A speeding ticket leads to a royal tazing...

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:50 pm

I think that Globe article was well-reasoned and went a long way to look at the problem. What it doesn't address is any solution - do we build more asylums, hire special 'nut police,' legalize the drugs?

I still think the police need more training but we've got something seriously wrong here and we need to fix it before we have more unnecessary deaths.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:21 pm

Take hostage situations. The first think the police do is establish communication and they spend hours trying to stabilize the situations. Most every police force has trained negotiators for this very purpose. More often than not they're successfull. If they weren't successful more often than not, they would just send in the goon and swat teams and be done with it.
The problem is everyone want's instant this and instant that, cops are no different. Being a cop isn't an easy job. It's really pretty tedious and boring punctuated by moments of hightened excitement and sometimes terror. Sound familiar.

Now give me a taser, there are lots of people I could think of using it on. I really don't like people who don't agree and comply with my every command. Co-pilots and passengers you've been put on notice. No more acts of defiance/noncompliance or else ZZZZAAAAAAPPPPP!50,000 zzZZZZaaAAppPPPs

Do you want another one?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:03 pm

Cat, I'm going to start this by saying that I in no way mean to attack you, just point out a few things.

You say that you are upset with TC for not following the law, but you have mentioned several times that you are prepared to break the law and physically assault those who enforce it.

Where and when did I say that?

I see a conflict in these statements. If the people who you call criminals at TC were to be arrested, you would need cops to do it, it won't help you if they've all got fish up their asses cause you think it's funny.

O.K. my calling certain people in TC criminals was a bit premature because they were not convicted of a criminal offense...they just happen to be people in the top positions of a Federal Government Department who are sworn to uphold the law.....but ignore and break the laws they are sworn to uphold.

So I will retract my calling them criminals and ask you what they should be called?

Would you mind helping me find the correct description for these individuals?

The fish thing is an insiders thing, you would have to know the background to appreciate why we find it funny.

There are a lot of posters here who seem to think that they have the right to disobey a police officer if you don't agree with them. If that were true then no one could ever be arrested for anything.

I would suggest that the average citizen can distinguish between an encounter with professional police Officer and a power abusing prick.

If a police officer over steps his/her authority and abuses a citizen what should you do, submit politely and by so doing further empower them to continue in that mode?

Everyone complains about how the young people today have an attitude of entitlement. Do you really think you're personally entitled to argue with a police officer outside of a court room.

If my civil rights under law are being violated I and you have the right to complain....how we do it of course will shape what follows.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:20 am

This tasering is really a very simple case. If the jurisdiction (Utah, county, or city) has a law that says motorists can be arrested if they refuse to sign a speeding ticket, then the cop was doing his job in arresting the guy. When the guy refused to cooperate, turned and walked away he was resisting and the use of force was justified in effecting the arrest. His behaviour made it clear that physical force would be needed to arrest him, and that makes the taser the lowest reasonable force option.

However, if the law in that jurisdiction does not make refusal to sign a ticket grounds for arrest, then the cop was entirely out of line. He should be facing discipline with his employer for attempting the arrest, and a criminal assault charge for using the taser.

Police are not limited to using force only for self defence. They are allowed to use as much force as reasonably necessary to carry out their lawful purpose. That means they can use force, such as tasers, to arrest a resistent person when they have the authority to make that arrest. Roadside lawyers rarely come out on top because they rarely know the law; they just think they do. They tend to get their asses kicked, arrested, charged, and found guilty of offences like obstructing or assaulting a peace officer. The best think to do is cooperate at the time, then check into what the law says. If the cop was wrong his evidence won't be admissable in court, you can make a formal complaint, or perhaps you can sue.

By the way Clunk, meatheads are not really police officers; they're glorified security guards for the military.

2R · Post by 2R » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:49 am

Perhaps if the police closed the roads when pulling over motorists things would get safer .Just like you cannot pass a school bus make it so you cannot pass a police car when it has the lights on .

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:39 am

Wilbur wrote: However, if the law in that jurisdiction does not make refusal to sign a ticket grounds for arrest, then the cop was entirely out of line. He should be facing discipline with his employer for attempting the arrest, and a criminal assault charge for using the taser.

The article I posted earlier says:

In the event that a motorist refuses to sign a trooper has two options, Roden said. One is to write "refuses to sign" on the citation, which is then given to the driver. The second is to arrest the driver.

Roden is the spokesperson for the UHP.

So my question is, why did the cop choose to arrest the driver instead of just writing "refused to sign" on the citation? He wanted to arrest the guy for being a jerk? I still say this cop escalated the situation all by himself.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:45 am

Did anyone else notice the cop never tells the guy he's being arrested until after he juices him?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:19 pm

Yeah ... he just tells him to get out of the vehicle, which the guy does immediately. Had the cop said, "ok, get out of the vehicle, I am placing you under arrest", I bet the driver would have said ... oh, ok, I'll sign the ticket under protest.

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:54 pm

I dunno... this quote is from the Utah Highway Patrol site:

If you are cited, try to remain calm and listen to what the trooper is telling you. Remember that by signing the citation you ARE NOT admitting guilt, it is just a promise to contact the court. If you don't sign, state law does give the trooper the authority to place you under arrest and transport you to jail or to the court to post bail.

