No Taser necessary, this time - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

No Taser necessary, this time

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related YouTube Video

Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:08 am

COEUR d'ALENE - It's a case about one North Idaho man's challenge to government authority, and his use of a video camera in the courtroom. And it's a bit about his getting Tasered when he tested the limits.

It all started in July when Robert W. Peterson, 22, was riding his BMX-style bicycle through Hayden at night and got stopped by Kootenai County sheriff's deputies for not having a light. Peterson contends he got pulled over because he had a pistol strapped to his leg, spotted by the deputies when they pointed a spotlight at him.

"They drummed up that charge after 10 or 15 minutes of having me stand on the side of the road," Peterson said Wednesday.

In August he got Tasered just outside a courtroom at the Kootenai County Courthouse when he made a court appearance for the bicycling infraction. That day he brought a video camera into the courtroom and was confronted by bailiffs who eventually Tasered him after he refused to stop recording.

Peterson, a former Lake City High School student, recorded the entire Taser incident and it's widely available on the Internet. He was arrested and booked into the Kootenai County jail afterward, and eventually managed to post bail.

Peterson has said the bailiff that Tasered him was only getting high on his power.

Anyone who films in the courtroom must have the approval of the judge before doing so, and Peterson didn't have it.

On Wednesday he entered an Alford plea to a misdemeanor contempt-of-court charge for the courthouse incident, not technically admitting guilt, but acknowledging enough evidence exists that he could be convicted at trial.

"The way I look at it, I'm sparing myself the headache of having to go to trial on Friday," Peterson said after the plea hearing.

He was scheduled for trial on Friday for the contempt charge along with three assault charges. The assault charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.

Peterson said the video shows he never assaulted the bailiffs or anyone at the courthouse, so he was confident that at trial he would have been found innocent of those charges.

Judge O. Lynn Brower sentenced Peterson to 180 days in jail, but gave him credit for 26 days already served and suspended the remaining days.

Brower placed Peterson on a year of probation and ordered him to pay court costs of $150. Peterson was given six months to pay up, as he currently doesn't have a job.

Brower nearly had to throw Peterson in jail again for contempt of court, this time for five days, when Peterson refused to stand as Brower entered the courtroom Wednesday.

Peterson's political belief is that he's not subject to local, state and federal laws, unless he's injured another person. He spoke some about his beliefs in court, but declined after the hearing to explain them further.

Peterson said a default judgment was entered in the bicycle case because it was determined by the court that he failed to show up for his hearing. He was getting Tasered and arrested, so he asked a judge to re-open the case.

Peterson has had plenty of contact with law enforcement in the past.

"I always avoid contact, but they always contact me," he said. "They really like screwing with me. I get pulled over too much."

So what is it about him?

"They just don't like me," he said. "I don't let them search my car. I don't let them do anything."

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

39 comments:

  • crustycrowe posted at 10:37 am on Wed, Jan 22, 2014.

    crustycrowe Posts: 80

    Some humans are difficult to train and domesticate. They resist when forced to bow to anothers will. There are many examples of people like this in history, though many have been fooled into thinking this is a negative trait these days. Though I imagine this mans initial response to contact with police is disrespectful, that grants them no right to detain and punish his attitude. Enough laws exist that a cop can essentially write a ticket to anyone. As a free American citizen, how many laws and regulations are you subject to at this moment? How many exist to protect other citizens from your behavior and how many simply to control your behavior? Police feel they must remain in control, though they are not protecting the rights of any citizen at the moment, they must still JERK THE LEASH. Not to say that cops are bad, they are humans in a position of power that must be defended. Our modern ideas of law and justice need to be reformed.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:30 am on Sat, Nov 17, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Just read what Keven wrote, Randy, he's correct & elaborated it very, very well.

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 4:20 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1476

    the 'battery' charges you are seeing are the accusation from those court officers who clearly were not 'battered', and they were all dismissed!

