Robert Tolan shooting (Bellaire, TX) and the right to resist false arrest. - Page 2

ilbob · February 22, 2009, 07:33 PM

the cops will investigate themselves.

regardless of whether the cops' actions were indeed reasonable or justified, if the investigation finds they are, it will be viewed as tainted. as it should be.

this is why we are supposed to have elected officials overseeing these employees. its up to the elected officials to protect citizens from abuse by government employees. that system, if it ever worked, broke down a long time ago, so no one trusts it anymore.

it is hard to say how this will play out, or even what really happened, as everyone will have their own story, and the lawyers for those involved will make sure they have their stories well memorized.

at least the victim is not dead and can speak up for himself.

ilbob · February 22, 2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

According to the article the police "typed in the numbers wrong" leading them to believe that the SUV was stolen.

One would think that would be relatively easy to prove one way or the other.

Wagonman · February 22, 2009, 07:49 PM

+ 1 nate.

If my computer tells me your car is stolen and you can't prove it isn't, it is and you are going in.

I again don't understand the anti-police aminus.

We make mistakes----and we pay retail for them as my brother on the BART is finding out, hopefully a jury will exonerate him and he can get on with his life

RedneckFur · February 22, 2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

We make mistakes----and we pay retail for them as my brother on the BART is finding out, hopefully a jury will exonerate him and he can get on with his life

Well, at least we know who came here with an agenda

While I do not think that you're allowed to resist arest, when somone is hurt or killed as a result of a false arrest, I feel the offending officer should be charged with assault or manslaughter, and serve the appropritate time in a penal facility. I can be held criminally liable for mistakes I make at my job. Its only fair that the police do as well.

There needs to be a stronger set of checks and balances when it comes to how our laws are inforced. When innocent lives are at risk, there are no room for mistakes.

Its common sense, that you should follow orders when arrested even if innocent, and take your day in court to prove yourself innocent. That said, I think I know how I, and most of us would react if we saw a strange man roughing up our mothers.

For me, its not a clean cut case. I think a jury should get a chance to sort this out.

Al Norris · February 22, 2009, 08:53 PM

No more comments about BART, in this thread. They are off topic.

As far as this particular incident goes, the police typed in a license plate number and got back the results. At that point, they had probable cause. Everything that followed appears to be within reason.

The time to argue, generally, is in court. Not at the point of arrest.

I'm not a betting man, but in this instance, if the arresting officers had had the time to confront the suspect about the stolen vehicle, I'd wager that things could have been cleared up, rather quick.

From what we (think we) know, things happened rather fast and the police had no time to tell the suspect why he was being arrested. The innocent suspect aggravated the situation and was shot. Luckily, it wasn't fatal and all he is being charged with is resisting arrest.

The general feeling of some of you, about how bad cops are, is not just misplaced. It's unwarranted. Any other conclusions, are nothing more than you folks reading into the incident, things that are not in evidence.

rantingredneck · February 22, 2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

If my computer tells me your car is stolen and you can't prove it isn't, it is and you are going in.

According to his interview Mr. Tolan was never given the opportunity to prove otherwise. He was on his front porch on the way into his house when he was lit up with a flashlight at gunpoint and ordered onto his face. He complied at that point. When his father came out to talk to the police officers he was compliant and himself assumed the position against his own vehicle. All the while explaining that the vehicle in question was not stolen. Keep in mind that Bellaire is a rather well to do suburb of Houston and the Tolan's had lived there for some 15 years and were prominent citizens.

Granted his mother probably was a little out of sorts, but I suspect many of us here would be if a quiet evening at home was interrupted in this way. When Mr. Tolan stood up he made a mistake. Shouldn't have nearly cost him his life IMO. Shouldn't have cost him his career.

I'm sure there is another side to this story, and a jury will eventually be the trier of fact. What I've seen and read of the story does not look good for the officers involved or the city, but we shall see I suppose.

vranasaurus · February 22, 2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

If my computer tells me your car is stolen and you can't prove it isn't, it is and you are going in.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The state must prove that the vehicle is stolen not the other way around.

I have no animus toward the police and I don't think it is right for anyone to resist arrest.

But I also have a problem with the automatic assumption of guilt and the attitude of we can do no wrong that many oficers have.

The other question I have is what was the justification for the use of deadly force?

Wagonman · February 22, 2009, 10:33 PM

Innocence and guilt are matters for the courtroom not the crime scene.

I just don't think that 99.9% of the Cops out there act in the jackbooted way you are inferring.

