Dolphins statement on Tyreek (and Calais and Jonnu) situation

[Mythos27]

38 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said:

It's not their job to de-escalate or to act in any sort of way. Their job is to enforce the law. Your job when you get a lawful order from a police officer is to comply or face force. It's really that simple. 

No. It's not as simple as that and your mentality ensures that this continues to be an issue forever. You offer no solutions and advocate for the status quo.  The blood of the people, often of color, who die at the hands of police officers has been spilled because of the mentality you just espoused. Demand more from those paid and trained to protect and serve, not regular citizen just trying to make it home to their kids.

[TitansPDO]

1 hour ago, SleepingTitan said:

It's not their job to de-escalate or to act in any sort of way. Their job is to enforce the law. Your job when you get a lawful order from a police officer is to comply or face force. It's really that simple. 

 

Law enforcement are not given free reign to use force as means of compliance of a lawful order. For instance, if I see an officer walking towards me and he attempts to order me to speak with him, I am generally free to run away from him and ignore him unless he has reasonable suspicion to detain me. His order to me to speak with him isn't necessarily unlawful, but I do not have to obey it. 

 

Many states have laws governing the appropriate use of force by an officer. For example, in Texas, the use of force (whether deadly or not) by law enforcement is chiefly governed by Texas Penal Code Section 9.51.  Quoting specifically for law enforcement concerning non-deadly force under 9.51(a):

 

Quote

A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and

(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.24 also provides "In making an arrest, all reasonable means are permitted to be used to effect it. No greater force, however, shall be resorted to than is necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused."

 

There is one point I agree with you. Under Texas law, officers are not required to attempt de-escalate the situation ("the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"), however, many law enforcement agencies recommend such attempts be made under their own internal policy, such as the City of Houston. 

[SleepingTitan]

13 minutes ago, TitansPDO said:

 

Law enforcement are not given free reign to use force as means of compliance of a lawful order. For instance, if I see an officer walking towards me and he attempts to order me to speak with him, I am generally free to run away from him and ignore him unless he has reasonable suspicion to detain me. His order to me to speak with him isn't necessarily unlawful, but I do not have to obey it. 

 

Many states have laws governing the appropriate use of force by an officer. For example, in Texas, the use of force (whether deadly or not) by law enforcement is chiefly governed by Texas Penal Code Section 9.51.  Quoting specifically for law enforcement concerning non-deadly force under 9.51(a):

 

 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.24 also provides "In making an arrest, all reasonable means are permitted to be used to effect it. No greater force, however, shall be resorted to than is necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused."

 

There is one point I agree with you. Under Texas law, officers are not required to attempt de-escalate the situation ("the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"), however, many law enforcement agencies recommend such attempts be made under their own internal policy, such as the City of Houston. 

Your point about a bs stop...of course I agree. The officer is not giving a lawful order if he's just detaining someone without at least reasonable suspicion. But when the order is lawful, as is the case when they've pulled someone over and the suspect (who has committed a crime) refuses to roll down a blacked out window, you must follow it or risk force being applied.

 

As to the force "necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused," who defines "necessary?" The guy with the training? Or the asshole millionaire who is making a scene?

 

I have a lot of respect for your work, but the conversation has to be on both sides.

[Thrill]

The solution would be to cut funding every time these police stations have to pay out tax payer money to someone who they abused and got sued by. This shit would clear up real quick. 
 

Meanwhile the people of Miami/Dade are probably going to be giving Tyreek and his lawyer a pretty penny for this stupid shit.

[Mythos27]

What does it say about police officers that the best defense for their behavior is that there is no law that explicitly says they can't behave like tyrannical assholes. Imagine having to need a fucking law to make you treat citizens like human beings. Jesus Christ. Unreal. This is exactly why there is no song called "Fuck the fire department".

[Mythos27]

34 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said:

Your point about a bs stop...of course I agree. The officer is not giving a lawful order if he's just detaining someone without at least reasonable suspicion. But when the order is lawful, as is the case when they've pulled someone over and the suspect (who has committed a crime) refuses to roll down a blacked out window, you must follow it or risk force being applied.

 

As to the force "necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused," who defines "necessary?" The guy with the training? Or the asshole millionaire who is making a scene?

 

I have a lot of respect for your work, but the conversation has to be on both sides.

It's not a both sides issue. One side has all of the training and all of the power. Either figure out how to make these interactions appropriate or figure out a different way to enforce the law. It's not the job of ordinary citizen to fix policing and make sure both they and the officer get home to their families. We weren't the ones that took an oath to protect and serve.

[TitansPDO]

  

51 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said:

 

 

As to the force "necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused," who defines "necessary?" The guy with the training? Or the asshole millionaire who is making a scene?

 

 

Say an officer is charged with a crime for the alleged conduct, then a jury or a judge (if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial in compliance with Article 1.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) would ultimately decide the issue as Penal Code 9.51 is a defensive issue here in Texas. To get this instruction, only a scintilla of evidence needs to be introduced (by either side), even if that evidence is contradicted to support that instruction. Once the instruction is given, the State still carries the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove their allegations and that the defendant's actions did not qualify as a justification. 

 

Congrats on making it to being a 3L. Any idea what area of law you want to practice?

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by TitansPDO

[TitansPDO]

41 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

What does it say about police officers that the best defense for their behavior is that there is no law that explicitly says they can't behave like tyrannical assholes. Imagine having to need a fucking law to make you treat citizens like human beings. Jesus Christ. Unreal. This is exactly why there is no song called "Fuck the fire department".

