# Another tazing...



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

O.K.; I know these always lead to heated discussions, but I am really curious about this incident here, and whether or not you think that the cop was out of line...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> O.K.; I know these always lead to heated discussions, but I am really curious about this incident here, and whether or not you think that the cop was out of line...


 

I cant figure out enough of the situation. The playback on my comp is choppy for some reason. The cop pointed the taser at the guy and started giving orders to put his hands behind him and the guy smirked and started walking back to the car. Unless theres more to it I dont see the problem. I wouldnt let him get back to the car and drive off or get a gun.The cop obviously was arresting him for something. But like I said I cant seem to hear everything.

I love the "read me my rights!" stuff though. People have no idea what miranda is about....


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

I don't see the problem either.  The driver there refused to sign a ticket, I think, but then when the policeman told him to turn around, he started walking away.  Then the policeman tased him.  I don't see anything weird here.


----------



## thardey (Nov 21, 2007)

My understanding is that the signing of the ticket is not an admission to speeding, but your signature that the cop actually gave you the ticket, so you can't claim ignorance, or something. 

If he wanted to fight the ticket, he should fight it in court, where you're supposed to.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

Was he arresting him for refusal to sign? Like I said, I cant make out much of the audio....


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

I'll try to clarify what I am wondering about here.

What I saw was this...

The dude was basically getting speeding ticket; and I guess in that state you have to sign the ticket? Anyway, the guy refused to sign, and said that he didn't agree, and that he wanted to go back and see those speed limit signs, and he had a right to know how fast he was clocked at.

The cop told him to step out of the car.

The guy complied but he had an attitude and was kind of waving his hands around and being argumentative. 

This is where it gets tricky.

The cop told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back while at the same time unholstering and pointing a tazer at him.

The guy turns around and takes a couple of steps towards his own car, but does not put his hands behind his back. He doesn't really continue towards his car expediantly, or indicate a motivation to do something violent or initiate an escape. His back his turned away from the cop as was asked, but his head is turned and he is saying to the cop, "what's wrong with you!?"

Then the cop tazes him. 

Now clearly, the guy who got pulled over was a dick. But, I have a number of questions here regarding the entire incident.

1. What is up with signing the ticket? Why does someone have to sign a ticket or be arrested? Does the signature mean he is waving his right to fight the ticket, or is that just to verify that he recieved the ticket? I don't see why someone would have to sign something or go to jail in this circumstance, but then again I am not familiar with this proceedure.

2. From what I could tell on the video, the cop refused to tell the guy what he was clocked at. Doesn't the guy have a right to know what he is being clocked at?

3. Shouldn't the guy have been told that he would be arrested if he didn't sign the ticket? Or perhaps it is best to cuff him 1st to prevent incident, then tell him?

4. The cop seemed overly ready to taze this guy. I'm glad I am not in this cops shoes because I would have probably felt the same way. But he pulled the tazer out while he was instructing the guy to turn around. If I were the guy at the traffic stop, I would have felt threatened by this.

5. The cop didn't warn the guy that he was going to taze him. I know it should have been obvious that this was going to happen, but I would think that he would have wanted to say it at least once.

6. I will say that if I were in the cops shoes, I may have pulled the tazer trigger as well; but my reasoning is because from the video angle the dude looked like he was fishing in his pocket in the same way people fish for pocket clipped folding knives after the cop told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back. The cop did not mention anything about this, though, on the video, and instead only talked about how this guy thought he was "in charge." So I have to assume that this was not his line of thinking.

Anyway, I know that these details are what makes being an LE difficult; I am sure that all these questions will come up for the officer in court, and he may very well be a good officer.

My opinion as it stands right now is that there is no question that the driver was a complete jerk. But, I think that the cop could have used better communication skills prior to the tazing, and that maybe this could have been avoided. BUT, I do not know if this makes the act of tazing unjustified. 

That is my opinion and questions so far; and I really do not know the answer of whether or not this is completely justifiable or not. That is why I posted it; hopefully some other observations and opinions here can set me straight...


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 21, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> I don't see the problem either. The driver there refused to sign a ticket, I think, but then when the policeman told him to turn around, he started walking away. Then the policeman tased him. I don't see anything weird here.


 
Let me give it a shot...

The problem is that he shouldn't have to sign the ticket!  In fact, he shouldn't even have been given a ticket in the first place!  He was exercising his right to protest against oppressive traffic laws!  By going fast!  And got tazed for it, bro!  It's the coming police state!  It's UnAmerican to do what the police or anyone else wants you to do!

That should about cover it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

All good points Cru. But on the "he never warned the guy he was going to be taserd" thing...I think having a cop point one at me and the little red dot on my torso would be a pretty good clue what was coming lol!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

The whole "get out of the car and sign this..." thing seems kind of dangerous from an officer safety standpoint. Espically if you are alone. If you are going to give the guy a ticket, I would think it would be better to have a system where you just write one, give it to him and leave.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> All good points Cru. But on the "he never warned the guy he was going to be taserd" thing...I think having a cop point one at me and the little red dot on my torso would be a pretty good clue what was coming lol!



lol... no kidding!


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The whole "get out of the car and sign this..." thing seems kind of dangerous from an officer safety standpoint. Espically if you are alone. If you are going to give the guy a ticket, I would think it would be better to have a system where you just write one, give it to him and leave.


Right.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2007)

Well, I suppose we could nerf people into compliance.  But it doesn't seem to work so well and next thing you know someone will choke to death on an errantly aimed nerf projectile.

If people disagree with having to sign a speeding ticket, they can have their day in court with some high-powered civil rights attorneys...it's a better alternative than having high-powered wires stuck in your skin.  Besides, the civil rights case would have more effect on more people depending on the outcome.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

Ray said:


> Well, I suppose we could nerf people into compliance.  But it doesn't seem to work so well and next thing you know someone will choke to death on an errantly aimed nerf projectile.
> 
> If people disagree with having to sign a speeding ticket, they can have their day in court with some high-powered civil rights attorneys...it's a better alternative than having high-powered wires stuck in your skin.  Besides, the civil rights case would have more effect on more people depending on the outcome.



But I think it is fair to wonder about what it means to sign a ticket in this case. I also think it is fair to wonder if an arrest is warrented over deciding to not sign something in this case.

I definatily agree, though, that court is the place to object to these things.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 21, 2007)

thardey said:


> My understanding is that the signing of the ticket is not an admission to speeding, but your signature that the cop actually gave you the ticket, so you can't claim ignorance, or something.
> 
> If he wanted to fight the ticket, he should fight it in court, where you're supposed to.


