Posted on 02/10/2019 10:02:55 PM PST by ConservativeMind
On July 27, 2017, Johnny Wheatcroft was a passenger in a silver Ford Taurus when a pair of Glendale police officers pulled in front them in a Motel 6 parking lot.
The stop was for an alleged turn signal violation.
Minutes later, Wheatcroft was handcuffed lying face down on the hot asphalt on a 108-degree day. He'd already been tased 10 times, with one officer kneeling on his back as another, Officer Matt Schneider, kicked him in the groin and pulled down his athletic shorts to tase him a final time in his testicles, according to a federal lawsuit and body camera footage obtained by ABC15.
The scene was witnessed by his 11- and 6-year-old sons.
Multiple independent law enforcement experts, who agreed to review the incident, said the officers’ conduct was unlawful, potentially criminal, and one of the most cruel and troubling cases of police misconduct they’ve ever seen.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc15.com ...
There’s “reasonable fear” versus “bare fear”/”any fear”. This doesn’t apply here, if you read the article on what former police have to say.
Please elaborate.
Why the video of course. I assume you watched it? What do you see that required repeated tasering, despite what is simply labelled "suspicious?"
I do think Wheatcroft is a criminal and likely was targeted for that reason, but i am trying to objectively deal with the what is shown and said
Beginning about the 10 mark of the vid. PO Schneider tells nervous Wheatcroft the problem is that he does not have an ID, and about the 2 min mark Schneider opens the door and Wheatcroft's hands are clearly visibly, with a can of coke in his right hand and some money in his left. Schneider then takes the coke out of Wheatcroft's right hand which is now empty and his left is still visible with money in it, and he starts to slowly exit the vehicle.
This is when Schneider it places a taser on his shoulder and threatens to tase him if he tenses up and tells him to relax his arm, even though Schneider is simply slowly beginning to exit the car, with his right leg outside and right hand open and is being fearfully (exaggerated or not) compliant.
Here (at about 2:30) Wheatcrofts inquisitively asks - without any belligerence or challenging tone - what he did wrong, and Schneider says "You have no I.D. on you" (though i am informed that while passengers needs to identify themselves they is no statutory requirement to carry an I.D. or show one) and alleged that the Wheatcroft stuffed something down in his backpack. But that is not shown yet his hands are, and what they are shown carrying is not anything dangerous.
Wheatcroft says he did not, and Schneider asks Wheatcroft if he is going to fight or not and he says "No I'm not," nor has he at all shown any indication of intending to, while honestly so far it has been Schneider who is acting like he want an altercation.
Next, rather than having and letting Wheatcroft proceed to exit the car, Schneider grabs the arm of Wheatcroft (2.37) and twists it using his (Schneider) other arm into a compliance hold and a voice is heard "he's going to fight" even though Wheatcroft still has shown no indication of doing so, nor was he even in a position to do so.
Wheatcroft is now immobilized, still sitting down, and Schneider says "don't pull away" and Wheatcroft protests "I'm not, I'm not" (evidently pain and having no place to go, and still strapped in) while Schneider insists "You are." Schneider next places his gun on the shoulder of Wheatcroft who protests "I'm' not doing nothing man." (2.50)
At this someone pushes down on the left shoulder of Wheatcroft who again protests he is not doing anything man while another hand is holding Wheatcroft's right hand, which Wheatcroft verbally protests (2.56) and they drag him out backwards and tase him (3.01) for the first time and then quickly a second time while Wheatcroft writhes.
Screaming follows and Wheatcroft is sitting on the ground when 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..." A PO is dragging him out while the GF says "he's not going to do anything."
Wheatcroft is next placed in handcuffs and soon have him face down on the pavement and tased repeatedly, and is no position to fight or present a danger to police, though he is agitated at being tased. There is reason why so many in law enforcement see this as at least over the top. There are also discrepancies btwn what the video shows and what http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/glendale-police-details-2017-volatile-police-situation reports.
I wonder how much getting shocked 11 times and a few in the nuts will be worth to the “perp/victim”.
As a side this you must identify yourself to police trend is out of control. Needs better definition of terms and what constitutes “identify” and who is obligated to do so. Sadly this stems from a case in my state.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[1]
The Hiibel decision was narrow in that it applied only to states that have stop and identify statutes. Consequently, individuals in states without such statutes cannot be lawfully arrested solely for refusing to identify themselves during a Terry stop.
But note that there is a difference btwn "requiring suspects to disclose their names" and requiring to show an I.D, which in effect would be requiring everyone to carry an I.D.
I read from "Christopher Hawk, Retired after 30+ years police/EMS experience"
In the US, the officer absolutely has “the right to ask your passenger for ID.”
Your passenger absolutely has the right to not provide it.
