It looks like the BPD is in another little pickle again. Something called “excessive force.”
So something also like seven officers used a taser weapon on a guy down at Sprouts because he didn’t immediately comply with their demands to get on the ground, and yet now they’re saying (Burbank) that he was at worst just guilty of a few “misdemeanors.”
But look at what the 9th Circuit cited last year in a note when they denied another police officer qualified immunity on a taser hit of his own:
12 Our sister circuits have likewise concluded that misdemeanors are relatively minor and will generally not support the deployment of significant force. See, e.g., Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1160 (10th Cir. 2008); Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). In addition, we have previously suggested that felonies not involving violence provide limited support for the use of significant force under Graham. See Meredith, 342 F.3d at 1063; Chew, 27 F.3d at 1442-43 & n.9.
Tasers are considered to be significant force under the law. And the radical-liberal Marxist 9th Circuit cited the opinion of their “sister courts” as precedent. Not some Communist hippie lesbian from Hawaii or Marin County.
So what was that again about not charging the guy with any crimes right now? If he was just guilty of a misdemeanor then why tase him?
He didn’t do anything that bad. Except … just not comply right away.
Most agencies know that resisting arrest is not grounds for using a taser. Burbank is obviously not well trained and need to get some experts in there that have nothing to do with the department.
But this was not resisting arrest. This was not complying to what an officer was telling the guy to do and it appears the guy was a little off to begin with.
Yeah, that’s even worse.
Apparently Burbank does not know that police agencies cannot use tasers on misdemeanor suspects, let alone everything else, i.e., questions of propriety, scale, decency, whatever.
What if he’d been on drugs as they thought, and then had a bad reaction based on the hit? It would have been more taxpayer money to bail them out.
This was an easy call to make at the site. He wasn’t dangerous or threatening anyone. They could have easily taken him down. Worse, Burbank has a long and documented history of taser misuse.
But the cops there got excited and nasty, and if they’d gotten clearance from above then that’s about 10,000 times worse.
These BPD guys are incorrigible. They just don’t get it, and the rest of us have to pay the price in $$$$.
Just watch them all get cheered at the next council meeting for it. This town is not only stupid, it’s sick. It deserves everything it’s going to fucking get in the future.
What is a taser used for? What is mace or pepper spray used for?
If a person is not following the orders of an officer, what does he do?
Again, the 9th Circuit, which is always overturned, used Liberal Logic rather than relying on common sense decisions.
The 9th Circuit has a history of ignoring the will of the people and bases their “overturn rulings” on Liberal Logic.
The bottom line is, courts all around the country have ruled that you can’t use significant force on a misdemeanor suspect. It’s deemed to be excessive force.
Tasers are considered to be significant force under the law.
With seven cops there they could have tackled him to the ground if that’s what they wanted him to do. You simply cannot use tasers for compliance purposes, only if there’s imminent harm or danger present.
And if there had been– like if he were flaying around with a knife or something, or assaulting people — then that would be a felony situation.
This is very simple. Burbank broke the law by using a taser on someone who even THEY considered to be a minor suspect.
And even just common sense says– let alone common decency — that you don’t use a taser here. It’s excessive and it comes off like punishment.
Which it indeed was.
Hey Little Jim, how come there is no “monday morning quarterbacking” on last nights Burbank Police pursuit? Did you think of bailing out the driver?
Secondly, any confirmation that DixieFlyer was kicked out of Kevin Muldoon’s rental property? He was seen an hour ago on Magnolia and Buena Vista buying 3 pack of cigarettes from the gas station. Then he walked across the street to his roll on luggage and was rolling towards City Hall. Say it ain’t so Joe. I guess he can get a handout from BTAC.
So do Burbank cops spy on people or something?
Just love it when bloggers answer a question with a question.
Do you actually read the cases you cite, or do you read the “Cliff’s Notes?”
A) The facts in the San Diego County case are significantly different. I won’t get into the remarkable differences, but “Jeezus” read ‘em for yourself for goodness sake.
B) This wasn’t a ruling on the facts. This was a ruling on qualified immunity only. Do you know what has come of this case?
I’m well aware that it was about qualified immunity. That makes it worse for Burbank. The court affirmed that taser use absent a felony was improper– as also established by its “sister” courts — and that for this reason (among several others) the officer in the San Diego case would not receive immunity.
The point was not the facts of this particular case, only that courts around the country have ruled that you can’t use tasers on misdemeanors, and that this appears to be established law. That’s why I cited their endnote only.