It's different in different states.  In some, there's no signature required.  The cop fills out the ticket, and hands it to you.  In others, there's an optional signature line.  (I don't get that one...)  And, in still others like Virginia, there's a required signature.  When you sign a Uniform Traffic Summons (otherwise known as a ticket) in Virginia on the side of the road, you're not admitting guilt; you are simply promising to appear in court on the indicated date and time.  (Yes, that's a spiel I've given a time or 2000...)  It's just a promise to appear, in lieu of being taken before a magistrate, and being released on some sort of bond (which would often be Personal Recognizance).  If you don't sign a ticket in Virginia, you WILL be arrested.  You WILL go before a magistrate.  And, if I have to use force to achieve that goal, I will.  

With that out of the way, I've got some criticisms about how this was handled, but it was also clear that the driver wasn't going to comply and sign the ticket without some persuasion.  The use of the Taser to effect the arrest did appear to be within the policy of several agencies that I'm familiar with; the Taser is placed at about the same level as empty hands.  The officer was justified in grabbing the guy (it would have helped if he had advised that he was under arrest in plain words).

In short -- I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again.  Here in the US, go with the program.  Settle the issue of whether the cop was right or wrong later, not on the side of the road.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

That makes things clearer. Thanks.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 21, 2007)

Looks to me like the cop made a valid call.  Not the _best_ call...he was clearly in no danger, and some of his actions escalated the situation rather than calmed it.

But he was definitely within his rights to use nonlethal force.  Even if it might have been smarter to choose not to use it.


----------



## kuntawguro (Nov 21, 2007)

There are certain things that I take for granted in this life
1. if you pee on an electric fence- it is gonna hurt
2. If you stick your finger into an electric fan you might lose a finger. 
3. Snarling dogs do not want to be petted.
4. If an officer aims a weapon or tazer at you don't challenge him to use it


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2007)

Some days I am so very glad that I don't live in America.  

I wasn't in the cops shoes, so I can't say that I know what was going through his mind.  If it was "This jerks disrespecting my authority, I'll larn 'im!" then he did wrong.  If it was "This jerks going for a gun!" then no argument.

The proviso stands, as I raised in the 'other' tazer thread, let 'them' (aka the enforcement arm of the authorities) get away with it once and it'll happen again.  They're notionally there for the protection of the citizenry, not the oppression of same.

I mean no offence to the likes of *Drac* or *Jks*, who I have come to view as level-headed and good-hearted people, but the profession of 'Generic American Police Officer' does not, however unfairly, have a good reputation over here {like our opinion matters one whit :lol:}.  

I suppose that in part this comes from the movies ... and we know what a good guide to any subject they are .  The upshot of it is that whenever we see reports of a trans-Atlantic LEO acting like the law does not apply to him, English eyebrows rise in the "What else did you expect?" fashion.  

Again, this arises from the very (supposedly) different 'stature' of a person here than in America.  We're 'subjects', whatever free-thinking delusions we shroud ourselves in.  As such, we do as we're told or it's the modern equivalent of the stocks for us until we learn our place.  

You chaps are supposed to be freer than that and I'm constantly amazed at the simple acceptance that a policeman can do what he likes to you.  I'm even more amazed at the hostility I've seen, even here at MT, to the simple suggestion that perhaps allowing your police force to, say, Tazer you for being stroppy about a speeding offence, is hardly in keeping with the spirit of how things are supposed to be in your land.  The fact that someone like me, so far away and uninvolved doesn't think it's (pun attack, yeah !) shocking is damning in and of itself.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2007)

It's all a matter of proportional response, in the end.

If the police responding to this crime had stuck the felons head on a pike then I wouldn't murmur a word (providing it wasn't another of our famous miscarriages of justice):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7105483.stm


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 21, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I mean no offence to the likes of *Drac* or *Jks*, who I have come to view as level-headed and good-hearted people, but the profession of 'Generic American Police Officer' does not, however unfairly, have a good reputation over here {like our opinion matters one whit :lol:}.


I'm glad to here that I've at least overcome one stereotype in my life!  NOw if I can only get through the other 1000 or so...  


> I suppose that in part this comes from the movies ... and we know what a good guide to any subject they are . The upshot of it is that whenever we see reports of a trans-Atlantic LEO acting like the law does not apply to him, English eyebrows rise in the "What else did you expect?" fashion.


Very few TV shows or movies paint an even halfway realistic version of what a cop does, or the conditions he does it in.  Not even (or perhaps especially not) *COPS*, "filmed on location with the men and women of law enforcement."  In reality, most cops are guys or gals out there doing their level best to do a very tough, very unpopular job in the best and most fair way they can.


> Again, this arises from the very (supposedly) different 'stature' of a person here than in America. We're 'subjects', whatever free-thinking delusions we shroud ourselves in. As such, we do as we're told or it's the modern equivalent of the stocks for us until we learn our place.
> 
> You chaps are supposed to be freer than that and I'm constantly amazed at the simple acceptance that a policeman can do what he likes to you. I'm even more amazed at the hostility I've seen, even here at MT, to the simple suggestion that perhaps allowing your police force to, say, Tazer you for being stroppy about a speeding offence, is hardly in keeping with the spirit of how things are supposed to be in your land. The fact that someone like me, so far away and uninvolved doesn't think it's (pun attack, yeah !) shocking is damning in and of itself.


 
Police actions aren't all that accepted here; remember that you're dealing with a small subset of responses in this forum.  There are plenty of folks who are very vocal about disliking what cops do.  I think it's fair to say that most agencies are at least seriously threatened with at least one law suit a year, and I'm confident all recieve at least one complaint a month.  Whether the complaint is unfounded or valid is a different question.

I've got my criticisms of this incident, and I admit that I'm choosing not to air them.  The officer could have done a better job communicating what was going on, and why the driver had to sign the ticket.  At the end of the video, he's seen telling another officer about what happened.  I suspect that the way he's telling it there (which has a few notable differences from the video's sequence) is really what he thinks happened; under pressure, the mind goes blank and does some funny things.  I do think that his use of force was very justifiable.  As I've said, I've got criticisms, but they don't rise to "he was ****ed up to do that!"

