9th CIRCUIT at it again -- TASER - December 2009

http://angelfire.com/biz4/davidosborne/dec2009taser.pdf ^ | 30 DEC 2009 | 9th CIRCUIT COURT

[davidosborne]

9th CIRCUIT CONCLUSION (posted on end of 22 Page decision) -- FULL PDF at link..

Viewing the facts, as we must, in the light most favorable to Bryan, we conclude, for the purposes of summary judgment, that Officer McPherson is not entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

MY CONCULSION: The 9th CIRCUIT has once again proven what a bunch of IDIOTS they are.. and WE THE PEOPLE should ABOLISH this court IMMEDIATELY !!!

[davidosborne]

related news link..

Federal Appeals Court Decides When Officers Should Use Tasers

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/22094903/detail.html

[PUGACHEV]

If only to pay homage to our dwindling Bill of Rights, instead of leaving it to a judge, whose appointment was likely a matter of politics, wouldn't you rather have a jury decide whether the police used excessive force in cases like this? That's what the 9th Circuit did here. I may or may not have a problem with California juries, but I do not have a problem with what the court did in this case.

[Brytani]

Can they use them on the 9th Circus?

[davidosborne]

I am not sure you understand the issue.... It is the TASER that is on trial as usual.... If the guy was NON-COMPLIANT with the officers orders he deserved to be tazed... period... Which is clearly the case here... what the court is trying to do is DICTATE agency policy.. There are a lot of folks out there who THINK the taser in “cruel and unusual punishment” -—— and the 9th circus is catering that that group... that is a POLITICAL debate not a legal one.. unfortunately for the American People this particular court is always on the leading edge of the the POLITICAL DEBATE — on the FAR LEFT of the POLITICAL SPECTRUM of course..

[Talisker]

If the guy was NON-COMPLIANT with the officers orders he deserved to be tazed... period... Which is clearly the case here...

There's no "period" about it in a free country, tough guy. What the Court ruled on were the limits of non-compliance - i.e. the difference between a citizen's right to contest a police officer in a given situation, versus crossing the line into non-compliance.

In this country, we still have the right to question a police officer, to a certain extent and within reasonable boundaries, without being summarily electrocuted for daring to question the administration of police powers against our personal freedom. IMO, that's a good thing.

But hey, literally millions of statists disagree with me, so feel free. Just remember to feel lucky, while you're doing it, that I'm not a cop in your world.

[PUGACHEV]

No, I do not think you understand what the court did here. This was an appeal of a lower court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court did not decide whether the Taser was used properly or not in this case; it left that for the jury to decide at a trial to be held later. Had the court done otherwise, it would have established, as a matter of law, that an officer's decision on whether to use a Taser, or any other type of force for that matter, is never reviewable since the officer has immunity, as the defendant claimed in this case. If that ever becomes the law, however much you like the police, we, as citizens, have lost whatever may be left of out 4th amendment rights. I am not ready to give that up yet.

[davidosborne]

my FRiend... you just made my point.... The issue is NOT about whether the officer used excessive force or not.. it is about whether the TAZER <-— was excessive force..... like I said .. it is the TAZER that is on trial here.... IF the officer used excessive force regardless of whether it was with a TAZER, a GUN, a BASEBALL BAT, or the leg from a broken KITCHEN TABLE that is a separate issue and of course it is subject to review and opinion.. etc...etc...etc... THAT is NOT what is at issue here....

[davidosborne]

[davidosborne]

PUGACHEV <——— read your own post and think about what you just said...

“The court did not decide whether the Taser was used properly or not in this case; it left that for the jury to decide at a trial to be held later.”

The court has not business deciding when a TASER is or IS NOT appropriate to be used .... it is a restraining device.. just like any other.... was the officer justified to TOUCH the individual? twist his arm behind his back?... put him in hadcuffs?... whatever... if the answer to these questions is YES... than end of story IMHO... the fact that the officer chose to use a TASER is what is at issue here..... and addressing this question is inappropriate IMHO... the 9th CIRCUS is trying to LEGISLATE POLICY.. and that my FRIEND wrong.... POLICY DEABTE is POLITICAL DEBATE ... NOT A LEGAL ONE...

