|
|
Don't Taser Me Bro
Posted by Stephen Green · 22 November 2007
Let me get this straight--doing a few miles over the limit on open interstate gives the cops the right to pump you with enough voltage to light up Victor Frankenstein's castle? I'm glad I'm staying at the in-laws' tonight. Comments
Wow. However, when your in that situation, use some common sense and just do what the officer tells you to do and DON'T argue with him. He should have just signed it and got away from this guy, who was having a bad day and he could have contested it later. Was the officer a too quick to arrest this guy. I think so. Was the officer too quick to taser him. Again, I think he was. The entire event was sad and unnecessary. Oh, have a Happy Thanksgiving. There's one more thing to be thankful for. Neither you or I were in that situation. 1. When an officer presents you with a traffic ticket to sign, there is not going to be a hearing right then and there where he has to prove the allegations to your satisfaction. That comes later - in a court with a judge, should you choose to contest the ticket. Demanding that the officer has to go down the road with you to examine the traffic signs before you will sign the ticket is not a winning strategy. 2. When you refuse to sign a traffic citation, which includes a promise to appear in court to answer the charge, the cops will arrest you to make sure that you will appear. Refusing to sign means you are refusing to agree to appear. 3. If, when the officer instructs you to put your hands behind your back as he is arresting you, you refuse to comply and instead walk away, he will use force to effect the arrest. 4. Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest. It wasn't the fact that the guy was speeding that got him tased... it was his resisting a lawful arrest. Signing the ticket is your promise to appear, not an admission of guilt. If you elect not to sign, then the officer can arrest you to ensure that you appear. Not signing is stupid, boneheaded, and absolutely guaranteed to compound your problems... but it's certainly within your rights to refuse to sign the ticket. It will also force the officer to do something he'd rather not do... but remember one thing as you're being arrested: you did this to yourself, and you have NOBODY to blame. If that's not enough stupidity/attitude for you, you can make your situation even worse by resisting arrest, as the man in the video did. Again, you can refuse to put your hands behind your back... you can even attempt to walk away from the officer who just gave you that lawful order. Now you've given the officer the duty to use his various lawfully-issued tools of arrest to bring you into custody. He can go hands-on, deliver strikes, or use open-hand take down techniques to introduce you to the asphalt. He can strike you with a baton or ASP, douse you with pepper spray, or use the taser. I've experienced most of the above, and given the choice, I'll take the taser. The taser is unpleasant, but has a lower injury rate (for both subject and officer) than the other methods. The reality is that I'd suffer none of the above... I'd just sign the stinking ticket and be on my way. Everything Anon said is quite true, but the officer deserves some blame too. As a public servant the police officer could have done a couple of things that would have prevented this situation. 1. When the driver refused to sign the ticket the officer could have politely reminded him that refusal to sign the ticket would result in his immediate arrest. He then could have told him that he would have his day in court if he disagreed with the ticket. I believe this would have probably ended any disagreement. 2. If the above discussion did not resolve the situation the officer should have advised the driver (after getting him out of the car) that, by law, he needs to turn around and put his hands behind his back, and that he was indeed under arrest for not signing the ticket. Once the driver refused and started walking around he only has himself to blame. As a result of the officer’s inability to initially resolve the conflict it is apparent that there needs to be some additional training. This is what happens when two arrogant and/or stupid dudes live's collide. I support the cop, though. The speeder looked like he was reaching for his pocket. Comments #1, #2, and #3 conflate street law (especially #3's sorry, frequent use of "lawful") and constitutional legal propriety. Not questioning Orwellian authority gives us such advice: Cow tow and everything will be just fine. Maybe we should look for punishment fitting crime here for a minute? Nah. A cop with a gun and a patrol car make for justice. Tase a guy on a vacation because it makes money. Nice little place we've devolved to here. Because, you know, government knows best. Because that officer's might makes him right and, well, the SCOTUS is soo far away. That cop was simply out for grief. It was written all over his tone of voice, his cute little attitude, and his act to the other officer. Given those points I'd question bullshit pullovers but somehow I don't think there's an audience here for that kind of reasoning... Posted by: Ten at November 23, 2007 06:22 PMThe more I think about this the less I see any constructive, legal, rational point to it whatsoever. This prick is (and hopefully was) a public servant, for crying out loud. He has a job to defuse problems he creates by harassing the folks he's there to protect and serve. It doesn't say To Tase and Ridicule in Order to Collect For State Coffers on the side of his squad car, for heaven's sake. His wage is paid by those he's apparently out to pick a fight with. Spare me the bootlicking...and kindly screw Utah. I hope they at least have the sense to fire this fraud and replace him with a cop who isn't waving his tiny dick at the public. Are we really thinking the Interstate is so dangerous that house-hubbies in SUV's need shackles? Get a perspective, please. Posted by: Ten at November 23, 2007 06:31 PMI have a question for the cop supporters here: Is there, in your mind, *any* order that he might issue under threat of Taser which might be morally refused, or is it that *everything* he orders should be obeyed without thinking about it? Ten, I'm amazed. You managed to view the video, then read my and others responses and misconstrue everything. Your as stupid as the jackass in the video who got tazed. Let's revue for the kids who don't understand the obvious. 