But this incident does drive one issue home.  When cops are taking enforcement action against you, whether it's a ticket or a physical arrest... go with the program.  Pick you battlefield, and it shouldn't be on the side of the road.  You'll never win there...  All this driver had to do was sign the ticket.  He then could have gone back and looked at all the signs; he could have complained on the officer; he could have fought the ticket in court.  Instead, he argued and got bullheaded... and was arrested and Tased for it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2007)

I certainly can't disagree with your views, *Jks*, as clearly and expertly expressed as ever.  I've said it before but it bears iterating, MT is much enriched by the prescence of such as yourself when we turn to talking on law-making-law-breaking specific matters like this one :tup: and :rei:.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 21, 2007)

i usually watch these videos and go "That ******* had it coming" but in this case, I have to wonder about that Cop's judgement.  The guy shouldnt have argued it alongside the road, sure... (but I dunno about where he is from, but here it is almost pointless to argue the ticket in court... 99% of the time the judge gives the benefit of the doubt to the cop, and even if he sides with you and tosses the ticket a 75$ speeding ticket turns into 150+ in "manditory court fees") but at the same time he was not being "combative" in a sense that the cop had any reason to "shoot him in the back."

The cop didn't remain calm with an upset motorist, refused to show him his "crime", made him more irate, and then used (IMO) an unreasonable level of force.   All I can say is thank god for stun guns or that cop probably would have shot that kid in the back with a bullet.​


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 21, 2007)

Yeah. I agree the cop could have done things much better. But its not like the motorist was "yes officer where do I sign....." ZZZAAAAPPPP!!!! Once the cop is yelling to put your hands behind your back and pointing a taser at you, its time to wake up and realize what your options are. Aparently in some places refusing to sign the ticket can result in arrest (I learn something new everyday). Yes the cop should have told the guy that, but the taser in the face tells you that not signing has its consequences I guess. 

In the end, I guess hes right by the letter of the law, but if I were his supervisor Id be addressing the way he deals with people.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

What everyone is saying here makes sense, and I was thinking along the same lines: that the motorist deserves both a darwin award and a jerk award, but that the officer could have handled it better.

Thanks for your viewpoints!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 21, 2007)

I have no qualifications to armchair this; however, it seems to me that all of this is taking place awfully close to traffic. From what I understand, stopping motorists by the road is a pretty risky business for LEOs. It seems that when the officer is cuffing the guy and taking the wires out of him, either of them could have been hit.

Again, without taking sides on this, the driver sure seems to be going out of his way to be uncooperative. I don't know what it's like in Utah, but around here, tickets are beaten in court.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 21, 2007)

First, I will repost what I did on another thread about police officer use-of-force:

This issue was determined in the case of Graham vs. Conner. Basically it goes something like this:

*The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.* 

So, in determining the legality of the officers actions, it is irrelavent as to wheter he did it because he didnt like the guys attitiude and wanted to teach him a lesson.  The reason they stated for this is that they dont want to excuse unreasonable force for a well-intention officer, as well as reasonable force by an ill-intentioned officer.

In this particular situation, one has to examine the actions of the suspect: 

1.  In refusing to sign the ticket, he could have raised the alertness level of the suspect.  Most people do not refuse to sign a citation when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer.  This is unusual behavior.  Second, he is disobeying a lawful order of a police officer by not signing it.  In my state (California) this is a misdemeanor which would subject a person to arrest under Vehicle Code Section 40302(b): 

*40302*.  Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this
*code*, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken
without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in
which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who
has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible
with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the
following cases:

   (b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise
to appear in court.

This is a *shall* be taken, not a *could*  be taken, though I dont know the verbage used in this officers particular state.

Secondly, is it reasonable, while looking at the video, that it could be seen that the suspect was walking past the officer, behind his back in order to assault him or flee.  Not was it likely, but, based on the officers level of training and experience, could his actions be reasonably percieved as such.  

Consider then, that based on this officers perceptions, that when he orders the subject to turn around and place his hands on his hands, the suspect does not comply.  The officer orders him to turn around for a second and third time, all with non-compliance of the suspect.

As the suspect is walking away, you can clearly see that it appears that he reaching into his pocket with his right hand.  Is it then reasonable, based on the suspects previous non-compliant behavior, that he could be reaching for a weapon of some type?

Now, from that perspective, could one see it as reasonable and justifiable for the officer to have tasered the suspect?

Now, could his tactics have been a little cleaner.  Absolutely.  

1.  When I first tell a suspect to sign a ticket, I advise him that it is not an admission of guilt, but only a promise to appear on or before the listed court date.  If he refuses to sign, I will then tell him that he will be subject to arrest.  If he still refuses to sign then I tell him to get out.

2. After I order a suspect out of a car, I would never turn my back to him.  This means that he never would have been able to get behind me.  I would have ordered him to walk in front of me, and go to a specific location.  That way, if the suspect did not do exactly as I said, I would be further justified in any subsequent use-of-force.

Maybe I am being a bit technical, but being a police use-of-force expert, this is the way I would explain it in court.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 21, 2007)

Its a damn fool thing to make a law that someone HAS to sign a ticket (traffic violation).  If that were NOT the case, none of this would have happened.  It only leads to trouble!


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Maybe I am being a bit technical, but being a police use-of-force expert, this is the way I would explain it in court.



Thanks for taking the time to explain from your perspective.

The only thing I am curious about is what credentials make you a "police use-of force expert." I'm not challenging anything; I'm just curious.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 22, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> I have no qualifications to armchair this; however, it seems to me that all of this is taking place awfully close to traffic. From what I understand, stopping motorists by the road is a pretty risky business for LEOs. It seems that when the officer is cuffing the guy and taking the wires out of him, either of them could have been hit.
> 
> Again, without taking sides on this, the driver sure seems to be going out of his way to be uncooperative. I don't know what it's like in Utah, but around here, tickets are beaten in court.


 
Actually, I'd suggest that the traffic is an argument in favor of the Taser over going to some hands-on tactic.  With the Taser, you drop, pretty much right there.  That's much preferable to some sort of human tug-o'-war on the side of the highway.  It also is less likely to cause serious injury.  



5-0 Kenpo said:


> In this particular situation, one has to examine the actions of the suspect:
> 
> 1. In refusing to sign the ticket, he could have raised the alertness level of the suspect. Most people do not refuse to sign a citation when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer. This is unusual behavior. Second, he is disobeying a lawful order of a police officer by not signing it. In my state (California) this is a misdemeanor which would subject a person to arrest under Vehicle Code Section 40302(b):
> 
> ...


 
Great breakdown, and I agree.  Once I get you out of your car, you don't go back until I'm ready.  Personally, I'd have advised him that if he continued to refuse to sign, I'd have to arrest him.  I _might_ give him one last chance after I get him out of the car; sometimes, you have to remember the audience, and give them a chance to back down without being seen as weak.  But you lose any options when you turn your back on me.  It's a harbinger of more resistance to come; it's called conspicous ignoring.  Think about it; this guy was presented with a uniformed officer, giving him orders with a Taser out.  It would have been cleaner had he said "Fine; you won't sign, you're under arrest", but the show of authority is sufficient.  How many people aren't going to get the idea real quick that they need to do what the cop says?  Instead, this guy turned his back, and proceeded back towards the car, reaching into a pocket.  What's he going to do?  Why is he so comfortable going away in this situation?  



newGuy12 said:


> Its a damn fool thing to make a law that someone HAS to sign a ticket (traffic violation). If that were NOT the case, none of this would have happened. It only leads to trouble!


