Did the Police Take this too Far or Suspects fault?

[bulldog]

It was a bad stop. I was a long haired white boy with an old beater car driving late at night in a bad neighborhood (mine) but the cop stopped me about half a mile over the city line, out of his jurisdiction. Profiling. The back up cop from the neighboring jurisdiction backed my story and the case got thrown out. See the other officer seems to be a good cop and backed the story that was the truth....those are the cops I am down for.

So yeah, now I do what the cops say, take my ticket and fight it in court. You want to strike a blow for freedom and squabble with the cops, knock yourself out. I'll be the freedom hating pussy going home that night.

Yeah sounds like he totally profiled you; happened to me all my life. And see sounds like you did have a honest cop behind you that saw it and cleared the matter up...now those are the good cops we need!

The moral of story here is to never go at the police alone in this situation...you lawyer up fast! Just getting a lawyer makes most of them back down because they know your rights have to be followed....believe me they will try to twist your rights. You notice how officers always try to be cool and get your consent; because the second you do you have waived your right. Same thing if they knock on your home door and they say "mind if we step in"...boom, you just waived your right and gave them consent to come in and search.

And I am not saying to not comply, but if rights are being ignored it does not always mean the cops are correct as cases get dismissed all the time for this reason. So as I said you have been lucky, but personally I had a cop say I ran from him on my sportbike the week before and me being calm and explaining it was not me did nothing for him. I know i was innocent, but he judged me guilty when he saw a bike that was similar to the one that ran from him (an black and silver F4I). Also seem cops personally plants drugs on people; that case got dismissed because he was pulled over for noise violation (loud stereo), but his lawyer proved that went into affect at 10pm and they pulled him over at 9:45pm.

Always best to comply, but don't let them fool you that you do not have rights. If anything you can get a case thrown out with a lawyer if they could not prove probable cause.

And not saying the "3 forms of id" is a law and she probably was mistaken, but I do believe it is a right to travel to a well light area since so many police officer impersonations have occurred. I just don't get why they didn't just pull out there badges when he asked...they did eventually to th wife I saw, but that was all he was asking for.

[Captain Obvious]

koop, where does your opinion on the topic stop and your own story start? You saying the traffic stop on Herman was an invalid traffic stop? Or had bad results?

[Captain Obvious]

And not saying the "3 forms of id" is a law and she probably was mistaken, but I do believe it is a right to travel to a well light area since so many police officer impersonations have occurred. I just don't get why they didn't just pull out there badges when he asked...they did eventually to th wife I saw, but that was all he was asking for.

I suspect the 3 ID thing is completely wrong, in my experience, I have never heard of such a thing.

People absolutely DO have the right to travel to a well lit location for a traffic stop.

I just don't get why they didn't just pull out there badges when he asked They were in uniform. Had badges on their uniforms. Had multiple vehicles with lights and stickers, etc. They did show her id once Herman was detained. She was sitting in the vehicle and didn't appear to be a threat. One can say "they did that because she had a camera" well, perhaps, but they also met her request once the perceived threat was removed.

Once again, everything depends on this expectation of 3 forms of ID. IF it is actually a req, then sure, they didn't meet a legislated requirement. If it isn't, then his requests were invalid and he didn't comply with multiple instructions and directions. He started to comply and then backtracked and took a step towards them. The rest of the charges (at least 1 were trumped up) are dependent on if the original path was correct or not.

Can always play the what if game. The Herman's present a reason for him to get out of the car once stopped. All speculation, but if he had stayed the vehicle, none of this might have happened. Cops ask for ID, why didn't you pull over, he explains he needed to get to a well lit location, vehicle trouble and didn't want his wife and infant in the middle of no where with a dead vehicle in the snow..... who knows, it is all speculation.

[Captain Obvious]

Always best to comply, but don't let them fool you that you do not have rights. If anything you can get a case thrown out with a lawyer if they could not prove probable cause.

agreed.

Although, a case just went to the Supreme Court. It basically states that if a LEO is WRONG about their PC (reasons for stop was incorrect), and violations that are subsequently found, the arrest can still be upheld...

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/12...-ignorant-law/


In the case that went to the Supreme CT, the driver did give consent to search, which may be part of why the court ruled as they did...... Just saying, new definition of the law.

Summary, don't have cocaine in your vehicle, even if you are following all the other laws.