(The San Diego guy btw got tasered for not immediately complying on what was at worst a misdemeanor traffic stop. Which is similar to Burbank’s situation, where they didn’t even charge him.)
That tasers can only be used in situations of potential harm or danger has also been established by other court rulings. They can’t be used willy-nilly for quick compliance purposes, and it’s excessive force if they are.
Unless Burbank changes their story, they’re going to get nailed on this.
Good morning Jim
I’m not quite sure what the issue is. As a resident of Burbank, I expect the officers to protect my family and my property while using sound judgement and tactics.
It seems reasonable to me that as the situation continued to unfold the officers had every reason to believe that this man was endangering his own safety, the safety of others, and personal property.
The issue then is why would they taser him? In considering this, I hope that the offices weighed out their options and used a taser because it presented the best chance of subduing the man without incresing the likelihood that he, or one of them, would be injured.
Its a stretch to tie in the unique facts from the San Diego incident to this event .I also dont agree with your interpretation that the court unilaterally said tasers may only be used in felony situations.
I don’t see anything that leads me to believe that the Burbank officers acted unreasonably or attempted to punish this man. In fact, I’m assuming that they went out of their way NOT to punish him by opting out of a physical confrontation that would almost assuredly have left bruises and other traumatic injury. (ala Fullerton)
Since Jimmy Boy refuses to tell everyone how this San Diego County case turned out……. After going back and forth, a three judge panel, en banc, indeed afforded the officer qualified immunity. Obviously the final decision is the news here, but the fact that several learned judges and attorneys went at this for the better part of five years should tell you there is room for interpretation. It’s well defined and known that great leeway is given to officers in these types of situation for that reason. The officer is literally making a split second decision, knowing educated jurists and others will likely second guess that moment in time for years. And that’s with all the facts, not 10% of the facts like you have here!
Jim refuses to acknowledge is that every situation is different and has to be judged on its specific facts.
Like the posters earlier, I urge you to refrain from blogging on police tactics and stick to more mundane topics like the BUSD (were you fired from there sir?), cell towers and the weather.
Hey watch it. Remember he always got the best vagina. Even though he was “pepping Tom” when working at BUSD.
I said more pussy than Frank Sinatra. Big difference.
Although…
I love this new “Peeping Tom” thing. Makes you kind of think these investigation files are pretty woeful. With all the harassment I got from those people back then you’d think they’d have mentioned this charge at one time or another. But most of the time they were just accusing me of “insubordination,” which is actually a very flattering charge.
Especially when the place totally falls apart right after you leave, to the point where the BAS preschool parents are actually running to the local newspaper to complain about the suddenly bad conditions at their school.
That was very flattering, too.
I love it — I never had to peep at anyone. It was freely offered. And like that old Seinfeld episode, once they see you with one then they all want attention.
It was a fun job. Nice people, nice students. All walks of life. The only thing bad about the BUSD is the incompetent administrators they began to hire from the outside after the great Dolores Palmer left them in 1984.
Very sad. And it’s never recovered.
No one can justify what happened to that guy, and no one does. Even those judges. All they were determining was the matter of qualified immunity, which is very difficult to get stripped.
The point of the Ninth citation– and there are other opinions, in particular a big one in Florida — is that misdemeanor offenses do not justify the use of significant force. When that happens it is almost deemed to be excessive force.
And no one is going to be able to justify the use of a taser on this guy at Sprouts, either. Not when there’s seven cops around, to say the least, let alone the crimes alleged. I’m looking forward to seeing what Gennaco says.
If the facts are as stated, then I suspect he’ll agree with this contention.
What was the name of the dude who was tazed? I would assume that would be public information.
Yes– but it’s not, for some reason.
Word has it that the “situation” started in close proximity to IKEA.
Initial response WAS generated by the Subject’s call to BPD.
Check the distance from IKEA to K-Mart across First Street and across Burbank Blvd. then across San Fernando Blvd. to Sprout’s.
On scene personnel have indicated a strong likelihood that the Subject exhibited symptoms associated with the use of Meth.
After the use of the Tazer Fire Dept Personnel placed the Subject onto a gurney for the trip to St. Joe’s (Providence).
At that time no determination was made that any untoward injury resulted from the use of the tool.
While it would have been easier if the info came from Ryburn or the Leader, enough time has gone by that it seems appropriate to disseminate what I acquired for those concerned about the Subject or the subject.
FYI—Lawyers “claiming” to be speaking in “our name” have managed to “piss-off” the various Federal folks endeavoring to straighten out the Burbank MESS from as far back as 2007.
