Pistons center Tasered during arrest in Miami Beach

[DemocratSinceBirth]

MIAMI BEACH -- Detroit Pistons center Dale Davis was charged with assault and disorderly conduct in an altercation with police that saw him shocked with a stun gun, but the player's agent said he plans to sue over police treatment.

Davis was arrested Tuesday at a Miami Beach hotel and was accused of threatening security guards and police and leveling profanities at them, a police report said.



LocalLinks

Police were called to the hotel by the security workers and officers repeatedly asked Davis to leave, but he refused, the report said.

After giving officers his identification, Davis and the officers went outside, where the 6-foot-11 player accused the officers of targeting him because he is black, the report said.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-84beachshock,0,5554522.story?coll=sfla-sports-front

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I'm a bit confused by the list of charges.

"He was taken into custody and charged with assault, assault on a police officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, the report said."

Anyone else share my confusion?

I'd go for the lawsuit myself. Davis was tasered for being too big to be that black.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Here's My Take

If they tasered him because he's a big black guy that's racism at it basest.

If he did something to warrant being tasered and then says it was because he was black it doesn't help the cause of fighting racist cops.

[sgxnk]

6. correct. good post

[slaveplanet]

3. yes

sounds like he was complying by showing ID and emptying his pockets and all.

Then they charge him with assault, and with resisting arrest without violence?
sorry cops you can't have it both ways unless the assault was for spitting or something.

Here's a tip for anyone who has to deal with a cop, Keep your mouth shut.
Ask him if you're free to leave or whether you're under arrest, if the answer is anything other than free to leave, plead the 5th and don't say one more word. without council.

[sgxnk]

7. that's stupid

stupid

the vast majority of people who speak to police have no problem and the idea that saying nothing helps your cause is stupid

i cannot tell you how many potential suspects (in terry stop situations for instance) get OUT of trouble by explaining themselves

this has happened hundreds of times in my career

it is a fallacy to beleive that talking to the polkice is bad, or agaisnt self-interest

if yer guilty as hell, and suspected of a crime, your advice might have some merit

i have had people also, accused of a crime give a statement as to self-defense, that got them OUT of truble (and unarrested) etc.

police are not out to prove you guilty. police are out to gather evidenec, inculpatory or exculpatory , to investigate suspicious activity, etc.

i can say from experience (literally HUNDREDS of "suspicion stops") that in the VAST majority of cases, no arrest is made, and among the primary reasons are that the terry subject has an explanation

like i was terry stopped once for walking down the street with a guitar and amplifier in my hands at 3 in the morning

i was a guitarist in a band, and it was my guitar and amp

the cop was right to stop me

he asked me about the equipment. i explained to him my perfectly lawful actions, and even gave him the phone # of two of my bandmates if he wished to verify my "story"

needless to say, it was no big deal

this idea that police are the enemy is needlessly divisive and actually BAD policy when it comes to dealing with the police

and i say this as a former long haired goatee wearing guy, as a well as a police officer

the idea that keeping your mouth shut with cops in all situation is the best policy is WRONG

it may have merit if you just committed a crime AND you can't talk yer way out of it

iow, if yer guilty

[slaveplanet]

8. please explain to me which law

law makes it illegal to walk down the street at 3 in the morning with your legal possessions?

be precise, list the specific law.

and explain how that differs from someone driving down the street at 3 in the morning with his legal possessions in the back seat.

or are you contending that simply having possessions visible constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, and then everyone with a car(possession),& every one walking down the street with clothes(possession) on constitutes reasonable suspicion that they may be criminals.

explain how that is any different from nazi Germany or soviet Russia.

As soon as an law enforcement employee approaches you and issues a verbal command, that technically begins the arrest(detention) and the second level of force continuum has been activated(first level is wearing the uniform, the final level is deadly force). That is the time to assert your 5th and let the officer know you cannot proceed without council, the public has been hoodwinked to think that it starts only after the officer recites the miranda. pure poppycock, one needs to assert the 5th immediately, and then comply by offering up ID. The officer is owed nothing else without the suspect's council present.

