Posted on 10/20/2002 7:48:19 AM PDT by SamAdams76
Yes
I can't answer that. I don't know what the suspect has done, if anything. The picture tells us nothing. It may well be that the police used appropriate force. Police, are empowered to use that force which is appropriate. Since we don't know what this guy did, we can't make any informed guesses as to how he ended up in that position. As for "civilized," I am not sure what you mean. If the man did nothing an was merely yanked from his truck, shoved to the ground, and cuffed face down on the ground, that is neither legal or civilized.
What legal remedy does a innocent person have after being subject to being forced to the ground like that?
If innocent, and even if not innocent, the person can bring a civil suit against the officer for actions outside the scope of his powers. He could even bring an action against the governmental body for failing to contol, train, etc. the officer.
The individual could swear out a complaint for assualt and battery against the officer. (Prosecution would be at the discretion of the Commonwealth's attorny after and investigation).
Of course, all of these remedies have costs. But a person who believes he or she has been wrongfully assualted and battered, had one's civil and Constitutional rights trampled, is not without recourse in the sytem.
Now they know what it's like to be a gun owner.
I do have a concern about all of this idea though. What if a hostile enemy WERE PROBING our capabilities. What should we do in that case?
I wouldn't worry too much, as we've already used this method in Afganistan and other places in one form or another.
... Our society is giving up our very idea of Freedom in order to catch a sniper. Is that how we should react to potentially the actions of just ONE PERSON?
Good question. From what I can see in the two pictures presented, it does appear overly heavy-handed with such a vague clue to go on (just the white van, as far as I know). On the surface it looks like LE did what they did to look like they were "doing something", and with the intense media coverage/pressure and a poor communicator (Chief Moose) I am not surprised. IMO, it was a very poor decision if all they were going on was the white van clue with nothing else.
Since everyone here, on both sides of the argument, is involved in nothing more than conjecture about the situation portrayed in these photos you have conceded the point that excessive force may have been used.
Thank you, counselor, for your legal expertise.
As I have posted over and over again, bring me a party -- including the handcuffed guy, who believes his rights have been violated, and I will evaluate the case for free, and file and prosecute the case for free if it has merit.
At this point, however, all we have is people viewing a picture and assuming the worse, without a fact-witness allegation. I presume to assume nothing. If rights are trampled, we will here about it and appropriate action will be taken.
Today, those cops were NOT pulling people out of the vans...they asked permission, looked inside, opened doors, people got out of the vans...etc. ALL willingly. It is our duty to cooperate--within our RIGHTS---if we refuse to allow them to search our vehicle, then they have the right to pull us out of line, hold us, get a warrent etc. It is OUR CHOICE to cooperate or not. IF you start screaming "Constitutional RIGHTS agains UNREASONABLE search and seizure at a stop light near the SNIPER SHOOTING...What do you EXPECT the cops to do???
GRRRRRRRollin
Well, not quite all. We also have people viewing a picture and denying any possibility that the police have overreacted. Also by assumption and in the absence of fact-witness statements.
The pictures themselves were only relevant to my overall position because they verify that 'felony stop' type procedures were being used. My position being that 'a white van' was too vague and generalised a criteria, due to lack of substantial and credible linkage to the criminal, to be considered a reasonable basis for a felony stop protocol to be exercised.
If a series of brutal rapes against women had taken place in a given community and the one and only common identifier reported was that he wore brown shoes (we'll make it a given that he was a man) would that satisfy a constitutional standard of probable cause to stop, question, detain and search every male citizen who was found wearing brown shoes?
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.