FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!


Fla. Cops TASER Jaywalker


Casslebury (Fla.) Police officers deployed three TASER shots on a jaywalker who refused to show his ID and resisted arrest. Read the full story here.

July 16, 2012
7725 views

Tags: TASER, Citizen Video, Less-Lethal Force


Comments (38)

Displaying 1 - 38 of 38

Daniel Vaughn @ 7/16/2012 2:16 PM

Good job by the officers however they let it go for far too long, once they decided to tase him they should have followed through till he was handcuffed.

JC @ 7/16/2012 2:33 PM

oh boy... well, this went terribly wrong. I agree with Daniel, that went on FAR too long before the taser was deployed. ...In all my training, we never put the cuffs in our hands until we are ready to use them. One hand on the suspect, the other holding his cuffs.. Once we went hands on, he was in a bit of a tight spot to threaten the taser without having a free hand to get it..

JC @ 7/16/2012 2:34 PM

Not to mention the added single bracelet he's got around one wrist at 4:17... now you've given him a nice weapon and upped the ante. This would make a great training video...

WA @ 7/16/2012 3:12 PM

What idiots! I love when stupid people provide proof of their own stupidity.

BF @ 7/16/2012 6:22 PM

Good job at keeping your cool guys, but definitely waited too long to go from words to action. I know the video camera makes us all nut up, but decisive action prevents these situations from turning bystanders into dangerous mobs. Good thing there wasn't a large crowd here, because this subject's behavior would have energized them. Overall the suspect was arrested, no good guys hurt, good day

BC @ 7/16/2012 8:02 PM

Without regard to the manner in which things unfolded, is it good police work to bother people for jaywalking?

Kenneth @ 7/16/2012 8:08 PM

One question......why didn't they arrest the smart assed woman as well? She was obstructing....and they let her get away with it.

David N. @ 7/16/2012 8:11 PM

I'm surprised she didn't go along also as a disorderly as well!

Bradley @ 7/16/2012 8:36 PM

Once the decision to arrest is made, follow through until you have the person in custody! There was not enough force used to complete the arrest! Why are they standing around and talking to a guy with one cuff on? This is what happens when officers are afraid to do their jobs because their supervisors want them to avoid complaints at all costs! I'm thankful the idiot didn't decide to assault the officers. I'm not sure how they would have reacted to that.

Bob@Az. @ 7/16/2012 9:03 PM

Oh boy, wait til obuma hears about this & sends holder and the whole DOJ crew to "investigate" this department!! Me, I would have tased the loudmouth broad just to shut her up. I'm assuming both these pos's are lawyers, right? Good job guys! A bit long in ending it but it does get done. And nice to have a Chief with the balls to back you.

Robert @ 7/16/2012 9:07 PM

Follow through with what you're doing regardless of who is shooting video...as long as you're following State Statute and Departmental Policy and Procedure - you are covered (which by the way they were) -Statute even says if the arrest proves to be false - you DO NOT have the right to resist the arrest. The female should have charged with Obstruction and Insighting a Riot - otherwise good job officers.

Mike @ 7/16/2012 9:58 PM

Way tooooo long! Should've asked once then tase! I wish that ugly women would get one too.

peter west @ 7/16/2012 11:43 PM

The officers did nothing wrong. I was surprised they were that patient with this idiot. I absolutely agree that the woman should've been arrested. He broke the law and she was trying to intimidate the officers.

Paul @ 7/17/2012 4:36 AM

I'm very proud of these officer's keeping their cool. These two acted like Soverign Citizens. It's a great example of how the public has caused officer's to worry about lawsuits. It's why it went so long. Should have just cuffed both of them and brought them to jail. And then seized her phone for evidence. The video clearly clears both officer's. Again, nice job brothers and sisters!

coolhandluke @ 7/17/2012 4:51 AM

YO, GET YOUR SUPERVISOR

Dave @ 7/17/2012 4:59 AM

They kept their cool but how long was this going to go on. Once he was cuffed and searched he should have been put in the back of one of the patrol cars and hulled away right away.

Bruce @ 7/17/2012 5:39 AM

Now look what you have done. Obuma will have to miss a basketball game and accuse the police of discrimination. Good job guys and keep safe.

Goodblue @ 7/17/2012 5:57 AM

Some battles are not worth pursuing. Jaywalking? These cops sure made themselves look like that they were not sure of themselves and had no idea how to handle this situation that they initiated. Both appeared to be not well trained, leaving him to walk away with one handcuff on his wrist and the list goes on!

