Another tazing...

[Brian R. VanCise]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...