Student supressed by goose stepping police gets no ADDITIONAL charges

[Winston]

I still say it was a poor police effort.

They should've left this guy yapping and locked up Kerry instead.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
His statement sure isn't helpful. Hence my original comment.

You seem to be looking at this backwards.

He's in a situation.
He's presented with a deal.
He can comply or not comply.
He chooses to comply, and makes the statement.

The statement wasn't part of the incentive to chose to comply. More likely it was a condition of the deal, a deal that he had determined was in his best interest before making the statement.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Aeson


You seem to be looking at this backwards.

To some extent, yes. He should not have made that statement (frankly I think he was wrong in what he said as well...)

He's in a situation.
He's presented with a deal.
He can comply or not comply.
He chooses to comply, and makes the statement.

The damning statement was made on the date of offence not after being offered a deal.

The statement wasn't part of the incentive to chose to comply. More likely it was a condition of the deal, a deal that he had determined was in his best interest before making the statement.

I think one of us has a timeline wrong somewhere.

As I understand it, taser boy made a statement after being removed and a further statement to accede to the offer. The first statement is the one I am talking about.

[Patroklos]

This may break the rules of the event but it is not criminal.

Correct, what was criminal was resisting arrest after refuse verbal requests, as per the rules, to leave.

Try and keep up.

[Vesayen]

He asked a question and then was immediatly accosted by police. They talked briefly and before he was even given a chance to leave, he was tased. He was not even given enough time to leave if he wished to....

What is more he was clearly not a threat, they used excessive force.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
To some extent, yes. He should not have made that statement (frankly I think he was wrong in what he said as well...)

You don't think he resisted arrest?

The damning statement was made on the date of offence not after being offered a deal.

I was talking about the one quoted in this article. (This should be clear since I was pointing out the conflict between Vesayen's analysis of the quoted article, and it's contents.)

I don't think the statements made in the police car are damning, unless they happen to have been recorded. It's a secondhand admission supposedly passed to the officers involved. Hardly an objective fact.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Aeson


You don't think he resisted arrest?

Was the arrest lawful? Did they say they were arresting him?

I was talking about the one quoted in this article. (This should be clear since I was pointing out the conflict between Vesayen's analysis of the quoted article, and it's contents.)

I find that staement moot. It was only made to accept an offer I have doubts he should have accepted in the first place....

I don't think the statements made in the police car are damning, unless they happen to have been recorded. It's a secondhand admission supposedly passed to the officers involved. Hardly an objective fact.

This was the admissibility issue I was talking about. I don't know enough about the state of US case law in this respect to give a definitive answer. In Canada a statement does not have to be "recorded" per se. Voluntariness and accuracy of the statement are issues to be argued wrt admissibility. Much easier if the statement is not made in the first place.

[Arrian]

We need a link back to the original thread. This was discussed/dissected at great length.

-Arrian

[Alexander I]

Generally when arresting someone the police inform them of the arrest and read them their rights. Did they do that in this instance? If he was arrested wrongfully he can sue for damages.

The way it looked to me, they simply began to tase him for shouting his stupid questions. But then, I wasn't there. The guy was being an idiot, but I think the police way overreacted as well.

Man, this whole incident leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Patroklos]

He asked a question and then was immediatly accosted by police....

You are a very selective viewer.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
Was the arrest lawful?

When the officers started to escort him out, technically he was under arrest.

He was creating a disturbance and had pushed an officer while ignoring their requests to desist. I don't see how you can question that the officers had the right to escort him out.

Did they say they were arresting him?

Police are required to advise you that you are under arrest. That doesn't mean you can start a physical confrontation with police because they haven't used the term "arrest" yet. In fact doing so gives the police more leeway as they have the right to bring the situation under control before advising you of your rights.

Cops don't issue citations for traffic violations before pulling you over. (And they wouldn't have to inform you that you were under arrest if they weren't taking you into custody.) If you don't pull over, they may take action to force you to do so before reading you your rights.

