Texas Cop Nathanial Robinson Uses Stun Gun On Elderly Man Over Inspection Sticker

[dismal]

that would have been ridiculous

As opposed to the discussion we're having now.

 

[ksen]

yes

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In most states you are expected to resolve such issues in the courtroom, not at the point of contact.

Why?
Court appearances are a hassle. Seriously, if the guy is not in the wrong, and knows he's not in the wrong, the natural tendency is to want to resolve the issue without tickets being written, without him AND THE COP wasting hours sitting in the back of the courtroom while grandmothers explain that it was perfectly logical to make a U-turn in front of the toll plaza during rush hour because she'd left her coin purse back in Des Moines...

Sure, you talk it out with the cop if you can. You do not resist his orders, though, unless they are impossible or pose a safety hazard. If he wants to see the car's paperwork you hand it to him. You certainly don't go holding it out of his reach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

I don't see the issue of age. Remember that case a while back where the cops shot a woman in her 90s(?) and most of you jumped to her defense--but it turns out she fired first?

- - - Updated - - -

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

From a libertarian philosophical standpoint? I don't think so.

From a facts and circumstances standpoint? I suppose it could. If the cop thinks the guy has a gun it doesn't matter. But I would be less impressed by a claim the cop was afraid to wrestle with this guy than, say, Michael Brown. However, once you decide to wrestle with a cop you are treading into dangerous ground regardless of whether you are 70 or not. The cop could reasonably show more restraint with an older guy, but I think it's dangerous if you are the suspect to assume they will.

Except tasers are safer for the suspect than wrestling. It doesn't matter that the cop is sure he can take the person.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If he wants to see the car's paperwork you hand it to him. You certainly don't go holding it out of his reach.

I'm not sure what that paperwork is. It was something he intended to hand over to the dealer. Not something he was intending to show the cop, not something he thought the cop had any reason to see.
The cop didn't seem to ask for the paperwork, just reached out to snatch it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Somehow this comes to mind....

 

[Toni]

Why?
Court appearances are a hassle. Seriously, if the guy is not in the wrong, and knows he's not in the wrong, the natural tendency is to want to resolve the issue without tickets being written, without him AND THE COP wasting hours sitting in the back of the courtroom while grandmothers explain that it was perfectly logical to make a U-turn in front of the toll plaza during rush hour because she'd left her coin purse back in Des Moines...

t

Sure, you talk it out with the cop if you can. You do not resist his orders, though, unless they are impossible or pose a safety hazard. If he wants to see the car's paperwork you hand it to him. You certainly don't go holding it out of his reach.

So it is your contention that this gentleman held paperwork out of reach of the officer? Because I didn't see that.

Loren this officer was grossly out of line. He confronted a law abiding citizen over a non-offense and his response when his error was pointed out to him was to wrestle an elderly man to the ground and then to tase him. Twice. The chief of police apologized to the victim and placed the officer on administrative leave. Presumably until the due process laid out in the employment contract has been fulfilled at which point the officer will hopefully be fired. And then charged with assault and battery.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see the issue of age. Remember that case a while back where the cops shot a woman in her 90s(?) and most of you jumped to her defense--but it turns out she fired first?

No, please provide a link so we can see the entire context of your claim. I could be wrong, but I recall that cops burst in on a no knock warrant and she fired first at the intruders.

 

[barbos]

Can one be a policeman at 23?
I mean he is under 25 and still pays higher rate for car insurance.
I have never seen a policeman which was that young.

 

[Rhea]

Can one be a policeman at 23?
I mean he is under 25 and stills pays higher rate for car insurance.
I have never seen a policeman which was that young.

What! You never saw Johnny Depp in 21 Jump Street?

 

[Arctish]

Only if you put the word "libertarian" in quotes. Without said quotes the statement shows how people want to redefine it to mean anything. People know the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true ... except for when it is convenient to forget that said claims are not true.

Arctish, Archemedes, do you find it convenient or do you know Loren isn't libertarian?

As I said in my earlier post, he's someone who calls himself libertarian. I was remarking how odd it is for someone to describe themselves as libertarian whilst espousing views that seem to be the exact opposite (repeated defense of police use of violence at the slightest provocation). It's neither convenient or inconvenient to me for Loren to hold the views he does.

And I agree with Archimedes. Libertarianism that embraces authoritarianism is an oxymoron; Loren calling himself a libertarian while whole heartedly supporting brutal police actions is a perfect example of this. However, what libertarian means and who it describes nowadays is also an oxymoron.

The John Birch Society, the neo-cons who continue to support GW Bush and Dick Cheney, Cliven Bundy and his gun-toting allies, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, members of the KKK, etc. all self identify as moderate to strong libertarian. Because of them, the common perception of libertarians isn't one of people who support the rights of individuals to marry whomever they wish, or are in favor of open borders, or opposed to military action and imperialism abroad. The common perception is that libertarians are pro-gun, pro-war, and pro-police state for everyone but themselves, that they are deeply racist, and that they will happily deny fundamental human rights and constitutional liberties to anyone who doesn't agree with their hard-core right-wing agenda.

