Posted on 04/04/2022 9:41:16 PM PDT by algore
March 10, 2022
In what I did not even consider calling a “shocking development,” a federal judge has held that police officers may not be entitled to qualified immunity for an incident in which they lied about having probable cause to make a traffic stop, dragged the passenger out of the car, tased him repeatedly, including after he was handcuffed, and including at least once in the genitals after pulling his pants down for that purpose.
The officers argued that it was not clear at the time whether this sort of thing was against the law.
That is, they were seeking “qualified immunity,” which provides that an officer accused of violating someone’s statutory or constitutional rights is not liable if the right in question was not “clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” The idea is to preserve officers’ ability to do their jobs without being subject to liability in borderline cases. But as we have discussed before, it has been applied so broadly that officers have been let off the hook for some pretty outrageous things, just because a court had not yet specifically held that those specific things weren’t okay. You know, like … torture. See “Would the Last Civil Right in America Please Remember to Close the Door on Its Way Out?” (May 2, 2012). (Wait, you’re telling us it’s actually illegal to waterboard citizens? We had no idea. Okay, well, now we know.) There are plenty of other outrageous examples that support calls for abolishing the doctrine, something the Supreme Court has not recently shown any interest in doing. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (reiterating that “clearly established law” must be defined very very narrowly).
So what about pulling a guy’s pants down in Arizona and sticking a Taser into his business, just for grins? I just ran a search and did not find a single prior case specifically holding that this is illegal, so I guess the officers are off the hook?
Well, no, or at least not yet.
The man who got tased and his family have sued three officers and the City of Glendale, Arizona, where the officers were employed. The ruling mentioned above was in that civil case. The officers moved for summary judgment, citing qualified immunity, but the court held the facts are sufficiently disputed that a jury will have to decide. The officer who was (allegedly) the main perpetrator is also facing criminal charges, and it isn’t clear whether a court has ruled on a qualified-immunity claim there yet but this certainly does not bode well for that guy.
That’s because, although the judge found a genuine dispute of material fact exists for trial, if these cases don’t end by settlement or plea bargain then the jury will be watching body-cam videos that are pretty shocking—sorry, that use of “shocking” was really not intentional, but it was accurate.
This YouTube link, provided by Courthouse News, begins with the relevant body-cam footage, and the videos that follow are reports by ABC15, the local station that broke the story. Those reports include facts that do not help the defendants at all.
The incident happened in 2017, after officers made a traffic stop of a vehicle in a motel parking lot. Although by “traffic stop,” I mean they lied about seeing the car turn into the lot without signaling. That kind of technical violation might justify a stop, but here security-cam footage made it clear the officers could not have seen the car turn because they were a block away in a back alley at the time. (ABC15 provided an amusing clip in which someone shows the Taser enthusiast that footage and he tries to explain it away. He cannot.)
But that was their purported basis for detaining the plaintiffs, who include the man who was tased, his partner (who was driving), and their two young children, who were in the car at the time. The main perpetrator, who has asked to remain nameless but whose name is Matthew Schneider, questioned the man and demanded to see ID. He refused to provide it, despite Schneider’s insistence that he was legally required to do so. That was also a lie. Arizona law requires this only if the person was operating a motor vehicle (he wasn’t) or has been asked by an officer “who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion” of a crime (also no).
As you can see in the body-cam footage if you choose to watch it, the man was acting a little squirrelly and didn’t want to get out of the car. The officers claim he was trying to hide and/or reach for something, but you can decide. Within a minute or two the Taser came out, and Schneider applied it a couple of times in order to get the man out of the car. Whether he was failing to comply or had his leg tangled in the shoulder restraint is another disputed fact, but much more tasing followed. But even if you think all that was justified—and again, they have admitted they lied about having probable cause for the detention—Schneider kept tasing the guy after he was handcuffed and lying face down. And at least one of those shots was the aforementioned tasing of the genitals.
I cannot watch the video cause I refuse to participate in the gooogggglely signups, but hopefully it is not disturbing
What is the difference between Qualified Immunity and Immunity?
Asking for a FRiend...