[guambra2001]

I am a cop in the Air Force, no where near what "actual" cops have to do and go through, but in my humble opinion based on the video showned and not having seen the police report, the use of the taser was not justified. Now before people start yelling at me, let me explain, I work in Peterson Afb we receive extensive annual training on the use of force, we also carry taser just like the one on the civilian side and for us to be able to use it, the situation has to meet the following criteria based on the use of force model: subject action - resistant active; risk perception - threshold; officer response - compliance techniques.

so based on that I don't beleive he was actively resisting to commands, yes he was verbally resistant but not active as is it would best for under the resistance passive categorie, no taser use allowed at this level. The officers didn't try to apply any pressure points, no actual hands on, nothing, they went directly for the taser. I could understand this if the officer was alone but from the video there were at least two officers. Also at the time the officers would have no way of knowing that he was an mma fighter.

Basically my opinion on this is just because someone is an asshole it doesn't give you the right by law and training to use exesive force. If this was the case id be zapping people left and right... Something I've noticed, is the fact of how much and how willing civilian police will "charge" a person based on interactions. Idk for us in the military when we charge someone with something with need we'll established pc, we need to to know the article in the UCMJ AND its applicable elements before any "arrest" can be made.

[Captain Obvious]

Last I checked, some departments consider a taser level 3 and not level 4. From the get go, the taser was used as a threat.

I would honestly rather be tazed than have a couple cops try to wrestle me down or use open hand techniques.

If you watch about 1:05 (depending on the video) you will see he lowers his hands, turns back to the cops and steps towards them.

Were they quick to give him a ride, yes, were they justified? Depends.

[guambra2001]

As I stated, look at the model, it is at level 3 but the subject was displaying actions that would correlate with resistant passive I.e level 2. I'm guessing that you've never been tased, well I have and I can tell you that it is not a pleasant expiriemce. And simple by saying hands on I mean, using your hand to direct or calmly de escalate the situation; IMO the use of the taser was not justified and in fact was quickly issued instead of ANY other means. This is based on the video though, there is always two sides of the story.

[#1Townie]

It was a bad stop. I was a long haired white boy with an old beater car driving late at night in a bad neighborhood (mine) but the cop stopped me about half a mile over the city line, out of his jurisdiction. Profiling. The back up cop from the neighboring jurisdiction backed my story and the case got thrown out.

So yeah, now I do what the cops say, take my ticket and fight it in court. You want to strike a blow for freedom and squabble with the cops, knock yourself out. I'll be the freedom hating pussy going home that night.

Well I'm happy that worked for you. Enjoy the comply or die. I will record. Enjoy your he said she said fight in court. I will just show a video.

You also clearly have no idea what a wood is. You use it far too easy. That makes me wonder if you are from a bad neighborhood for not knowing what you are calling this guy.

This also makes me question your entire story at all.

[koop]

You keep watching Lockup and fighting the good fight Townie.

[Captain Obvious]

As I stated, look at the model, it is at level 3 but the subject was displaying actions that would correlate with resistant passive I.e level 2. I'm guessing that you've never been tased, well I have and I can tell you that it is not a pleasant expiriemce. And simple by saying hands on I mean, using your hand to direct or calmly de escalate the situation; IMO the use of the taser was not justified and in fact was quickly issued instead of ANY other means. This is based on the video though, there is always two sides of the story.

Your guess is very wrong. I've been tazed a number of times. And it hurts. But goes away. "soft hands techniques" can escalate very quickly, esp with someone who is a trained fighter (they wouldn't know that at the time) but in general.

And as I stated, not all departments have use a taser at the same level. Some have it at a level below what you are presenting. This was years ago, but some treat it differently. Being that they had it taser drawn at the very beginning they may have it lower than what you are assuming. I don't know, but guessing.

[#1Townie]

You keep watching Lockup and fighting the good fight Townie.

Hahahaha I don't watch that. Now I'm really questioning everything you said.

You're telling me a cop broke the blue line to defend some broke white trash long haired? I'm not buying it. He kicked you in the nuts?

Yeah this whole story of yours smells a little fishy.

[guambra2001]

Your guess is very wrong. I've been tazed a number of times. And it hurts. But goes away. "soft hands techniques" can escalate very quickly, esp with someone who is a trained fighter (they wouldn't know that at the time) but in general.

And as I stated, not all departments have use a taser at the same level. Some have it at a level below what you are presenting. This was years ago, but some treat it differently. Being that they had it taser drawn at the very beginning they may have it lower than what you are assuming. I don't know, but guessing.

You are right, not all departments have the use of force at the same level but it would seem illogical to have it at less than level 3. Idk I respect your opinion and agree that once someone puts their hands on someone else it could either de escalate or escalate further; my issue is with how it seems that for every situation no matter the level cops seem to use the taser pretty regularly without much of a though...maybe because it's effective?

