- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas cop in trouble after tasering a man
Posted on 7/26/16 at 4:50 pm to Sidicous
Posted on 7/26/16 at 4:50 pm to Sidicous
quote:
do NOT have to provide ID nor respond to any and all questions. It is up to the authorities to investigate and obtain any and all information. If they cannot do that they have no right to impede my freedom of movement.
People like you are a big part of the fricking problem.
0
Posted on 7/26/16 at 4:50 pm to SeauxLeauxHeaux
quote:
So you're giving your actual name or identifying as an American citizen?
You previously stated that you wouldn't adhere to laws for identifying yourself, so why wouldn't you give a false name?
This thread has devolved from the Cop in "Trouble for tasering" into a thing about me. After this response I'm out.
Since Terd pointed out the law in La (and apparently Ark) I concede the thing to do is give actual name. If a traffic stop where I am the driver: License, registration, and POI are generally required.
As to why? Because giving false info is a crime. It's legal for police to lie to citizens but the reverse is not legal.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 4:50 pm to terd ferguson
Terd Ferguson for the win!
Sidicous, you're an idiot and part of the problem.
Sidicous, you're an idiot and part of the problem.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 4:58 pm to Sidicous
People who think they know they law but don't, don't understand the correct avenues to contend an arrest, and give cops a hard time are the issue.
How bout instead of being cute and citing what someone told you was "your right" you be reasonable and not be a major douche
How bout instead of being cute and citing what someone told you was "your right" you be reasonable and not be a major douche
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:00 pm to meauxjeaux2
Cop was out of bounds. He does live in Arkansas, which has stop and identify statutes in place, though.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:04 pm to SeauxLeauxHeaux
quote:
How bout instead of being cute and citing what someone told you was "your right" you be reasonable and not be a major douche
Like tasing someone without any verbal or physical threat isn't douchey.
The guy should have given his name. He was wrong. However, at that point, when he refused, he should have placed the guy under arrest.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:11 pm to tuptiger
I don't know if that's commonplace enough to consider it douchey, but in no way am I arguing this cop isn't a douche/a-hole. Cops often have let power go to their head. But i guarantee you if that was me I wouldn't have given that cop a reason. The guy wanted to test the cops authority and got tased for it.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:11 pm to tuptiger
quote:
Like tasing someone without any verbal or physical threat isn't douchey.
The guy should have given his name. He was wrong. However, at that point, when he refused, he should have placed the guy under arrest.
With things the way they are today a pissed off black man walking off and being non compliant after being detained is a dangerous situation for the cop. The cop has to control the situation and with the guy walking off like that the situation has the potential of becoming much worse. Now if the cop went and beat the shite out of the guy after he tased him it would have been a different story.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:18 pm to KingwoodLsuFan
I get what you're saying in general, but a black man walking off after being detained is no more dangerous today than it was 4 weeks ago. The recent violence against the police hasn't stemmed from a situation like the one in the OP, but I'm sure any officer is on edge nonetheless.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:18 pm to KingwoodLsuFan
quote:quote:a pissed off black man walking off and being non compliant after being detained is a dangerous situation for the cop.
With things the way they are today
So, because there have been two high profile incidents involving black men and cops, this gives the cops a right to tase people without sufficient justification?
He was non compliant. The stop and identify statues should be ruled unconstitutional in my opinion. But, he was, legally speaking, wrong, which is why the cop should have just placed him under arrest.
A cop's level of paranoia related to the race of someone is not relavent.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:23 pm to tuptiger
I dont know, the black guy was getting worked up, screaming and cursing at the woman. I would portray that as becoming violent. Which is why she probably called the cops in the first place.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:26 pm to tuptiger
quote:
The guy should have given his name. He was wrong. However, at that point, when he refused, he should have placed the guy under arrest.
He told he was going to if he didnt give the girl her stuff back. So MR cop, when were you going to place him under arrest? while he is walking away from you?
And what if he just keeps walking? Then what? well he walked away, guess I can go home now.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:28 pm to dgnx6
It can still be dangerous, I'm just saying that it is no worse now than it was a month ago. People intent on targeting the police aren't getting detained first.
The other conundrum is that police are on edge across the country, but that leaves you more prone to mistakes, which in turn incites more unrest.
The other conundrum is that police are on edge across the country, but that leaves you more prone to mistakes, which in turn incites more unrest.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:33 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
In the state of Louisiana if you refuse to identify yourself you can be arrested.
That's actually false.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:34 pm to meauxjeaux2
I generally fall on the "cops being over aggressive side". But this time the cop was 100% calm and pretty nice.
I have no problem w it
If my sons ever act like goofs I hope they get popped too.
I have no problem w it
If my sons ever act like goofs I hope they get popped too.
This post was edited on 7/26/16 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:41 pm to tuptiger
quote:
So, because there have been two high profile incidents involving black men and cops, this gives the cops a right to tase people without sufficient justification?
Of course not but in this case I believe there was sufficient justification. Once the guy walked away the cop had to control the situation. The guy could be getting up to go hit his gf, grab a weapon, run away, or do something else. The guy didn't communicate with the cop that he was getting up and opening the door.
This post was edited on 7/26/16 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:52 pm to slackster
First, I see no evidence of the guy being detained and if he was was it on suspicion that he committed a crime? As far as I can see he didn't do anything wrong and the cop approached him.
Second he was obviously on private property so did the cop have a warrant?
Third, the girl was there supposedly to get her stuff. He's under no obligation to allow any of them in his house.
Cop was full of shite
Second he was obviously on private property so did the cop have a warrant?
Third, the girl was there supposedly to get her stuff. He's under no obligation to allow any of them in his house.
Cop was full of shite
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:59 pm to bencoleman
Bingo. Wasn't a crime. Sounded like the "crime" was not allowing the girl to get her clothes.
He was in the parking lot of an apartment complex it appears. He didn't go into the residence.
Adrenaline junkie and paranoid Pete then tased the guy for walking away when he wasn't being detained or questioned respective to a crime.
Usually, the litmus test is when someone asks are they free to go when a cop is seemingly detaining them relative to a crime. No crime was committed other than his noncompliance to identify himself, which isn't a crime because he committed no crime.
He was in the parking lot of an apartment complex it appears. He didn't go into the residence.
Adrenaline junkie and paranoid Pete then tased the guy for walking away when he wasn't being detained or questioned respective to a crime.
Usually, the litmus test is when someone asks are they free to go when a cop is seemingly detaining them relative to a crime. No crime was committed other than his noncompliance to identify himself, which isn't a crime because he committed no crime.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 5:59 pm to bencoleman
quote:
First, I see no evidence of the guy being detained and if he was was it on suspicion that he committed a crime?
This is exactly my point. He didn't have to give his name because he wasn't suspected of committing a crime.
If there is more to the story, that's fine, but from the video the guy wasn't suspected of a crime.
He was unlawfully arrested and with force.
They are about to get sued.
Posted on 7/26/16 at 6:07 pm to Sidicous
quote:
I am innocent until proven guilty,
You left this part off
quote:
according to law in a public trial
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News