I'm afraid the fight to preserve the meaning of "libertarian" that you use is a lost cause. The writing was on the wall back in the 1960s when the self styled libertarians in the John Birch Society fought against passage of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see the issue of age. Remember that case a while back where the cops shot a woman in her 90s(?) and most of you jumped to her defense--but it turns out she fired first?

Great point. Unarmed man should be tasered because that woman in her 90s shot someone.

And how is tazering a man in his late 70s safe? You do realize people get more fragile with age, right?

*self-moderated comment*

 

[Toni]

I don't see the issue of age. Remember that case a while back where the cops shot a woman in her 90s(?) and most of you jumped to her defense--but it turns out she fired first?

You mean the lady who fired into the ground? The officer shot her 5 times. Apparently it wasn't universally seen as a justified shooting--the officer was fired. Of course she wasn't the first person he shot dead.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Apparently it wasn't universally seen as a justified shooting--

Deadly force IS authorized uncer conditions of extreme necessity, to protect your own life, to protect the life of another, to prevent grievous bodily harm and to prevent shooting the ground out of season.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure, you talk it out with the cop if you can. You do not resist his orders, though, unless they are impossible or pose a safety hazard. If he wants to see the car's paperwork you hand it to him. You certainly don't go holding it out of his reach.

If the cop pulls you over for an inspection sticker, should you open the trunk if he asks? No warrant, no probable cause, just a fishing expedition.

Can he see in the glove box? If he asks, or orders?

Can he search your phone for drug dealer contacts?

 

[bilby]

Sure, you talk it out with the cop if you can. You do not resist his orders, though, unless they are impossible or pose a safety hazard. If he wants to see the car's paperwork you hand it to him. You certainly don't go holding it out of his reach.

If the cop pulls you over for an inspection sticker, should you open the trunk if he asks? No warrant, no probable cause, just a fishing expedition.

Can he see in the glove box? If he asks, or orders?

Can he search your phone for drug dealer contacts?

Of course he can. You have the absolute freedom to do exactly what you are told. What are you, some kind of totalitarian who thinks freedom is so awful that people should be allowed to do whatever they want?

 

[zorq]

Indeed. What's at issue here is not whether or not police should exist and be able to use force to do their job, I was objecting to Loren's kneejerk defense of every single incident of police using force (up to and including deadly force) by arguing that if you don't want to get a beatdown or tasering (or worse) from armed employees of the government, you should unquestionably do what they say, otherwise you're basically asking for it.

To me, that doesn't sound very libertarian. And it doesn't either to Jason Harvestdancer who said "the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true".

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

I'd like to point out that the video makes it dubious as to whether the man was actually being pulled over.

At the very least It's clear he didn't think he was being pulled over.

There is no indication the police officer's lights or siren were active, the man pulls into the dealer's lot and immediately exits with a piece of paper in his hand. He is surprised to see the officer blocking his exit from the vehicle but when the officer steps aside he heads immediately to the front door of the dealership until the officer engages him in dialogue.

I think he had no clue that he was suspected of anything up until the point the officer grabbed his arm and threw him down on the hood of the car.

 

[Togo]

And I agree with Archimedes. Libertarianism that embraces authoritarianism is an oxymoron; Loren calling himself a libertarian while whole heartedly supporting brutal police actions is a perfect example of this. However, what libertarian means and who it describes nowadays is also an oxymoron.

The John Birch Society, the neo-cons who continue to support GW Bush and Dick Cheney, Cliven Bundy and his gun-toting allies, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, members of the KKK, etc. all self identify as moderate to strong libertarian. Because of them, the common perception of libertarians isn't one of people who support the rights of individuals to marry whomever they wish, or are in favor of open borders, or opposed to military action and imperialism abroad. The common perception is that libertarians are pro-gun, pro-war, and pro-police state for everyone but themselves, that they are deeply racist, and that they will happily deny fundamental human rights and constitutional liberties to anyone who doesn't agree with their hard-core right-wing agenda.

I'm afraid the fight to preserve the meaning of "libertarian" that you use is a lost cause. The writing was on the wall back in the 1960s when the self styled libertarians in the John Birch Society fought against passage of the Civil Rights Act.

It's a problem with any group that you can't control who identifies with you. Being a right-wing authoritarian is desperately unfashionable as a label, so any kind of right-wing authoritarian viewpoint (supremacy of police over individual rights, blaming those who suffer when force is employed for obstructing those employing force, apologetics for brutality generally) is couched in terms of libertarian values, that being the easiest and most convenient cover for views that might otherwise be identified as authoritarian.

In the UK you also get left-wing authoritarians couching themselves as social liberals, and repressive religious fundamentalists casting themselves as fighting for religious diversity, so it's not just a right-wing problem.

 

[bleubird]

Ideology,pick one.They are all the same.

 

[Toni]

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

I'd like to point out that the video makes it dubious as to whether the man was actually being pulled over.

At the very least It's clear he didn't think he was being pulled over.

There is no indication the police officer's lights or siren were active, the man pulls into the dealer's lot and immediately exits with a piece of paper in his hand. He is surprised to see the officer blocking his exit from the vehicle but when the officer steps aside he heads immediately to the front door of the dealership until the officer engages him in dialogue.

I think he had no clue that he was suspected of anything up until the point the officer grabbed his arm and threw him down on the hood of the car.

Exactly.