cops taze again
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=171627
Printed Date: 27 December 2025 at 7:25am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: cops taze again
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Subject: cops taze again
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:21pm
|
http://www.break.com/index/dude-tazered-for-not-signing-tick et.html frankly, the cop wasn't wrong...he gave the guy an order and the guy ignored it...that's generally a bad idea. and for anyone who says "oh he just wanted to know what was going on", he was given an order...and there have been cases in the past where people distract the cop so the passenger or someone does something. |
Replies:
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:22pm
|
He wasnt tazed for not signing the ticket.
The guy wasn't following a lawful order, and was headed back to his vehicle. The cop tazed because there was more then one person present so it was for his safety. Anyone who see's any differently doesn't know what happens when a cop doesn't control the situation.
Wow, another case of a street lawyer. Cops ONLY have to read the rights if they intend to question you. They DO NOT if they are arresting you for a crime they see committed. ------------- 
|
front page wrote:Posted By: Horsepower
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:22pm
|
Link no worky ?
------------- 
Come Get Some ! |
Posted By: DGAFmuffinZ
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:27pm
|
Dumbass Cop.
------------- 
EMIKE/ILP PROUD LAKER, NY GIANTS, and YANKEE FAN |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:37pm
| http://www.break.com/index/dude-tazered-for-not-signing-ticket.html - http://www.break.com/index/dude-tazered-for-not-signing-tick et.html |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:18pm
|
This guy was clearly a threat and needed to be stopped. I mean look at him, walking back to his car. You could tell he was just about to flip out and kill everyone in sight. It is a good thing the cop just immediately relied on the new toy instead of actually doing police work. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:32pm
|
MBD, you are missing the fact that the man could be able to use telekinesis's and kill the police.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:34pm
Yeah because signing the Ticket isnt an admission of Guilt. It's just means that you got the ticket. Here is another example of somebody who could had avoided a world of pain had he just complied. But I forgot how much experience Whale has in road side stops. I am sure that as a journalist you can easily look up how many cops are killed in routine traffic stops. Not on to the matter at hand. This does seem exesive since the guy was just walking away. I'd would had just grabbed him and held him even remind him that his actions could had lead to his arrest. His demeanor wasnt that of the Don't Taze me Bro idiot nor it was of the spaz foreigner in the busy airport in the post 911 world. Obviously not enough People havent seen "How not to get your ass whooped by the Police" from the Chris Rock Show. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:39pm
That was my general point, I am glad you got to it after the personal stuff. Anyway, if the driver didn't sign the ticket, what was the worst that could have happened? It is still in the system, right? -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:45pm
|
MBD.. because NOT signing it is an ARRESTABLE CRIME?
EE... LTL is preferred over going hands on in ALL circumstances. No point in an officer getting within arms reach of a person when they have a 21' reach with the tazer. The guy was walking back and the officer thought he was going to try to drive away. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 2:51pm
another good point. why get close enough to someone when you dont know what they could have on them? he was just walking away, yea but you never know what someone is capable of. |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:01pm
Like activating a nuke by whistling into a pay phone? -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:08pm
After talking to a police officer about this, he said that not signing is indeed an ARRESTABLE (sic) CRIME, however, to actually arrest someone for it is typically only done by asshole officers. Usually, in his words, if someone wants to not sign it, he just writes "refused to sign" on the ticket and processes it as normal. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:16pm
|
True, which is where the whole "Police Discretion" debate comes.
If someone was being respectful to me and refused to sign, that's one thing. But if someone is being disrespectful to me and not complying to any of my orders, then I will do whatever I'm legally allowed to. That's what many cops do. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:19pm
Which just might be the reason most people dislike/distrust cops. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:21pm
|
Then maybe people shouldn't be assholes when THEy are the ones breaking the law? -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:25pm
I agree, but being an asshole is not reason enough to get tasered when it was quite obvious it could have all been avoided. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:27pm
|
No, but disobeying a lawful and direct order, and there-by making the officer think you plan on doing something that is dangerous and very illegal IS reason enough to be tazed. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:45pm
...sigh... -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:46pm
SO a person not listening to you and going to get back in his car isn't dangerous? Ok....... "...sigh..." -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:50pm
|
No, the reason people mistrust/don't like cops is because everyone is guilty of something.