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 3:29 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1476

    He did have an "attitude" in the first video; I'll agree with you there. And why was that I wonder? Maybe because both he and the officers involved (and everyone else who read the story) know full well that the real reason he was stopped and interrogated back in July was not because he didn't have lights on his bike. He was stopped because he was openly carrying a pistol which is 100% within his rights to do. If he hadn't had the gun, they probably wouldn't have even stopped him, and at most would have advised him he needed a light on his bike. Even if they were bored enough to give him a ticket for the lack of a light on the bike, it shouldn't have taken 20 minutes of interrogation before issuing the ticket.

    Would I have pushed it as far as he did? No. But we all absolutely MUST start to question authority more and hold the police and officers of the court accountable, or we will soon enough find ourselves living in a complete police state with no freedoms left. We're already well on our way.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 2:18 pm on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Agreed, regardless of the circumstances this kid has a right to challenge authority without being subjected to brutality. The bailiff pulled his taser and fired with no hesitation or proper warning.

    Not a fan of the ACLU or the Klan but... I guess we're all on the same side in one way or another.

    ACLU defends the Klan:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/14/aclu-sues-georgia-in-kkk-litter-program-fight/

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 10:28 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1476

    The video posted in this article is the third of four. Go to youtube and watch all of them for more context. Video 2 demonstrates without a doubt that Mr. Peterson was not the aggressor here. He was sitting in the back of the courtroom waiting for his case to be called and was bothering nobody and causing no disturbance. The disturbance was caused by the bailiff who tried to physically confiscate Mr. Peterson's camera. It doesn't matter whether you agree with his 'sovereign citizen' claim or not. We all have a right to a PUBLIC trial if accused of a crime; the courtroom is a PUBLIC place so there is no valid reason whatsoever that he should have been prevented from recording this, anymore than one can be prevented from taking pictures or video at any other public event.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:28 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Randy also believes in stereotyping Hispanics in Arizona. He must.

    Why?
    Because if he believes it's OK to harass people here for carrying a weapon legally, and then giving them a ticket for SOMETHING, he MUST believe in stereotyping folks in other places, too...because ya know, NOBODY should ever question the system or the law....that would make them a righteous rebel, and all of us, like Randy, well we know that you MUST be an idiot to do that, just like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al.....

    HAHAAAHHHAAAAAAA

    Randy, he's a GENIUS.

     
  • Michael Alexander posted at 12:07 am on Fri, Nov 16, 2012.

    Michael Alexander Posts: 93

    Thank you screen name and milburm for your advice, I will be in court soon, and I may just need to bring a camera.

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 10:14 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1160

    A little advice to micheal. If you are in the courtroom dont tell the judge or baliff to screw themselves it will only lead to a bad day getting worse. There are some places you have to play by the other guys rules. Perhaps you have watched to much peoples court or judge judy. Playing by your own rules is not a winning game. Having been in a lot of courtrooms I can tell you when the proceedings are televised its playhouse 90 for the lawyers, The posturing and court room antics will bring the worst out in people if not controlled by the judge. Mr peterson could have been a patriot and defended himself for his infraction weithout ending up on the floor. In court its yes sir no sir anything else or nasty will be met with HERE COMES DA JUDGE and you pay. Courts are tightly controlled enviroments for a reason and if you want to stand out and be a martyr its a great place to fulfill your wish. Best advice is to tear up and say you are sorry and I,ll never do it again.Originality will get you time in the cooler. Someday Mr peterson will leave his BMX and grow up and regret his youthful mistakes or he will continue and get a collection of jailhouse tatts if he doesnt find someone who can outdraw him. I hope he stays ouf of my neighborhood.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:04 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    OK, so accroding to what you just said, FromNidaho, we BETTER not do ANYTHING that might make the cops "look at us" or "talk to us more often".

    We have the RIGHT to openly wear a firearm in this State, the premise that if you do; you risk having a policeman interrogate you more often is wrong. I don't understand why you have to have a hassle in the first place if you haven't broken any LAWS.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 10:01 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    flatto, the reason I went after the libs is because they predominantly (as is the case here) side WITH the government, and the conservatives most always stand for their rights.
    It's NOT complicated.
    And when has the ACLU defended the Klan.....???

