We have another contestant for Worst Person in the World. Jorge Garcia, 39, in Florida was confronted by police for acting strangely and told to get out of his car. When he refused an officer pulled out his stun gun. That is when Garcia allegedly used an infant as a human shield. He reportedly told the officer “Tase the Baby.’
Jorge Garcia has been charged with child neglect without great harm and resisting an officer without violence.
This is not the first case of a baby being used as a human shield, here and here.
I am interested in the charge of “resisting an officer without violence.” Here is the provision:
843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.–Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Presumably, this would include blocking the officer and locking a door. However, is holding a baby as a human shield a violent or nonviolent act?
For the story, click here
It seems to me that pointing a taser at a man holding or sitting next to a baby shows incredible negligence. If that man had touched the baby, or even gone limp upon being shocked and fell on the baby it is certainly possible that the baby could have been electrocuted simply by contact.
This claim that the father held the baby as a shield may or may not be credible but either way what is credible is the negligence of the police in placing a baby’s life in extreme danger (what do you think a taser will do to a baby’s tiny heart and brain?) had they tased this man who obviously was within contact distance of the infant. So the man refused to get out of the car so that is a reason to not only torture him with a taser but worse possibly fry a baby?
We’re all pretty outraged when we see the father placing the babies life in danger (allegedly) and rightly so, yet where’s that outrage when the cops do it? Which clearly they did in this instance.
There was a time when the police actually did “protect and serve” and an officer knew how to deal with a belligerent motorist like this, instead of immediately escalating to the situation to the point of possibly getting someone seriously injured or even killed. And worse when that someone is a little baby.
I’ll be interested to see how this one develops.
Well this is an interesting story. To be sure its not difficult to arouse the public ire by introducing a baby being placed in danger by a less than admirable father (allegedly).
But I’m wondering what the other side to this story is. After all we’re hearing what the Florida police want us to hear. A question I’d think an attorney might want to be asking however is what were the police doing pointing a taser at a man with a baby in the first place?
They said he was “acting strangely”. As several of my immediate family would readily testify I act strangely quite often. Is “acting strangely” now on the list of reasons why the police assault you with a Taser?
Beulah Man:
you never know in this day and age.
I think it’s a reckless act, but probably not violent. I think violence implies harm, either mental or physical, or a combination. Was the baby physically harmed? He was charged with neglect without great harm, so that tends to show there was probably no physical harm. Can a baby be mentally harmed by one such isolated act (assuming no history of use as shield)? Doubtful in my mind.
I suppose the issue could also rest on whether this was his baby or not. If it wasn’t, then I suppose by definition this is battery, although I don’t know if all battery is per se violent. On the other hand, if it was his child, then he is certainly privileged to hold his child, and no battery would attach.
But reading the statute again, the issue is whether there was violence or non-violence “to his or her person,” which by a plain reading seems to refer to the police officer, not the baby. So, even if a violent act was committed against the baby, that does not mean it was also against the police officer.
I am surprised they didn’t taze the baby, just to get the suspect.
Using a human shield of any age is an act of violence. And cowardice.
However, is holding a baby as a human shield a violent or nonviolent act?
I would call it, in general, a violent act, so he might very well be guilty of some of a different resisting arrest statute or some other regulation. But he is also unquestionably guilty of the “resisting an officer without violence” charge too — the statute only requires resistance with non-violence towards an arresting officer, and holding up a baby is not a violent act against the cop.
Although, I guess that might not always be true. Wasn’t there a case a little while back of someone using a baby to bludgeon someone else?
Over Broad or Too Vague? There is a couple of cases and one I am familiar with is Michigan State University case where a person took an officers picture.
The case, Michigan v. Rapp, involves Jared Rapp, a former MSU law student who became angry with an MSU Parking Enforcement employee after his car was ticketed, allegedly while time still remained on the meter. Rapp confronted the employee, engaging in what the court labeled a “five-minute, allegedly heated conversation” in which Rapp took the employee’s picture with his cell phone and demanded to know the employee’s name. The employee called for backup, and Rapp was charged with a violation of the ordinance (MSU ordinance 15.05).
The Court relied upon United States Supreme Court’s decision in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).
I hope more ordinances, statutes and/or policy’s are challenged as they are way to over broad.