Mike @ 7/17/2012 7:33 AM

This infraction turned into a crime when he refused to comply with lawful orders and demanded to have his trial in the street appointing himself and his girlfriend as the trier of facts. The officers should have won the fight as soon as they engaged with handcuffs rather then let it drag out...but good job over all.

WTF @ 7/17/2012 7:42 AM

BAD ARREST! And I'm willing to bet most cops don't have the intellect to see they were just PLAYED!

Here's how it went down. He commits the infraction, giving the cops the right to detain him and creating a duty on him to identify himself for the issuance of the citation for the civil infraction. He has NO duty to carry nor provided ID, only to identify himself.

The cops demand ID, which they cannot do in this circumstance, and get caught in the loop designed to trap them. Check and mate.

Better practice...Sir, I need for you to identify yourself to me (and if he lies that's an additional charge) NOT give me your ID, but rather identify yourself to me. A fine line, but a bright one nonetheless.

Practice pointer, never ask for ID unless they are require to have and present it. Ask that they identify themselves to you.

Bad arrest. I hate to say it, but the Perps right. Stone cold right.

TedB @ 7/17/2012 8:21 AM

Problem one is a management policy that allows teen-age skinheads to run around in dork shorts and t-shirts. There is definitely not a lick of command presence between the two officers. In fact there is no command presence until the female officer arrives on scene. Secondly, the situation was allowed to continue until it drew much attention, which worked in the suspect's favor. Make your demands, then effect a quick takedown and arrest and quit arguing with the idiots. These two 140 pound appearing officers probably couldn't have taken the suspect down without the help of the taser, although the suspect was also somewhat undernourished looking. And someone above commented that the suspect and the female were both "carrying"...carrying what?

C.T. Carlson @ 7/17/2012 11:03 AM

I agree with the comments above. This is a good training video for how not to act. Hesitation will get these guys killed some day. Once they had hands on, the incident should have been over. Looks like their department needs to re-visit training in defensive tactics and verbal judo. Ask, explain, confirm, give options, act. Dancing and hesitating is not in there!

WP4 @ 7/17/2012 11:27 AM

@WTF: You are correct that the officers were "played," although "baited" is probably a better description of what occurred. However, your conclusion that the arrest was "bad" and that the "Perps" were "stone cold right" couldn't be more wrong. Your effort to point out a (non-recognized) bright line between a request for ID and a request for identification is a distinction without a difference. Police are not required to use magic words to request that a subject identify himself. If he did not possess ID, all he needed to do was to advise the officers of that fact and then correctly identify himself. The officers plainly had the right to request the subject’s identification, given the occurrence of the violation. However, and as the United States Supreme Court has consistently held, the police have the right to request that a person’s identity even where probable cause does not exist, provided that there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case however, the suspect’s arrest will be upheld. As you apparently missed, at 5:36 into the recording, police ask the suspect why he is carrying a concealed weapon, to which the suspect responds that he has a permit for the weapon. Under Florida law, any person possessing a concealed carry permit, while in the possession of a weapon, must produce the permit, together with “proper identification” upon the demand of the police. The suspect was obligated to produce his permit and proper identification when police requested that he do so. Oops!

WTF @ 7/17/2012 11:51 AM

You are correct that I did not watch it to 5:36 and observe the permit issue...that changes things. But perhaps not much. It may be considered tainted fruit. We can debate the legality of the matter all day...I have my opinion and you have yours. But what I consider the most disturbing matter is that we train all day on matters of tactics and never on the finer aspects of law.

You're right, a REQUEST for ID and a REQUEST for identification is the same. And you're right they had the right to request it. But an ORDER for ID better be backed-up with an absolute right to have access to that ID. That does not exist for a civil infraction. Sorry, but it does not.

Got any case law cites saying otherwise?

If your going to arrest somebody for failing to follow your lawful orders, better make sure they are lawful.

I do like the permit issue, better than nothing. As we know, PC to arrest for anything will negate a bad arrest claim, notwithstanding what charges may have been brought.

Roosterville @ 7/17/2012 12:07 PM

Good thing the camera person did not turn on them....was anyone covering her?

Scott S @ 7/17/2012 12:21 PM

The issue starts at the very beginning when the officer tells the subject he has committed a violation and describes it to him. At that point, there is plenty of legal justification for the detention pursuant to the issuance of a citation. Once the grounds for detention have been established, the officer has the right to demand identification information. Once the subject refused to identify himself, he is obstructing and subject to arrest, regardless of the initial issue. The officers both give lawful commands (since the grounds for arrest have been established) and can use that amount of force necessary to effect the arrest. I hope this adds some clarity to the "debate" mentioned above.