    I am defending his actions as he was pulled over as a result of his wearing an OPEN firearm, which is LEGAL in this state, regadless if the police "like it" or not. Then, they give him a ticket for a bike without a light? Really?

    And what do the libs say:
    "Some singapore justice"
    "Needs a leather strap"
    And WHO did he hurt?
    WHAT pain did he inflict on anyone?
    Oh, really? He did NOTHING wrong?
    Well, good thing they had to TASER him over it.

     
  • FromNIdaho posted at 9:39 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    FromNIdaho Posts: 48

    Listen, this guy is a nut job. If this kid had any common sense or one ounce of brains, I could see where he has a point. But this guy is just bumbling through this.

    Yeah, you have a right to wear a gun on your side, but you are going to get strange looks and the cops will probably stop and talk to you a little more often.

    Carry Concealed (Legally) and you still get to have the gun, and you avoid the hassle.

     
  • FromNIdaho posted at 9:35 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    FromNIdaho Posts: 48

    Isn't this guy a "sovereign citizen". Why does he need a job then or money. Jobs are regulated by the state and federal government, and money is federal currency. How fun would that be if he showed up to pay his fines with chickens.

     
  • Screen Name posted at 9:33 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Screen Name Posts: 965

    When you are in the Courtroom, you play by the house rules, the Judge's rules. What if camera boy was filming and recording an attorney talking to a client? Filming the confidential notes in a file? Filming off-the record discussions between Judge and attorney? Does camera boy have the right to do those things? No. Cameras are allowed if the Judge grants you permission and you agree to certain limitations, it is not a free-for-all in the courtroom.

    Any of you folks know how to use Google and read?