Recent attempts to “abuse” the Federal Court to “go after” Special Agents of the FBI and other Justice Department Officials have been “strongly rebuffed”.
To say that attitudes on West Sixth Street have been “impacted” would be an Understatement.
When advised that Officers were NOT “advised in a timely manner” of their exoneration, or when various matters were “Closed” by various offices some MORE folks got “pissed”.
Semi, you have once again had you ass handed to you in a pretty simple debate on police tactics in about three or four replies to your comments. You are wrong and anyone reading this will see that you are way out of your league.
You admittedly don’t have all the facts, but continue to bad mouth the cops, who at a moment’s notice would step in and protect you. Maybe by Tasing your attacker, who’d be guilty of a “misdemeanor.” Why don’t you give it a rest and admit you made a mistake here. We all see it, you should too. Check with your sidekick, Dixie. He may agree that you are wrong here too. He’s been sorta absent in this discussion?
I don’t think it was an appropriate use. His crimes were minor at best, and the whole thing happened pretty fast. What would they have done in the old days?
The comparison you raised is not an apt one, because this guy never attacked anyone as far as I heard. That would have been a felony situation in the kind of cases which would warrant significant force– a much different story. But even then, tasers should be used sparingly, as a last resort in lieu of a gun.
That’s why we were sold on them in the first place, isn’t it? So they wouldn’t have to shoot people? They could use tasers instead? And again, let’s see what Gennaco says about this incident.
As far as it goes with the legal logic, courts have ruled everywhere and consistently that misdemeanor crimes do not warrant the use of significant force. That was my point, and it’s an accurate one. And when you think about it, it makes sense: why would you want to?
It’s different if they start causing big trouble — but then that’s not just misdemeanor.
Where I think you’ve made a mistake Jim is not noticing the term used by the 9th..
“Significant” force should not be mistaken (as you have) for “excessive” force. The 9th’s use of significant vs excessive was not an accident and does not in any way preclude an officer from deploying a taser to subdue suspect who is actively resisiting or presenting a danger to himself or others, regardless of the degree of criminal behgavior.
My understanding is that the main unresolved federal issue is whether or not tasers are “significant force” under the law. The Supreme Court has not settled this contentious issue– where opinion across the country is divided.
But the controlling law now is that you can’t use significant force on just misdemeanor suspects. And that makes sense– like why would you need to, or want to? If they’re doing something bad (like brandishing a knife) then that’s a felony.
As I’ve said, let’s see what Gennaco says. If he clears this event then I’ll mention it.
Good morning to all,
This issue is one for concern by all of us. Over the past few years if anything has been proven it is that our Burbank Police Department is not to be simply trusted as if they are beyond poor judgement or simple bad behavior. It appears some of those who have read, and infact respond here desire to convey messages like don’t question the cops they would be the first to respond and defend you.
My how naive these type of statements are in modern day Burbank where we have terminated just how many officers as we refered to them as bad apples etc ? Yet as jury trials convene we see that just maybe it was not the terminated officers who were bad apples but those who did the terminations that were bad. Simply put, it is a situation where the author of this blog is to point out in word and practice that police officers actions and tactics must be questioned and it must never be assumed that they are above approach or above question.
Perhaps if more individuals had questioned actions of officers in the past, some of the trauma suffered by the Burbank Police and the Burbank Community, could have been avoided.
Jimbo – Big time embarrassment for you here. Face it, you’re wrong so many times over. And I’ll even GIVE you the constant misuse of tasers by cops. They treat them like squirt guns that give them lots of giggles, and these things keep killing folks. Not just punks loaded with drugs, but them, too. But cops don’t treat them like the dangerous weapons they are.
But you’re WAY off base about the booking AFTER hospitalization. Since AT LEAST 1986 – when the emergency care act was put in place – NO police department books for anything but the most extreme, capital crime, or when there’s a serious felony AND the risk of flight, until AFTER the medical treatment has been given. Otherwise, taxpayers on the hook for the medical bills. Once the arrestee is in “custody,” their medical care is directly billed to the taxpayer. “Jail wards” are essentially dead, with only rare exceptions.
A couple of minutes Googling would have taught you what you needed to know, but instead you once again shoot off your mouth.
It reminds me of the FIRST rant of yours that I saw. My computer guy had it printed and hung from a shelf over his work bench. Is was your BRILLIANT analysis PROVING that a PR firm HAD to be posting on your comments because the AOL IP was turning up all across the country. And who else would do that but a HUGE POR FIRM PAID TO COMBAT THE TRUTH?! HA! Obviously, another example of shooting your mouth off on a subject you don’t know about. (Hint: Learn about Dynamic IPs and Statis IPs, and how AOL works.) My computer guy wrote “DIPSHIT” in big red letters across your rant.
