Is there a lesson learned here?

[JEEP]

Another case of a police officer behaving "stupidly"?

YouTube video prompts complaints to Whitehall police
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:48 PM
By Elizabeth Gibson
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

A video of a Whitehall police officer wrestling an 84-year-old woman to get a steak knife away from her in a Wal-Mart parking lot has exploded into a YouTube phenomenon.

The video (_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xW_-bSxTyI) has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times on the video sharing site, and Whitehall Chief Richard Zitzke said his department has fielded hundreds of calls from people all over the United States.

"We've been barraged with calls because some idiot radio station in Pittsburgh construed their own idea of what happened and suggested that everybody in the country call the Whitehall police," the chief said.

Zitzke said the department is issuing a written statement this afternoon to counter the negative publicity and to set the record straight.

In the video, the bystander who recorded it can be heard calling the incident police brutality and shouting about how his video is going to make big news.

Zitzke recommends that people watch the video with the sound off. Then, he said, they'll see a Whitehall officer responding to a complaint about a woman with a knife on Aug. 1.

The officer approached slowly, asking Virginia Dotson to drop the knife. When the woman didn't release the weapon, Officer Tammy Scott threw her to the ground and pried it from her grip. Dotson struggled and blood began spreading from beneath her head as a crowd of onlookers rushed in to help.

This appears to be the video timeline of the incident:
22 seconds in - police car arriving, 30 seconds - female officer approaching woman, 45 seconds - elderly woman has been slammed to the ground, 1 min - second male officer appears to get involved. The person filming with his cell phone jostles the phone just after the officer confronts the woman and it is hard to see exactly what happens. It does not appear that the woman lunges at the officer with the knife although she does at first briefly wave her hand holding the knife in the direction of the approaching officer; it then appears that she is holding it at her side and the police officer maneuvers around to her back and then forcibly takes her down hard to the pavement, incurring a bleeding head injury to the 84 year old woman.

I find this whole incident highly appalling. I find it hard to believe that a presumedly fit, conditioned female police officer found this elderly woman, who needed a cane to walk, so threatening that the only way to neutralize the situation was to use a standard arm-bar move to slam the woman to the pavement in order to disarm her. A second male officer appears just 30 seconds after the first officer approaches the woman. Did it not occur to the first officer to wait half a minute in order to allow the two of them to harmlessly disarm this elderly woman?! If they couldn't physically subdue her without excessive force, wouldn't pepper spray been a better option than slamming her to the pavement? I guess the "perp" was lucky she wasn't tasered! That would have probably killed her! The fact that the officers are white and the elderly woman is black only further inflames the situation. It should be noted that several people, black and white, came rushing over alarmed at what was happening and trying to intercede on the woman's behalf.

I can only hope the furor aroused by this incident will institute some badly needed retraining of the police officers not only in Whitehall, OH, but across the country!

 

[Be Like Water]

As I understand it at present, police officers have the contractual right to enforce acts and stautes based on the fact that you signed a document for your drivers licence, in effect, creating a contract. You signed a peice of paper giving them right. If you have not signed a contract, (ie, jaywalking) then the officer will still assume you have breached a contract unless you ask him to prove a right of claim.

I started looking into this "freeman" and "strawman" stuff a few months ago, seems to be a bit of a minefield.
Robert arthur menard has some interesting videos on google.
For an aussie perspective, mark mcmurtrie also on google vieo.

Also remember that all police dept (at least here in oz) are corporate entities, as is the commonwealth of australia, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. So, yes, they will try to make a profit.

An officer of the peace keeps the peace, (common law) a police officer enforces corporate law -acts, statutes, contracts (admiralty law), and both functions are fulfilled by what we know as law enforcement.

Note, this is not legal advice. Only lawyers can give that. By laws. That they wrote.

OSIT.....

 

[Buddy]

As I understand it at present, police officers have the contractual right to enforce acts and statutes based on the fact that you signed a document for your drivers licence, in effect, creating a contract. You signed a peice of paper giving them right. If you have not signed a contract, (ie, jaywalking) then the officer will still assume you have breached a contract unless you ask him to prove a right of claim.