And they are scared the cops know about it. Seriously though, cops get treated like dogs, and people think it's cool to be rude or offensive to a cop, yet when they need a cop he should have been there all day protecting you. If you break the law, have the balls to say you got cought. None of these people who get Tazered seem to have that. They are always right and the cop who zaps them is wrong, except when all they have to do to NOT get zapped is do as the cop says. If you are so innocent, there shouldn't be any isses with the ticket if you go fight it in court. I haven't bothered to count how many cars and trucks are passing them, at speed, but the last thing you want to do is start grappeling with that guy and get taken out by an 18 wheeler. "Boo hoo I don't know what you are doing" How about ignoring the clearly issued, basic to follow instructions? Getting into the cab of a 1.5ton vehicle isn't "not doing anything". How easy would it be for him to drive over the cop? Not only that, who knows what else in iside the truck? Cops need you to keep your hands in plain sight at all times, to move slowly, and to obey their instructions. No matter how out of the ordinary or over the top the instructions seem to be, they are delivered not only with the authority to back them up if ignored, they are generally issued with overall saftey in mind. This guy was removed from the vehicle so the cop could arrest him. While he was still in the drivers seat he was dangerous 1) because he could easily flee 2) he was able to use the vehicle to attack the cop 3) he was not being compliant. Outside the truck he was not showing his hands. His hands were in his pockets. Who knows what he has in there? From a pistol through to a blackjack he could have been armed, he did not follow any of the instructions, and he was an unknown. In cops terms this is a threat especially if they are not following instructions. He was also trying to get back into the car. Result? For overall saftey the cop Tazered him. Ladder of force was followed. Example, the voice instructions to the woman to get her into the car. As the cop says, the side of the road in NOT where to argue it. That is what the court is for. Rights? Again, you only need your rights to be read to you if they want to question you. It is generally done at the place of arrest because it gets it out of the way. It is also sometimes done at the station, often for the second time, to cover your ass. KBK |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:53pm
The opening up of the precedent that the taser is now the fall back for any situation is what makes me sigh. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 3:56pm
|
Man Bites Dog, what do you suggest as an alternative?
The only ones I know of are the batton/night stick, pepper spray and physical restraint. KBK |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:03pm
|
The baton is considered deadly force, MBD. That is why it is used AFTER the taser or OC spray. Plus it puts the officer in undue risk of being too close to someone.
Taser is used over OC spray because it has 1) Range and 2) No side effects to innocents. Really, what would you have had the cop do? Yell some more? If the guy got in the car it would have been a pursuit, most likely ended by a PIT, and that would have put the passenger and other drivers on the road in danger. Taser was the best choice bar none. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:03pm
Well, you know, the actions of genuinely bad police officers might do it. Or are all police officers shining examples of the law? -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:07pm
Let the guy drive off in a huff since the ticket was already issued. If the asshole motorist doesn't show up for his court date or pay it, get the last laugh as a warrant goes out for his arrest. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:10pm
My issue is not with the taser. I think the taser is a great tool, and can save many lives when used in a situation where a gun or other deadly tool would be used. However, I don't feel, in this situation, that any sort of force was at all needed. I think the massive amount of taser use we are seeing is because officers are using it as a fallback. Any situation where they are annoyed at someone, just shock the person and claim "well we coulda beat him." -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:14pm
|
There are more good cops than bad cops out there, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Now number of "shining examples" to "cops people don't understand or think are unfairly persecuting them" is a dififerent ratio, and a different conversation. This guy thinks this cops is bad, when he pretty much isn't. Seriously, you think letting the guy get away with being a dick towards the cop, then hoping he turns up when he's shown no inclination to follow the law (doing something wrong enough to warrant getting pulled over, disobeying the cop once pulled over, resisting the cop once being arrested for disobeying) to come to court freely is a good idea? And then go through the trouble of issuing a warrant of arrest and then sending a cop out of his way to go look for the guy, when you've already had him in your grasp once? Jesus, no wonder cops don't get anything done with thinking like that going around. KBK |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:19pm
|
MBD, this is why you, as a future journalist, need to take some CJ classes.
Just the mere presence of the cop is considered force, followed by verbal commands. If the officer let him get away with that, then the whole slippery slope idea would have come into effect, not only for that guy, but for anyone wanting to use it as a defense. A person cannot be allowed/led to believe that they can do whatever they want to a cop and not have any consequences. Again, the guy could not be allowed to walk away like that, so what else could the cop have done? Give me a viable answer WITH reasoning behind it, and we'll go from there. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:25pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:30pm
|
I would totally agree with you if what he did wasn't against the law.
But the fact of the matter is ALL things he did in that video were illegal. If the cop really was trying to be an ass he could have arrested the woman too, because she broke laws as well. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:33pm
like pulling out a knife or switch blade? you dont have to be a cop or in the military to have common sense to be able to assume that people are capable of some off the wall-and deadly- things. i would never close on someone in that kind of situation. the cop knew enough to know that too and he was smart to use some other means to stop the guy. and like mentioned above, the last thing he wants is to end up in a grappling match and in front of an 18 wheeler. |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:33pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:38pm
|
MBD, you can disagree with a cop all you want and not suffer any repercussions.