Hey, you sure go easy on that nutcase Gordon who actually BELIEVES in Mike Nolan’s “Agenda 21″ consipracy theory. It’s even dumber than the “Black Helicopters” CT.
It amazes me how many times you can be proved to be full of shit, and still you come back. But thanks for all the laughs!
Yeah, I know. A little too much truth for you to publish. “Comments take a while to appear.” I’ll bet. And I don’t wonder why!
It reminds me of the FIRST rant of yours that I saw. My computer guy had it printed and hung from a shelf over his work bench. Is was your BRILLIANT analysis PROVING that a PR firm HAD to be posting on your comments because the AOL IP was turning up all across the country. And who else would do that but a HUGE POR FIRM PAID TO COMBAT THE TRUTH?! HA!
When did I ever say that? About all across the country? I was referring to one person in particular. Who btw had a local history of doing this– and working for city lawyers.
I happen to know for a fact too that the city’s attorneys were using PR firms to ‘infiltrate’ this blog and fuck it up, with trolls or whatever. They were setting up multiple “personalities” in order to argue pointlessly with each other, or making suckup comments here with deliberate misspellings and grammatical errors to make it look like my ‘fans” were all idiots.
So tell your friend to stick with computers. He knows nothing about the 21st century tactics of modern PR work.
And as far as it goes with medical care, if the cops injure someone, then they’re on the hook. I’m confused about why anyone would think it’s Ok for them or anyone else to play games like this.
And btw– has he been charged with anything yet? If not, then he didn’t do anything wrong? But he got tased by 7 cops?
Hey semi,
Check the video of last night’s Police Commission Meeting!!
The Central Casting Chief FINALLY admitted to “engaging” the services of “outside investigator’s” to work the Blog’s!!!
While they have made representations to the Court’s that they were “representing” the BPD—-Poster Boy has repeatedly DENIED the FACT.
Step by step……………
Of course. They were looking for leaks, if not worse.
I could easily tell this was going on. The city’s private attorneys, too, hidden through attorney-client privilege.
One can’t predict at this point in which Case(s) the the Blog info will play a significant role.
In the meantime, it’s fun to hear the “play-by-play” of the multiple occasions during which stern admonitions have been delivered to individuals “claiming to represent Burbank” as they are ORDERED to “avoid future attempts” to “interfere”.
How about the lady who was walking in walkable Burbank getting kidnapped and robbed ? Will some of the council members who waste money on being walkabale and being sustainable start to open their eyes to the real issue ? Crime is increasing in Burbank people and you keep cutting police department funding ? Explain your actions to the kidnapped lady and all the other victims of crime in Burbank now that we are so walkable and health conscious!
Oh, isn’t there ANYONE with the guts to tell you that “Ought-oh” is wrong? (Go ahead and check your dictionary.) Ought-Oh isn’t even archaic. It’s just wrong. It’s “Oh-oh,” or “Uh-oh,” numbnuts.
“And that’s why Fire Engines are RED.”
“All the King’s Horses and all the King’s Men………”
With just a little more attention to DETAIL we may save $$Million$ of Dollars—and restore Public Confidence in Our Local Government!!!!
Irwin Fletcher arrived on this Blog in a similar manner and fashion.
As Clara said: “Where’s the BEEF?”
It’s Tuesday–what are the rascals up to?
Puffer Fish is checking out prototype Puffer Fishes–on location.
Actually, I think you’re wrong. I’ve seen it many ways in fact.
Oh-oh? Where is that even used?
Anon, disagree with Semi all you want but I would never argue with him on grammar, spelling, phrasing, etc….He’s typically rock solid.
Thanks.
The reason these guys are all in ridicule mode is because they know that Gennaco/Bobb are going to get very angry about this latest taser incident.
“Otherwise referred to as Patterns & Practices and Patterns of Conduct.”
“We’re doing everything we can to avoid a Consent Decree.
(Central Casting Chief 2011)
Just another day in the life of Semi’s 9th Circuit. They were overturned again today by the Supreme Court over union dues and political activites. The 9th has little credibility, except with liberals.
And what would you say about the Supreme Court?
It’s a wonderful organization if you’re a craven, self-centered millionaire or a white-racist crazy with a low I.Q. who has a propensity to want to destroy the things that belong to other people.
Or — ideally — both.