Dr. Dre Handcuffed

[gambit187]

The police are allowed to lawfully detain (in cuffs or not) anyone they suspect (you can read not sure yet who is suspect in that as well as clearly suspect) might be a danger to the public of which the police are a subset. You must obey an officers orders under these circumstances because that is the law. If you're told to lie on the ground with hands behind your head you are required to do so whether you feel/think it is just or not. So yes you are required to 'submit' although that's not the legal term. It's cooperate. If they are found to have made an unlawful detention then you are very likely to win a settlement or suit. Same thing for an unlawful arrest.

This is a huge problem with the public. If you're told to do something and don't then the amount of force (verbal becoming physical) will escalate until it is complied with either voluntarily or involuntarily. This 'oh hell no you ain't doing that to me' is the cause of a lot of conflict between the police and the public and it is unnecessary.

OTOH, police shooting unarmed people who are complying with their orders are the worse and should and almost always are dealt with harshly; as it should be.

Yeah especially when you shoot a guy that's laying on his back, with his hands in the air saying that he is here to help his mental ill patient who just so happens to rocking back and forth at his feet with a toy truck....smh...

 

[JoeKing]

I agree, hindsight is 20/20, but I am also not surprised at who was viewed as the threat.

The threat was determined to be a false alarm.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The police are allowed to lawfully detain (in cuffs or not) anyone they suspect (you can read not sure yet who is suspect in that as well as clearly suspect) might be a danger to the public of which the police are a subset. You must obey an officers orders under these circumstances because that is the law. If you're told to lie on the ground with hands behind your head you are required to do so whether you feel/think it is just or not. So yes you are required to 'submit' although that's not the legal term. It's cooperate. If they are found to have made an unlawful detention then you are very likely to win a settlement or suit. Same thing for an unlawful arrest.

This is a huge problem with the public. If you're told to do something and don't then the amount of force (verbal becoming physical) will escalate until it is complied with either voluntarily or involuntarily. This 'oh hell no you ain't doing that to me' is the cause of a lot of conflict between the police and the public and it is unnecessary.

OTOH, police shooting unarmed people who are complying with their orders are the worse and should and almost always are dealt with harshly; as it should be.

The way police deal with the public sometimes is abhorrent. I get detaining someone that is going crazy, flailing, acting aggressive, drunk--that is not the issue. Treating citizens as threats instead of people is the issue. Yes, technically they can cuff you for any reason because of the gross *******ization of the concept of probable cause that basically gives police carte bank to violate our fourth amendment rights anytime they see fit, but contitutionalists recognize just because something is sanctioned by the authorities doesn't make it right--or legal!

 

[JoeKing]

Cooperate with or submit to? This is not **** Germany, you cannot just detain people w/o cause bc you're scared.

Who is saying they had no cause? The police were responding to a complaint that involved a gun.

 

[TheCount]

The distinction is paramount. "End up" in hand cuffs means the end result was the cuffs were on him but that was not the end result. There is more to the story that you are conveniently leaving out.

Clearly you are waging your own personal war here, and feel free to keep right on doing that but my point was plain enough. Unlike you, I had no agenda other than a small comment on an element of the story, I wasn't making a political statement.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

The police are allowed to lawfully detain (in cuffs or not) anyone they suspect (you can read not sure yet who is suspect in that as well as clearly suspect) might be a danger to the public of which the police are a subset. You must obey an officers orders under these circumstances because that is the law. If you're told to lie on the ground with hands behind your head you are required to do so whether you feel/think it is just or not. So yes you are required to 'submit' although that's not the legal term. It's cooperate. If they are found to have made an unlawful detention then you are very likely to win a settlement or suit. Same thing for an unlawful arrest.

This is a huge problem with the public. If you're told to do something and don't then the amount of force (verbal becoming physical) will escalate until it is complied with either voluntarily or involuntarily. This 'oh hell no you ain't doing that to me' is the cause of a lot of conflict between the police and the public and it is unnecessary.

OTOH, police shooting unarmed people who are complying with their orders are the worse and should and almost always are dealt with harshly; as it should be.

You MUST have probable cause.

A phone call from a lunatic is NOT probable cause.

This is the problem with the public...they believe you are always under probable cause and can be detained.

Detaining is specific to probable cause and/or warrant.

We've let police off with too low a threshold for probable cause...oh a dog barked! Cavity search them! Thankfully, the government is having to pay those poor people now for their screwups: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/after-illegal-body-cavity-search-us-to-pay-victim-475-000-1.420298

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Who is saying they had no cause? The police were responding to a complaint that involved a gun.

I can complain you have a gun right now. Thats not cause.

 

[zrinkill]

If it was Greg Hardy instead of Dr. Dre I bet he would have another opinion ...... then the cops would have been setting an innocent man up.

 

[jobberone]

Yeah especially when you shoot a guy that's laying on his back, with his hands in the air saying that he is here to help his mental ill patient who just so happens to rocking back and forth at his feet with a toy truck....smh...

