Texas police officer who used stun gun on 76-year-old 'did nothing wrong'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Texas police officer who used stun gun on 76-year-old 'did nothing wrong'

Attorney for Nathanial Robinson defends fired officer’s actions
Pete Vasquez ‘wasn’t injured' after being stunned, lawyer says

Associated Press in Victoria, Texas
Sunday 11 January 2015 17.01 EST

The lawyer for a Texas police officer who was fired for using a stun gun on a 76-year-old man has said there was “nothing unreasonable” about using that level of force during a traffic stop that was captured on dashboard camera video.

Victoria police officer Nathanial Robinson was fired last week, less than a month after video from his patrol car of an event on 11 December garnered international attention. Robinson plans to appeal his firing, attorney Greg Cagle told the Victoria Advocate in a story published on Sunday.

Cagle said Robinson, 23, acted constitutionally and within the law. Robinson stopped Pete Vasquez for an expired vehicle inspection sticker; video captured Robinson grabbing Vasquez’s arm and pushing him on to the police cruiser.

The footage didn’t show what happened between the two after they fell on the ground. Cagle said Vasquez kicked the officer, and that the level of resistance was a basis for using the stun gun and arresting Vasquez.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/11/texas-police-officer-who-used-stun-gun-on-76-year-old-did-nothing-wrong

[randys1]

1. FUCKING COPS

BLOOD BOILING

I best not say a word, if the cops where I live find out my attitude, I may not have long to walk straight without a limp

[Historic NY]

3. Fu-king attorney.

[randys1]

4. We need attorneys, we dont need most cops

[Historic NY]

6. Its the attorney talking here...

most are like plainly out to make money and are hired guns...the was the attorney talking here.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Attorney's represent their client

That is their job, that is what they are paid to do. Even when we think the people they represent are obviously guilty, they are still entitled to an attorney to present their side of the case.

[atreides1]

15. You are correct

Attorney's represent their client...it still doesn't stop them from being ambulance chasing, bottom feeding, blood suckers!

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Some are, some aren't.

My rule of thumb is if they run ads on TV.

[GGJohn]

13. Now this I agree with you. eom.

[El Shaman]

2. Nothing

like civility!!

[Lurks Often]

5. What do people expect his attorney to say?

"My client is guilty, deserves the maximum sentence and belongs behind bars"

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. exactly

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. If it's true that that sort of thing is 'within the law'...

That tells us where we need to start changing laws.

[Thinkingabout]

9. There is nothing wrong with the cop getting fired because of excessive force

In light of the fact the veterans did not need an inspection sticker, maybe it will give the cop time to mature.

[Downwinder]

10. Since when is a false arrest not wrong?

In Texas a current inspection sticker is not necessary with dealer plates.

[cynzke]

17. Arresting him for the sticker

would be false arrest. Arresting for assault (kicking) would be legal. We don't see that on the video, but that is the defense that will be presented in court. The officer was fired because he exceeded departmental protocol on the level of force to the incident; a possible traffic violation, as a opposed to violation of a crime. But if the civilian actual struggled and kicked the officer, that is grounds for an arrest. This is where/why these incidents go awry.

Police officers do have the authority to stop and detain you if they think they have probable cause or see a violation. If you think they are wrong you can tell them so, but at least cooperate while they briefly detain you. The worse that could have happened to Vasquez was that the officer wrote out an invalid ticket which Vasquez could argue against in court.

The time to fight for your civil rights is in court, not with the police. As soon as you start to argue with the cop, refuse to cooperate, you are working against yourself and on their side. At the time of any incident, you can vocally set what you believe your rights to be, but beyond that, allow the police to conduct their stop. They will either arrest you, give you a ticket or let you go. It they are wrong, you take them to court. If you interfere with their ability to conduct their job, you then cross over the line in the eyes of the law, and the law gives police the authority to use increasing measures of force.

I am not siding with the police, just trying to point out why these incidents usually work out in favor of the police officer. What seems to happen in many of the incidents I read about, is the police stop someone for whatever reason, ask to see a DL or i.d., the civilian refuses and the officer then decides to place them in custody. The civilian struggles to be arrested, to be placed in handcuffs. The police officer uses force to subdue the civilian and depending on the level of resistance, the officer is suppose to use an EQUAL level of force. This is where things can get out of control because some cops have no patience. They resort to excessive force because it is usually the easiest and fastest way to subdue the civilian/suspect.

So now, if the offending officer clearly violated his department's protocol in using force, they can punish or terminate him. That's all the employer can do. The DA decides if there is sufficient evidence to charge the police officer with a crime or whether they actions were "reasonable" within the scope of their authority to use force. It doesn't say whether the officer is being charged in this article, but his lawyer is stating his defense. Even though you may think you are right, it does you no good to get into an altercation with the police. You end up under arrested, possibly in a hospital. Thats how these things start.....AND YOU gave the police grounds for your arrest and a possible DEFENSE in court.

THIS is what you do to protect yourself and maintain you civil rights. http://www.nyclu.org/node/3249

[Downwinder]

20. You can't tell them anything. Their mind is made up.

"I have had nothing to drink. I am not intoxicated, I have MS."

Straighten it out in Court. Sure, after 72 hrs. in jail with no medication, they dump you out with no cash 15 miles from home.Then it gets dismissed, so no day in court. Now you have an arrest record. Not everybody has $30,000 lying around to fund a civil suit.

[olddots]

11. this too messed up

Is this armaggen or something ?

[Ash_F]

14. Nothing unreasonable except that the driver did not violate any laws.

Why did the article not address that there was no "expired inspection sticker"?

Are the Guardian morons?

[Sunlei]

19. Guardian along with other tabloid medias love the hits that come from a video of a person

brutalized. extra hits because the man was an elder and Hispanic. Even more hits because the officer sues the city that fired him.

[cynzke]

21. He did violate the law if....

Vasquez allegedly KICKED the officer. Even if the officer was wrong about the traffic violation, the officer had a right to stop Vasquez and temporarily detain him while conducting an inquiry. If he asked for Vasquez' DL and Vasquez refused because he believed he was innocent of any violations, that is no excuse to impede an officer from conducting an investigation. Let the damn officer write a ticket and fight it in court. Its not worth ending in jail or a hospital. When you physically resist, you cross over the line and the officer is within his authority to arrest you at the time. If that arrest is false, then you exercise your right to sue. If you resist, even if the basis for the stop is wrong, you can be be arrested for impeding the officer and resisting. Then you work against your rights and provide a legal defense for the police.

http://www.nyclu.org/node/3249

[Ash_F]

22. Bullshit no he did not

That is why the elderly man was given no ticket, not charged with anything and the officer was rightfully fired. If there is sufficient political will on the part of the DA, they will rightfully charge the officer with assault too.

What will happen next only depends on who the DA fears more. The police or the community that votes.

[Sunlei]

18. He will win that lawsuit. I'm sure the town carries insurance to payout the millions.

Police should not ever be allowed to 'ground' anyone or shock them except in the most extreme very rare cases.