Indeed. That's one of the hidden mechanisms of 'governments'. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that even though the common law, common law rights and individual sovereignty came before statutory law and the Constitution, today, the individual is legally assumed to have consented to all government jurisdiction by default.

The consent is demonstrated by participating in the driver's license program (a signed card), the social security program (a signed card) as well as minor things such as ticking the box on employment applications to declare "I am a United States Citizen"...that sort of thing.

 

[pete02]

I don't know about the vaccine, but I do know from experience, that police DO call in car plates routinely, without having or needing probable cause to do so.

This has me curious. I spoke with a Park Ranger about six or seven years ago and was told that they are not allowed to just call in random plates. It borders on harassment she said. Maybe that only applies to federal officers, I'm not sure but still, but still they should need probable cause before calling in.

This also has me wondering about speed traps. When you are pulled over for speeding, I was under the impression that upon request the officer had to show you what you were clocked at. So if another officer way back up the road clocks you or even a helicopter, how exactly do they prove this to us anymore? I suppose all the rules have changed and nobody told us?

 

[Zadius Sky]

I don't know about the vaccine, but I do know from experience, that police DO call in car plates routinely, without having or needing probable cause to do so.

I have to agree. I saw alot of police cars, while closely passing them by, stopped in a safe distance from the car in front of them, and seeing the officers looking at and checking the car plates on their computers and on their radios. It wasn't just a couple of times. It happened alot, over the years. So, they do check it. That's the thing you'd get when you're in front of the police car when stopped in front of the red light intersection, you ain't got no choice...at least in the US.

 

[Buddy]

This has me curious. I spoke with a Park Ranger about six or seven years ago and was told that they are not allowed to just call in random plates. It borders on harassment she said. Maybe that only applies to federal officers, I'm not sure but still, but still they should need probable cause before calling in.

That is also true. It's not allowed anywhere that I know of, but it is done.

The difference, as always, lies in individuals and their point of view. There are those who will follow ethics (laws and departmental policy) strictly and those who will turn their heads because 'it's so dangerous out there'.

In a case where a curiosity call-in has been done and information comes back from the dispatcher (or in-house officer doing a favor) that warrants a traffic stop, something else will be used as probable cause to pull the vehicle over instead, if at all possible - and if there's any likelihood of the probable cause being challenged. 'Something' can always be found.

With so many laptops installed in so many police vehicles these days, there may not even be a need to call anything in, but I'm not sure of that.

--Edit to include:

This also has me wondering about speed traps. When you are pulled over for speeding, I was under the impression that upon request the officer had to show you what you were clocked at. So if another officer way back up the road clocks you or even a helicopter, how exactly do they prove this to us anymore? I suppose all the rules have changed and nobody told us?

Keep in mind we're dealing with 3D illusions here, Pete. It's all just lessons. It's all for looks and only convinces the sleepers.

 

[moonwalker]

With regards to speeding it's worth noting, especially if you're in the U.S that probably half of the speeding tickets in California are written as a violation of VC22350, the basic speed law, which doesn't mention anything about posted speed limit. Rather, it is for driving at a speed that presents a danger to persons or property. Also, prima facie speed limits must be justified by a traffic engineering survey, otherwise they could constitute a speed trap. Which means, you could be exceeding the posted limit and not be guilty of anything, however the biggest issue is what the traffic officer's declaration stated?

 

[pete02]

The difference, as always, lies in individuals and their point of view. There are those who will follow ethics (laws and departmental policy) strictly and those who will turn their heads because 'it's so dangerous out there'.

I hear ya Buddy. I do find that when I'm at work in NYC the police down here seem to do whatever they want and get away with it without question from anyone however when I return home to Pennsylvania the police up there do seem to follow procedure to an extent.

Keep in mind we're dealing with 3D illusions here, Pete. It's all just lessons. It's all for looks and only convinces the sleepers.

Yeah I know. Nothing is as it was and if we question it we only seem to stir up more trouble than its worth. Bottom line seems to be to just follow the rules and stay under the radar for now.