Police are not your friend or buddy, even though they can play a good game of pretending they are, but they are there coming at you with force, and are there to gather evidence against YOU. Force needs to be applied back by assertion of constitutional rights.

Now true, this is not always the best course for most minor traffic stops, but judgment is needed as to the officer's attitude, one needs to be ready to assert the 5th if things progress in a problematic manner. And for sakes, shut the hell up and don't speak any more than necessary to extract yourself from detention.

And certainly it should be invoked for any type of criminal suspicion, these matters are serious and better left to your lawyer.


PS: BTW, how did you prove the amp was yours? did you have the receipt or did you just tell him you were also a cop?



like i was terry stopped once for walking down the street with a guitar and amplifier in my hands at 3 in the morning

i was a guitarist in a band, and it was my guitar and amp

the cop was right to stop me

[sgxnk]

9. the law

i am going to TRY to make this brief, because i don't have the time to write a full primer on constitutional law... with that in mind...

the stop was lawful under the case law for Terry v. Ohio, which in brief formally established the authority to stop and detain based on REASONABLE suspicion (note that this is a MUCH Lower standard of evidence than probable cause) that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.

all sorts of factors can support the reasonableness of a terry stop, to wit - time of day or night, proximity to a high crime area, recent criminal activity involving similar MO, similarity to any outstanding subjects, etc etc. etc.

clearly, carrying a guitar and amp on a deserted street at 0300 hrs justified a reasonable SUSPICION (much lower standard than probable cause) that i might have stolen the items, or be in possession of stolen property, etc.

that justifies a terry stop

whether or not the guitar or amp belonged to me was NOT KNOWN TO THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED ME. the issue is "objective reasonableness" (to use the language of the case law) and is based on what a "reasonable and prudent officer, based on his training AND experience would suspect" based on the facts and circumstances as presented to him. it is NOT whether or not criminal activity is ACTUALLY afoot. it is based on the totality of circumstances KNOWN to the officer, reasonably filtered through his training and experience.

for example, i have testified as an expert witness on drugs, couriers, etc. thus, facts and circumstances regarding suspicious activity that would not trigger a terry stop for some officers WILL trigger it for me based on my training and experience.

it is 100% irrelevant as to the reasonableness of the STOP as to whether i was committed had committed or was going to commit a crime. what is relevant is only the facts/circs known to theofficer when he SAW me walking down the street.

a terry stop justifies a detention (iow, one is not free to leave) for a brief (no bright line as to time) period of time in order to investigate further. cops may detain, and in some circumstances may also frisk (note that a frisk does not require probable cause. a search does. frisks require so called frisk factors only justified by reasonable suspicion)

that is what was done with me, and it was entirely justified

reasonable investigative steps pursuant to a terry would be to demand my name, record the serial #'s of the guitar/amp (and run them through NCIC for stolen checks) and to question me about the property

if PC develops, cops can make an arrest. if not, they must release me after a 'reasonable' period of time or else risk the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine when a terry stop turns into a "constructive arrest" due to time extension

i don't have to "prove" the amp is mine. but by offering a reasonable explanation i allayed the resasonable suspicion and i was released. they had my name and the serial #, so if they DID turn out to be stolen, then they would have the relevant information. i also knew somebody who recently had an amplifier stolen. theft of band equipment was/is a common crime on college campuses.

no, i was not a cop at that time. i was a college student

this is bread and butter police work and happens all the time in all jurisdictions

i have testified at NUMEROUS hearings, including suppression hearings, so i am very aware of the envoelope wherein a terry stop is justified or not

the below is clearly wrong

"As soon as an law enforcement employee approaches you and issues a verbal command, that technically begins the arrest(detention) and the second level of force continuum has been activated(first level is wearing the uniform, the final level is deadly force"

it is a detention consistent with TERRY v. ohio. it is not a formal arrest necessitating PC, but only reasonable suspicion.

semantics aside, technically speaking any detention is an 'arrest' in that ones freedom to leave is "arrested' but this does not require probable cause. this is what is referred to as a terry stop . it is an investigative detention requiring ONLY reasonable suspicions.

