Columbia County, FL cops arrest legally blind man

Talk about deflecting and going off topic. What does this have to do with the thread you are referencing? Oh I get it 1 Columbia county deputy made a questionable arrest so that means all Columbia county officers are bad.

Humm wonder if I could apply that logic to race?

 

Good god, man

 

Pigs gonna pig. What a waste of time and taxpayer money arresting that man. Unreal.

 

Those officers should obviously be fired, possibly prosecuted for “filing a false police report”. If a citizen can be prosecuted for a false report, so should the officers.

The BS is when this guy sues, the taxpayers pay the bill, everyone’s property taxes/rent/sales taxes go up just that tiny little bit. Literally every person pays for this garbage. We need to start holding the bad officers directly responsible for their misdeeds, and make sure if/when they are fired they need to go into a new line of work rather than just shift over into a neighboring county.

 

Would have been extremely hard for me not to cop a real attitude in a similar situation.

 

I've seen a lot of arrest videos, first amendment audits, etc. Some law enforcement are great and some are bad. Not unlike other careers but police can literally take peoples' freedom away, so we should hold them to a high standard. This man was rude to them from the start, but that's not a basis to put someone in jail. Some just don't have the right personality for the job. I also wonder if this had happened before we had the benefit of the video and audio. Would they have accurately recounted what was said given how emotionally invested they seemed to be in the arrest?*

*(Edit: someone referenced the report, which I haven't read).

 

I'm glad you reposted this because it wasn't getting enough attention in the other thread.

For the board lawyers ... what is the law on these kinds of stops? I've seen so many videos like this where people refuse to ID themselves to cops after it's become clear they were not committing a crime, then get arrested for not ID'ing themselves. All these "constitutional rights" video claim say you don't have ID yourself (in most states) unless the cop can express to you their reasonable suspicion of what law you've broken. Since it became immediately clear to the cop is wasn't a gun his pocket, it would seem the cop no longer had any reason to believe he was committing a crime, and should have left him alone.

And that second video shows an interesting point, and why you don't talk to cops. The cop asked him why he wasn't using the cane. The best answer is "none of your business". But he said he didn't need it in the day, but when he left his house it was dark outside. So the cop writes in the report that it was "hazy and overcast and some cars still had their lights on" .... so his completely valid reason becomes the basis of her suspicion to continue questioning and arrest him... even though there is nothing illegal about him not using his cane if he doesn't want to.

 

He started a new thread. So what exactly is he deflecting? Can you answer that?

And where exactly did he say, or even imply, that all Columbia County deputies are bad?

 

I believe if a LEO has reasonable suspicion they can ask for ID (correct?). The man asked what the suspicion was - she said she thought he had a gun (not illegal I don’t think). So when the man showed her he only had the Cain, then whatever suspicion should cease. Should have ended then in my view. Cops escalated it into an obstruction arrest and they are in error. Will cost the taxpayers some money - he seems like the type to sue.

 

I do not practice criminal law, so take this with a grain of salt, but this appears to be the relevant statute, in part:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.—
(1) This section may be known and cited as the “Florida Stop and Frisk Law.”
(2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof.

*****

 

I had the cops called on me by a Walgreens pharmacy. They called me suspicious. I was irritated but chose to show my ID as well as the medication and receipt from my purchase. I could have been a dick but I realized the pharmacist was the one who called the cops and they were doing their job. I imagine if I acted like this guy it would have gone bad as well. That in no way is to give these cops a pass. Throwing around the power to arrest flippantly is a culture that needs to be done away with. Can't ruin innocent people's lives because of bruised egos. That said, I'd rather "comply" and fight back later on especially now that video evidence is much more prevalent.

 

A pretty good and likely lucrative argument could be made that the man was detained longer than was necessary. He proved no reasonable suspicion existed.

 

Go to the other thread and look at his post. He specifically called me out on the origin of that thread then when he started this thread he specifically called me out again. This is the game a few of your buddies play. I intentionally ignored his post on the other thread yesterday because I knew the game he was playing. I answered this one because I wanted to point out how stupid he was acting. He started a new thread and tied it to the old thread from the start. Just a low down sneaky way of doing things.

So tell me Valdostagator, does the officer I praised now need to be trash talked because he works for Columbia County? That river is how he is deflecting from one story to a completely different story.

 

Trying to change a subject on a thread is deflecting. Starting a new thread is kinda not.

Where did he say or even imply that all Columbia deputies are bad?

 

(2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.

That's the part that is written vaguely enough that the officers think they can continue the stop long enough to ID the guy, even after they've determined that no crime has been committed... They encountered him under the circumstances that they believed a crime had been committed, and now can hold him until he IDs himself ... at least, that seems like a reasonable interpretation of the law.

If it said "or" instead of "and" there, then maybe the guy has a point.