 
Nope; it depends on what the ticket means.  In Virginia, the summons is issued in lieu of a custodial arrest and taking the accused before the magistrate to ensure their appearance at court.  They're simply being permitted to do what the magistrate is likely to do anyway, and allowing you to sign your name, indicating that you'll come to court.  They further may receive the option to enter their appearance in writing and plead guilty, prepaying the standard fine.  

What would have prevented this is, first and foremost, the driver NOT SPEEDING.  If he'd obeyed the speed limits, he'd never have been stopped.  Even then, he had the opportunity to avoid further problems; he didn't have to start arguing about the ticket on the side of the road, demanding to see the speed limit signs.  Even after that, he had a further opportunity; all he had to do was sign the ticket, and he'd have been on his way.  But, he still had the opportunity avoid the Taser; he just had to comply with the officer's directions to put his hand behind his back, and there'd have been no use of the Taser.  And, you know, he still had at least one more chance to avoid the Taser.  Had he simply stopped, and not kept moving toward his car...  Guess what probably wouldn't have happened?

That makes something like 5 or 6 choices that the driver made that led to him getting to "ride the lightning."  Instead, each choice he made moved him further along the path to being Tased.

I keep saying it.  If you think the cops are wrong, there's a time and place for the battle.  Go with the program, whether it's being told to quiet a party, being given a ticket, or being arrested; fight the charges at court.  File a complaint on the officer afterwards.  Don't put him and you in a position neither of you is going to enjoy.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Thanks for taking the time to explain from your perspective.
> 
> The only thing I am curious about is what credentials make you a "police use-of force expert." I'm not challenging anything; I'm just curious.


 

No offense taken.  My credentials are training as an instructor by CA Police Officers Standards and Training, the police certifiation oversight (for lack of a better term) of police agencies in California.  Also, I have been certified in court as a use-of-force expert.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 22, 2007)

My many thanks for the information full responses given above.  

I know that it is very easy to err on either side of the fence on an issue like this one and the well written posts I've just read work very well for giving a 'professional' perspective on the incident.

Being told what the laws actually are makes a difference to the interpretation of the scene too.

Add those together and altho', like others have said above, the thing could've been better handled and might've been possibly resolved without the use of electricity, I am much mollified on the 'civil rights' issues inherent in the matter.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 22, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> What would have prevented this is, first and foremost, the driver NOT SPEEDING.  If he'd obeyed the speed limits, he'd never have been stopped.  Even then, he had the opportunity to avoid further problems; he didn't have to start arguing about the ticket on the side of the road, demanding to see the speed limit signs.  Even after that, he had a further opportunity; all he had to do was sign the ticket, and he'd have been on his way.  But, he still had the opportunity avoid the Taser; he just had to comply with the officer's directions to put his hand behind his back, and there'd have been no use of the Taser.  And, you know, he still had at least one more chance to avoid the Taser.  Had he simply stopped, and not kept moving toward his car...  Guess what probably wouldn't have happened?



With everything you said you are probably right, however, I'm willing to give the driver the bennefit of the doubt on the first one and assume he genuinley didnt believe he was speeding.



jks9199 said:


> I keep saying it.  If you think the cops are wrong, there's a time and place for the battle.  Go with the program, whether it's being told to quiet a party, being given a ticket, or being arrested; fight the charges at court.  File a complaint on the officer afterwards.  Don't put him and you in a position neither of you is going to enjoy.



And again, my only comments on this is that we are almost pre-programed to fail at this... I dont know about anyplace else, but in Illinois it is common for the Judge to side with the officer regardless.  The argument to "Take it to court" is about as pointless as arguing with the cop, 90% (my own estimation) of the time all it does is cost you more without clearing the ticket.  I can think of a few instances this isnt true in, but they are rare, and the cop was exceptionally in the wrong.  

I did go back and re-watch the video, and I did see the guy do some things that _could have_ been _maybe _potentally threatening to the cop... or he could have been just one of _those _cops.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 22, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> And again, my only comments on this is that we are almost pre-programed to fail at this... I dont know about anyplace else, but in Illinois it is common for the Judge to side with the officer regardless. The argument to "Take it to court" is about as pointless as arguing with the cop, 90% (my own estimation) of the time all it does is cost you more without clearing the ticket. I can think of a few instances this isnt true in, but they are rare, and the cop was exceptionally in the wrong.


 
I dont want to come off as snide or sarcastic but what is it you are recommending, arguing/disobeying the lawful order of the cop at the scene? Or driving off or fighting? You have a valid point, but what are you saying should be done?


----------



## MarkBarlow (Nov 22, 2007)

I've been pulled over a couple of times when I knew with absolute certainty that I was not speeding.  After telling the officer that I wasn't speeding and being told that I was, the discussion ended there.  It was "yes, sir" & "no, sir" from start to finish.  The side of the road is not the place to debate a ticket.  In both cases I went to traffic court and one ticket was overturned and the other wasn't.  

Even a simple traffic stop is a high-stress situation for LEOs.  Toss in an uncooperative citizen and a wife who kept popping out of the vehicle screaming and I'm sure the cop's anxiety level was fairly high.  Do I think he tazer'd too soon?  Yes, but I wasn't there so my opinion isn't worth much.  Do I think the driver deserved to be arrested?  Oh, yeah.  By acting like a 10 year old arguing with his mom over bedtime rather than a husband and father concerned with his family while dealing with a unpleasant but not life-threatening situation, he potentially put everyone at risk.  The officer had no way of knowing if he was about to run or was heading to the SUV for a weapon.  Statistics show that domestic calls are among the most dangerous for LEOs to deal with and the wife could have easily had a weapon.  All in all, I think it was handled within the guidelines.  No one came out looking great but everyone went home alive.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 22, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> 1. What is up with signing the ticket? Why does someone have to sign a ticket or be arrested? Does the signature mean he is waving his right to fight the ticket, or is that just to verify that he recieved the ticket? I don't see why someone would have to sign something or go to jail in this circumstance, but then again I am not familiar with this proceedure.
> 
> 2. From what I could tell on the video, the cop refused to tell the guy what he was clocked at. Doesn't the guy have a right to know what he is being clocked at?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not an LEO, but I've been pulled over for speeding a few times, so I'll try to answer these.  