Use of Force rules vary from department to department. Just from the scant particulars I can't make a judgement on good shoot/badshoot. But, car theft is a felony in Illinois, which changes a lot on the use of force spectrum.

Reread OP good shoot Offender is actiing in a way in which his actions will likely cause serious physical injury.
Restraining Mom in policy actions are aggressive without weapon---- she could have had impact weapon utilized against her

The bottom line is cooperate with the Police and consult your lawyer when you make bail.

Isn't that the advice given to CCW after a shooting, cooperate with booking and utilize your Miranda rights.

If that simple rule had been followed there would be NO ISSUE

If he and she had just cooperated he would have gotten an apology and "have a good evening"

rantingredneck · February 22, 2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

If that simple rule had been followed there would be NO ISSUE

Wagonman, you are absolutely correct here. However, if the 2 officers involved had doublechecked the license plate digits there would also have been no issue.

vranasaurus · February 22, 2009, 11:30 PM

Just make bail and talk to your lawyer is fine but you seem to have no problem with officers arresting people who have done nothing wrong. Just because the system will work it out doesn't it make it all right. If Mr. Tolan cooperated there would still be an issue (arresting of an innocent person) and that is what you fail to see. The only issue you see is the resisting arrest had there been no resistance you would see no problem with how this played out.

It is not OK to resist arrest and it is not OK for the officers to use excessive force and/or arrest innocent people. From looking at the available information there should be consequences on both sides. You are not looking at both sides.

Wagonman · February 23, 2009, 12:02 AM

Au contraire, If he had cooperated produced his license and REGISTRATION and still had been arrested your arguement would hold water. At the time of his and his mother's ill-advised action he was a SUSPECT in a car theft INVESTIGATION. His actions his fault.

Do not argue finer points of arrest and detention you will lose all day as long as Police Officer is acting REASONABLY.

vranasaurus · February 23, 2009, 12:26 AM

Reasonableness would include verifying information. Just because the plates match doesn't mean it's a stolen vehicle. Did they bother to match the vehicle description?

Had the officers bothered to verify information there would have been no need for a traffic stop.

Fremmer · February 23, 2009, 12:44 AM

Ah, but can a mere statute nullify the (for the sake of argument) fundamental Constitutional right to resist unlawful arrest?

Double Naught Spy · February 23, 2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The state must prove that the vehicle is stolen not the other way around.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. The State would have to prove the vehicle was stolen in COURT, after Tolan and his buddy have been arrested. Even though you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, you can get arrested. You aren't convicted and then arrested.

ilbob · February 23, 2009, 09:42 AM

This whole line of debate seems pointless.

One side thinks cops can do no wrong, no matter what they do, and the other thinks cops can do no right.

The cops are claiming somehow that their mistake makes it OK that they ended up shooting an innocent man and roughed up an old woman. Its understandable why that position would ruffle a few feathers.

Cops think average citizens should obey police orders or be subject to whatever force the officers on the scene deem appropriate. Average citizens mostly just want to be left alone and resent being ordered around like serfs by supposed public servants.

Some how, some way, we as a society are going to have to deal with this divide between what police see as reasonable police conduct and what the average citizen sees as reasonable.

rantingredneck · February 23, 2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Do not argue finer points of arrest and detention you will lose all day as long as Police Officer is acting REASONABLY.

Is it typical/reasonable for a police car to follow the suspect to his home and without turning on blue lights light the suspect up with flashlights and drawn guns without even asking for license and registration? (In effect this wasn't even a traffic stop as Mr. Tolan was on his front porch on his way into his home when the officers stopped him. Kinda hard to show your license and registration when you're proned out on your porch.)

Is it typical/reasonable for an officer to use deadly force on a suspect who shouts even though his hands are plainly visible out to his sides? No tazer, impact weapon, spray first?

These are Mr. Tolan's contentions and as I said above a jury will eventually be the trier of fact here. It may eventually come to light that the officers acted in a reasonable manner, but so far it doesn't seem to be the case from where I'm sitting.

I wonder if there was a dash cam in the car, that would clear some of this up....

Al Norris · February 23, 2009, 10:00 AM

Two pages of rants, with little to no real information.

This ones done.

