I want to stress that I’m not advocating vigilantism or provacative harassment of officers. Some groups–such as “Cop Block”– sometimes seem to cross this line, and I don’t agree with such actions. I am only advocating accountability. Unlike some commenters I am not trying to play “internet tough guy” (a phrase recently used quite effectively by commenter Omar). I am just theorizing that combining two forms of American-style civil disobedience may be an option to re-assert the supremacy of citizens over state agents.

So it seems much of the time. I do know of some officers who still seem to have other priorities, but I digress.

Perhaps we need to go retro, Cynical. Now we both know that people are getting more adept at recording police. Maybe this should be combined with the Black Panther concept of armed patrols monitoring police behavior in communities. Of course, this would be most feasible in areas with open carry laws, but hopefully you see where I’m going with this. Since too many officers feel that they can attack people with cameras–no matter what the laws say in their state–maybe citizens armed with both cameras AND firearms are part of the answer. In most cases, of course, the cameras, and verbal persuasion, should be emphasized much more than the firearm.

On a side note, a movement like this may well lead to a shift in conservative opinion on gun control. In the 60′s, fear of the Black Panthers led Ronald Regan to support gun control measures in California. The NRA was also much less vocal about open/concealed carry in those days. See, it all depends on who’s at the trigger! A movement of armed “cop watching” might turn gun lovers into gun grabbers over night.

Just an idea.

So you’re claiming police unions are typically leftwing?

In the context of American politics, yes, since “American conservatives” generally passionately hate unions.

#28

Those cases also tend to be focused more in the South and Maryland, where pro-life sentiment is much higher than it is on the West Coast and North East. If she had miscarried, it wouldn’t have been hard to see a NC jury (one of the results that came up) finding in her favor on all counts of excessive force.

Murder … Charges … Unborn … Child via Google Search

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=murder%20charges%20unborn%20child&oq=murder%20charges%20unborn%20&aq=1K&aqi=g-K2&aql=&gs_l=hp.11.1.0i30l2.0.0.2.436.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0…0.0.dHSc8IL9YCk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5a9e2f4e506b37d1&biw=1920&bih=921&pf=p&pdl=300

Of course, these are only cases that do not involve State agents, who may, acting in the line of duty, kill the living with impunity.

Yes, but let me simplify it for you, because there will even more shocking abuses of police power in the future that will make us yearn for the good old days of tazing pregnant women.

It is policy that the police fight for NO LIMITS ON THEIR POWER (save their own personal judgment). Any external limit, any single one, is a threat to their safety, which we all know is the one and only concern of theirs.

Arguments ad absurdum fail because there is literally no argument too absurd that would cause police to moderate their fight for no limits on their power.

Since police are the armed enforcement wing of the State, I think it is easy to predict who, over time, will win this battle. One might say it is already won, simply by playing the game.

No. here is what should have happened:

Policeman: sign this paper.

Woman: No. I think the paper may be used against me in a court of law to help establish criminal liability.

Policeman: I never thought about it that way. So far as you can tell, I may be trying to trick you into incriminating yourself. I give you my word of honor that that is NOT what I am doing here.

Woman: You can’t even tell which vehicle you had your speed gun pointed at when it beeped and woke you up. Why would I trust you about signing a legal document? You are not my lawyer.

Policeman: But I need the signature so that we can find you to have the hearing on your speeding charge. My position is that my LIDAR was pointed at your vehicle and that you were the one speeding — not somebody else.

Woman: You have my driver’s license. That gives you all you need to know to know that you can find me later. My signature on your paper does not add anything to the level of confidence that you already have with respect to my true identity.

Policeman: You are right! If you gave me a fake DL, then you would just fake the signature on my paperwork. So this paperwork really has no apparent purpose.

Woman: That is exactly why I m suspicious in the paperwork in the first place. If it has no legit purpose that is apparent, then it is either meaningless or else has an evil purpose.

Policeman: I would feel the same way in your shoes.

Woman: You mean if you were pregnant?

Policeman: *laughing* No, if some policeman was insisting I sign anything without being able to consult my lawyer. That would be a huge red flag to me.

Woman: Well, what can we do then.

Policeman: I am going to let you go. I will even forgive your speeding (I still think you did it) because you have taught me an important lesson today — an important lesson about JUSTICE! Forgiving your speeding seems like a fair trade in exchange for the gentle education with which you have provided me in respect of my paperwork.

Woman: Without admission of anything, I am amenable to the proposed trade.

Policeman: Have a blessed day!

Woman: You too. Make sure to always buckle up. Don’t become a sttistic. *drives away *

That is exactly what should have happened.

If unborn children have no legal rights, then why would the police be expected to regard pregnancy as a special condition in which an act of force may cause grievous harm to a future citizen?

Yeah right. How about the pregnant woman? Moreover – reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line on abortion, without succumbing to the false dichotomy you’re offering. Your having the ability to choose vanilla ice cream doesn’t mean that I can kick the cone out of your hand since I like strawberry.

Don’t laugh. This kind of thing has happened.

There was an exigent circumstances / emergency exception case at the Supreme Court in 2006 (called Brigham City) where the probable cause that a crime had been committed and the probability that a serious injury occurred was manifest. By “was manifest” I mean that the policemen saw one of the occupanys of the house punch a teeneager so hard in the face that blood came out of his head.

In Brigham City, SCOTUS did not mention “probable cause” (that a crime had been committed) or probability that there was an injured person in the house. At the time it seemed like this omission in the SCOTUS opinion was merely because probable cause (or a crime) and probability of an injury were just so high and so obvious that no explication of this aspect of the legal analysis was needed.

Unfortunately, what pro-prosecutor commentators (most notably Professor Kerr), and even some judges, have done is said that probable cause is not needed for the exigency exception and that a “probability” of injury is not needed for the emergency exception. they say that they know this because Brigham City did not discuss these probabilities in that case.

So now the law of emergency / exigency is big mess (despite the best efforts of Rheinhardt in 9C),

There is an old saw that hard cases make bad law. But sometimes easy cases make bad law too.

50 years ago, not even a police union would have defended these cops.

So you’re claiming police unions are typically leftwing?

What type of depraved turd stain do you have to be in order to tase a pregnant woman?

If unborn children have no legal rights, then why would the police be expected to regard pregnancy as a special condition in which an act of force may cause grievous harm to a future citizen? This is one of many reasons why we pro-lifers have been warning that legalized abortion on demand has a destructive cultural influence. 50 years ago, not even a police union would have defended these cops.

this isn’t really correct. Under qi law, the 9th circuit decision, as it stands, gives notice that the kind of tasering that happened in Seattle is unConstitutional and that all future policemen who do this in the 9th circuit will be on the hook for damages and (any available) injunctive relief.

The way qi law is supposed to work is that policemen get one bite at the apple when it comes to a brand new type of constitutional violation (and taser play is pretty new, at least in the judicial timeframe). Policemen in all the “new style cases” (eg, taser, gps, flashbomb, etc) gets qi until some authoritative court (like the 9th Cir.) stands up and declares the new police behavior to be unConstitutional.

In this case, the 9th cir. could have said that there was no previous notice that this kind of taser play was unConstitutional, consequently held that qi applied and then ended the case. This is what many courts (perhaps every circuit court other than the 9th cir) would have done. Police are happy (because nothing is declared unConstitutional). Court is happy (because it didn’t have to decide, one way or the other, if the behavior was unConstitutional or not). And the case becomes meaningless not just from the perspective of getting back the atty fees expended (generally by the atty herself), but also from the perspective of developing the law and giving notice of what the Constitutional law really is.

Importantly: This is NOT what the 9th circuit did. Instead they, while denying damages, did give notice that this would not be tolerated in future cases in the 9th Circuit. One could argue, with some force, that this is exactly the best and fairest outcome here for all involved. This is how qi law is supposed to work, and also explains why police appealed what appears to be a win.

We need to grill the frog.