Time to SHOCK the Cops!

The “story” on this one is less than clear.  There’s been little coverage of this case but these three seem to comprise the best I can find on the net.  The 2 print news items do something I find annoying and that’s to take a story out of its timeline and do so clearly to put a spin on it while making the internal inconsistencies less likely to be noticed.  I’ve attempted to restore the timeline, as best I could anyway.

I’ll admit right up front that this guy is a twit.  Most of us are at one time or another!



*  The distance between where the argument was and the car was stopped is about 5 blocks: 4 north and 1 east.  Deputies, what happened at the first location that spurred this man to follow you?  You’re NOT telling the whole story in your report, that much is quite clear!  That it is left out is either on the reporters or the deputies and I suspect both since the reporters don’t say they couldn’t get an answer.  They don’t want the answer; they’ll just let the deputies justify what they did.

**  Yeah, OK, Garcia’s being an uncooperative, mouthy jackass for some reason we’re not told.  (He’s ranting and raving for no reason?  Not likely, the deputies just don’t want to tell what the reason is and it is most likely that they (the deputies) were being mouthy, rude and disrespectful at the first location.)

He’s ordered to leave and allegedly doesn’t.  Sergent tells deputies to arrest him.  One story says he’s in the car when he’s informed he’s under arrest and doesn’t say whether he’s in the front seat or back.  The other says he’s told he’s under arrest and then gets in the back seat of his vehicle.  I’m rather inclined to believe the first and suspect he was in the front/driver's seat, when that was questioned, the deputies changed their story to the latter.

ANY which way this went down, this is a key point.  At this point, the deputies could have let him leave or sit in his vehicle.  There’s nothing that forces an officer to take physical custody after saying “you’re under arrest”.  Those are just words and you’re really under arrest when you’re not free to leave.  Let him leave.  Simple.  And it’s over.  But, oh, no, the Sergeant had made up his mind and the deputies too I’m sure.  Now they’re going to make a point and Garcia knows it.  They’re going to electro shock him.  They’re probably telling him that too!

Watch and listen to the actual witnesses.  The man who was there says Garcia said: “tase me, tase me”.  (It is the reporter who parrots the deputies and their “tase the baby” allegation.)  The woman says the deputies “had to tase him again” which tells me this couple is pro law enforcement to a fault.  Still they aren’t saying Garcia said “tase the baby” and I don’t think he did.  I think it is as the witnesses report.  Dumbass Garcia was holding the baby saying “tase me”.  Childish, just plain childish!

I find it FAR more disturbing that deputies are pointing electroshock weapons  when a child, an infant, is anywhere “down range” and within range of those weapons!  Now THAT is outrageous and irresponsible to me!!!

The Sergeant has ordered the deputies to shock Garcia.  It sounds to me like everyone knew that was the end of the discussion and, one way or another, Garcia was going to get shocked.

They wrangled the baby away from him and his wife tries to body block the electroshock weapon by hugging her husband.  Now that sounds to me like there’s more going on here than is being told.  There’s some reason she doesn’t want him shocked.  Maybe she  just doesn’t think it’s right.  But perhaps he has a medical condition…  Too bad we’ll probably never know.  What is reported is that they wrangled his wife away and then he was shocked and shocked again, 2 deputies, 2 electroshock weapons.

Then they arrest them both which means they turned the child over to some protective agency as well.  Interesting that all the reporters leave that detail completely out.

And where was the child while they were electroshocking Garcia?  Was he still down and within range?

Here’s the thing.  Law enforcement officers have power but they often exercise that power when they don’t have authority.  They overreach.  They abuse the power and the public’s trust in doing so.

One of the most common forms of abuse of power is when a person is mouthy to an officer and the officer responds by making orders that, if obeyed, constitute arrest (almost always unlawful arrests).  When the person rightfully refuses to be arrested for exercising their right of free speech, the officer alleges resisting arrest.  It escalates to these electroshock cases these days on a regular basis.  But it stems from the officer’s initial abuse of power in attempting to arrest someone for speaking.  The officers put spin on it in their reports and the media furthers the spin.  It’s disgusting all around.

It is also disgusting how many judges manage to find these victims of police abuse guilty of resisting arrest somewhere along there.  Judges seem to have forgotten that the clean hands doctrine should play in here and these officers' hands are filthy.

I am grateful for having grown up in a community where the police officers knew they were not exempt from being the target of speech, even right to their faces.  It was they who taught me to be disgusted with officers who deliberately and intentionally escalate and provoke specifically so they can abuse their powers; to be disgusted by officers unable to control their emotions and their adrenaline.  In those days, the disgusting officers used nightsticks, flashlights, and blackjacks.  Now they have electroshock weapons and are down right shooter happy whether it's with electroshock weapons or the more deadly ones.  For more info on the electroshock issue, check out this blog.

Fortunately, cases are starting to rule against these abusive officers.  "We hold only that the X26 and similar devices constitute an intermediate, significant level of force that must be justified by a strong government interest that compels the employment of such force”  The court found reason to question the veracity of McPherson's [the officer’s] testimony…  That the officer’s truthfulness was questioned to the point of the court being persuaded he was lying is a lovely bonus in this case.  Officers, despite dashcams and helmet cams, you better clean up your acts because your word will mean nothing if you don’t and those lovely new electronic recording devices are helping to show what liars some of you truly are.  It certainly means less to me with every day that passes and on which I see your waffling, twisting, spinning, and blatant lies printed by the media.

Sounds like it’s a good time for us all to start using our voices, our free speech, lest it be quashed by these overreaching government agents who abuse their powers and that includes law enforcement officers!  Kill us if you must but, short of that, we’re not shutting up.

Go Back