    Rule 45. Cameras In the Courtroom.
    (a) �Audio/visual coverage,� as used in this rule, means broadcast, video,
    audio, and photographic coverage or recording of public proceedings before
    district and magistrate judges. Broadcast means the transmission of images
    or sounds by any electronic means, including but not limited to television,
    radio, Internet, email or streaming.Audio/visual coverage is authorized subject
    to the discretion of the presiding judge. The presiding judge maintains
    the right to limit audio/visual coverage of any public hearing when the
    interests of the administration of justice requires. Authorization may be
    revoked at any time, without prior notice, when in the discretion of the
    court it appears that audio/visual coverage is interfering in any way with
    the proper administration of justice.
    (b) The presiding judge may, at his or her discretion, limit, restrict, or
    prohibit audio/visual coverage at any proceeding. Any decision regarding
    audio/visual coverage is not subject to appellate review.
    (c) Audio/visual coverage of the following proceedings is prohibited:
    (1) There shall be no broadcast, video or audio coverage or recording of
    conferences which occur in a court facility between attorneys and their
    clients, between co-counsel of a client, or between counsel and the presiding
    judge held at the bench. There shall be no audio/visual coverage of notes upon
    the counsel table, nor of any exhibits before they are admitted into evidence.
    (2) There shall be no audio/visual coverage of in-camera sessions or judicial
    deliberations.
    (3) There shall be no audio/visual coverage of proceedings when they are
    closed to the public including adoptions, mental health proceedings, child
    protective act proceedings, termination of parent child relations, grand jury
    proceedings, issuance of arrest and search warrant proceedings covered by Rule
    32, Idaho Administrative Rules, or a comparable rule when the proceeding may
    be closed to effectuate the purposes of the rule.
    (d) The presiding judge may exclude audio/visual coverage of a particular
    participant or direct that the identity or audio of a participant be concealed
    upon a determination that such coverage will have a substantial adverse effect
    upon a particular individual. It is expected the presiding judge will exercise
    particular sensitivity to victims of crime.
    (e) The administrative district judge shall promulgate rules governing audio/visual
    coverage outside the courtroom in courthouses within the judicial district.
    (f) It is the responsibility of each broadcast news representative present at
    the beginning of each session of court to achieve an understanding with all other
    broadcast representatives as to who will function at any given time, or in the
    alternative, how they will pool their coverage. This understanding shall be
    reached outside the courtroom and without imposition upon the presiding judge
    or court personnel. The presiding judge shall not be called upon to resolve
    any disputes except to determine that if the broadcast representatives cannot
    agree broadcast coverage will not take place.
    (g) Approval of audio/visual coverage must be obtained in advance from the
    presiding judge.
    (h) If audio/visual coverage is authorized, rules governing the media shall
    be established at each judge's discretion. An order permitting audio/visual
    coverage of court proceedings shall not include any restriction on the time
    when, the place where, or the manner in which the content of the audio/visual
    coverage may be aired or published. Audio/visual coverage may be authorized
    subject to the following guidelines:
    (1) Jury -- Photographing or videotaping of the jury or jurors is prohibited,
    including during jury selection.
    (2) Light -- Existing light only may be used for still photography or video
    coverage. Electronic flash or artificial lighting is prohibited.
    (3) Camera Noise -- Camera noise and distractions shall be kept to a minimum.
    (4) Still Photography -- Electronic flash is prohibited. Photographers must
    use quiet camera equipment to minimize distraction from the judicial proceedings.
    (5) Video Coverage -- No video or television camera shall give any indication of
    whether it is operating.
    (6) Audio -- Any audio equipment shall be placed as determined by the presiding
    judge. There shall be no broadcast of confidential communications. If there is
    coverage by both radio and television, the microphones used shall serve each
    system without duplication.
    (7) Location -- Media shall be in a position at least 15 minutes before court
    begins. Media positions shall not change while court is in session. The specific
    location or locations of media must be approved in advance by the presiding judge
    or designee.
    (8) Dress -- Media representation shall present a neat appearance and conduct
    themselves in keeping with the dignity of the court proceedings as determined
    by the presiding judge.
    (9) Pooling of Video and Broadcast Coverage -- Only one still photographer and one
    video and broadcast camera operator shall be permitted in the courtroom unless the
    presiding judge allows additional cameras. Any arrangements for pooling of video
    and broadcast coverage must be made by the media organizations.
    (10) Pooling of Still Photography � Only one still photographer shall be permitted
    in the courtroom unless the presiding judge allows additional still photography
    cameras. Any arrangements for pooling of still photography coverage must be made
    by the media organizations.
    (11) Sharing of Pool Photography, Video and Broadcast Coverage -- If the presiding
    judge determines that only a pool photographer or video and broadcast camera
    operator shall be permitted in the courtroom, the pool photographer and video and
    broadcast camera operator shall share their images and audio recordings with all
    news organizations, either print or broadcast, that request them in a timely
    fashion. All images and audio recordings captured in the courtroom, whether
    before, during or after the actual court proceedings, by the pool
    photographer or video and broadcast camera operator shall be shared as
    required by this rule.
    (i) The presiding judge may require any media representative to demonstrate
    adequately in advance of a proceeding that the equipment to be used meets the
    standards of the rule.
    (j) The public shall not be required to incur any expenses to accommodate cameras
    or other equipment covered by this rule. Any proposal by media representatives to
    modify existing facilities at media expense to accommodate use of equipment in the
    courtroom shall be submitted to the trial court administrator for the district.
    A final proposal shall be submitted to the administrative district judge for
    acceptance, modification or rejection. When planning courtroom construction or
    remodeling, consideration shall be given to accommodations that will provide
    broadcast and print media with reasonable access to court proceedings.
    (k) The Media/Courts Committee shall evaluate audio/visual coverage on an ongoing
    basis, and at any time bring forth recommendations to amend rule.
    (l) The request for approval to video record, broadcast or photograph a
    court proceeding and order granting or denying such request should be in
    substantially the following form:


    Request for Approval/
    Judge's Proposed Order

    Directions: Fill out the form below, and present both the signed Request for
    Approval and proposed Order to the presiding judge's office.