[davidosborne]

ugh... a lot of typos on that response.. let me clean it up and revise and extend my remarks.. The court has NO business deciding when a TASER is or IS NOT appropriate to be used .... furthermore... the 9th CIRCUS has no business REMANDING that decision down to a lower court either.. basicly FORCING the lower court to decide when a taser should or should not be used...... it is a restraining device.. just like any other.... was the officer justified to TOUCH the individual? twist his arm behind his back?... put him in handcuffs?... whatever... if the answer to these questions is YES... than end of story IMHO... the fact that the officer chose to use a TASER is what the 9th CIRCUS seems to have an problem with.. and is essentially FORCING a lower court to decide POLICY..... THAT is what is INAPPROPRIATELY at issue here..... addressing this question is an inappropriate role of the courts IMHO... the 9th CIRCUS is trying to LEGISLATE POLICY.. and that my FRIEND is wrong.... POLICY DEABTE is POLITICAL DEBATE ... NOT A LEGAL ONE... --- IF an officer is JUSTIFIED in using force than so be it.. the ammount and TYPE of force used in response to resistance is POLICY.... think about it this way.... IF I am justified to use deadly force on an individual than so be it..... what difference does it make if I use a pistol.. and fire 2 to the body 1 to the head.. or just use a pick axe to the head... both are deadly force... the issue to be decided by the courts is was deadly force justified <--- if so end of story... makes no difference if you use a pistol or an axe....

[packrat35]

I agree with you. The bootlickers and statists scare me with their “police can do no wrong” attitude.

[packrat35]

Yes the court does have a right. Cops use the damn things far too much and you might think different if it was your 12 year old in school they made dance.

We are not slaves to cops and that thinking needs to stop and right now.

[davidosborne]

Tasisker,

Sorry I missed your post while resonding to PUGACHEV, my 2cents worth on your post in red..

There's no "period" about it in a free country, tough guy. What the Court ruled on were the limits of non-compliance - i.e. the difference between a citizen's right to contest a police officer in a given situation, versus crossing the line into non-compliance.

I disagree my FRiend... there are MANY cases that deal with use of force in general.. what "level" of force is appropriate for a "level" of resistance... many states vary on POLICY (ie level 1 resistance and appropriate responses vs. LEVEL 5 resistance <-DEADLY FORCE RESPONSE) etc... etc.. and everything in between.... again this is a POLICY debate.... PERIOD.. and yes I mean PERIOD.. and in fact agencies vary within a state.. but these are appropriately STATE and LOCAL POLICY ISSUES...

In this country, we still have the right to question a police officer, to a certain extent and within reasonable boundaries, without being summarily electrocuted for daring to question the administration of police powers against our personal freedom. IMO, that's a good thing.

your ignorance of what a TASER is and DOES is clear but I wont hold that against you my FRiend... A POLICY argument can be made and often IS made about at what "level" of resistance is the Taser appropriate... Many would argue that a taser should be used ONLY when DEADLY FORCE is an option....Others would argue that simply refusing to put your hands behind your back and allow an officer to place you in handcuffs <-- the next logical step in a sequence of events following an officers decision to make a physical arrest based on the officers opinion that probable cause exists that the person has committed a crime, and such resistance is interferring with the officers attempt to exercise his/her authority to place you under arrest...

But hey, literally millions of statists disagree with me, so feel free. Just remember to feel lucky, while you're doing it, that I'm not a cop in your world.

LOL-------

[davidosborne]

Oh ok, so now I am a bootlicker and a statist? LOL -— WOW I expect that on some forums but not on FReerepublic.. LOL ——

[davidosborne]

I will be happy to review any case you present and give my opinion on the appropriateness of use of force in general... but it is not apprproptiate to debate the TYPE of force chosen by the officer so long as it falls within the Officer’s use of force POLICY.... If an officer violates agency policy... the AGENCY can and should be held liable.... and in most cases the OFFICER himself can and should be held liable...

Let’s be clear about what we are talking about my FRiend...

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[packrat35]

I disagree completely with you. Their policy is too broad and needs to be cut back drastically, in regards to the use of tasers and pepper spray.

Since they won’t do it, and always clear themselves, the court is the proper remedy to reel them in.

[packrat35]

Yes I would say that describes many here on FR in regards to police action.

[thefactor]

Message to cops out there: Do not do your job. Drive slow and just clean up the messes.