The real problem here is the lack of control demonstrated by the officers. Discretion and restraint in the face of conflict are issues dealt with by officers every day and while I applaud their ability to remain calm and focused despite lots of distractions, once a "command" is given, follow through and end the conflict.

Jason Barnes @ 7/17/2012 12:21 PM

Once they had one cuff on, they should have immediately completed the cuffing. Have these officers never been taught control techniques? Wristlocks? Armlocks? leverage? Any kind of compliance technique? All that d..king around while the perp had only one cuff on, and then letting him get loose with a single cuff in place?!

wtf @ 7/17/2012 12:44 PM

It is clear there is a violation. It is clear they have the right to detain. It is clear they have the right to demand that he provide identifying information. However, there is nothing in Florida law that requires one to carry or present ID (a plastic card issued by the State) in such circumstances.

An order to provide your ID is an order to give up a plastic card from the State...I don't have to, you can't make me, its an unlawful order in these circumstances.

Are we really trying to say "I gave you an order, you're not required by law to follow it...but you should have known what I wanted...so do what I want, not what I said?" You're going to arrest somebody for failing to read your mind? Really? Good luck with that one. If you want/need somebody to do something ORDER them to do it.

It our job to be smarter than the Perps. I'd bet lunch that he's going after the point I'm arguing and he's got a good shot in the courts. The facts arn't going to be in dispute, the video speaks for itself, so this might get resolved against the agency on a motion for summery judgement as a matter of law. And without the law requiring him to present ID as ordered, which it does not, then it might not end well for the good guys.

I like to be smarter then the bad guys, when he played that slick card, back up, clearly order him to give you his name and DOB, and issue the citation or arrest if he lies. We win, no point of contention to be tested later by the courts.

I wear body armor too. But I do what I can to make sure its not tested either. Best way to win a fight is avoid it. Be SMARTER.

Chuck melki @ 7/17/2012 1:28 PM

Assuming the Black man did jay walk the police had a reason to ask for his information and a either write a citation or give him a verbal warning.

The person on the video clearley refused them, when that occured the police could detain him to get proper information to write the ciation if one was going to be issued ? or take him into custody for proper ID purposes if needed to write the citiaon. The violator would then be realsed at the scene as any other civil /traffic stop assumming Michigan and florida laws are similair in nature.

This person clearley refused after being given ( several opportunity's ) he then made a demand for a statue number which I doubt any police officer or any other person remembers from the top of their memory. except for this sovant citzen who has a CPL ??? if anything the young officers were patient with him.

They should have probably tased him earlier although we don't know their departmental policies , but it seems that they errored on the side of saftey and only used this as a last resort. This person just had to provide his information/Id and this could all have been avoided.

Also the Woman screaming and video recording is clearley interfering with the current police function as she was trying to distract the officers she was Too close while the officers were performing thier job she should and could have been arrested for interfering She was causing such a comtion and to close. She acted like she was trying to incite a riot with her big mouth. The officers actions at that point seemed to be justified, Also when the other police officers arrived and tried to get her statement and id or at least the info to put in the police report. She wanted to interject her jail house opinion"s to the other officers "That the courts job" And not give her info out with which is normally required for the Police report (witness section)

I hope they took her loud mouth to

WP4 @ 7/17/2012 2:01 PM

@WTF: You have now backed away from the argument you made in response to my reply to you; that "an ORDER for ID better be backed-up with an absolute right to have access to that ID" by admitting that "It is clear they have the right to demand that he provide identifying information." Now you have switched arguments to, “there is nothing in Florida law that requires one to carry or present ID (a plastic card issued by the State) in such circumstances.” Nowhere in the video can the officer be heard to order production of "a plastic card from the state" or any other more detailed description of the identification he seeks. He is first heard to say, "Do you have your ID?" which is a question answerable with a simple yes or no. The 2nd time, the officer says, "Right now, I'm asking you for your ID." Again, no demand for anything other than identification. The 3rd time, the officer warns, "Give me your ID or you're going to jail." When issuing a misdemeanor citation, the officer has discretion to take a violator to jail who refuses to identify himself. Finally, the officer says, "Provide me with your ID and we'll take it from there." Again, nothing formal is requested beyond the man's identification. And while generally a citizen has no legal obligation to carry the state issued plastic card, the suspect made no effort to explain to the officer that he did not have "the plastic card" nor did the suspect simply give the officer his correct name. In answer to your question about what we are really trying to say, we are really trying to say that when the police have the lawful right to detain you, and the lawful right to request identification, you do not have the lawful right to refuse. You may not like the way this went down, (as an attorney of 25 years and a police officer for 24 years, I see a lot about this I don’t like), but the arrest was valid.