    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE _______JUDICIAL DISTRICT

    OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ___________

    _____________________________ )
    PLAINTIFF(S) )
    ) REQUEST TO OBTAIN
    ) APPROVAL TO VIDEO/
    V. ) AUDIO RECORD,
    ) BROADCAST OR
    ) PHOTOGRAPH A COURT
    ______________________________ ) PROCEEDING
    DEFENDANT(S) )

    I hereby request approval to:

    [ ] video/audio record [ ] broadcast [ ] photograph the following
    court proceeding:

    Case No.: _________________________________________________

    Date: _________________________________________________

    Time: _________________________________________________

    Location: _________________________________________________

    Presiding Judge: _________________________________________________

    I have read Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules permitting
    cameras in the courtroom, and will comply in all respects with the provisions
    of that rule, and will also make certain that all other persons from my
    organization participating in video or audio recording or broadcasting or
    photographing of the court proceedings have read Rule 45 of the Idaho Court
    Administrative Rules and will comply in all respects with the provisions of
    that rule.


    _________________________________________
    Print Name

    _________________________________________
    Signature

    _________________________________________ _____________________________
    News Organization Represented Phone Number

    _________________________________________
    Date

    REQUEST TO OBTAIN APPROVAL TO VIDEO/AUDIO RECORD,
    BROADCAST, OR PHOTOGRAPH A COURT PROCEEDING
    Page 1


    O R D E R

    THE COURT, having considered the above Request for Approval under Rule 45 of
    the Idaho Court Administrative Rules, hereby orders that permission to
    video/audio record the above hearing is:

    [ ] GRANTED under the following restrictions in addition to those set
    forth in Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules:
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    [ ] DENIED.


    THE COURT, having considered the above Request for Approval under Rule 45 of
    the Idaho Court Administrative Rules, hereby orders that permission to
    broadcast the above hearing is:

    [ ] GRANTED under the following restrictions in addition to those set
    forth in Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules:
    ________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    [ ] DENIED.


    THE COURT, having considered the above Request for Approval under Rule 45 of
    the Idaho Court Administrative Rules, hereby orders that permission to
    photograph the above hearing is:

    [ ] GRANTED under the following restrictions in addition to those set
    forth in Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules:
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    [ ] DENIED.

    All images and audio recordings captured in the courtroom, whether before,
    during or after the actual court proceedings, by any pool photographer or
    video and broadcast camera operator shall be shared with other media
    organizations as required by Rule 45 of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules.

    DATED this _______ day of ____________, ______


    ___________________________________________
    Justice/Judge


    REQUEST TO OBTAIN APPROVAL TO VIDEO/AUDIO RECORD,
    BROADCAST, OR PHOTOGRAPH A COURT PROCEEDING
    Page 2


    (Adopted March 30, 1999, effective March 30, 1999; amended
    December 26, 2000, effective January 2, 2001; amended
    December 6, 2005, effective December 15, 2005; amended
    August 22, 2007, effective August 22, 2007; amended March 27, 2009,
    effective March 30, 2009; amended July 13, 2009, effective July 13, 2009;
    amended December 9, 2009, effective January 1, 2010..)

     
  • Michael Alexander posted at 7:29 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Michael Alexander Posts: 93

    This man is doing what more of us should be doing, and that is being a Patriot!

    Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

    Thank you for standing up to the corrupt unjust system!

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 6:09 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Who OWNS the Courts? WE do.

    lWhy is it that we can't record our OWN trial without a Judge's approval?

    I agree 1,000% with Michael Alexander, it IS out of control, totally.

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 5:02 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1476

    Why is it that the government tells us we shouldn't mind surveillance and assaults on OUR privacy such as the Patriot Act "as long as you're not doing anything wrong" but when the tables are turned government officials don't want to be under surveillance.

    If they are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about!

     
  • meidaho posted at 4:39 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    meidaho Posts: 254

    Why should the bailiffs risk injury when they clearly have somebody who will not comply with simple commands?
    This person was looking for trouble!

     
  • Downtowner posted at 3:10 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Downtowner Posts: 167

    I would think that one of the reasons they do not want these folk recording in courtroom is because usually they are not the only case at trial in each courtroom. There are usually multiple hearings going on at certain hour. Those other folk have rights to their privacy and should not have to see their face on youtube because somebody hides behind the ACLU or his soverign rights card and wants to record it. Did he deserve to get tased? Probably not..I was not there... but don't bailiffs still carry cuffs and have ample help available to subdue a loudmouth by other means than tazer?

     
  • Michael Alexander posted at 1:53 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Michael Alexander Posts: 93

    So let me get this straight, this guy rode a bike at night with out a light, carried a gun as he has the right to do, video taped a bailiff assault him, and he is the victim of our out of control police state, and there are some people who think he is in the wrong? Screw the judge and the bailiff, and the prosecutor! What ever happen to liberty and justice for all? If he did not hurt anyone, why is he being tasered and arrested? He does have a right to video tape the court, as well as ever other human being does. Why is it the police can record us but we can't them? They are our servants, not masters.

    This is such a corrupt unjust system, we are now guilty until proven innocent, what happened to this country? Where is the freedom of speech and press, our right to bear arms, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendments? Why do some of you believe that this justice system really delivers justice, when in reality the justice system is all about revenue? In our county, 2 men have been killed by cops, countless have been arrested for victim-less crimes, many have been assaulted by the police, and none of the police ever get any punishment for their wrong doing, except maybe a paid vacation for being really violent. This should not happen in a free country! Police should be held accountable just as any other citizen is. More innocent people have died by police, than terrorists, so tell me again why we allow police to use deadly force, without any accountability?

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 1:32 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1160

    As a retired police officer who used to get down in the mud and blood wrestling neerdo wells I am greatly distressed at the abuses being committed with tasers in the last few years. When I read reports of 86 yr old nursing home residents being tasered and 5 tear old children being handcuffed and frog marched out of school for drawing a picture of a gun I am disgusted by the casual use of these weapons. Once upon a time someione like perteson who obviously seeks confrontation and noteriety would be removed from a courtroom by taking his arm and leading him out the door or using musclepower if required. That is in the past now and its probably great sport to whip out the taser and watch the suspect do the funky chicken on the floor. The story would be retold over and over in se,lected crowds. Its only a matter of time if it hasnt happened already before someones ticker is short circuited and a death or serious injury happens because someone didnt want to wrinkle their clothes or shoeshinne.. Tasers are fine for a substitute for lethal force or for a law enforcement officer alone and protecting themselves from being over come by a agressor who they dont want to use deadly force on. I also read about the man protecting his home from fire being tasered and was outraged and wondered if the water in the area could cause serious injury instead of putting hands on a removing him. We have a cu;ture now in law emforcement who do face a more violence prone citizenry but use the monotone authoritive do exactly what I say or face the results on folks who or children who are no threat or are turned into one by a lack of hummanity. from the officers. Mr peterson is a buffoon who is looking for a confrontation and is way out of the mainstream but making him a poster boy for police or courtroom brutality is like OJ doind a commercial for stop domestic abuse commercials.I see nothing in the article that said peterson was combative or got physical if he did then good for the baliff. If he didnt perhaps we all should walk around in rubber boots if we ever get in a disagreement with those in authority. It seems common sense went out with manners and civility for each other and isnt coming back soon.

     
  • IdahoMan posted at 12:55 pm on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    IdahoMan Posts: 104

    Anybody here read of the guy the police Tasered while he was trying to spry down the side of his home to protect it from a nearby fire?

    Tasers are not toys, they are weapons. Tasers need to banned from police use.

     
  • heatherfeather posted at 11:43 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    heatherfeather Posts: 297

    He has some battery cases, but most of his court troubles stem from repeated violations of traffic laws (no insurance, etc). Almost every case has been dismissed. Lack of any punishment makes some offenders bolder.

     
  • heatherfeather posted at 11:36 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    heatherfeather Posts: 297

    Considering Peterson has several battery charges, it is no surprise they weren't going to pussyfoot with him when he got lippy.

    And what is it about terminally unemployed stoners and BMX bikes, anyway?