From a reasonable perspective as an officer, I didn't see a justified use in this case. And the way i reason my decision is if I had an argument with my wife that was simply verbal in nature, high emotions, and oboiusly some anger I can't just pick up a taser and shock her.... So why did the officer in this case do so? Standards are there for a reason and I understand the use of force is not black or white simple and everyone can play Monday nignt quarterback, but simply put one cannot ignore facts and evidence and based on what I saw in the video he was not justified to use it.

[Captain Obvious]

previously posted. - Were they quick to give him a ride, yes, were they justified? Depends.

[#1Townie]

previously posted. - Were they quick to give him a ride, yes, were they justified? Depends.

Doesn't being hasty in a decision kind of make it not justified? Shouldn't the cops have at least given it a chance to deescalate him? I mean he wasn't really asking all that much. He wanted some id. That's not really asking all that much.

Doing repo people wanted copies of their paperwork. That was easy. Just gave it to them. Some people wanted my ID and that didn't happen. What I would do for them is call the repo in to the police and give them the case number.

Point is I always found a way to DEESCALATE the situation. Not make it worse.

[bulldog]

I am a cop in the Air Force, no where near what "actual" cops have to do and go through, but in my humble opinion based on the video showned and not having seen the police report, the use of the taser was not justified. Now before people start yelling at me, let me explain, I work in Peterson Afb we receive extensive annual training on the use of force, we also carry taser just like the one on the civilian side and for us to be able to use it, the situation has to meet the following criteria based on the use of force model: subject action - resistant active; risk perception - threshold; officer response - compliance techniques.

so based on that I don't beleive he was actively resisting to commands, yes he was verbally resistant but not active as is it would best for under the resistance passive categorie, no taser use allowed at this level. The officers didn't try to apply any pressure points, no actual hands on, nothing, they went directly for the taser. I could understand this if the officer was alone but from the video there were at least two officers. Also at the time the officers would have no way of knowing that he was an mma fighter.

Basically my opinion on this is just because someone is an asshole it doesn't give you the right by law and training to use exesive force. If this was the case id be zapping people left and right... Something I've noticed, is the fact of how much and how willing civilian police will "charge" a person based on interactions. Idk for us in the military when we charge someone with something with need we'll established pc, we need to to know the article in the UCMJ AND its applicable elements before any "arrest" can be made.

A cop with some common sense...thank God...these are the type we need more of

Totally agree and just because someone is acting like an asshole does not mean it has to go to excessive force! Makes more sense to rectify a situation without violence and normally that ends to a better outcome. As it is it is, funny how most cops will use violence to prevent violence....makes me think of that old saying "lead by example". For me I'd respect a cop more that de-escalated a situation with his words then by going to force. Heck even in life; I got managers that try to use their "power" and bully people and nobody wants to help those managers. The ones that stick up for us and treat is like level people are the ones I'd bend over backwards to help....same could go for cops...the aggressive tactic does not seem to work well and should be used as a last resource.

Doesn't being hasty in a decision kind of make it not justified? Shouldn't the cops have at least given it a chance to deescalate him? I mean he wasn't really asking all that much. He wanted some id. That's not really asking all that much.

Doing repo people wanted copies of their paperwork. That was easy. Just gave it to them. Some people wanted my ID and that didn't happen. What I would do for them is call the repo in to the police and give them the case number.

Point is I always found a way to DEESCALATE the situation. Not make it worse.

Exactly! Just like this they could have done the same and just given the guy a second and shown him their id; sure they were in uniform, but I still think taking 60 seconds to pull out his badge and introduce who they are and why they pulled him over would have worked better. Just seems like the smarter thing to do.

I've always laughed at those repo shows (probably fake) when they sit and argue with a person when I'd just be like "call the cops then" and wait as they do and look like idiots....still better than wrestling the keys out of their hands.

[Aaron]

3 forms of ID is not a legal request from a citizen. In fact, for a uniformed Officer, any request for ID is not one the Officer has to comply with. Now depending on the circumstance, I'd generally have no problem showing you my ID. Not in this case though, I'm not going to put myself in that position because it puts me at a tactical disadvantage. You want to stay in your car, follow my commands, and politely ask for an ID? I'll be happy to show you, I'll even show you a second badge with matching numbers as my first. After the contact, I am required to provide you with my name and agency. That can come in the form of a verbal notification, a business card, a summons to appear, or an affidavit in support of a warrantless arrest.