This is really no different. The guy was making a public disturbance, so they were escorting him out. Presumably they would have issued a citation and that would be that. Perhaps they would have determined that he should be taken into custody and at that point would need to inform him of his rights.

But he resisted and so the situation escalated. He was at fault in that regard. He knows he doesn't have a case. He took the deal.

I find that staement moot. It was only made to accept an offer I have doubts he should have accepted in the first place....

Accepting a plea bargain is not coersion. Once you understand that, you'll hopefully understand why his statement isn't moot.

He was very smart to take the offer. If convicted he'd get up to 5 years in prison for the charge. And anytime Sloww and I both agree on the verdict... you take the "out".

This was the admissibility issue I was talking about. I don't know enough about the state of US case law in this respect to give a definitive answer. In Canada a statement does not have to be "recorded" per se. Voluntariness and accuracy of the statement are issues to be argued wrt admissibility. Much easier if the statement is not made in the first place.

It's not a damning statement in any case.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Aeson


When the officers started to escort him out, technically he was under arrest.

He was creating a disturbance and had pushed an officer while ignoring their requests to desist. I don't see how you can question that the officers had the right to escort him out.

I suspect there is a difference here in both US and Canadian law as well as our interpretations.

Police are required to advise you that you are under arrest. That doesn't mean you can start a physical confrontation with police because they haven't used the term "arrest" yet. In fact doing so gives the police more leeway as they have the right to bring the situation under control before advising you of your rights.

Did they ask taser boy to come with them first?

Cops don't issue citations for traffic violations before pulling you over. (And they wouldn't have to inform you that you were under arrest if they weren't taking you into custody.) If you don't pull over, they may take action to force you to do so before reading you your rights.

No, but the flashing lights are a direction to stop.

This is really no different. The guy was making a public disturbance, so they were escorting him out. Presumably they would have issued a citation and that would be that. Perhaps they would have determined that he should be taken into custody and at that point would need to inform him of his rights.

It is different. They could make verbal contact with him (unlike a car driver in a separate vehicle).

But he resisted and so the situation escalated. He was at fault in that regard. He knows he doesn't have a case. He took the deal.

Or maybe he just wanted the whole thing to go away. I (nor you) can read his mind.

Accepting a plea bargain is not coersion. Once you understand that, you'll hopefully understand why his statement isn't moot.

Of course not. The statement is not moot if you plan to plead. The statement was moot from the point of view of defending against the charge. he would not have made the 2nd statement if he wanted to contest this. That is why I said the statement is moot wrt to my position.

He was very smart to take the offer. If convicted he'd get up to 5 years in prison for the charge. And anytime Sloww and I both agree on the verdict... you take the "out".

If convicted.

It's not a damning statement in any case.

Again, different interpretations. I advise all my clients to not make statements. Period.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
I suspect there is a difference here in both US and Canadian law as well as our interpretations.

This happened in Florida. Canadian law probably doesn't apply.

Did they ask taser boy to come with them first?

2 times before they started to escort him out. Once as they take hold of him. Several times during the physical altercation before the tasering.

Have you watched the videos? You seem to be under the impression he asked a question and was instantly tasered thereafter...

No, but the flashing lights are a direction to stop.

So are requests to cease and desist. If you ignore either, you're going to escalate things. (Especially if you physically escalate things yourself.)

It is different. They could make verbal contact with him (unlike a car driver in a separate vehicle).

You're ignoring that they did try verbal contact. He ignored them. Just as if he had ignored their lights in traffic. You know... the whole point of the analogy.

Or maybe he just wanted the whole thing to go away. I (nor you) can read his mind.

"I understand the motivation to take the deal however."

"It was only made to accept an offer I have doubts he should have accepted in the first place...."

If you don't want any interpretation of his actions expressed here, you might start by not offering your own.

Of course not. The statement is not moot if you plan to plead. The statement was moot from the point of view of defending against the charge. he would not have made the 2nd statement if he wanted to contest this. That is why I said the statement is moot wrt to my position.

