Another tazing...

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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.