I cannot watch the video cause I refuse to participate in the gooogggglely signups, but hopefully it is not disturbing
________________________________________________________________
I have watched the video, it is beyond disturbing. It is unfortunate but once you see it you cannot un-see it. It is sickening, these cops should forfeit everything they have to the victim and and then be sent away for many years. When cops do this kind of thing they are doing it in our name, we pay them, we authorize them so effectively we are doing it.
Lock them up and throw away the key, they don’t have a right to be in society much less cops.
I thought the whole purpose of qualified immunity were for cases a law enforcement officer might REASONABLY not be sure were ethical. Nowadays, they seem to be exclusively used for things that it’s quite obvious no LEO should do. If that’s the case, it has no purpose. Any LEO who doesn’t know that what was done in this case should never be done, is not qualified for the job.
Most farm boys I have known have been dared to pee on an electric fence. It has/had a very electrifying effect. Fortunately I could still father kids later in life. I did win the dare. 🥴
The Comirnaty vaccine just received full FDA approval, but FDA documents describe the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as “legally distinct” from the Comirnaty vaccine.
Nope. I was gonna day that if it was a fired taser, y’know, from a distance; those suckers are notoriously inaccurate (one of our local PD hit the wrong person on accident with one of the two prongs). A touch taser though? No. NO. No fvcking excuse!
Jesus. Having had an ovarian cyst the size of a golf ball, I now know what being tapped in the ‘nads feels like (same nerve endings to the comporable organ), but that...? I can’t imagine that, and don’t want to.
They deserve no immunity whatsoever, because that’s as sh!tty as, “cruel and unusual” gets.
*say
-sigh-
It’s almost guaranteed that the Jury will be sympathetic toward the arrestee. Anything that involves #A..Being dragged out of your car, #B..Having your pants and drawers pulled down in the presence of your children #C.. Having your balls blasted #D..While you are handcuffed!! can only be classified as physical and psychologic torture.
My only question is what is taking so long?
This happened in 2017.
I remember seeing this video when it was first released, though I do not recall citation of his being tased in the genitals.
It is officers such as this who give others a bad name and qualify the activists’ actions against such, but it is his leadership which bears the brunt of the liability for 1. Not dismissing him sooner (prior to the incident, given his now notorious record), 2. Not taking immediate action against him to protect the integrity of the force.
Anyone without direct or indirect knowledge who watches television shows which frame police bureaucracy politics at the upper echelon should be aware that it DOES happen, and far too often.
This is why NOT A SINGLE retired Portland Police officer answered the call of their former bosses to return to the force, despite generous signing bonuses.
An astute warfighter - most get my drift - understands both the threat to them without...and within and, despite the ‘brotherhood’, understands also that one undisciplined, reckless plick can take out the entire squad.
This guy should NEVER have passed his psyche eval and I hope that the grand jury negates his QI.
Qualified immunity is what you get from COVID fauxzines, meaning it comes with all sorts of disclaimers. Real immunity is what you get from a real vaccine or when you recover from a disease
So the officers thought this was legal behavior. Incredible.
Maybe during the trial to discover whether the officers should have reasonably known this was bad, we can pull down their chonies and tase them in the schlong for a few minutes and then have them testify whether they thought it was reasonable or not.
Yeah, right. Who hasn't heard about jack-booted thugs in various tyrannies in the world using cattle prods to torture male opponents? It's been going on for decades and has been documented many times. Probably where these lowlifes got the idea. Only an idiot would think it could possible not be against the law in a country such as America.
If he executed the c*nt who tased his balls, and I was on the jury, I’d vote not guilty.
Now that I'm here - "Legal at the time" or not - pull down the guy's pants and taser his genitals? Sounds like the basis for a lawsuit at the very least.
The cop, Schneider, is a criminal and needs to go to prison for a lengthy time period. This is pure torture. Its not even arguable that tazing a handcuffed person lying on the ground was necessary - let alone pulling the guy’s pants down and tazing him in the junk.
Seems pretty obvious that these are some bad cops here.
Why were these folks selected to begin with? No mention in the article.
Were the cops out drinking and just decided to harass a bystander?
Immunity means you can’t be sued at all; qualified immunity means you can’t be sued if the victim is white.
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.