1. Signing the ticket doesn't wave your right to fight the ticket.  All three times I've been given a ticket, the officers explained the 4 options (in Florida, anyway) for responding: pay the fine and get the points, take a class to not get points and reduce the fine, contest the ticket in court, and a 4th option that I can't recall at the moment.  With contesting the ticket being an option, signing the thing obviously doesn't waive the right, unless all 3 officers were misrepresenting the law to me.  

2. I don't know if the guy has a right to, but I know that the citations you get (again, at least in Florida) will have the clocked speed listed, for purposes of record.  Whether the cop tells you what speed he clocked you at, though, is something to contest in court, not during the pull-over.  I know that much. 

3. If a cop puts cuffs on you, he's arresting you, and has to advise you of this.  He doesn't have to tell you that something you're about to do will end up with you being arrested--theoretically, people know the law--but if the cuffs go on, the mirandas get read; at that point, you're in custody. 

4. The guy had been argumentative enough, I think, to warrant the officer preparing the tazer.  Still, I agree with you that it might seem a bit overzealous.  Like I said, I'm not an LEO, so I can't make a claim about it. 

5. If a cop points a gun at you, you presume he means business.  Same with a tazer.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Looks to me like the cop made a valid call.  Not the _best_ call...he was clearly in no danger, and some of his actions escalated the situation rather than calmed it.
> 
> But he was definitely within his rights to use nonlethal force.  Even if it might have been smarter to choose not to use it.



I was re-reading some posts and came across yours and have a question:

How is it the you determined the the officer was "clearly in no danger"?  That seems like a pretty bold statement to make, especially when you don't see it from the physical perspective of the officer himself, and are rather looking at it in hindsight on a computer screen at home/office.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 22, 2007)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> 3. If a cop puts cuffs on you, he's arresting you, and has to advise you of this. He doesn't have to tell you that something you're about to do will end up with you being arrested--theoretically, people know the law--but if the cuffs go on, the mirandas get read; at that point, you're in custody.


 
You're wrong on multiple counts.

The Supreme Court has held that arrest doesn't occur with the magic words; it occurs with the combination of display of authority and submission to that authority.  It becomes resisting when someone with lawful authority displays that authority AND you fail to submit.  Ideally, the cop advises you that "You are under arrest", but it's not a magical phrase.

And the only time you should hear Miranda rights is when the elements of custody and questioning are both present.  I've arrested many, many people without reading them their rights because I wasn't going to question them.  I've questioned even more without reading them their rights because they weren't in custody.  Only when both custody (as defined in numerous rulings) and questioning (as defined in more rulings) are BOTH present does Miranda come into play.  It's even possible to be given a Miranda warning without being arrested, if the situation is one which the courts have determined is similar enough to formal arrest.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 22, 2007)

Well I finally had a chance to look at the video.  First off the LEO in this situation did a really poor job of handling/managing the situation from maintaining control and also from the aspect of selling the ticket.  He also jumped quickly to arrest mode when he could have explained a little more.  It does appear by video that he either was on edge or was having a bad day. (though of course this is just speculation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) This tasering in my opinion was ultimately the officer's responsibility.  

Now having said that the driver was not a saint either and does, yes he does indeed bear some responsibility for being tasered as well.  Jks9199 summed it up accurately in that you should not argue about a ticket at the side of the road.  It is simply dangerous all the way around not only for you but also for the officer involved.  Instead of arguing at the side of the road simply accept the ticket and if you want to refute it *then do so in court for your safety and the officer's involved.*


Law enforcement work is very, very difficult and challenging and in the United States of America we do on average have the finest Law Enforcement Officer's in the world.  Still the job is a very tough, meat grinder and it will never be perfect!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well I finally had a chance to look at the video. First off the LEO in this situation did a really poor job of handling/managing the situation from maintaining control and also from the aspect of selling the ticket.


 
What do you mean by *selling the ticket*? I am not sure I quite understand what you mean. If you mean what I said before, that he could have explained that if he did not sign the ticket, he would go to jail, then I understand. But from an enforcement standpoint, it is not necessary to sell anything. 



> He also jumped quickly to arrest mode when he could have explained a little more. It does appear by video that he either was on edge or was having a bad day. (though of course this is just speculation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What do you mean by *his responsibility*? If you mean that you believe that if he had used other tactics he could have potentially modified the suspects behavior, preventing the *need* to have to taser him, then I agree. But are you saying that the use-of-force was unjustified?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I dont want to come off as snide or sarcastic but what is it you are recommending, arguing/disobeying the lawful order of the cop at the scene? Or driving off or fighting? You have a valid point, but what are you saying should be done?



Nope. Im just saying be prepared, you likley cant win either way... and you are probably better off sucking it up and taking the ticket.  The advice to "fight it in court" isn't the best either, unless you have extra cash to spare.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What do you mean by *selling the ticket*? I am not sure I quite understand what you mean. If you mean what I said before, that he could have explained that if he did not sign the ticket, he would go to jail, then I understand. But from an enforcement standpoint, it is not necessary to sell anything.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by *his responsibility*? If you mean that you believe that if he had used other tactics he could have potentially modified the suspects behavior, preventing the *need* to have to taser him, then I agree. But are you saying that the use-of-force was unjustified?


 
Common phrase in the LEO world is that you need to sell the ticket so that it is easier to stomach for the offending person.  I learned this in the academy in 1992.  By selling you explain: why you pulled them over, how fast they were going, why you are writing the ticket in general another  tactic used is to let's say someone was going fifteen miles over the limit to only write them over for 1 to 5 mph so the ticket costs less for them.  Further when you encounter somone who is being difficult that may mean that you have to go over things *a couple of times to explain it more thoroughly*.  In the end if you write a ticket and they accept it then there is alot less paperwork, time, effort, etc into the encounter than if you say *arrest someone or tazer*, etc.  In the end I imagine that this officer wishes he had handled this situation differntly.

As to the question of *his responsibility* it flows in line with selling the ticket or explaining the reason for the ticket.  I think if the officer had done a better job of that then this encoutner might have been handled better.

As to the use of force *being unjustified *so many factors go into this and the *officers perception* of what the offender was going to do or the feeling that the officer perceived that it is hard to figure that out based just solo off this video.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 23, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Nope. Im just saying be prepared, you likley cant win either way... and you are probably better off sucking it up and taking the ticket. The advice to "fight it in court" isn't the best either, unless you have extra cash to spare.