 

Qualified immunity really makes holding law enforcement officers individually accountable extremely difficult in the federal context when they allegedly violate someone's constitutional rights. Even at the State level, it's particularly challenging.

 

Having said that, even the 5th Circuit has its limits thankfully on qualified immunity. And this case is particularly egregious, as it begins with the Court starting the opinion off with "For those who worry that qualified immunity can be invoked under absurd circumstances: Buckle up."

 

https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=43533866&msgid=505603&act=KIM7&c=1248045&pid=2155793&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca5.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%2Fpub%2F22%2F22-20621-CV0.pdf&cf=850&v=5d31e0b472f01eee7477ffc772ccd3b0d9d624c02bf82f2f4b83cf9378c50f4b

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by TitansPDO

[abenjami]

It seems the most valuable lesson to be learned from this thread is that @Thrillposts aren't worth reading.

[SleepingTitan]

2 hours ago, TitansPDO said:

  

 

Say an officer is charged with a crime for the alleged conduct, then a jury or a judge (if the defendant waives his right to a jury trial in compliance with Article 1.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) would ultimately decide the issue as Penal Code 9.51 is a defensive issue here in Texas. To get this instruction, only a scintilla of evidence needs to be introduced (by either side), even if that evidence is contradicted to support that instruction. Once the instruction is given, the State still carries the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove their allegations and that the defendant's actions did not qualify as a justification. 

 

Congrats on making it to being a 3L. Any idea what area of law you want to practice?

 

When I first started school, I wanted to do public defense. I follow some podcasts like Another Not Guilty, and I do quite a bit of work with Legal Aid Society. The more I learn about what really happens in trial courts and the nearly impossible abuse of discretion burden, I don't know. I don't know if I'd have the heart to keep going. At the end of the day, you're functioning like a high powered social worker. I interviewed for an internship recently for PD work. That'll tell me more. I'll DM you if I get it. 

 

My favorite law is torts - but who wants to send demand letters and take depositions all day? If I went that route, I'd want to move towards med mal and product liability eventually and hope to hell that I don't get stuck in a mill. 

[oldschool]

9 hours ago, TitansPDO said:

 

Law enforcement are not given free reign to use force as means of compliance of a lawful order. For instance, if I see an officer walking towards me and he attempts to order me to speak with him, I am generally free to run away from him and ignore him unless he has reasonable suspicion to detain me. His order to me to speak with him isn't necessarily unlawful, but I do not have to obey it. 

 

Many states have laws governing the appropriate use of force by an officer. For example, in Texas, the use of force (whether deadly or not) by law enforcement is chiefly governed by Texas Penal Code Section 9.51.  Quoting specifically for law enforcement concerning non-deadly force under 9.51(a):

 

 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.24 also provides "In making an arrest, all reasonable means are permitted to be used to effect it. No greater force, however, shall be resorted to than is necessary to secure the arrest and detention of the accused."

 

There is one point I agree with you. Under Texas law, officers are not required to attempt de-escalate the situation ("the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary"), however, many law enforcement agencies recommend such attempts be made under their own internal policy, such as the City of Houston. 

 

@SleepingTitan this is someone who paid attention in law school and passed the BAR. I wasn't kidding when I said you acted like a 1L the other day. The fact you are a 3l and still have the stance you do about law enforcement essentially have carte blanche is something your professors should have set you straight on already.

[oldschool]

8 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

It's not a both sides issue. One side has all of the training and all of the power. Either figure out how to make these interactions appropriate or figure out a different way to enforce the law. It's not the job of ordinary citizen to fix policing and make sure both they and the officer get home to their families. We weren't the ones that took an oath to protect and serve.

 

There are two major problems. Until both are addressed, nothing will change.

 

1. Good cops don't speak out against bad cops nor hold each other accountable

2. Police Unions protect bad cops for what they call the greater good

[XAEA12]

11 hours ago, SleepingTitan said:

Just imagine how the situation could've gone differently. He rolls down the window. Acts cordial. Tells the cop he's sorry for speeding and says he's just excited for game 1. Cop yells at him for how dangerous it was but issues a warning or a ticket for $200. 

 

And then none of the bs happens. 

 

I can tell you from experience that when I started treating cops like human beings, my interactions with them completely changed. You're a fool if you don't realize how tough they have it. They're just guys like us trying to do a hard job. 

Is apologizing a lawful order?

[Thrill]

7 hours ago, abenjami said:

It seems the most valuable lesson to be learned from this thread is that @Thrillposts aren't worth reading.

You sat here and sucked off cops all day yesterday. GTFO. 

[SleepingTitan]

4 hours ago, oldschool said:

 

@SleepingTitan this is someone who paid attention in law school and passed the BAR. I wasn't kidding when I said you acted like a 1L the other day. The fact you are a 3l and still have the stance you do about law enforcement essentially have carte blanche is something your professors should have set you straight on already.

I am not mistaken about what the law is. But to your point about law school, we don't really deep dive into this stuff. The only time you really talk about cops is if you take some kind of elective that addresses it. In Criminal Procedure, you learn about the guard rails that courts have tried to establish (Constitutionally and procedurally). In Evidence, you learn about admissibility. In Constitutional Law, you learn about it from the standpoint of how they derived their police powers (states). Each state will exercise those police powers differently within the law. The biggest problem that was previously mentioned is qualified immunity. If the courts like the 5th circuit can start cracking that - we might get somewhere. 

 

I'd propose that police forces start incorporating more unarmed officers. Social workers on scene for DV, mental health calls, etc is a good start. De-escalation training would be natural from there. Unfortunately, the militarization of police from the 50s-present that started with Civil Rights and then the War on Drugs has gone too far.