Posted on 12/08/2023 8:38:45 PM PST by Angelino97
A black Alabama man who had been tasered by a white cop and arrested for trafficking fentanyl is now sharing his harrowing story.
Officer Dana Elmore was seen on camera swearing and tasing Micah Washington, 24, with a stun gun while he was in handcuffs.
He was charged with trafficking fentanyl, but the charge and its accompanying $500,000 bond were dropped after 'further testing' showed the substance in his possession was not the opioid drug.
In an interview with ABC, Washington revealed what had happened during the incident and explained that he had never had a run-in or issue with police before.
'I try to act okay, but I am really traumatized. I don't know how to feel about police now.'
He told the channel that he and his brother were changing a flat tire on the side of the road near his aunt's home when Elmore approached and asked to see his ID.
By then, Washington began to ask what was wrong and why he had to show his ID while complying with her order.
'I was respectful saying yes ma'am, no ma'am,' he said.
'She asked me to go stand in the back of the car but I was like I'm not being detained and I don't have to do anything.
'She grabbed me and I was standing between the back door and driver door, trying to turn my camera on and record her but she tased me for the first time and put her foot in my back after I fell.'
As soon as Washington fell, his brother, Shikeem Washington, began to record the video and on his request, his friend went to get the victim's aunt.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’m not commenting on this case in itself. If he dropped the bag of what the officer thought to be fetanyl, he should have been held long enough to determine that it wasn’t and then be let go.
As far as I can tell, if the Alabama man was compliant, than his rights may have been violated and that needs to be dealt with. I hope he wins big if that is the case.
That's my understanding as well.
What she should have done was pull behind his truck at a safe distance, put on her lights, put out some traffic flairs and or traffic cones while he finished changing the tire, for his safety and safety of other motorists.
But that would fall under “Serve and Protect” and most police departments, while that phrase may be on their patrol cars, often do quite the opposite.
WTF, he was just changing his tire so she decides to go over and make his day worse. Most cops are reasonable and would help. The dude was already having a bad day with the tire. I’m at a loss why a cop would come over and start this.
“If you are being given a ticket, then you can be detained for the length of time it takes to give you that ticket. However, you are not supposed to be detained for any longer than it takes to write that ticket and for you to sign off on it.”
Exactly. And to detain and investigate any longer than this requires one of two things. Your permission to allow continued detainment and search, or they have to arrest you with the confidence they will find the proof to convict you.
They cannot detain you as long as they like while they go fishing “without” your permission. And if you refuse a search, they have to arrest you to continue to detain you. And if they find nothing then you have been falsely arrested.
It is designed to make them commit to a solid legal decision at the scene and interaction. They can’t just have their cake and eat it too. It doesn’t work that way.
“It only stands to reason that you cannot be required to provide ID if you are not required to carry ID. We are not required to carry ID in America, unless we are driving.”
Yep, absolutely. We only carry ID if we want to for convenient personal reasons such as writing and cashing checks Etc.
You have the right to be dumb on your own time. Because despite todays liberal world, Im going to call you out on it every time.
Oh they know that. But it’s the test the bad ones have for whether or not to crack you open. If you don’t show them ID you’re just another scumbag trying to get away with something.
LINK: Know Your Rights!" (With Bob and David)
(Note: This is a short comedy video-it is humor, not a real commentary on rights...:) Because it makes us laugh, it in no way supports or rejects the behavior of this LEO who is the subject of this FR thread.)
Looks like another LET”S START A RIOT video to me. What cop, racist or not, is going to fire a taser into the back of a handcuffed suspect who is not even struggling or resisting all while being recorded? A cop (and possibly victim) who want to start more race riots, that’s who.
She doesn't have rights she has privileges.
LOL!
Handcuffed individuals can still commit assault, including biting and spitting.
Giving them the "Edison medicine" may be warranted.
In the pecking order (peckering order?) of the Grievance Industry, sexual disorders take precedence over skin pigmentation.
“changing a flat tire on the side of the road”
...does not rise to the level of “reasonable cause” to suspect a crime. It’s also not a moving violation. So I don’t see why the officer had any right to demand an ID. A crime must be articulable and objective, not just “suspicion”.
I’d inform an officer of my belief they’re giving an unlawful order but if the only ‘offense’ is not providing ID and they continue to arrest me then yes, comply - deal with it in the court.
That said, once you are in handcuffs you are in the custody of the officer and so is the responsibility of your safety. Continuing to use a taser is out of bounds, it’s just torture and abuse.
“Many states have “stop-and-identify” laws. Under these laws, if a police officer reasonably suspects that someone has engaged in criminal activity, the officer can detain that person and ask for identification. A person who refuses to provide identification commits the crime of resisting an officer’s lawful order. (Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).) Without that reasonable suspicion, however, a demand for identification may be illegal....
Laws in many states define loitering as “wandering about from place to place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety.” Under these laws, if a police officer sees someone loitering, the officer can demand identification and an explanation of the person’s activities. If the person fails to comply, the officer can arrest the person for loitering. Therefore, the refusal to answer questions is a problem only if the officer has also observed the person loitering.”
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/demanding-identification-people-street.html
Remember, though: The COP decides on the spot if he or she has “reasonable” suspicion. You can argue later in court, but at the time things are going down, the COP decides if they need to see your ID.
Once they demand it, refusing is going to result in them assuming you are violating the law, giving the the right to arrest you. So...refusing to provide ID is not a good strategy.
You are wrong.
No person is required to produce identification to any police officer unless that officer can “ articulate a reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed or is about to be committed”
See Supreme Court, she belongs in PRISON
Aggravated Assault
Felony Kidnapping
And I would add 20 years for the FALSE Drug Charge she made.
“You do not under ANY circumstances have to show your ID or identify yourself unless you are informed that you are being detained and for what purpose you are being detained.”
The Internet search I did indicates you are wrong. Depends on the state.
I know. Only those who can afford the lawyer has a reasonable chance.
I’m not saying the officer followed the law. I’m just stating what the law says.
I also said earlier that it’s a loop hole large enough to drive a truck through, because the officer only has to show the reasonable cause which is somewhat of an opinion.
I agree, once you are in custody, the use of force is supposed to stop.
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.