1. When an officer presents you with a traffic ticket to sign, there is not going to be a hearing right then and there where he has to prove the allegations to your satisfaction. That comes later - in a court with a judge, should you choose to contest the ticket. what don't you understand? Demanding that the officer has to go down the road with you to examine the traffic signs before you will sign the ticket is not a winning strategy.watch the video clip again 2. When you refuse to sign a traffic citation, which includes a promise to appear in court to answer the charge, the cops will arrest you to make sure that you will appear. Refusing to sign means you are refusing to agree to appear. What don't you understand here? 3. If, when the officer instructs you to put your hands behind your back as he is arresting you, you refuse to comply and instead walk away, he will use force to effect the arrest. If this isn't clear enough for you, you are hopelessly stupid and asking for trouble 4. Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest. Would you have been better in your mind, if the cop had shot him? Or thrown him to the ground and possibly hurt him? Now go back to my original comment, Was the officer a too quick to arrest this guy. I think so. Was the officer too quick to taser him. Again, I think he was. Was there a possible alternative? . When the driver refused to sign the ticket the officer could have politely reminded him that refusal to sign the ticket would result in his immediate arrest. He then could have told him that he would have his day in court if he disagreed with the ticket.[my emphasis] I believe this would have probably ended any disagreement. 2. If the above discussion did not resolve the situation the officer should have advised the driver (after getting him out of the car) that, by law, he needs to turn around and put his hands behind his back, and that he was indeed under arrest for not signing the ticket. The driver did not act reasonably. The policeman was alone and the situation was escalating. What would you have done had you been in the cop's place? Don't take the cute way out either and try to say you wouldn't have stopped him to begin with, because the question is what would you have done in the cop's place, then and there? Let me relate a story that happened to a police officer in Fairbanks, Ak, that I happened to know. She made a routine traffic stop late on a winter night on a lonely stretch of road. A man was driving and a woman was in the passenger seat. A harmless looking couple, right? Typical police harassment right? The officer had the driver of the car to get out of the car and asked for his driver's license and registration. The driver gave her his license and asked his female companion to get the registration from out of the glove box. She tossed him a pistol, which the driver then pointed at the cop and told her to hand over her weapon. Lonely road, late at night, no backup. The officer said no and drew her handgun. The driver shot and missed and the officer unloaded her weapon into the guys abdomen. He lived to be convicted in court. He was also a convicted felon who jumped bail on outstanding charges in California. Did she over react? I'll tell you that if she hadn't, she'd probably be dead now. Potential situations like that are one reason that officers do what they sometimes do. People are given questionable tickets every day. That's why there are courts. The court is where you contest this, not out on the side of the road. Anyone with even an ounce of intelligence and a little observational ability could have realized, as I said, that this cop was basically on a short fuse. He has a gun, mace, a tazer and the weight of the law behind him at this particular point in time. That puts the driver at a decided tactical disadvantage in this place, at this time. The first rule when encountering a potentially dangerous situation. Try to avoid it altogether. In this case he could have just signed the ticket and been on his way. Ten's first comment says Comments #1, #2, and #3 conflate street law (especially #3's sorry, frequent use of "lawful") and constitutional legal propriety. You miss the point entirely. The court is where you argue the law. The street situation is where you apply common sense. Oh and define 'constitutional legal propriety' and what it has to do with this particular set of circumstances. Specifically how is this Orwellian? Jesus H Christ, the guy got pulled over for a traffic ticket. Cow tow and everything will be just fineYou conflate obeying the law and acting like a responsible adult with cow towing. That's more of a reflection on your adolescent attitude. Billy Beck also misses the point, but at least asks a valid question. Billy, when a cop is pointing a taser or gun at me, unless I have reason to fear for my life or the lives of those with me, and this driver did not, I will do what the officer tells me to do. Again, this was a routine traffic stop that the driver escalated. Guys, don't confuse doing your civic duty and cooperating with law enforcement, even if disagree with them, with abject obedience to authority. You don't have a clue about what real abuse of authority is.