February 22, 2009, 07:33 PM	#26
ilbob Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 515	the cops will investigate themselves. regardless of whether the cops' actions were indeed reasonable or justified, if the investigation finds they are, it will be viewed as tainted. as it should be. this is why we are supposed to have elected officials overseeing these employees. its up to the elected officials to protect citizens from abuse by government employees. that system, if it ever worked, broke down a long time ago, so no one trusts it anymore. it is hard to say how this will play out, or even what really happened, as everyone will have their own story, and the lawyers for those involved will make sure they have their stories well memorized. at least the victim is not dead and can speak up for himself. __________________ bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

February 22, 2009, 10:33 PM	#33
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	Innocence and guilt are matters for the courtroom not the crime scene. I just don't think that 99.9% of the Cops out there act in the jackbooted way you are inferring. Use of Force rules vary from department to department. Just from the scant particulars I can't make a judgement on good shoot/badshoot. But, car theft is a felony in Illinois, which changes a lot on the use of force spectrum. Reread OP good shoot Offender is actiing in a way in which his actions will likely cause serious physical injury. Restraining Mom in policy actions are aggressive without weapon---- she could have had impact weapon utilized against her The bottom line is cooperate with the Police and consult your lawyer when you make bail. Isn't that the advice given to CCW after a shooting, cooperate with booking and utilize your Miranda rights. If that simple rule had been followed there would be NO ISSUE If he and she had just cooperated he would have gotten an apology and "have a good evening" Last edited by Wagonman; February 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason: reread OP

February 23, 2009, 09:42 AM	#40
ilbob Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 515	This whole line of debate seems pointless. One side thinks cops can do no wrong, no matter what they do, and the other thinks cops can do no right. The cops are claiming somehow that their mistake makes it OK that they ended up shooting an innocent man and roughed up an old woman. Its understandable why that position would ruffle a few feathers. Cops think average citizens should obey police orders or be subject to whatever force the officers on the scene deem appropriate. Average citizens mostly just want to be left alone and resent being ordered around like serfs by supposed public servants. Some how, some way, we as a society are going to have to deal with this divide between what police see as reasonable police conduct and what the average citizen sees as reasonable. __________________ bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

February 22, 2009, 07:49 PM	#28
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	+ 1 nate. If my computer tells me your car is stolen and you can't prove it isn't, it is and you are going in. I again don't understand the anti-police aminus. We make mistakes----and we pay retail for them as my brother on the BART is finding out, hopefully a jury will exonerate him and he can get on with his life

February 22, 2009, 08:53 PM	#30
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	No more comments about BART, in this thread. They are off topic. As far as this particular incident goes, the police typed in a license plate number and got back the results. At that point, they had probable cause. Everything that followed appears to be within reason. The time to argue, generally, is in court. Not at the point of arrest. I'm not a betting man, but in this instance, if the arresting officers had had the time to confront the suspect about the stolen vehicle, I'd wager that things could have been cleared up, rather quick. From what we (think we) know, things happened rather fast and the police had no time to tell the suspect why he was being arrested. The innocent suspect aggravated the situation and was shot. Luckily, it wasn't fatal and all he is being charged with is resisting arrest. The general feeling of some of you, about how bad cops are, is not just misplaced. It's unwarranted. Any other conclusions, are nothing more than you folks reading into the incident, things that are not in evidence.

February 22, 2009, 11:30 PM	#35
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Just make bail and talk to your lawyer is fine but you seem to have no problem with officers arresting people who have done nothing wrong. Just because the system will work it out doesn't it make it all right. If Mr. Tolan cooperated there would still be an issue (arresting of an innocent person) and that is what you fail to see. The only issue you see is the resisting arrest had there been no resistance you would see no problem with how this played out. It is not OK to resist arrest and it is not OK for the officers to use excessive force and/or arrest innocent people. From looking at the available information there should be consequences on both sides. You are not looking at both sides.

February 23, 2009, 12:02 AM	#36
Wagonman Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,014	Au contraire, If he had cooperated produced his license and REGISTRATION and still had been arrested your arguement would hold water. At the time of his and his mother's ill-advised action he was a SUSPECT in a car theft INVESTIGATION. His actions his fault. Do not argue finer points of arrest and detention you will lose all day as long as Police Officer is acting REASONABLY.

February 23, 2009, 12:26 AM	#37
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Reasonableness would include verifying information. Just because the plates match doesn't mean it's a stolen vehicle. Did they bother to match the vehicle description? Had the officers bothered to verify information there would have been no need for a traffic stop.

February 23, 2009, 12:44 AM	#38
Fremmer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 3,482	Ah, but can a mere statute nullify the (for the sake of argument) fundamental Constitutional right to resist unlawful arrest?

February 23, 2009, 10:00 AM	#42
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Two pages of rants, with little to no real information. This ones done.