You can't stop all of that although that cop needs to go to jail. You should be able to stop a lot of it though. To think all cops are looking for an excuse to shoot someone is absurd. What we cannot have is cops being assassinated. That is throwing not gas but napalm on the fire. Right now cops are scared and that is a recipe for escalation of force.

 

[JoeKing]

Clearly you are waging your own personal war here, and feel free to keep right on doing that but my point was plain enough. Unlike you, I had no agenda other than a small comment on an element of the story, I wasn't making a political statement.

But you were not stating the whole truth. The police came to investigate a claim. Secured the accused suspect for questioning and then cleared him of any wrong doing and released him. No ones rights were violated,

 

[JoeKing]

I can complain you have a gun right now. Thats not cause.

yes it is... if you say I pointed it at you.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

yes it is... if you say I pointed it at you.

Only in our watered down world where dog barks count.

In the real world, no. And further, if you point it at me, the call will be about a man shot, lying in the street needing pickup.

 

[jobberone]

The way police deal with the public sometimes is abhorrent. I get detaining someone that is going crazy, flailing, acting aggressive, drunk--that is not the issue. Treating citizens as threats instead of people is the issue. Yes, technically they can cuff you for any reason because of the gross *******ization of the concept of probable cause that basically gives police carte bank to violate our fourth amendment rights anytime they see fit, but contitutionalists recognize just because something is sanctioned by the authorities doesn't make it right--or legal!

You need to understand what being detained means and what is lawful and unlawful for us to have a meaningful conversation. Adopting an adversarial relationship with the police even if only between your ears is problematic.

I suggest you adopt a ride with police for a month or three and try to understand the other side of the equation. Approach an unknown situation as an officer to try to understand the anxiety it produces. You never know when you're going to be shot or assaulted.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Our watered down use of "probable cause" is why a license plate bulb gets you pulled over. And its why a supposed "tail light out" got Philando Castile killed.

In the ACTUAL world, you dont get pulled over for a license plate bulb.

This is how the government extorts its people.

 

[jobberone]

You MUST have probable cause.

A phone call from a lunatic is NOT probable cause.

This is the problem with the public...they believe you are always under probable cause and can be detained.

Detaining is specific to probable cause and/or warrant.

We've let police off with too low a threshold for probable cause...oh a dog barked! Cavity search them! Thankfully, the government is having to pay those poor people now for their screwups: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/after-illegal-body-cavity-search-us-to-pay-victim-475-000-1.420298

I'm not discussing probable cause to detain someone only what happens IF you are detained. Once detained, lawfully or unlawfully, you must still cooperate with the police. An unlawful detention does not rescind your obligation to obey the police. I don't like the idea of being detained as you are temporarily deprived of your freedom to come and go as you please. But I would never refuse to obey a lawful order once detained.

While I agree the issue of probable cause has been eroded some, the time to complain is after you're released. Either that or change the laws. That is worth marching for IMO.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

I'm not discussing probable cause to detain someone only what happens IF you are detained. Once detained, lawfully or unlawfully, you must still cooperate with the police. An unlawful detention does not rescind your obligation to obey the police. I don't like the idea of being detained as you are temporarily deprived of your freedom to come and go as you please. But I would never refuse to obey a lawful order once detained.

While I agree the issue of probable cause has been eroded some, the time to complain is after you're released. Either that or change the laws. That is worth marching for IMO.

The courts have, over the years, disagreed with you: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

 

[Denim Chicken]

You need to understand what being detained means and what is lawful and unlawful for us to have a meaningful conversation. Adopting an adversarial relationship with the police even if only between your ears is problematic.

I suggest you adopt a ride with police for a month or three and try to understand the other side of the equation. Approach an unknown situation as an officer to try to understand the anxiety it produces. You never know when you're going to be shot or assaulted.

Same can be said of anyone that has an interaction with police these days.

It's all about mutual respect. Deadly assaults on police officers (while reprehensible) are literally a rarity (32 gunfire deaths in 2016) and do not justify the aggressive tactics and militarization that is becoming SOP for police interactions.

It used to be that police were a community fixture--positive role models who were friendly and familiar with the community they served. Today the community they are sworn to protect are treated like criminals. It's amazing people wonder where this public discontent stems from.

 

[JoeKing]

Only in our watered down world where dog barks count.

In the real world, no. And further, if you point it at me, the call will be about a man shot, lying in the street needing pickup.

You're right because the only way I would point my weapon at you is if I intended to use it out of self defense and you'd be the man shot needing pickup.

 

[JoeKing]

Our watered down use of "probable cause" is why a license plate bulb gets you pulled over. And its why a supposed "tail light out" got Philando Castile killed.

In the ACTUAL world, you dont get pulled over for a license plate bulb.

This is how the government extorts its people.

That's not what got him killed. He fit the description of a suspect that had robbed a store at gun point a few days prior. The police officer shot him because he had his firearm resting in his lap and he reached for it. In the video his gf posted , you can briefly see the gun resting in his lap just before he grabbed for it. But you just keep spreading lies and being part of the problem.

 

[Denim Chicken]

BTW, have you guys heard of punndits.com?