"Billy, when a cop is pointing a taser or gun at me, unless I have reason to fear for my life or the lives of those with me, and this driver did not, I will do what the officer tells me to do." Whether you know it or not, that is a remarkable confession. "You don't have a clue about what real abuse of authority is." Really? Okay, then: how many bodies will have to pile-up before we can call it a "clue"? How bad will it have to get? People seem to forget that every time they pass a law, every time they post a speed limit sign, they are saying, "obey this or we will send men with badges to kill you if you resist." But then again, maybe they prefer that and this is why they want to make even more minute laws. Posted by: Phelps at November 24, 2007 05:56 PMThis happened to a family member of mine... who is the most defensive driver I know. The cop This whole "you have the right to contest in court" argument is a bunch of B.S. it doesn't work that way. Cops can pick selective targets who cannot possibly defend themselves on the spot or in court and then walk away with $100+ tickets. This cop seemed to exhibit all of the above problems... and "the officer has the full power of govt" behind him doesn't make the government's actions RIGHT. Posted by: Joel at November 24, 2007 06:06 PMWow, a lot of pent up adolescent rage here. First you confuse a guy who on his own, failed to read the obvious signs that he was dealing with an ass-hole (with a capitol A)and then escalated a simple traffic stop into a situation where the officer had to tas him. Then extrapolating this situation which was obviously no more than a ticket, to the defending your rights against the Man. Any nod toward being a law abiding citizen and doing your duty is seen as cow towing. Saying that you'd obey the law is a "remarkable confession". Wondering "how many bodies will need to pile up before a clue is obtained." Taking a bad experience of someone else, from another place and time and then drawing the sweeping conclusion that fighting something in court is b.s. Ask yourselves, what would you have done if that cop had pulled you over in that place and time. For all your bluster and faux outrage, I'd bet everyone of you would have signed that traffic citation. Then again, it's so cool to pose as the on-line revolutionary, standing up against oppression isn't it? Trotting out your best Tom Paine imitation and confusing fighting for your freedom with protesting a traffic ticket. To wit.."..every time they pass a law, every time they post a speed limit sign, they are saying, "obey this or we will send men with badges to kill you if you resist.. Ooooh so righteous, I'm locking my doors! Oh, and just who are they? Please, please don't confuse a traffic stop gone bad with real oppression because again, you don't have a clue about what real oppression is. You seem oblivious to the fact that this is a nation of laws. By inference you seem to imply that cops, in general, are your enemies and that the 'system' is rigged against you and that if you think that the law doesn't apply, you don't have to obey it. Classic adolescent behavior. I'm done with this thread. Posted by: Tim P at November 25, 2007 02:40 PMWell, as one who is no stranger to speeding tickets (and let me tell you, they get considerably more cross when you're doing 150+ in a Lamborghini), I'll throw my two cents in. On the cop-- guy is probably new to the job, or if not, is blessed with some of the worst training to be found anywhere. He rapidly got "tunnel vision" and obsessed over forcing the driver to comply (repeating commands, not following procedure, etc, etc). Basically he did a crap job up to and including the decision to arrest the guy. However, after that, he responded appropriately, though again with little concern for the ramifications of his actions. Had the driver fallen into traffic and been killed, he'd be awfully popular in jail. That aside, I'm sure this has drawn all sorts of bad attention to the department, and given the complete lack of correct procedure in the while fiasco, said speeder will walk with all charges dropped. On the driver-- guy's a moron who likely had some pressing issue with authority or wanted to save face in front of the wife. Shut your yap, take the ticket, and call the traffic lawyer. 99.98% of traffic enforcement is revenue generation, period. I've had a fairly wide cross-section of cops flat out fabricate offenses when it's quota week, and it's entirely possible this was no different. It's just not worth the hassle to risk any kind of confrontation, and this guy had the majority of his blood running the wrong organs. Plus, he was obviously aware of his rights in that he pointed out several times that they were not being read to him, and hence should have just shut his yap, secure in the knowledge that he'd be walking out the front door of the donut shop in an hour or two. Posted by: Mr. Lion at November 25, 2007 09:54 PMYes, the officer was wrong and should be punished. I think the majority of the comments following the video were also over the top--I seriously doubt tasering speeders is the norm in today's America. More of the Bush = Hitler hysteria. Posted by: Phil at November 26, 2007 10:18 AMThey get radars. We get detectors. They get tazers. We get... chain mail, anyone? :-D Posted by: ...Max... at November 27, 2007 10:09 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"I'd do him."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