The officer also has the right to ask you or your passenger to do the hokey pokey on the side of the road. Again, you have the right to refuse.
Now, perhaps you're actually wondering what authority the officer has in that situation?
If that's the case, the SCOTUS has ruled that officers absolutely have the authority to ask passengers to identify themselves. However, while the passenger must provide his/her name, s/he is not required to provide a hard-copy ID. Why not? Because there is no statutory requirement that a person must possess or carry an ID card in the US.
So… an ID is not required for a passenger, but the passenger must provide accurate identifying information, if asked.
Yet a passenger must show his/her driver's license if the driver is using a learner's permit. Any requirement that if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.
I agree with most of that but several states have passed laws based on Hiibel that require you to identify yourself when asked by a LEO. South Carolina and Rhode Island are two - I believe. The apparent loophole is the cop must have reasonable suspicion that you MAY be committing or about to(get that????)commit a crime. Suspicion of being drunk in public or “the smell of weed” are two instances they use routinely.
But again, requiring you to tell the PO who you are and requiring you to show an I.D. - or else - are two different things, which would mean we must always carry one. In the case at issue, not having an I.D. was the #1 reason given in response to "What did i do wrong," while the second one was unseen and questionable.
I don’t hate cops, but I will call out evil ones.
Unlike you.
No, support hoodlums and hate cops.
My question was somewhat rhetorical about the threat, as any man with two hands or legs free is a threat. Yes, I watched the video and the LEO will have to answer for his actions, as will all those involved. The situation deserves the investigation it’s getting and I’d like to hear all angles to form my own conclusions.
Yes. Particularly if the behavior is condoned by bureaucrats, made known to them but no action is taken. Cities pay out millions all the time for not correcting criminal behavior by their employees. This incident happened quite a while ago, and the cop is still on the force. Now that a federal lawsuit is happening, they will finally be forced to take action against the cop and change training procedures.
"For independent analysis, ABC15 spoke with three former law enforcement officers, who testify as expert witnesses in police use-of-force cases across the country: Williams, Noble, and Stoughton."
"TIME: 0:55 - 2:05"
"Schneider asks Wheatcroft multiple times for identification. He responds by asking why that’s necessary since he wasn’t driving the car. The officer tells him, “If you’re a passenger in a vehicle, you need to have ID.” And if Wheatcroft doesn’t provide it, Schneider says, “I can take you down to the station and we can fingerprint you.”"
"NOBLE: So the passenger, he’s asking very reasonable questions: ‘Why are you asking for ID?’ And the officer tells him, ‘If you’re a passenger in the vehicle, you have to give ID.’ That’s misstatement of the law. He doesn’t have to give ID...It’s not true. It’s not accurate. (Then the officer says) ‘I can take you down to the station and fingerprint you.’ Well no, you can’t. You can’t. That’s using his authority in an improper way by claiming he can arrest or detain him to fingerprint him when he’s done nothing wrong."
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial does not apply here, and not using turn signals is traffic violation, not a Terry stop.
Not one of the defenders of this scum has mentioned the passenger was moving around, reaching, setting stuf down and being verbally combative. Some folks on this page couldn’t see any of that and would have felt it was within the guys rights to reach under the seat for a gun and blow the cops head off.
“A stun gun to the privates should be characterized as sexual assault.”
Agreed.
“So it is NOT true, as you said, that no one in the car had any contraband.”
I stand corrected.
Still stand by my statement that even criminals do not deserve to be intentionally tasered in their testicles by law enforcement. That’s an abuse of power.
“Sorry, if a cop says stop moving, STOP MOVING! “
Part of the time the cop was saying to stop moving, he was moving from being stunned with a stun gun.
The guy was making stupid choices and could have avoided what happened, but the cop also unnecessarily escalated the situation and crossed a line that should never have been crossed.
The video clearly shows the cop tasering the man in the testicles from behind. At minimum this deserves the officer being fired. And a criminal charge would be reasonable. He should no longer be a cop and have to change professions.
I suggest, respectfully, that you watch a few episodes of LivePD and see how Terry is currently being practiced in the real world.
Thanks for the info. BTW, while it seems to be taking a long time for this case to work its way to the end, if the media could use this to promote its racial war "we are your saviors" then it would be a bigger deal.
In the interest of accuracy and objectivity (which does not mean being a cop-hating defender of criminals) you should carefully watch the video , as I did and described it here (post 143) and compare it with what was reported here .
If the guy had put his sh*t down before the cop walked up to the car and had his hands on the dash, none of this would have happened. Instead he took the " I have the right to not answer sH*t" if a cop asks attitude, because Im just sitting here.
Hindsight is 20/20. 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?
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.
Its better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. for both the cop and suspect
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.