so fla cop wrote:Sorry I got busy but I do hope your still here. I will post as so Fla cop so as not to be confused with anyone else.
You obviously know nothing about officer tactics but you seem to know about la so I will assume you are so let me ask your opinion on a few things based on Trooper Watts dash can video and dispatch audio, she saw a marked unit but couldn't identify what agency. She initiated a pursuit. Her supervisor ordered her to break off the chase. Trooper Watts does not acknowledge the order but she hears it because she shuts off her emergency lights. She continues at a high rate of speed weaving in and out of traffic committing the same reckless driving offence for which she is pursuing. At what does Trooper Watts seize to be operating under the color of law?
If Trooper Watts thought the vehicle might be stolen, why did she never advise this on the air and request backup during a 7 minute time span between the start and finish of the pursuit. If she felt threatened, why did she again not request back up when she advised the vehicle was stopping? At what point did she feel so threatened that she would ignore proper police tactics and run up to a possibly dangerous subject with her gun drawn? At what point between her advising "its either Miami PD or DOT and I know its not DOT." And her telling Officer Lopez "you guy speed through here every morning and we never catch you." Would imply that she was not reasonably sure that the driver was anyone other than the assigned officer. Based on the circumstances stated so far did Trooper Watts commit the crime of aggravated assault on a LEO?
Trooper Watts saw a marked unit that she couldn't positively identify originally. Lost sight of the vehicle for seven minutes, acquired a marked unit after that time which had similar markings. She advised that vehicle was traveling at 78 mph. This occured on a crowded highway during a time of day that most departments are going through shift change. Does Trooper Watts have PC to charge this driver with anything other than speeding?
After Trooper Watts verified that Officer Lopez was a police officer when did she feel threatened enough to handcuff him? After she holstered her weapon knowing at that point
that he was armed? After she still didn't call for backup and attempted to handcuff
him still armed?
Also, how long after not having an arrest charge, knowing your subject is not wanted for a crime, has already been searched for weapons, and in violation of a direct orderay an officer legally detain someone before it becomes false imprisonment?
Hope your still on and still bored enough to answer?
Afterfriskimg for we
The Baker Watts even shackled him!!
Sorry. Just got in and read this. Will be long answers but way too easy!
Actually, I know quite a bit about it. I did not condone her approaching the vehicle in the manner she did. I was addressing the issue about her drawing her firearm, which many on this post are ignorant enough to say she was wrong in doing so. I simply replied that she used good officer safety and tactics by doing so. Believe me my friend, I travel all over teaching and I have seen much worse tactics even by the Never do anything wrong Miami Dade Police.
Answer to question #1 - How many jurisdictions do you have in the Metro Area that change almost block to block in some places. A lot! So, A marked unit blows by you at a high rate of speed and you can't immediately identify it. I suppose that has never happened to you. Mr. eagle eye always immediately identifies his prey. If you say that you do, I say you are a liar. Her supervisor clearly ordered off the pursuit, however, the unit began breaking and pulled over only seconds afterwards and she advises so on the radio. I watched that section you are referring to over and over and I never heard the order to break off the pursuit.
Answer to question #2 - Trooper Watts doesn't seize to be under the Color of Law. This is more of a policy issue than a Color of Law issue. But since you are unaware of that, I will explain it to you. Per case law, the officer is immune from liability as long as the officer is responding to an emergency call or engaging in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law (i.e., Officer Lopez). The U.S. Supreme Court granted relief to law suits regarding high speed pursuits under County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998). The Court ruled that "NO" 4th Amendment violation can arise under a high speed police pursuit. Additionally, high-speed police chases with no intent to harm suspects physically do not give rise to liability under the 14th Amendment (U.S.C. 42, Section 1983). The Court also nixed any idea of a "Monell, deliberate indifference theory." That case effectively ends any action in federal court, unless plaintiff can prove the officer intended to harm the suspect or innocent victims. Nice try though with the Color of Law garbage.
On to question #3 - There are many why questions we can ask any officer. Why did you do that? Why didn't you do this? You should have done this! I suggest you refamiliarize yourself with Graham v. Connor, U.S. 386 (1989). And judging an officer by 20/20 hindsight. Remember, the Supreme Court said you can't do that anymore. Just as I tell my officers and those that I teach, I can watch a video of you doing something and even if you did everything correct, I can always find something you could have done differently or better. So, do you really want to play this game with me? Why Trooper Watts didn't call it in as a stolen vehicle or call for back-up, only she can answer that question. Again, you are playing the selective hearing game. Try listening toward the end when I hear the supervisor calling her off she states "Wait a second, he is pulling over." Again, why she ran up to the car and not stay behind cover, I have seen worse. You are also implying like the others that she shouldn't have had her gun drawn. If so, retake an officer safety course. Toward the end she did positively I.D. the car as a Miami PD vehicle and gave the tag number. Once again, nice try taking things said out of context and trying to place them in an order that benefits your argument. Sound like a defense attorney.
She made that statement to Officer Lopez AFTER she placed him under arrest, not before hand as you would like people to believe to support your poor attempt at justifying your argument. At no point did Trooper Watts commit a crime of aggravated assault on Officer Lopez. As long as she can justify drawing her weapon under the totality of the circumstances ( Graham v. Connor again), which in this case she can easily do, then there is no crime of aggravated assault.
Dude are you sure you're not a defense attorney. You are using the tactic of asking the same question 5 times but just rephrasing it. So once again, I'll answer it the same way. Also, you do a great job of contradicting yourself in your on question. Way to go there buck-a-roo.
Answer to question #4 - As I explained in an earlier post, you are assuming she lost complete contact with the vehicle based on the video footage which only shows two dimensions and not three. So by the video alone, you cannot assume she lost sight or contact with the vehicle. She stated that the vehicle SLOWED down to 78 MPH. However, if you notice in the video, Lopez then speeds back up. Wonder why? I think he was getting the oh shit factor, I'm busted syndrome about then. Now this one is way too funny. Your own statement about being on a crowded highway re-enforces what she charged him with. Try reading F.S. 316.192 - Reckless Driving. Wow! Really??????
Answer to question #5 - I teach that you ALWAYS handcuff the person when you arrest them, no matter who they are. Maybe you don't remember this or the academy you went to didn't teach you that. It looked to me that she didn't attempt to handcuff him, she did handcuff him! I suppose you would have John Wayned it, removed his weapon, made it safe and secured it down the crack of your ass with him uncuffed. That sounds like a really good tactic. Let me know how that works out for ya next time you try it!
As far as your last question, Officer Lopez may not have been wanted but he did commit a CRIMINAL violation of Reckless Driving, which he was arrested for. Was she ordered not to arrest him? I didn't hear that. They couldn't order her not to anyway!
Boy, you really are desperate. False imprisonment
Shall I bore you and me with case law such as Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) or other or just get straight to the point? I think I will get straight to the point. In no manner does false imprisonment apply here. False imprisonment is when someone is held against their will (except under the Police Privilege Rule: i.e. Terry v. Ohio), without legal justification. In this case, Trooper Watts had legal justification because a criminal offense had been committed.
There. You are getting a little better but still somewhat boring. If you wish to continue this, be my guest. Hopefully by now you can see I do this for a living and make good money doing it. I testify for and against officers when need be. If you wish to continue, I can throw case law at you that you probably never knew existed. Your choice.
Have a nice day!