 
Ok. I would still say that "fighting it in court" is still an option. I think most people just pay up and dont take it to court. You dont need an attorney for a traffic ticket and if the officer fails to show up or file the right paperwork you may just get it dismissed. If its for some equipment violation that you get fixed before you go to court you could at least save some money.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 23, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ok. I would still say that "fighting it in court" is still an option. I think most people just pay up and dont take it to court. You dont need an attorney for a traffic ticket and if the officer fails to show up or file the right paperwork you may just get it dismissed. If its for some equipment violation that you get fixed before you go to court you could at least save some money.


 
Yup.  It costs nothing but the time off from work to appear in court and say "I dispute this ticket because ______".  The worst that can happen is that the judge will uphold the ticket.  It only get expensive if you have a bunch of points on your license and really need that ticket to go away.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Common phrase in the LEO world is that you need to sell the ticket so that it is easier to stomach for the offending person.  I learned this in the academy in 1992.  By selling you explain: why you pulled them over, how fast they were going, why you are writing the ticket in general another  tactic used is to let's say someone was going fifteen miles over the limit to only write them over for 1 to 5 mph so the ticket costs less for them.  Further when you encounter somone who is being difficult that may mean that you have to go over things *a couple of times to explain it more thoroughly*.  In the end if you write a ticket and they accept it then there is alot less paperwork, time, effort, etc into the encounter than if you say *arrest someone or tazer*, etc.  In the end I imagine that this officer wishes he had handled this situation differntly.
> 
> As to the question of *his responsibility* it flows in line with selling the ticket or explaining the reason for the ticket.  I think if the officer had done a better job of that then this encoutner might have been handled better.
> 
> As to the use of force *being unjustified *so many factors go into this and the *officers perception* of what the offender was going to do or the feeling that the officer perceived that it is hard to figure that out based just solo off this video.


It's one way of explaining it; I'd question if it's common.  I think that it's lifted out of Thompson's Verbal Judo program, but i'm not certain.  The main phrasing I recall from the academy is to "explain", "read", or "issue", but I know I've heard the "selling" phrasing before.

As to fighting a ticket...  If the cop has done his job right, there's not much room to fight.  If I'm using radar, I'm trained, the device was calibrated, tested, and shown to be working properly before and after I issued the citation, the posted speed was verified (the signs were still up), and I was in my assigned uniform, displaying my badge of authority.  Defective equipment... it's either working, or not.  Same thing with dead tags, etc.  Stop signs and red lights can be a little more subjective; did they slow or stop, or did they enter the intersection under the red?  There's some room to argue, but not a lot.  And -- in my experience, we've got some judges that do tend to side with the cop, most judges are fair, and some judges who tend to side with the defendant.  In general -- I'd say most of the judges I've been in front of have been pretty fair.

Also -- if you really feel that the cop was just plain wrong in giving you a ticket, or in how he behaved...  You do have the right to file a complaint or talk to his supervisor.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> With everything you said you are probably right, however, I'm willing to give the driver the bennefit of the doubt on the first one and assume he genuinley didnt believe he was speeding.
> 
> ...
> 
> I did go back and re-watch the video, and I did see the guy do some things that _could have_ been _maybe _potentally threatening to the cop... or he could have been just one of _those _cops.


 
The driver was interviewed on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/23/intv.tasered.speeder.speaks.cnn

He claims he didn't know he was speeding; I'll give him that.  Lots of people miss speed limit signs or don't notice that they've sped up.

But he claims he thought the Taser was a real gun.  Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't know much about guns.  The Taser X26 is kind of gun shaped.  So...  Let's compare his behavior with his statements.  

Cop tells you to get of the car, and then to put your hands behind your back.  Your response is to turn around.  H'mmm...  Now, you look and see the cop has a gun out on you.  And your response is to pretty calmly walk back towards your car?  Sorry, that's NOT a typical or normal response.  In the times I've pointed a gun at people, I've received about three responses: they freeze and do NOTHING, they comply, or they start yelling "don't shoot me!"  (I've been lucky; none has taken the fourth option of continuing to resist, and getting shot.)

Sorry; I don't buy that he thought the cop was pointing a real gun at him.  His behaviors just don't support the statement.  I'm hesitant to read his body language during the interview, given how little of him they show -- but it's interesting to note that about the only time you got any real body language out of him was as he was saying he thought it was a gun.  And that was a small headshake...  Not necessarily or solely a sign of deception -- but significant.

I think, understandably, he was pissed about being Tased and pissed about being arrested over a speeding ticket.  Now he's riding his five minutes of fame, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's sueing the Utah Highway Patrol.  It would be interesting to know the outcome of the charges...  was the driver convicted?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 23, 2007)

Nice supplemental video jks9199!  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 23, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> It only get expensive if you have a bunch of points on your license and really need that ticket to go away.



Not here... State Maniditory court costs, even if the ticket is dismissed, are often over $150.00

Whats a licence point?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Not here... State Maniditory court costs, even if the ticket is dismissed, are often over $150.00
> 
> Whats a licence point?


I'm confused... How do they assess fees if you're acquited or the charges are dismissed?  That sounds like they're fining you, no matter what!  In VA, if you are acquited (found not guilty) or the ticket is dismissed, you don't pay.  You will pay costs, no matter what, if you're convicted.  In other words -- if you ain't found guilty, you pay nothing.  If you are found guilty, at a minimum, you pay the court costs (and now, for certain offenses, the abusive driver fees) even if the judge suspends the fine. 

As to points...  The exact process is different in different states, but most have some sort of driver improvement/demerit system.  They're basically demerit points against your license if you get tickets.  Get too many points, and you are exposed to different sanctions, up to and including suspension of your privilege to drive.  In some states, but NOT VIRGINIA (common misunderstanding in my area, because they can in Maryland), the judge can waive the points, usually in exchange for attending traffic school (driver refresher training).


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 23, 2007)

Someone on another forum pointed something out.  At 2:30: after the officer tells the guy to get out of the car, he walks back to his car and sets the clipboard down.  The guy follows him back to the car.  When the officer turns, the guy's right behind him with one hand in his pocket and one arm raised to point at something behind the patrol car.  When the guy walks away he is still doing something with his pocket, either putting something in it or taking something out.  

It looked like the officer didn't expect the guy to be right behind him like that.  He told him to get out of the car, but then turned his back on him to set the clipboard down.  I don't know anything about police procedures but it looked like he set himself up to get spooked.  As for the driver, I don't know what he was thinking.  He acts like the cop has no authority whatsoever.  Just, "what are you _doing,_" like he's some passerby on the street.  Weird.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I'm confused... How do they assess fees if you're acquited or the charges are dismissed?  That sounds like they're fining you, no matter what!  In VA, if you are acquited (found not guilty) or the ticket is dismissed, you don't pay.  You will pay costs, no matter what, if you're convicted.  In other words -- if you ain't found guilty, you pay nothing.  If you are found guilty, at a minimum, you pay the court costs (and now, for certain offenses, the abusive driver fees) even if the judge suspends the fine. .



