« GPO Seeking Volunteers for FDLP Promotional Video and CD-ROM Assessment Project | Main | Law Librarians Putting Wikis to Good Use »
September 22, 2008
Dissenting Judge's Suggestion That Police Video Introduced Into Evidence Be Published Leads to Video's YouTube Upload
When federal judge Beverly Martin (N.D. Ga.) could not convince her colleagues in Buckley v. Haddock (11th Cir. 2008)(unpublished opinion) to agree with her view that "the Fourth Amendment forbids an officer from discharging repeated bursts of electricity into an already handcuffed misdemeanant -- who is sitting still beside a rural road and unwilling to move -- simply to goad him into standing up" she suggested in her dissent that the court publish the opinion and the video of the taser incident to make the facts of the case more widely known. The court refused but the implied suggestion prompted someone to post the video to YouTube (see below).
No one is claiming responsibility for the YouTube upload but, on Legal Blog Watch, Carolyn Elefant asks: Is Judge Martin's decision the start of a new precedent? Will courts start making available all of the underlying evidence in a case online? And is it appropriate for a litigants to make the material available where the court won't? [JH]
September 22, 2008 in Court Opinions | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef010534b95cdc970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dissenting Judge's Suggestion That Police Video Introduced Into Evidence Be Published Leads to Video's YouTube Upload:
Comments
I would call the officer a retard but that would be an outrage towards all the real retarded people out there. Thumbs up for the police state you have there!
Stand up for your rights, Americans! They have been and are being taken away from you, step by step.
Posted by: J A | Sep 24, 2008 7:22:23 AM
I'm from the UK and that situation disgusts me. He got no real warning that the first tazer was coming and is clearly in no state to be making any sort of decisions.
If he had mental problems would it be ok to just taze him all day long? The man needs help not to be electrocuted into cooperation.
That's why UK police very rarely travel alone, for situations that require back up like moving suspects.
Posted by: Kieren | Sep 24, 2008 5:43:09 AM
Would it have not been better to call in backup first, then after trying to move the guy with backup then using a taser as a last resort ?
Isn't a taser meant to be used as a last resort for a hostile offender. Not someone who is clearly already in a disturbed state.
The guy was non-compliant, sure, but the taser only made it worse. The officer who clearly did not know how to deal with the situation then tries
to use the taser to corall the guy to the car. This fails again. So he calls for backup only to then try using the taser again to move the guy.
Ok so the guy told him to tase him.... what if he'd asked him to shoot him? Would the Officer have complied?
When did eletrocuting someone become a substitute for proper handling of a disturbed individual? When did it become ok to just get frustrated and let loose on someone? It amazes me how people talk about America as some shining light, and that places like Iraq were (are) barbaric and hostile.
Violence begets violence - how long till we see the Police just shooting people instead - hell it would be a lot easier right ?
Posted by: jimbobjames | Sep 24, 2008 4:57:14 AM
A taser is supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances instead of a gun, not as a prodding tool to force people to do the will of the state.
Posted by: Alex in Canada | Sep 24, 2008 2:20:08 AM
Tazers are supposed to be used in situations where the police would otherwise have to shoot someone. Are you two fools that commented last trying telling me that if they didn't have the tazer to use then they should have shot the dumbass? They are not tools of compliance.
Posted by: Max Power | Sep 24, 2008 1:18:03 AM
The guy was crying so the officer used electroshock manipulation to force compliance? Definitely cruel and unusual punishment. This officer is an uncivil servant.
Posted by: Ian | Sep 24, 2008 1:15:44 AM
"That officer behaved quite civilly and gave the man repeated chances to follow his instructions. I applaud him for his good work."
Nonsense. Calling the victim "Mr. Buckley" is the limit of that officer's civility. Most police officers could have handled this well but this officer is grossly inadequate. He lacks the professional ability and human decency to recognize another human being in severe distress. Because he his little more than a uniformed thug he resorts first to violence.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 23, 2008 11:55:48 PM
I think the office really did try to give the guy all opportunities to cooperate. He shouldn't be expected to physically haul the guy himself, risking back injury, nor should someone have to waste taxpayer dollars to drive 20 miles in another car or bringing a paddy wagon to get this guy hauled in. The officer is polite the whole time, and tries repeatedly to persuade cooperation.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 23, 2008 10:55:42 PM
I really don't think tazing someone in that state is going to urge them to do much of anything but hate you even more than they do, and want to wish you more harm more than they already do.
Surely (and I know this is a massive assumption) more time and money is spent training police officers in these situations than simply telling them to taze people if they don't comply, regardless of their behaviour.
I can't wait until we have the first instance of a tazed pregnant woman, or someone with downs syndrome.
Posted by: Alex | Sep 23, 2008 9:44:06 PM
electrocuting someone ALWAYS makes them want to cooperate and jump up! especially when they're being tazed by an impatient hillbilly!
all cops are bastards. don't forget that.
Posted by: james | Sep 23, 2008 8:36:57 PM
The guy is on the ground crying, obviously in a really bad way for whatever reason. Tasing him isn't exactly how you deal with someone like this. This cop needs to go back to training.
Posted by: Madz | Sep 23, 2008 6:54:13 PM
Obviously Bob and n are police tools. No one else relishes the use of a tazer quite like a petty tyrant.
Posted by: jay | Sep 23, 2008 5:57:32 PM
Life suck sometimes, If you are going to be an idiot and not cooperate with the police, tough.
Posted by: Bob | Sep 23, 2008 12:37:21 PM
That officer behaved quite civilly and gave the man repeated chances to follow his instructions. I applaud him for his good work.
Posted by: n | Sep 23, 2008 12:23:37 PM
"could not convince her colleagues to agree with her view"
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
Posted by: Bison | Sep 23, 2008 11:46:31 AM
Police state in the USA
Posted by: fthis | Sep 23, 2008 11:26:34 AM
Welcome to your police state America.
You 'voted' for it.
Posted by: Censurer General | Sep 23, 2008 10:16:55 AM
