Not quite. The cop never offered the boy a ticket. The boy was taking much too long to to provide his driver's licence, insurance and proof of registration. The boy then decided he wanted to record the interaction with the cop with his cell phone. The cop didn't like that and so he decided to escalate the situation in hopes of intimidating the kid into immediate compliance.
You can't write a ticket if identity isn't established. The non-cooperative nature of the situation means the cop had no way to establish his identity, thus it would escalate to an arrest for no license.
Or with a little patience it would "escalate" to explaining the situation again and waiting for the kid to provide the license.
As for the cell phone--recording wasn't a problem. The problem is he kept trying to tell someone on the other end things.
Which as we all know is illegal in the U.S. because in the U.S. there is no freedom of speech or association.
4) Even then the kid was being totally stupid and resisted arrest. That's 6 months in the pokey.
He didn't resist arrest so much as react far too slowly to the officer's commands. When the officer kicks his phone out of his hand he says, "You can't do that." When the officer says, "You are under arrest." the boy says "You can't do that." The officer says "Get your hands behind your back!" The boy says, "But officer..." He didn't understand how he could be assaulted, have his personal property destroyed and be arrested in that situation. He didn't understand. But you call this resisting arrest.
Refusing to put your arms behind your back counts as resisting arrest.
He didn't refuse to put his arms behind his back. He didn't say, "NO!" or, "I won't put my arms behind my back, officer," or, "I am resisting arrest." He merely took more than two seconds to figure out what was going on.
I do agree the kid didn't understand the reality of the situation--but ignorance of the law is no excuse, certainly for a driver. Whether he was actually one of these sovereign citizen kooks or just fell victim to their garbage we probably will never know.
5) The cop attempted to tase him, it failed.
Well, the cop attempted to tase him for no good reason. And did so unsafely and improperly.
The tasing was proper--because he wouldn't put his arms behind his back.
And where's the evidence of unsafe or improper???
The tasing was for no good reason because the kid was no threat to anyone and had at no point demonstrated any aggression whatsoever. He was obeying the officer's commands until the officer tried to destroy his cell phone also for no good reason. This infact seems to cause the confusion that delays the kid from putting his arms behind his back.
The tasing was improper and unsafe because officer was nearly standing on the kid and he fired the taser downward at a range that was too close for optimal function of the weapon. He could have tased himself. The tasing did in fact fail because of the improper use of the weapon.
6) The kid attacked the cop and was winning the fight. Now we're up to 2 years in jail.
We have no evidence as to who was winning the fight. It's not even proven in the video that the kid ever actually made agressive contact with the officer. The officer might have just stumbled and fallen over surprised by the kid's swift recovery. But suppose the kid did attack the officer. Then the kid's reaction might have been an instinctual un-premeditate retaliation after being attacked without provocation.
The cop shot because he was losing.
Let me repeat myself.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.
7) The cop finally resorted to his gun.
That doesn't make it the next logical step. We have no evidence as to what other sort of options the officer had other than his firearm.
You just made my point--he had no other options.
No. There is a difference between having no evidence as to what sort of options you have and not having any other options.
It is the same difference between having no evidence as to the number of dwarf planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, and knowing Alpha Centauri has no dwarf planets orbiting it.
Should he have? Definitely--we have a pattern of the kid making incredibly stupid choices and escalating the situation at each turn. Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?
Should the kid bet his life that the officer who escalates the situation at every turn and attacks him without provocation isn't intending to execute him on the spot? Because that is exactly what the officer did. 7 shots. 7.
You're not rebutting this one.
You didn't rebut me either.
And one should expect the cops to escalate when one resists!
I still disagree that he was resisting. But you make a good point. We have come to expect cops to needlessly escalate situations to the point life and death. So the kid had every right to suspect he was about to be murdered by this officer and should have fought back as hard as he could in defense of his life as soon as it became clear the officer intended to hurt him. If anyone's motivations should be called into question here on general principal it is a police officer's.
Other than the cop losing the fistfight and having to use his gun everything played out as I would expect it to. Don't play roadside lawyer, don't attack the cops.
How about this for a moral to the story: Don't tolerate police officers driving illegally unsafe vehicles. Don't tolerate police officers useing entrapment to fabricate traffic stops. Don't tolerate police officers assaulting compliant non-aggressive and confused citizens.