Yes, as a person you have a lot of rights. In nearly every situation I've ever been in, I know your rights better than you do. Not trying to be a prick, but I've been through extensive schooling, training, and court hearings learning about your rights. Every single day I study case law. I go out of my way to respect your rights, I really do. Are there times where I push the envelope? Absolutely, but while I may be pushing a standpoint, it's a legal one. Are there times when I have violated someone's rights? Absolutely, but never on purpose, it was always an honest mistake. There is a single time and place to flex your rights. A courtroom. Not the side of the road, you will lose, every time. Even if the cop is wrong, you cannot resist. On the side of the road, you are required to blindly follow orders. You can refuse a consent request, you can make some situation decisions, you can make decisions that I ask you to, but beyond that, I am in control.

The Officers were within their rights, there is no legal or policy violation for what they did. He made a series of bad decisions showing his intent to resist, and he failed to follow commands. That's why it's a command, and not a request. Officers have the right to force your compliance.

I am a cop in the Air Force, no where near what "actual" cops have to do and go through, but in my humble opinion based on the video showned and not having seen the police report, the use of the taser was not justified. Now before people start yelling at me, let me explain, I work in Peterson Afb we receive extensive annual training on the use of force, we also carry taser just like the one on the civilian side and for us to be able to use it, the situation has to meet the following criteria based on the use of force model: subject action - resistant active; risk perception - threshold; officer response - compliance techniques.

so based on that I don't beleive he was actively resisting to commands, yes he was verbally resistant but not active as is it would best for under the resistance passive categorie, no taser use allowed at this level. The officers didn't try to apply any pressure points, no actual hands on, nothing, they went directly for the taser. I could understand this if the officer was alone but from the video there were at least two officers. Also at the time the officers would have no way of knowing that he was an mma fighter.

Basically my opinion on this is just because someone is an asshole it doesn't give you the right by law and training to use exesive force. If this was the case id be zapping people left and right... Something I've noticed, is the fact of how much and how willing civilian police will "charge" a person based on interactions. Idk for us in the military when we charge someone with something with need we'll established pc, we need to to know the article in the UCMJ AND its applicable elements before any "arrest" can be made.

Interesting. Legally, he was absolutely justified. As for policy, our's is more lenient, and we don't have named force levels. You don't have to be actively resisting to be subject to Taser/OC/Strikes/Baton, a subject merely showing the intent to actively resist can be subject to Taser/OC/Strikes/Baton (All are on the same level in my agency). In this case, there are 2 people, both showing an antagonistic intent to resist. And the male is clearly in top physical condition. I would not have tried pressure points or hands on, that's what gets cops hurt and killed. I would have gone to the Taser as well, and backed that up with OC if the Taser was ineffective. He wasn't just an asshole, he was in violation of the law, failing to follow commands, in top physical condition, and showing the intent to actively resist.

That being said, I would not have activated the Taser as quickly as those Officers did, I would have given a bit more time and warning. The red dot has an amazing sobering effect on people, if given the time to sink in. I would have drawn my Taser, armed it, and told him several times to get back in the car and close the door, then you can see my ID.

I need PC as well, no doubt about that. But it's here in this case, for several violations.

You are right, not all departments have the use of force at the same level but it would seem illogical to have it at less than level 3. Idk I respect your opinion and agree that once someone puts their hands on someone else it could either de escalate or escalate further; my issue is with how it seems that for every situation no matter the level cops seem to use the taser pretty regularly without much of a though...maybe because it's effective?

From a reasonable perspective as an officer, I didn't see a justified use in this case. And the way i reason my decision is if I had an argument with my wife that was simply verbal in nature, high emotions, and oboiusly some anger I can't just pick up a taser and shock her.... So why did the officer in this case do so? Standards are there for a reason and I understand the use of force is not black or white simple and everyone can play Monday nignt quarterback, but simply put one cannot ignore facts and evidence and based on what I saw in the video he was not justified to use it.

Have you ever had to use force in the performance of your duties? Remember you work in a completely different world than I do. Your subjects are largely compliant because they have so much to lose and are in an authority-driven organization and location. I am involved in a force-related arrest about once every 2-4 weeks, and have used my Taser 10-20 times over the past 6 years. Every time it was justified. I pull it out and arm it at least once a night. If that red dot on your chest doesn't gain compliance, neither will a pressure point. I would love to put up my video footage of the last Taser activation I had, because you see how ineffective every other compliance technique was, and how quickly the situation went from a random unconscious guy to a physical fight and Taser activation. It was a few seconds, and that includes the time I spent warning him he was about to be Tased.