you need to actually research constitutional law

all your rhetoric aside, this is NOTHING like 'nazi germany" so spare me the rhetoric

back to the original point. as somebody who has been on BOTH sides of the law (subject OF terry stops and traffic stops AND an officer) you are 100% wrong.

it is entirely dumb to tell people to never answer police questions and just clam up

i will defer back to my original post for the reasons why

and like i said, i have seen NUMEROUS instances where somebody TALKING to me has talked them OUT of handcuffs, out of going to jail, etc. because i (like any good stop) base my decision to arrest/detain out of deference to 'totality of the circumstances"

classic example. i once saw somebody walking down the street, DRENCHED in blood

this would justify police action under both terry v. ohio AND the "community caretaking function".

i should also note that even in a custody situation (whcih this wasn't) there are exception to miranda requirements when exigency attaches (somebody just dumped a gun, or there is a bleeding victim nearby as case law points out endlessly).

anyways, it turned out that this guy had just slaughtered a deer in his back yard

he hadn't killed anybody, nor was the blood his own

a stop was CERTAINLY justified, and his commonsense explanation cleared him from any further suspcions. btw, the deer was a beautiful buck he had hanging in his backyard, but i digress

terry v. ohio is VERY basic constitutional law. i have made EASILY hundreds of terry stops (not to mention traffic stops, arrests, and "social contacts). and my analysis stands

[slaveplanet]

10. Terry V Ohio

does not make it illegal to walk down the street with your legal possesions at any time of day or night, you owed the officer no explaination. try again.

The officer is owed nothing other than ID and in the past not even that in many jurisdictions.

[cigsandcoffee]

11. Let's say for a minute that it wasn't a guitar and amp...

Let's say it was three new microwaves in their boxes being wheeled on a dolly. Is it still unreasonable for the police to stop and ask questions?

If not, what's the legal difference between those items?

[slaveplanet]

13. he can stop and ask

all he wants, he can even sieze you and the property.

but, he is still owed no explaination.

[cigsandcoffee]

15. If he doesn't get one, it's his right to arrest you...

...on suspicion of trafficking in stolen goods. You'll be inconvenienced pretty terribly until a judge sorts it out.

I'd say that makes it a wise policy to politely explain why you're carrying two new microwaves (or a guitar and an amp) to an alert cop doing his job by investigating something that looks obviously suspicious.

[sgxnk]

16. not quite

the point of terry v. ohio is that it justifies an investigative detention

the detention must be brief enough that it does not turn into a constructive arrest and done in such a manner that it does not equate to an arrest

*if* probable cause develops, then he can make an arrest

one ABSOLUTELY has the right to remain silent. one's right to remain silent cannot be used against you - IN COURT

it most definitely CAN be used against you - in the field. iow, failure to provide a reasonable explanation to certain activities can be *an* element of probable cause

but that silence could not be used against you in court

my original point was that, IF innocent, it is totally in yer interest to be HONEST and not "clam up"

as i have experienced hundreds of times as a cop, a terry subject's reasonable explanation is what gets you OUT of trouble so to speak

the person's silence ALONE could never be probable cause

also, it is much more justifiable to seize PROPERTY than to seize persons. iow, if u are walking down the street carrying a guitar and amp, and refuse to say ANYTHING about them (at 3 in the morning, etc.) then it would be much more justifiable to seize the property (and give a receipt) than to make a formal arrest once the terry was over

if the person later came to the station with proof/explanatiom,. the property would be returned

the original issue i was bringing up was that it is BOGUS advice to tell people to not talk to the police when questioned. ESPECIALLY if one is innocent of any wrongdoing. cops are not looking to arrest innocent people. they are at least as desirous to find out the person is in fact innocent of wrongdoing because then they can go on to REAL crimes

[sgxnk]

12. you don't understand terry v. ohio

terry v. ohio is not a criminal statute

it does not define what is and isn't illegal

it defines what threshold is required for police to stop/detain individuals and.or frisk them

i didn't say the 'officer was OWED' an explanation

i explained that the stop was lawful, and that in this case, as in most others, it is NOT in one's best interest to play the "shut the hell up" game when dealing with the police

the police are not the enemy. and again, i have done literally hundreds of terry stops/arrests/etc.

