Your chart is irrelevant to your argument as some number of those deaths are legally justifiable. Or is it your position that no killing is ever justifiable?
If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose, as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, meaning that, at the time of warrant execution, officers believed that their warrant was valid. If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case, but no one is claiming that that occurred. The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory, but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred. The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge. If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime, then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant.
I generally concur but I have to take issue with your interpretation of "due process". The due course of law in this case is quite clear. Barring exigent circumstances, a warrant is required in order to seize property. Also, for those of you quibbling over whether freezing assets constitutes a seizure, I give you SCOTUS's definition in Maryland v Macon: "a seizure occurs when 'there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests'".
That's a fine straw man you have there but an accurate headline would read: Kiddie Porn = Probable Cause. The ruling simply means that having an open WAP does not preclude PC. Try reading the article rather than the headline before whipping yourself into a righteous fury.
Tasers and other "nonlethal" weapons are meant for self defense against a threat of violence, not for passive (albeit annoying) resistors
While I agree that this episode is a pretty clear example of excessive force, the above statement is not accurate. Although my department doesn't use tasers, I presume that the courts consider tasers as occupying the same rung in the ladder of escalating force guidelines as pepper spray. Police officers (I am one) are trained to use non-lethal force options such as these when the arrestee is actively resisting but not threatening violence. Examples of active resistance include fleeing, attempting to break free from a compliance hold, etc. If the officer were actually be threatened with bodily harm, the guidelines stipulate that he should escalate to the baton (as long as the suspect is not himself armed).
I can't really tell what's going on from the video but if the arrestee was already handcuffed and was simply not walking then use of the taser should not have been authorized. Realistically speaking, the courts tend to give arresting officers a lot of leeway because they feel that it is difficult to judge officers' heat-of-the-moment decisions when one has the benefit of time to weigh and reflect upon the facts. In my opinion, the courts give too much leeway. While there are certainly instances where the best use-of-force decision is not clear, the majortiy of officers make bad decisions not because they're afraid or anxious, but because they are bad officers who are either unable or unwilling to effectively balance law enforcement and constitutional protections.
The reality of the status-quo is that police work attracts high-school grads and GED's whose priorities are being respected and retiring with a decent pension. As civilians, you have the power to affect this problem. If you want consciencious yet capable officers, you have to pay for them. Force your local politicians to fire and prosecute consistently and have them pay officers enough to attract educated individuals who want to positively affect their communities.
Slashdot Mirror
Your chart is irrelevant to your argument as some number of those deaths are legally justifiable. Or is it your position that no killing is ever justifiable?
If you attempted to bring any of these charges you would lose, as the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith, meaning that, at the time of warrant execution, officers believed that their warrant was valid. If officers had falsified information on the warrant affidavit and/or lied to the judge signing the warrant then you would have a case, but no one is claiming that that occurred. The signing judge reviewed the facts of the case as listed in the warrant application and determined that there was probable cause to issue the warrant. You may fault the officers for charging a crime based on tenuous legal theory, but remember that they presented that legal theory for review to the signing judge and that judge concurred. The failure in the system occurred at the signing judge. If the only act for which sufficient probable cause was demonstrated was not actually a crime, then the signing judge should not have signed the warrant.
I generally concur but I have to take issue with your interpretation of "due process". The due course of law in this case is quite clear. Barring exigent circumstances, a warrant is required in order to seize property. Also, for those of you quibbling over whether freezing assets constitutes a seizure, I give you SCOTUS's definition in Maryland v Macon: "a seizure occurs when 'there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests'".
so the original claim doesn't require citation but the counter-claim does?
That's a fine straw man you have there but an accurate headline would read: Kiddie Porn = Probable Cause. The ruling simply means that having an open WAP does not preclude PC. Try reading the article rather than the headline before whipping yourself into a righteous fury.
Tasers and other "nonlethal" weapons are meant for self defense against a threat of violence, not for passive (albeit annoying) resistors
While I agree that this episode is a pretty clear example of excessive force, the above statement is not accurate. Although my department doesn't use tasers, I presume that the courts consider tasers as occupying the same rung in the ladder of escalating force guidelines as pepper spray. Police officers (I am one) are trained to use non-lethal force options such as these when the arrestee is actively resisting but not threatening violence. Examples of active resistance include fleeing, attempting to break free from a compliance hold, etc. If the officer were actually be threatened with bodily harm, the guidelines stipulate that he should escalate to the baton (as long as the suspect is not himself armed).
I can't really tell what's going on from the video but if the arrestee was already handcuffed and was simply not walking then use of the taser should not have been authorized. Realistically speaking, the courts tend to give arresting officers a lot of leeway because they feel that it is difficult to judge officers' heat-of-the-moment decisions when one has the benefit of time to weigh and reflect upon the facts. In my opinion, the courts give too much leeway. While there are certainly instances where the best use-of-force decision is not clear, the majortiy of officers make bad decisions not because they're afraid or anxious, but because they are bad officers who are either unable or unwilling to effectively balance law enforcement and constitutional protections.
The reality of the status-quo is that police work attracts high-school grads and GED's whose priorities are being respected and retiring with a decent pension. As civilians, you have the power to affect this problem. If you want consciencious yet capable officers, you have to pay for them. Force your local politicians to fire and prosecute consistently and have them pay officers enough to attract educated individuals who want to positively affect their communities.