I dunno... but when you go to court here, the first thing the judge typically says when they start a session is "Blah blah the court fees are manditory, set by the state, I cannot change them or waive them so dont bother arguing with me about them" and the fees are assessed for going to court... wether you win or not.  The only time I was not required to pay them was the time the prosecutor (or whatever the rep for teh state is called in traffic court) looked at my proof of insurance (which i had, but not on me when I got stopped) and saw it was valid at the time of the stop and let me go before I saw the judge.  I had a speeding ticket thrown out because the officer was wrong about the speed limit, so the ticket didnt go on my record, but I still paid 110.00 in court costs to the clerk after the case... so... I would have been better off taking the 75 dollar ticket and the traffic hit.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I dunno... but when you go to court here, the first thing the judge typically says when they start a session is "Blah blah the court fees are manditory, set by the state, I cannot change them or waive them so dont bother arguing with me about them" and the fees are assessed for going to court... wether you win or not.  The only time I was not required to pay them was the time the prosecutor (or whatever the rep for teh state is called in traffic court) looked at my proof of insurance (which i had, but not on me when I got stopped) and saw it was valid at the time of the stop and let me go before I saw the judge.  I had a speeding ticket thrown out because the officer was wrong about the speed limit, so the ticket didnt go on my record, but I still paid 110.00 in court costs to the clerk after the case... so... I would have been better off taking the 75 dollar ticket and the traffic hit.


That simply astounds me.

It seems as if it would violate several items in the Bill of Rights.  They're denying someone without the funds for those costs the chance to confront their accuser in court, and have the charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  If you'd like to let me know what state you're in, I'd actually like to look some of that up.  It just seems so wrong to make a person acquitted pay court costs (again, I stress acquitted, not convicted with a waived or suspended sentence) that I'm flabbergasted.  Like I said before, in VA, the court costs are mandatory *upon conviction*, even though the judge may suspend the fine.  (In fact, for several misdemeanor offenses and many traffic violations, the costs actually exceed the normal fine!)


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> That simply astounds me.
> 
> It seems as if it would violate several items in the Bill of Rights.  They're denying someone without the funds for those costs the chance to confront their accuser in court, and have the charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  If you'd like to let me know what state you're in, I'd actually like to look some of that up.  It just seems so wrong to make a person acquitted pay court costs (again, I stress acquitted, not convicted with a waived or suspended sentence) that I'm flabbergasted.  Like I said before, in VA, the court costs are mandatory *upon conviction*, even though the judge may suspend the fine.  (In fact, for several misdemeanor offenses and many traffic violations, the costs actually exceed the normal fine!)



Im in Illinois.  According to the judges Ive been in front of, (specifically in _McHenry County_) they cannot choose to waive the court costs, as they are manditory and set by the state.  If you appear and get convicted/plead guilty, you pay the Fine + Court costs, if you appear and win, you only pay the court costs.


----------



## Jai (Nov 23, 2007)

Just saw this video and I agree the use of the taser was warrented but there was a few points the officer missed, but like some other have said the video was a little choppy so I'll go with what I was able to see.

1. Why in the world would you ask someone to exit thier car for a simple ticket? Unless the car was searched, in which case most states require two officers.

2. I never herd any warning of "stop or I will..."

Aside from that I think there was nothing out of place with the end result of the incident.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 23, 2007)

Jai said:


> Just saw this video and I agree the use of the taser was warrented but there was a few points the officer missed, but like some other have said the video was a little choppy so I'll go with what I was able to see.
> 
> 1. Why in the world would you ask someone to exit thier car for a simple ticket? Unless the car was searched, in which case most states require two officers.
> 
> ...


To respond to your questions:
1.  The driver was asked to exit the car because he refused to sign the ticket and was about to be arrested.  There are tactical reasons for trying to have two officers (at least) present when you arrest someone or search a car, or do many other things -- but I'm not aware of any state requiring more than one officer be present.  Some agency GOs may.

2.  There's no need for a warning -- but sometimes, a warning can forestall actually having to use force.  Professionally, I don't make threats.  I warn people of the consequences that will ensue if they don't comply.  If I say I'm going to do something -- I'm fully prepared to do it.


----------



## buldog (Nov 24, 2007)

The thing that struck me about this is that the officer did not try(enough) to explain to the guy about the significance of not signing the ticket.  I felt the whole situation could have been resolved without getting the guy out of the car.  That being said I wasn't there in the cop's shoes.  

Next, the cop allowed an agitated subject to approach him while his back was turned.  This leads me to believe that the cop did not feel threatened by the guy up to THIS point.  

His next response is to immediately go for the taser futher escalating the situation.

AFTER that point I have no problem with him tasing the idiot for not following instructions and heading back to the vehicle while sticking your hands in your pocket(what the f--- was that guy thinking?).

IMO the officer needs more training on how to properly execute a traffic stop.  If the driver had been armed the officer probably would have ended up with a bullet in the back of the head.

PS. It looked like the cruiser could have obstructed the view of the speed limit sign and I'm curious if he did have a radar gun on at the time.  Is an officer's opinion that the guy was speeding still legally valid these days without a radar gun confirmation?

PPs.  A word of advise, never question the officer, if you do you then have an "attitude" and bad things can happen no matter how calm and logical you are(I wish someone had told me this 25 yrs. ago).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No offense taken.  My credentials are training as an instructor by CA Police Officers Standards and Training, the police certifiation oversight (for lack of a better term) of police agencies in California.  Also, I have been certified in court as a use-of-force expert.



Cool, Thanks. It's good to have that knowledge here. On a side note: I have a friend and shooting instructor who just retired from CHP.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2007)

Saw this, thought it might be of interest.

* UN Says Tasers Are a Form of Torture *



*Journal written by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) and posted by  	kdawson  	on Saturday November 24, @08:58PM*
*from the just-don't-bro dept.* 

 		 			The use of Tasers "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee Against Torture said. "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events." Three men  all in their early 20s  died from after tasering in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being tasered by Canadian police. There have been 17 deaths in Canada following the use of Tasers since they were approved for use, and 275 deaths in the US. "According to Amnesty International, coroners have listed the Taser jolt as a contributing factor in more than 30 of those deaths." http://slashdot.org/articles/07/11/24/2324212.shtml


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ok. I would still say that "fighting it in court" is still an option. I think most people just pay up and dont take it to court. You dont need an attorney for a traffic ticket and if the officer fails to show up or file the right paperwork you may just get it dismissed. If its for some equipment violation that you get fixed before you go to court you could at least save some money.