and in MANY MANY cases (most cases, actually) people who talk to police HELP their cause by facilitating the police finding out "what's up" and getting the heck out of there and dealing with other stuff

for example, in DV's, we talk to both sides to find out what (they claimed) happened before our arrival

generally speaking, the party that chooses NOT to talk to police places him/herself at a disadvantage, since the police are only going to get the 'story" from one POV not two

in situations such as my example, by my talking to police i facilitated a quick investigation, which turned out to be a big nothing and the cop was on his way. i greatly respect that he was making terry stops like that, because they are constitutional and they help catch criminals.

again, your prejudiced attitude informs your analysis. all you express is a sentiment mentality. "don't talk to police. tell them nothing. it's like nazi germany" etc.

even the most hardened criminals KNOW that the "i'm not going to say a word' situation in terry stop and such situations generally works AGAINST them.

99% of the job of most cops is simply talking to people. we are people people.

i enjoy discourse with all sorts - from the most hardened career felon, to the innocent victim

i'm glad that most people do not view us as the enemy, and feel that talking to police is good policy

cause it is

but yes, if you are guilty as hell, and they are placing you under arrest for a crime, that is not a good (in terms of self interest. it is good in terms of taking responsibility ) time to start offering bogus explanations

i actually had one defense attorney tell me that he did not believe the 'DON'T TALK TO POLICE' was the best policy. he actually believed that 'if you are guilty as hell and you can't talk yer way out of it, don't talk to police' was the proper advice, but that was too nuanced to explain to his clients. seriously . and of course, he was right

what you fail to realize is that talking to the police, especially if you are not guilty, often facilitates the revealing of exculpatory information that serves TWO purposes. one - it takes suspicion OFF of you (that's a good thing) and two - it can often place suspicion ON the guilty party

that's also a good thing.

like i said, i have done hundreds of these things. the vast majority of people are cooperative and a big percentage of terrys result in no big deal. the most common custodial situation that results from terry stop is when you have a warrant. and not talking to police is not going to help you get out of the warrant

also, and you may find this hard to believe, but most cops prefer honesty. cops have a fair amount of discretion NOT to charge/cite/arrest

let me give you an example. if i approach a young appearing male who smells of alcohol, i can then conduct a terry stop based on suspicion of minor consuming alcohol. let's say i ask him how old he is and he says "18". i confirm this with his id. i ask him if he was drinking. he says NO. now, i KNOW he he has been drinking. he has alcohol on his breath, his speech is slightly slurred, he has bloodshot glassy eyes, and there is a half consumed beer next to him

i have more than enough PC to arrest now that i have confirmed his age (and he does have to provide that or he gets arrested for obstruction. )

if he lies to me and claims he hasn;'t been drinking, he is MUCH more likely to get a ticket for Minor having consumed liquor/possession than if he is simply honest

it is true that honesty is not always gonna help you, but with minor offenses it is - quite often

that's a reality i've seen in numerous jurisdictions. cops ask questions not just to get an answer, but to determine veracity.

something to consider.

[cynatnite]

14. All I know is that if I'm pulled over by a cop is to...

smile, show ID and insurance, if asked, and above all be polite when talking to them.

I've never had reason to mistrust the police except on one occasion and that was what I view as an isolated and unique instant.

Most officers I've ever met, and working as a medic and an ER tech I met a lot, they care about what they do and take great care in making sure they do the right thing.

They're the good guys with the exception of the rare cop who is an asshole and abuses his authority.

My hat is off to cops, firemen, EMTs and all those who are out on the street working to help people. They should be rewarded and not treated like shit because of a few bad apples.

[sgxnk]

17. great post

i used to be a firefighter before i was a cop btw

then i got a real job :)

(cop vs. firefighter joke)

[sgxnk]

5. what exactly are you confused about

besides your prejudicial assumptions about why he was tased?

[AX10]

4. KICK