I've offered this plenty of times before, and Townie is going to take me up on it. I will take ride-alongs. You will see situations and people you never could have imagined, and the amount of patience and restraint we show before using force. But a fair bit of warning. In order to ride, you must show ID

[Captain Obvious]

. In order to ride, you must show ID

But how many forms?

[bulldog]

Ummm...posted like 3 months ago

[#1Townie]

Aaron and your statement that I have to do what you tell me when you tell me is the part I have the biggest problem.

Comply or die.

I won't say you as I actually do have respect for you. Even with all the ftp shit aside I'm sure you are good at your job.

But with every officer like you there is at least one that is the opposite. The who doesn't give a damn about people. The ones that are just as bad as our criminals.

What I find terrifyingly funny is how very little training officers receive in the form of conflict resolution. Why? Well because what you just said. Do as I say or else.

Funny part is Leo departments sit here and want more money when we see cops sitting around hanging out. Harrasing people over simple things. Being basic pricks because someone doesn't want to simply follow blind orders from some tin badge.

Then at the end of the day we don't even get treated the same. Cop gets pulled over and flips his badge. No ticket. Domestic violence? Don't even get me started on this one.

I have no idea how a cop can keep a job after committing any crime baffles me.

Look at trucking in this country. Trucking is one of the tightest regulated profession in the country. Bac is only allowed to be .04 in a personal vehicle. Speeding? Oh that's right 13 over is wreckless driving.

Actually everything for me is tighter. Why is a cop given an easy pass when they screw up and I have to find a new career?

I know Aaron can't fix the world but honestly I know many people feel that the double standards are too much. There is a massive lack of trust in Leo these days.

Only way to fix Leo civi relations is for a dramatic change in how Leos conduct themselves.

[Ezzzzy1]

Dave Herman is a Dbag. To me, this is a classic case of someone that is hyper sensitive to the police that go out of their way to "take a stand" of their not so accurate beliefs.

Dumbass should have stayed in his car and started there. If you want to talk to cops like a normal human being and are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Its when you start taking things into your own hands and acting like a know-it-all that you run into problems.

If you are sooo smart that you are going to drive 3 miles to the nearest lit "safe" area then you have to know that the second part of doing that says that you call 911 and let dispatch know what you are doing so that the cops dont think you are running from them.

Instead, Dave decided to lead the cops blindly along, get out of his car, make demands and not comply with orders. To me that all equals EXACTLY what happened.

[Ezzzzy1]

And, if you want to use the whole "I was trying to be safe with my family in the car" thing, why the hell are you driving a car on a highway at 1am with the headlights and tailights not working?

Makes plenty of sense to me!

[~Barn~]

Dave Herman is a Dbag. To me, this is a classic case of someone that is hyper sensitive to the police that go out of their way to "take a stand" of their not so accurate beliefs.

Dumbass should have stayed in his car and started there. If you want to talk to cops like a normal human being and are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Its when you start taking things into your own hands and acting like a know-it-all that you run into problems.

If you are sooo smart that you are going to drive 3 miles to the nearest lit "safe" area then you have to know that the second part of doing that says that you call 911 and let dispatch know what you are doing so that the cops dont think you are running from them.

Instead, Dave decided to lead the cops blindly along, get out of his car, make demands and not comply with orders. To me that all equals EXACTLY what happened.

QFT

[bulldog]

The bottom line is the police are failing statistic state; people do not trust them and many fear them. Facts speak for themselves so as Townie said something needs to change because it appears to only be getting worse. If my company had this high of "bad" rankings we would be in major trouble, but as officers it is pushed aside. So Aaron can come on and justify his actions (and other police officers) but a lot of the public are showing the job officers do could be greatly improved and that should be considered rather than justifying the actions.

Here is just one article:

Click-> Do Americans trust their cops to be fair and just? New poll contains surprises.

A few charts:

[Ezzzzy1]

Here is his Facebook page that was setup for case updates.

My favorite comment:
"Dave, are you still trying to rationalize your mistake. Your wife said in the video that you knew the police were behind you. Now you want to trump up a claim that they could have been fake officers, time to give it a rest and take accountability for your actions. Your wife's claim about 3 forms of ID isn't correct and neither are you. If it was 3 forms of ID you would asking for 4, if it was 4 you would be asking for 5. Next thing you know, you will want a phone call from the chief to prove these are his officers. Guess what ! They were the police who stopped you and if you didn't act the way you did , you wouldn't have been tased. You are the only one to blame here. Take responsibility for your actions and stop trying to justify your mistakes."

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-...893?fref=photo