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/Citations/citations.html

Seems to me you are required to sign the tickey.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:22 pm

Yes, if you walk away from an arrest you are resisting, and possibly escaping lawful custody. That's the law in this country. When a peace officer arrests you, the law expects you to cooperate whether or not you agree. The courtroom is where you get to argue your side of the story to a judge. If, in the end the cop didn't have legal authority to arrest you, you can sue for compensation.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:25 pm

Yes, if you walk away from an arrest you are resisting,

The cop in this video never tells the guy he's being arrested until after the guy has been juiced and is in cuffs. What was the guy supposed to be a mind reader?

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:39 am

The cop was giving clear instructions and this guy was not complying. You don't have to be "under arrest" before being required to comply with police instructions. If you are interfering with the police doing their job, you are obstructing.

A standard tactic in dealing with uncooperative people is to separate them from their audience. The guy made a stand against signing the ticket while in the car, infront of his wife/friend. It's going to be difficult for him to reverse that decision without eating crow infront of her. To make it easier for him to cooperate, the standard practice would be to separate them, explain the consequences of not signing, and help him save face. But this guy wanted none of that, turned and started walking back to his vehicle. So, he got himself arrested.

He would be advised of the fact he was under arrest, the reason, etc after he was securely in custody. There is no requirement for the police to tell you you are under arrest before placing you under arrest.

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:30 pm

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:35 pm

BoostedNihilist wrote:
He would be advised of the fact he was under arrest, the reason, etc after he was securely in custody. There is no requirement for the police to tell you you are under arrest before placing you under arrest.
Might be true in CANADA, different in the united states. In the united states you are told you are under arrest AS you are being arrested, otherwise it constitues a breach of your fourth amendment rights...

Bingo.
and after the guy is in the cruiser he asks the cop to read him his rights which the cop ignores.

The cop was giving clear instructions and this guy was not complying.

Why do you think the deaf are so afraid of the police.
It's against the law to ignore a police orders
It's not illegal to ignore instructions. Big difference. Nowhere in that video does that cop give an order as in ...I (the cop) order you to turn around and put your hands behind you.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:41 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlX ... re=related
<- this is the sort of thing I truly think should be shown in high school classes...
Granted this case primarily applies to the US;

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:48 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4 ... re=related

So a policy question here; does anyone know if officers have access to the recording equipment on board their cruisers? And would said recordings be within the range of a FOI request?
RE: If something goes sideways could the officer easily purge the data on the drives? And or after the fact could someone gain access to the data WITHOUT a court order?

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:25 pm

Now with all the talk about incompetent undertrained greenhorn officers; stumbled upon this little ditty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE_7NTBf ... re=related

now i don't know if everyone is going to agree with me or not, but I think this officer did a rather good job all and all,

Mig29 · Post by **Mig29** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:47 pm

that was dumb if you ask me, give him the ticket and go home....if he doesn't pay or show up in court, then arrest him, dont freakng tazer the guy!!?? whats wrong with this world?

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:34 am

"We found that Trooper Gardner's actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances," Davenport said at a news conference, joined by Scott Duncan, commissioner of the UHP's parent agency, the Utah Department of Public Safety.
The investigation was conducted by officials in the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the highway patrol. The officials have asked the Utah attorney general's office to also review the case to determine if laws were broken.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071201/ap_ ... TvrblI2ocA

Signing the ticket is a pledge to show up for court.
If you do not sign the ticket you can be arrested and made to post bail as a guarantee that you will show up for court.
Suddenly turning, putting your hand in your pocket, and walking towards your vehicle when you are clearly about to be arrested is a very, very bad idea.
What was his plan for when he got back to his car? Don't know, but there's no way I would have just stood there and waited to find out.
So if doing nothing is not an option what other choices are there?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:42 am

So if doing nothing is not an option what other choices are there?

Shoot him in the back with your Glock....

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:50 am

now just lay down here, Cat...."NURSE !!!... some cold compresses and restraints.....and 10 cc’s of angerdream....quickly !...can't you see this man is suffering from an advanced case of Dion's syndrome....?"

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:58 am

The lesson to be learned from watching that video is never turn your back on a cop because they may shoot you in the back.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:28 pm

Did you know: One can now buy felt marker sized 800mW lasers online...
The US military uses 125mW lasers to temporally blind their targets...
Photonic weapons are not in any way shape or form restricted in this (or any other country) so far as I am aware...

You can start fires with a 300mW laser....

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:35 pm

I haven't read what everyone says. But from what I see the guy didn't get tazzed because he wouldn't signed the ticket. He got tazed because he walked back to his car when the cop told him to stop.

I agree with the tazzing.

What would you all have said if he walked back to his car grabed a gun through the window which the passenger handed him and turned around and shot the cop?

You do not walk back to the car when an officer tells you not to, he doens't know you don't have a gun in the car. Do I need to post videos of this exact same scene but with the guy grabbing a gun and shooting the cop? There are videos I have seen them.