I agree; I would also like to add that a lot of people don't take it far enough, even if their argument for not recieving the ticket as it is is valid. In my state,  in most courts you go to a magistrate rather then a judge 1st. In most cases (from what I have observed anyway), the magistrate will almost always go with what the cop says. They usually don't cut any breaks, and they give no leeway. Most people give up from there, not realizing that they can take it to the actual judge for a hearing with no penalty for doing so. The judge tends to be a bit more objective and willing to negotiate. The judge at a district court level in our state is an elected official, keep in mind. So they are interested in at least listening to the persons circumstance.

That is just what I have observed, anyhow...


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Sorry; I don't buy that he thought the cop was pointing a real gun at him.  His behaviors just don't support the statement.  I'm hesitant to read his body language during the interview, given how little of him they show -- but it's interesting to note that about the only time you got any real body language out of him was as he was saying he thought it was a gun.  And that was a small headshake...  Not necessarily or solely a sign of deception -- but significant.



I agree. I just have a hard time believing that if someone is presented with a "real gun" and was "scared" that they would orient their body away from the threat and not listen to commands (particularly w/ hand placement) while continuing to argue. That is an after the fact argument that I think he is using to bolster his case.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Someone on another forum pointed something out.  At 2:30: after the officer tells the guy to get out of the car, he walks back to his car and sets the clipboard down.  The guy follows him back to the car.  When the officer turns, the guy's right behind him with one hand in his pocket and one arm raised to point at something behind the patrol car.  When the guy walks away he is still doing something with his pocket, either putting something in it or taking something out.



I pointed out earlier that if I were in the cops shoes, I might have tazed him because it looked to me like he was fishing for a folding knife. But, on video that wasn't the cops argument and reasoning to the other officer; it was more along the lines of the driver not listening and thinking he was 'in charge.' So, I don't think that the cop was thinking along the lines I was when I saw the hand in the pocket, but who knows?



> Im in Illinois.  According to the judges Ive been in front of, (specifically in _McHenry County_) they cannot choose to waive the court costs, as they are manditory and set by the state. If you appear and get convicted/plead guilty, you pay the Fine + Court costs, if you appear and win, you only pay the court costs.



Dude; that is BS! That is such a violation of individual rights that I don't know what else to say about it.



> 2. There's no need for a warning -- but sometimes, a warning can forestall actually having to use force. Professionally, I don't make threats. I warn people of the consequences that will ensue if they don't comply. If I say I'm going to do something -- I'm fully prepared to do it.



Good point. I want to add, though, that a verbal warning is usually a step in most force continuum's. But as with all of these, you can skip steps depending on need. It is questionable here if he should have skipped that step.



> The use of Tasers "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee Against Torture said. "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events." Three men  all in their early 20s  died from after tasering in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being tasered by Canadian police. There have been 17 deaths in Canada following the use of Tasers since they were approved for use, and 275 deaths in the US. "According to Amnesty International, coroners have listed the Taser jolt as a contributing factor in more than 30 of those deaths." http://slashdot.org/articles/07/11/24/2324212.shtml



The UN's position on Tazers, as I have read before, is totally ridicules. Sure, if I tie someone up and taze them repeatedly, then that is torture. Tazing someone who is resisting arrest rather then clubbing them into submission is not torture. They just aren't objective at all in their review. Tazers save more lives then they take.

That said, procedures always need to be in place to prevent abuse or accident. Also, I completely disagree with the term "non-lethal," as it is misleading. Any type of force can be lethal; so the proper term is less lethal.  There is no magic, safe, and completely reliable solution when it comes to force. People need to realize that although  unlikely,  death can occur  from tazers  under  certain  circumstances,  and policy  and procedure  should be made with this in mind.

*Last thing:* As I said in the beginning of the thread; the cop is going to get burned for this incident, it is just a matter of how badly. And that is the real reason why it is important for these guys to be really careful. The driver was being a dickhead, and the cop could be a good cop for all I know. But, because of some frustrations and lack of communication, he is going to end up paying for it. It really serves as a lesson an many levels for everyone...


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Saw this, thought it might be of interest.
> 
> * UN Says Tasers Are a Form of Torture *
> 
> ...


But the UN practically says it's torture if I look at you mean...

I've "ridden the lightning" for the full five seconds.  It ain't fun, it's not something I'm going to go out of my way to do again, but it's not torture.

OK, I take that back.  I can think of ways to use it as torture.  But, then, I can think of ways to use a 9 volt battery, or a phone line, or water, or even simple lights as torture.  The way that police here in the US use the Taser is not torture; it's a response to behavior that places the officer, the public, or the suspect in danger.  The Taser does less harm than a baton strike; I'd even suggest that it's less force than many pain-complaince holds.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 25, 2007)

Good words all round above, gentlemen, altho' I have to say that the more I watch the initial video the more I'm wondering myself what the policeman thought he was up to.  Maybe there's something we're no privy too? 

There're a couple of lines of reasoning that spring to mind as I see the 'action' from the one point of view we have:

1) The driver is arguing the toss and the cop is getting aggrivated (doesn't matter why and I'm not going to attribute reasons).  The officer goes back to his car thinking the chap isn't going to follow him, turns around, gets spooked, over-reacts to a threat _he_ perceives that is not really there and the whole thing snowballs because he's embarassed he's over-reacted and the driver is *still* not taking him seriously.

2) The policeman has a reason to be wary of the driver that we don't know about (not likely considering the subsequent fallout but it's a possibility) and his reaction is in line with his suspicions when he suddenly finds the chap behind him.

The only thing that is sure is that the driver would've been better off just accepting that life is not fair sometimes and deal with the minor legal consequences of a speeding ticket.  

However, the officer's actions still look awfully odd to me given the situation we know about - I know that if a copper over here were to do the same then serious internal questions would be being asked of him as the bottom line is that it's a minor traffic offence with an argumentative 'customer' that has brought forth a shedload of unwanted public attention and criticism for all officers (as one of the penalties of wearing a uniform is that one brush covers everyone ).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> OK, I take that back.  I can think of ways to use it as torture.  But, then, I can think of ways to use a 9 volt battery, or a phone line, or water, or even simple lights as torture.  The way that police here in the US use the Taser is not torture; it's a response to behavior that places the officer, the public, or the suspect in danger.  The Taser does less harm than a baton strike; I'd even suggest that it's less force than many pain-complaince holds.



Exactly; and that is a huge sign that they are not being objective at all. Simply "using" something is not torture; it really depends on how it is used and under what circumstance.


----------