WP4 @ 7/17/2012 2:13 PM

@Chuck Melki: Your point about the woman, subsequently identified as Noelle Price (she didn't know her first name and couldn't remember her date of birth), was recognized by police. "Ms. Price was charged with resisting arrest, and (surprise!) unlawful carrying of a concealed weapon. The B/M subject, identified as Zikomo Peurifoy, was charged with resisting arrest, battery on a police officer, and he was cited for jaywalking.

JimA @ 7/17/2012 5:17 PM

I originally thought those officers that criticized the two arresting officers were making too much of a big deal about their dancing and taking their time. Now that I have seen the video, they did dance to long. I also must say there is a reason for this. We constantly have to protect ourselves from complaints from the public - and from our own supervisors and administrative types (City or County level non-police administrators that know nothing). We all know this is wrong, but it does not do any good to be right if you are going to lose your job over it. (Of course, I know that it also does not do you any good if you are going to be injured!) So dance, but make it short. When you decide they need to be controlled, do it HARD and fast. It will protect you and your suspect, as well.

Be safe, my police partners!

WTF @ 7/18/2012 5:49 AM

WP4, reasonable people can disagree, yes? And although my credentials are not as long lasted as yours, they are identical. I firmly believe it is better to "sweat with friends than bleed with enemies" and that is what we are doing here. There is absolutely no reason this Perp should have been able to get this officer and his agency into this compromised position. No reason at all.

I still believe it was handled wrongly and that it was, in fact, a bad arrest. Time will tell and those under the peaceful florescent lights will make the determination of just how this is to be decided.

I do stand by my opinion that an order to produce "ID" must be accompanied by a statutory obligation to carry and produce it (much like the concealed carry laws...but that's a $25 civil fine for violation, so an arrest therefore might be problematic) or an absolute requirement that the interests of justice compel its production.

Do you have any case law at all on this point? My short research has not produced any case law favorable to an arrest for an order that one does not have to follow. Nor has it produced any that stands for the proposition that one has to produce ID for a civil infraction, only that one has to identify themselves when ordered (2 very different things...we're talking about orders here...those clear and unambiguous things). I have not yet located any that says a lawfully detained citizen has to produce ID under these facts. I don't know if the courts will engage in judicial activism to create a duty to have and/or produce ID when the legislature has not required it and the law already has a perfectly good, and time tested, remedy to the problem...just order him to identify himself and if he does not do so timely and correctly take him to jail. Simple.

Remember, and it is most important, the Perp did not refuse to identify himself...he was never asked nor ordered...he refused to provide ID.

Hunter2020 @ 7/18/2012 7:18 AM

Young gentlemen; PLEASE understand that once committed failing to act quickly and decisively can get you hurt or WORSE. Be safe. Worry about the ambulance chasers after you are safe !!!!!!!!

tom @ 7/18/2012 2:15 PM

give me ur link card animal

Ken @ 7/18/2012 4:56 PM

These Officers made fools out of themselves for letting this go too long. They need more training

Scott S @ 7/20/2012 10:52 AM

This is in response to WTF. You mentioned that you were unable to locate case law relevant to this issue. Let's start with Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case that has been referred to and refined countless times. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. In this incident, the officer has witnessed a crime, admittedly minor, but a violation. A recent Supreme Court opinion in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Ct. of Nev. also is on point, stating "Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere."
As you have given inferrence in a prior comment that you are a lawyer, a suggestion would be to do a little more research and gain a better grasp of constitutional issues regarding police actions before entering a forum such as this one. Legal advice is a powerful tool and bad legal advice does no one any good.

Joshua Jones @ 7/23/2012 6:29 PM

The officers kept their cool, but need further training in defensive tactics. They could of explained to the two people that since they committed an infraction the people are the victim and they can show there id and get a ticket, or go to jail and be identified later. Comes down to information sharing.

I agree though that they lost control of the situation by letting the suspect walk around and actively resist their commands. Hope this is a learing experience, stay safe out there.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Videos


Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine