not comparable. the little cop with the "D.D." on his shirt backs off a claim he saw garner sell a loosie, then the video shows garner putting his hands up and saying "nuh uh" os somesuch, immediatly officer choke hold puts him into a choke hold and takes him down.
Why the rush to violence?
Well let me let you in on something.
"Objective 4
a. An investigative detention is a limited seizure, is temporary.
b. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum justification for a detention: suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person stopped is involved.
c. Example: Match description of a person wanted, police officer’s experience, looks as if he might be committing a crime, furtive movements. The sources of facts to build reasonable suspicion are basically unlimited as long as they are credible. The officer’s own knowledge and senses are an obvious source, but reasonable suspicion need not be limited to those. The officer may also use other sources of information. These include sources, which can be revealed, such as verbal communications with other officers, information from identified reliable sources in the community, radio dispatches, police bulletins, hot sheets, anonymous tips where the facts have been corroborated, or criminal informants who have been reliable in the past (Their identities can be protected.).
In a recent case, Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), the Supreme Court asserted that while unexplained flight from police by itself will not produce reasonable suspicion for a detention, the flight is a pertinent factor in developing that reasonable suspicion. In Wardlow, the fact that the defendant fled police as they arrived in a high crime area was sufficient to justify the stop. There were previous decisions asserting flight as an exercise of the right to freedom of movement that, as a right, could not be used to build reasonable suspicion. Those cases have been superseded.
In another case, Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the basic requirements for investigative detentions and frisks as articulated in Terry v. Ohio. The Court held that a frisk cannot be based entirely on an uncorroborated, non-predictive anonymous tip, even if it turns out the tip was accurate. The Court did leave open the possibility that anonymous tips regarding serious situations such as a bomb threat, or an armed person at an airport, or about a weapon in a school would be sufficient.
d. For detention, time should be a reasonable length of time during which reasonable suspicion is maintained or strengthened. It must stop is reasonable suspicion disappears. A rule of thumb is 20 to 30 minutes. Force should only be a reasonable amount. Deadly force should never be used. Detained person should not be moved, except for safety of officer or suspect or with suspect’s consent.
e. Need to articulate a reason for using the cuffs, i.e., suspect was belligerent. State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249 (1999), held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest. It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests. Officers will need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary.
f. A frisk is authorized if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and dangerous.
g. Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.
h. The officer can really do nothing if the suspect refuses to talk, cannot be compelled to give evidence against oneself. Some communities have "required identification" ordinances. These are of questionable Constitutionality."
CONTACT, DETENTION AND ARREST
There is case law on this.