You said you found the statement moot. Without qualification.

"I find that staement moot."

You did so in response to my explanation as to what I had been refering to in the post you intially quoted and responded to. What did you expect me to think you meant?

If convicted.

You probably won't get offered the "out" after being convicted.

[Wezil]

This is tiring.

Originally posted by Aeson


This happened in Florida. Canadian law probably doesn't apply.

Well duh. Don't make me parse every word please (like the rest of the response I have to make yet...). My training is Canadian law - hence my pointing this out.

2 times before they started to escort him out. Once as they take hold of him. Several times during the physical altercation before the tasering.

Have you watched the videos? You seem to be under the impression he asked a question and was instantly tasered thereafter...

Yes I watched them awhile ago. Sorry if I'm not into watching them again.

So are requests to cease and desist. If you ignore either, you're going to escalate things. (Especially if you physically escalate things yourself.)



You're ignoring that they did try verbal contact. He ignored them. Just as if he had ignored their lights in traffic. You know... the whole point of the analogy.

Again, was their request justified? An argument can be made on this (obviously).

"I understand the motivation to take the deal however."

"It was only made to accept an offer I have doubts he should have accepted in the first place...."

If you don't want any interpretation of his actions expressed here, you might start by not offering your own.

You can't understand the motivation to take the deal? You have been arguing for it...

The 2nd Statement was clearly part of the deal. Surely you are not arguing otherwise?

Reasonable interpretations that you seem to want to quibble with.

[q]Of course not. The statement is not moot if you plan to plead. The statement was moot from the point of view of defending against the charge. he would not have made the 2nd statement if he wanted to contest this. That is why I said the statement is moot wrt to my position.[q]

You said you found the statement moot. Without qualification.

"I find that staement moot."

You did so in response to my explanation as to what I had been refering to in the post you intially quoted and responded to. What did you expect me to think you meant?

Again, IF you are going to defend the charge (my position) the 2nd statement is moot - IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. I can't be any clearer.

You probably won't get offered the "out" after being convicted.

Of course not.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wezil
This is tiring.

If you need a rest it's available any time you'd like. You're responsible for your own actions, and don't have to post, contrary to your insinuations that I am somehow forcing this on you.

Well duh. Don't make me parse every word please (like the rest of the response I have to make yet...). My training is Canadian law - hence my pointing this out.

If you want to discuss something with me, that's fine. If you don't want to discuss something with me, that's fine. Taking it upon yourself to start a discussion with me and then asking me not to discuss it with you as I see fit is intellectually dishonest. And yes, I like to parse every complete thought (in context). Deal with it.

I really don't care what your training is. Either what you say is applicable to this case, or it's not.

Yes I watched them awhile ago. Sorry if I'm not into watching them again.

Well, if you'd like to discuss what happened in them, you might consider a refresher.

Again, was their request justified?

It would seem the court and the guy have both confirmed it.

An argument can be made on this (obviously).

If you want to argue it, do so. Simply stating an argument can be made does not address whether such argument would be valid or not.

You can't understand the motivation to take the deal?

We both know I have already offered my views on that. Your question is inane.

You have been arguing for it...

And here you confirm that. Of course I have. (Though I would like to point out I have used qualifications in that regard.)

The 2nd Statement was clearly part of the deal. Surely you are not arguing otherwise?

Another inane question...

Reasonable interpretations that you seem to want to quibble with.

I am not quibbling with your interpretations as to his motivation. I am merely pointing out that you have made them, in response to your "we can't mindread" argument.

Reading comprehension is important, look into it.

Again, IF you are going to defend the charge (my position) the 2nd statement is moot - IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. I can't be any clearer.

Oh, it's very clear what you mean now. It was very clear last post too. It was not clarified originally. I find it funny to watch you try to dance around this fact.

(And what you are saying here is what I was saying initially. Glad to see you are agreeing with me.)

Of course not.

Which is why it was smart of him to take the sure out instead of going to trial where he may end up with up to 5 years in prison.