Cop vs. Cop

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by foshizzle, Jan 29, 2007.

  1. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
  2. DrGlock

    DrGlock New Member

    144
    0
    0
    I can't say if that is more tragic or funny!
     

  3. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I vote for funny.

    Too bad they didn't let him ride the lightning or give him a nice wood shampoo.
     
  4. DrGlock

    DrGlock New Member

    144
    0
    0
    Sherrif, any comments on this little show?
     
  5. S&W 40

    S&W 40 Active Member

    2,205
    0
    36
    If I remember correctly this has been on Spike TV several years ago from the FLA Miami area. Something about profiling. The undercover was a Major and there was a lot more to this than all that was on utube. Goes to show that sometimes not all LEO get over and that some do always expect it :cry:

    Off duty, grabbing your license back and calling a LEO a Bitch,,, I would expect to go to jail :!: bruised, bleeding and I am only a civilian. They would also charge with open container since I had my empties from the last weekend in the truck going to recycle, refusal since they knock me out with the ground and so on and so on.... :handcuffs:
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,336
    119
    63
    Both Wrong

    Wow. That's an amazing video. It's a good thing the detective / undercover officer didn't ever reach for his gun, or even mention it except when asked, as that was CLEARLY a big issue to the state patrol guys who pulled him over.

    I think they're both in the wrong. The state trooper was wrong for not showing the slightest bit of professional courtesy and being anal-retentive about how the other officer's license plate frame obscured part of the registration sticker (this was AFTER he knew he was dealing with a police officer).

    The plain-clothes City cop was wrong for going ballistic and refusing to cooperate when it became clear the Trooper intended to ticket him. Sure, he was provoked, but two wrongs don't make a right. Now the honorable thing to do is to plead guilty to what in Georgia would probably be misdemeanor obstruction of LEO (he didn't offer violence, other than struggling AFTER they peppersprayed him and then tackled him), take his speeding ticket (or whatever the pull-over was for, and I hope it wasn't Driving While Black), and ask to keep his job (maybe after some anger management classes -- to teach him how not to escalate a conflict just because you've been shown disrespect).

    What do you guys think? And should the Major (the city cop) lose his job? Assume that he's at the peak of his career and has several productive years left, not that he's already put in 20+ years and is ready for retirement.
     
  7. wwomack

    wwomack New Member

    160
    0
    0
    Re: Both Wrong

    I disagree 100%. What someone does for a living should have ZERO bearing on how you're treated. If a police officer breaks a law they should be treated the exact same as I would be. If anything, police officers should be held to higher standards than we mere citizens.
     
  8. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I followed this on the internet when it happened.

    I agree with gunsmoker in that they were both wrong but not why they were wrong.

    If I remember the court case that this resulted in correctly, the part of the license plate that was covered was the county and not the registration sticker itself. The uniformed officer had been told by the same judge that heard this case that it is not illegal to have the county covered up and so that is not a valid reason to pull someone over. The officer keeps using that as an excuse to pull people over anyway, which the judge warned that the next time he did that the officer would be found in contempt of court.

    The plain clothed Major argued in court that the charge of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer should not proceed because the stop itself was invalid. I believe he also argued that he was not resisting arrest because he was only waiting for a supervisor to arrive.

    The judge disagreed and stated that while the stop was invalid, that does not give a person the right to resist arrest or assualt an officer. The judge also said that he did not have the right to request a supervisor show up. The correct thing to do would have been to accept the citation then challenge it in court.

    The clip above does not show the part where, while the Major was sitting on the guard rail, he made a move like was going to hit the officer. The jury ruled that at that point was where the Major went wrong and was found guilty.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Re: Both Wrong

    Higher standards? Like they should be Tasered twice? :lol:
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Was this in Georgia?
     
  11. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Florida, I believe.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Oh, well, that might be the law in Florida, then.
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Is that not the case in Georgia?
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    No, it is not the case in Georgia. A false arrest (and I mean a real false arrest, not you think you are not guilty - you can turn out to be not guilty and the arrest could still not be a false arrest, a real false arrest, such as an arrest for a misdeameanor that was not witnessed and without a warrant and no domestic violence involved) is just a battery (or an assault, if the officer does not actually touch you) in Georgia, and the same rules of self defense apply as to any other battery (or assault, as the case may be).
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Holeman is Athens PD, and Smith is the "perp."

    Smith v. Holeman, 212 Ga.App. 158, 441 S.E.2d 487 (1994).
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Wagner refused to give his name. The court noted that the fact that the police were called is not probable cause to arrest.

    Wagner v. State, 206 Ga.App. 180, 424 S.E.2d 861 (1992).
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    The federal courts are very critical of this rule. In a federal court case citing to Wagner, they called this rule "disturbing."

    Gainor v. Douglas County, Georgia, 59 F.Supp.2d 1259 (N.D.Ga. 1998).

    In fairness to Georgia law, however, it does not "say just that." As I pointed out above, one's "disagreement with the basis of the arrest" has nothing to do with the right to resist an unlawful arrest. One may disagree with the basis of the arrest and still be lawfully arrested. Therefore, this criticism is unfounded.

    Moreover, in Gainor, the deputy quite obviously had a reasonable suspicion to stop the suspect for burglary. Therefore, his failure to identify himself was obstruction.

    As an interesting aside, the Deputy in the Gainor case is now the sponsor of HB 89! :D
     
  18. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Thank you MP for posting all that.

    Interesting stuff, but it raised another question.

    "But a mere refusal to identify oneself to a police officer is not a crime."

    As I have been told, Georgia has a "stop and identify" law. Title 16, Section 16-11-36. Source.

    The pertinent part of the code follows:
    In further reading on the subject I came across a SCOTUS case (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada) that gives the outline for the state (or locality) demanding identification. The justices decided that it is within the bounds of the USC, and does not violate the Forth and Fifth Amendments, so long as the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime was/is/or about to take place.

    So basically, by law, a person is compelled to provide ID (either picture or just name/DOB) only when they are detained(seized) and not when they are casually contacted or under arrest.

    That strikes me as odd, since you are compelled by law to speak when not under arrest, but once you are under arrest you are under not obligated to do so because of the 5th Amendment.

    Back to my second question, how does Wagner v. State reconcile with the stop and identify law. Does it not come in to play because his arrest was unlawful or is the court simply choosing to disregard the law?

    And if the court is disregarding the law, could one point to that as a defense that one not need to identify themselves during a Terry stop?
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Hiibel is different, as Nevada had a specific law on the books that I do not think is similar to the loitering and prowling statute in Georgia. I read the loitering and prowling statute as simply restating Terry v. Ohio. You really cannot read any one piece of (b) by itself. You cannot even read (b) without reading (a).

    (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

    (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered . . .

    And, of course, failure to identify yourself is one of those circumstances. This is really only useful when the police find you hanging out at the back door to a business at 3:00 a.m. or in other suspicious circumstances. I do not see any permission for officers to go on a fishing expedition and demand your i.d. and then arrest you for loitering and prowling at lunchtime while you are ordering a cheeseburger.
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Wagner was not "in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity."

    This statute codifies Terry, I think. :wink: