Posted on 02/10/2019 10:02:55 PM PST by ConservativeMind
I am sorry but that is simply not what a careful watchful viewing of the vid shows. Yes, i do not think the passenger/suspect was a law-abiding citizen, but as regards the actions toward him, then based upon what we see, there is nothing that shows attempted concealment, and the only thing visible is that of the suspect having cash and perhaps a paper in his left hand, and a coke can in his right, which the PO removed.
And yes, the cop wasn't aggressive at first, but the issue is why he and how he became so. So as regards "2 chances before he laid hands on him," after the PO targets the passenger and asks his name, the suspect should have given his name but in protest he asks why he is being asked, to which the PO responds by lying about a passenger needing a I.D. To which the passenger protests he did not do anything wrong., to which the PO responds by threatening to take him down to the police station (1:42), and with the only reason the PO gives is because they made a traffic stop on the vehicle. Which also does not lawfully justified.
Yet while the suspect protests again that he "didn't do nothin wrong" (1:47) the PO responds by taking out his stun gun and says "We can do this one of two ways" and to which the suspect appeals "Ok..relax.." and the PO responds by opening the door and says "I don't want to you stuffing anything down in btwn the seat like you doing" (2.02) and at that point the video clearly shows the suspect's left hand on the top of the left side of the seat with money and some papers in it (which he likely wanted to stuff), but which is contrary to the idea that he could have been reaching for a gun, while his right hand is holding a can of coke.
So far there the suspect Wheatcroft has done nothing aggressive, either physically or verbally, or otherwise presented a danger to the PO, and as for "2 chances" the suspect has not been even asked to places his hands on the dash, or to exit the vehicle and turn around, and has only been ask for name/I.D. and relax, and when the PO opens the door as if he wants the man to exit and places his left foor out, then the PO tells him to keep his foot in there (2.06).
The PO ten takes the can of coke out of the man's right hand, and takes out his stun gun and points it at the suspect (who had appealed to him to "stop") and tells hiom. "Here's the deal: you tense up I'm gonna..." and relax your arm (2:15) though the PO is holding the suspect's right arm which is openly extended out, fingers open as showing no threat. The suspect Wheatcroft here again asks what he did wrong, and the PO again says that "One, you got not I.D. on you" and says that he stuff something down into his backpack and in the seat.. Next the PO challenges, "You gonna fight or not?" to which the suspect says "No I'm not," nor has he at all shown any indication of intending to," (2:31) but verbally protests that he did not stuff anything.
Here, the PO, rather than having the suspect proceed to exit the car, Schneider grabs the arm of Wheatcroft (2.37) and twists it into a compliance hold and a voice is heard "he's going to fight dude" even though Wheatcroft is only shown as being in discomfort, nor was he even in a position to fight.
Now the PO begins to pull Wheatcroft backwards out of the car while telling him not to pull away, insisting that he is, and Wheatcroft protexts that he is "not doing nothin" to resist, and the video shows Wheatcroft is now immobilized and having no place to go, and still strapped in while Schneider insists "You are."
By now there is evidently another PO helping, and telling Wheatcroft to "relax" while bending him forward and placing the stun gun on his back which relaxation method unsurprisingly results in more protect by a now agitated but non aggressive, non-threatening, immobilized Wheatcroft, (3.00) as if according to plan. Which is immediately followed by tasering as they drag him out backwards and tase him while Wheatcroft writhes.
Screaming follows and Wheatcroft is sitting on the ground as they tase him the 3rd 4th and 5th time (3.09-12) though it may have been more while a PO says "Lay down" to the Wheatcroft who is on the ground being tased. Next a PO says "turn over, turn over...the Schneider next contorts places his gun on the shoulde
While Wheatcroft is apparently a criminal anyway, yet we are dealing with one case and of police procedure. He did not have to show an I.D., nor was the driver, but if anything he should have been told to place his hands on the dash, and slowly exit the vehicle, which Wheatcroft had started to do but was actually stopped by the PO. Others in law enforcement testify that Schneider was not correct, while as on a jury, one should be able to carefully examine the evidence objectively, without rejecting their convictions.
it takes probably less then 1 secong to pull a loaded gun from under the seat and shoot at a cop. and you want all cops to give people time to do that before they take command of the situation?
Sir, that simply is not what resulted in tasering, which actually happened after his hands were shown and as a result of not having the man - who was never even told to place his hands in the dashboard - exit the vehicle as he was prepared to do, and was done to an immobilized man multiple times.
And if immobilizing passengers and tasering them was the solution to prevent the possibility of anyone reaching for a gun, then i think that would result in a revolution.
Yes, you should shut up an listen when a cop talks and don't be giving the cop a lecture on your rights, they have tazers and guns and friends.
There was no lecturing on rights, but inquiring as to the cause of the interrogation, and which reason was invalid. And while I support the need and function of police, there are some instances in which individual POs can wrongly use their powers, and in which passively respectfully informing them of rights is in order. I had a new park ranger super thank me for doing so one time when he mistakenly thought I could not being giving out gospel tracts in the city Common.
“He refused to ID himself”
He was the passenger in the car and he had no legal obligation to identify himself unless he was to be cited or arrested.
Considering the initial probable cause (no turn signal in use) has now been determined to be a lie (Go see the video on ABC 15) then this was just a fishing expedition that violated US and Arizona law.
“Can I like get another battery.”.
"Waaaaaah."
Well, the Glendale Police have made themselves into a potential Second Amendment test case.
The next time they make sh*t up and use that as a pretext to torture someone then maybe someone will kill a few of them to defend themselves, their family, or someone else.
And then they may well be exonerated of the inevitable charges because the Second Amendment was all along designed to allow us to defend against the tyranny of unchecked government power and abuse.
And to be clear: I just said that I support the right of the people to use lethal force against police who sadistically torture people.
“Waaaaaah.”
...then maybe someone will kill a few of them to defend themselves, their family, or someone else.
Nice to know you really just hate cops.
“Nice to know you really just hate cops.”
Nice to know that you think all cops have a right to sadistically torture people.
You'd feel more at home in Ferguson MO or Baltimore MD.
I feel quite comfortable in Wyoming where our sheriffs departments uphold and respect the Constitution.
I don’t feel threatened by our law enforcement. To the contrary I’ve never had anything but praise for the Park County SD.
But growing up in California I learned that urban police forces act like armies of occupation.
And you know what? Nothing in the world will sour you on bad cops faster than being in the company of good cops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.