     
  • meidaho posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    meidaho Posts: 254

    Peterson's political belief is that he's not subject to local, state and federal laws, unless he's injured another person.... Excuse me - is this guy crazy ? Does he really think he can do anything he wants until he has injured somebody else ?
    Anyone who films in the courtroom must have the approval of the judge before doing so, and Peterson didn't have it - and the bailiffs told him he could not record with his camera. .. Yup - this guy is crazy !


     
  • rexaroni posted at 10:54 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    rexaroni Posts: 190

    Google "sovereign citizen."

    Rightly or wrongly, this guy believes he is a sovereign citizen, which basically means he believes that he is subject to no laws or other authority unless he harms another person. He also open carries his firearm, which tends to rub law enforcement the wrong way. I've watched a lot of 'sovereign citizen' videos on you tube and most of them seem very naive and surprised when they actually get arrested for driving without a license.

     
  • BleedBlue posted at 10:11 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    BleedBlue Posts: 3

    I'm loving all the banter on this. In the end, he is just a toolbag trying to get attention and deserved to be tazed

     
  • flattopramen posted at 9:20 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Wrong, the ACLU also supports the efforts of the KKK when deemed appropriate. But of course this discussion wouldn't be complete without bringing up the racial inequality.

    This kid has the right idea though, if you feel your freedom's been compromised, fight back.

    Of course none of you have the full story, and are clueless to his actual criminal history. Defending his actions and attacking the liberals without all the facts? That's just plain immature

     
  • saddie posted at 7:51 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    saddie Posts: 5

    Now you know why we have a right to own guns, To protect us from the Goverment.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:33 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Notice the name of the article is"No taser necessary this time", instead of "Man tasered for insisting to record his own trial as rights stripped away"

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 7:32 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    NOTICE how the Libs are ALL for the idea that this guy is a malcontent, and reality is that this started with police that HAD to give him a ticket for SOMETHING, so they gave him a "riding a bike without a light" ticket?
    What's really comedic is that libs support the ACLU, an organization that would get behind this guy 1,000%, IF he was black.

    I also agree that there's NO reason at all we shouldn't be able to record our own trials. DeNiles is absolutely correct, IMO.

     
  • IChoseNID posted at 7:29 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    IChoseNID Posts: 83

    There's no reason in this day and age, that court proceedings shouldn't all be videoed. With digital video, the cost would be close to nothing, especially compared to using stenographers.

     
  • mister d posted at 7:26 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    It ppears this guy has a definite problem with authority but I think the use of the taser in this case was premature.

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 7:22 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1476

    Good question, NoName. As for some of the other comments, doesn't 'respect for authority' require the authority to be legitimate? Doesn't respect have to be earned?

    Who exactly did he injure? Who's liberty did he violate? These thugs simply don't know what to do when someone doesn't simply roll over and submit to the authority they claim, whether legitimate or not, and blindly show them respect they haven't earned.

     
  • NoName posted at 6:51 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    NoName Posts: 253

    Question for everyone.... is it a law that you have to stand when a Judge enters the court room?

     
  • Just_K posted at 6:38 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Just_K Posts: 84

    I agree DeNiles, innocent until proven guilty is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, some of our law enforcement officers and our judicial system has moved a few degrees away from that in recent times. It's pretty scary.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 6:09 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    If you are going to court why can't you alone decide to video record your own trial? It is your hearing and it is a publicly owned system. Does this rule also apply for audio recording? The police tape all of their activities without anyones authorization. The courts are taped and they also use antiquated (and expensive) court stenographers as well. Prior to conviction we are all innocent. Why are we limited or controlled in this regard? We pay these people and we need to be able to best defend ourselves in the system. Recording the process so we can review and be certain what is needed next only makes sense. These are not weapons, but tools needed by laymen in a very complex legal system.

     
  • voxpop posted at 5:05 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    Indeed. A little Singapore justice would go a long way. This guy is a felon in the making. Must have REALLY great parents.

     
  • Why Not posted at 4:20 am on Thu, Nov 15, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 5255

    What a moron -- little boy needs a leather strap across his a__rse. He didn't respect authority at LCHS either.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks