The woman officer asked him for his drivers license as a matter of procedure. He starts to get real loud and blowing his lid. She hit him in the gut with the end of her baton without another word and he doubled over and she hit him again. The male cop knocked him against the cruiser and they handcuffed him and put him inside. The woman cop placed him under arrest and dictated the charges as the other officer was writing up the report, meanwhile this guy is still raving and yelling that it's not his car and kids. Failure to comply a lawful order,creating a disturbance/peace,resisting arrest,Interfering with an investigation....the whole nine yards, but nothing about child endangerment. Yeah, this guy was perfectly innocent all right, but very stupid not to comply with the officer's requests. Had he did, he'd walked away once it was established that it wasn't hid car or kids. Shooting his mouth off,drawing a crowd, and giving the cops a hard time earned an innocent man shopping for groceries, facial injuries, several misdemenor and felony charges. No matter what happened afterwards, this probably cost him a fortune in legal fees, a night in jail, and lost time and wages from work just because he was "right". This wasn't about his rights or being right, it was about compliance with an officer's order. I'm not shilling for the cops here, most are a bunch of egotistical assholes on a power trip that can hide behind their badge and give you a hard time just because they can. I can say that as a father of one who wouldn't give a rat's ass about your rights if you challenged her authority.

You can be "right", but do you want to be "dead right" ?

[Solitary Brother]

The funny part is when he started screaming like a bitch.......
I lost respect for that motherfucker after that.
I really dont care for pastors or their flock because they are massive preachers and practitioners of hate.
I think the police should continue this trend of beating these bigots down.
Did I mention I cant stand religious people?

[SarahG]

And the cops did try to avoid violence! They repeatedly asked him to step out of the vehicle and he refused to follow their lawful instructions, Thats why they tasered him! If all they wanted to do was beat him they had enough guys to drag him out of his car and do that. The reason they use tasers is to avoid more serious injuries on both sides.

No, if they wanted to avoid violence they could have just waited the extra 25 minutes it takes to get a warrant. It is NOT hard at all, judges virtually never refuse warrant requests for stopped cars.

If he's sitting in a car, not posing a threat, and not trying to drive away- then they can simply wait to get the court order. If he was trying to run the cops down, if he was pretending like he was reaching for a gun- sure, by all means use force. But it's a whole other game when a suspect is posting a direct, eminent threat.


Also, DId you ever stop and wonder what the pastor was doing with a video camera in his car? Most common Law abiding citizens don't have Cameras recording in their cars!

What is this, 1995? It's 2009, lots of people carry digital cameras now. They're even small enough to be built into cell phones for crying out loud. My digital camera is smaller than my first cell phone was, I can actually LOSE it in my purse it's so small.

The BART shooting videos were all made using peoples' cell phones. Everyone has a cell phone these days, and most of the decent ones can capture video no problem.

[sunairco]

The officer had probable cause because of the dog hit which is allowed in many states. I'll go out on a limb and assume it's the same in his state. Think the Surpremes took this issue up a few years ago. The guy was formally arrested and compelled to exit the vehicle. Nothing was said that they were going to search his car when this incident went down. Once they secured him, depending on the state, they could have searched with probable cause or got a search warrant. Either way, the dog hit was the grounds for arrest on reasonable suspicion. The guy's suspicious actions certainly contributed to the officer's call.

Furthermore, despite cops getting really shitty when cameras are on them in many states, the camera may be illegal because it's recording sound and/or images. Depending on the state, there is different charges when you record such as wiretapping and becomes an arrestable offence in itself. If you're going to record the cops, you do it surreptitiously, not with the camera stuck in their face unless you want to get your ass kicked.

You miss the point about wanting to avoid violence or confrontation. It's SOP to PROVOKE confrontation in a situation when you want to arrest someone or neutralize a situation. They are trained to push your buttons and intimidate so you react and they can then take you down. Another trick is to lead you to believe they are done with you. The moment you drive off or leave, you're arrested for "fleeing". You never part company with a cop without asking him if you're free to leave.