But when it comes to a fact of law, the ONLY place to disagree will be the court. If anything gets out of hand, that's where "contempt of court" comes into play. No cop will EVER be bad in front of a judge. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:40pm
I agree the motorist was in the wrong, and was acting very inappropriately. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. I just think that the actions, despite how assholeish (also a word I just made up) didn't warrant the results brought about by the officer. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:46pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 4:50pm
The thing is you are wrong here. You do NOT talk back to cops. [EDIT Talk back all you like, but follow instructions and don't ACT back] Why? Because like this cop said, this is not the place to do it. A cop has the authority to use varying levels of force to get you to comply with his instructions. He is authorised by the goverment to do a whole list of things to you, which culminate with shooting you dead, if he deems it to be warranted. Fighting back with a cop will not get him to back down. This is not how cops are trained to think, this is also not how cops act, because doing this can easily make the situation get even more out of controll, and the cop can end up dead, easier. If the cop thinks you have done something that requires action, they will act. Mostly it will be something as harmless as a ticket or a warning. HOWEVER, if you think it is un justified, THIS IS WHAT GOD INVENTED COURTS FOR. Go fight it out there. Don't force the issue with the cop. All the cop wants to do is end his shift alive, go home, eat supper and bang Mrs Cop. Seriously. Thats all there is to it. When you start escalating the situatio the chances of him getting home alive diminish. It might not be by much, but it does. HE is authorised to protect himself, as well as other, and to use a level of reasonable force to get the arrest. Talking back to and arguing with a cop is a lose situation. It just is. It's like saying to a general "You and what army?". They have the force, and the mandate to use it. I'll grant you that it sounded like I said being a dick to a cop is illegal, it isnt. If it was there wouldn't be any rappers walking in the streets with their gangster friends. But being a dick to the cop won't get you Tazered either. The attitude towards policemen is forcing the situation. They cannot allow you to dictate the situation. They have to be in controll of it all the time. Why? Because cops end up dead if they dont. Does this happen all the time? No. There are plenty of instances where it doesn't happen. However this guy could not be let go. He was effectively resisting arrest. A lazy cop could have let him walk away, but what president is that setting? As for your statement that it's better to set the guy free and then hunt him down once the court date is missed is deluded. Not only will this waste valuable court time, it will also waste valuable man hours where they are simply repeating the job done here by this guy. People complain cops aren't around when they need them. They aren't. They are out looking for people like this who ignored their court dates and now need to be hunted down again. KBK |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 5:03pm
I do too. You should have seen me a couple of weeks ago  -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 5:04pm
I was understanding where you were coming from before I hit this part, and then it just discredited everything you said really. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 5:23pm
|
How did it discredit everything I'd said?
If being an ass towards cops was illegal, there wouldn't be a single "gangsta rapper" who wouldn't be in jail. Thats a clear statement that is true. Show me one person who subscribes to the "black gangsta" style who even remembers a respectful word for the police. Is was put in the post to introduced a small bit of light heartedness. Being rude to cops isn't illegal, therefore you can run around calling them Pigs and Po Po's and singing about killing them being a good idea. What part of this didn't you understand? KBK |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 5:33pm
| Just so you know KBK, in America, its OK to voice your opinion to the police. |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 5:41pm
By the time he was tazered he was resisting arrest. As was said before, refusal to sign is grounds for arrest. He was walking back to the car, reaching into his pocket, and not listening to direct orders. I would even go as far to say, the way the guy was acting when he got out of the car, and started walking toward the officer, is enough to pull a tazer out. So you yourself have just proven why the guy should have been tazered. |
Posted By: .636
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 6:34pm
|
Should have let the guy take off. Probable cause for a chase right? The guy thats running is going to get in allot more trouble than he would have been if complied and signed the ticket like he should have. That guy should have known that once you get out of a car and walk towards a police officer that they will take that as it being in bad intention. He was also not doing what the cop was telling him to do while the police officer was getting ready to arrest him. I do not agree with the use of a taser in that situation. 5 years ago in that situation any cop would have used physical contact to overpower the person that is about to be arrested. Tasers seem like more of a crutch now. IMO they should be used when the cop is threatened with a weapon or the cop knows they will be overpowered. On another note, Did that cop have the authority to open the door to talk to the lady in the vehicle? or open that door and search the front seat? That guy is retarded, stay on the ground when your under arrest unless you are told otherwise. Don't argue with a cop when your on scene. Leave that for court The guy deserved to be arrested, but not tazed. That girl was lucky that she was not tazered or arrested either ------------- |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 9:27pm
| I really want to take a couple Criminal Justice classes and go to boot camp now. Apparently that is all it takes to become an expert in a plethora of fields. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 10:41pm
|
Skillet, I know that, and I changed my post to reflect this.
TALKING back to a cop is ok. Breaking the law, not listening to his instructions, not keeping your hands in sight and doing what this guy was doing (attempting to flee arrest) in NOT ok. Talk back all you want, however it's just more likely that the cop will then push everything as far as he can, and trust me a cop knows much better than most civilians how far things can go, and how much force he can use to get there. .636, I don't get your post. You agree with the fact his guy whould be arrested? But you think that physical restraint is better? 5 years ago it would have been a wrestling match, on the side of a busy road. Not only that, but it means the cop has to get within arms reach of the badguy. Again, not a place cops want to be, especially as its easier fir things to go wrong when things get physical. 20 years ago the cop would have been without body armour, does that mean he shouldn't use the tools that have been developed in the meantime? Tazers are not for when a cop is threatened with a weapon or overpowerment, that is what FIREARMS are for. Putting a cop in that situation means you end up dead. Cops can use tazers in a weapon /overpowerment scenario, but that is the realm of lethal force, and you'd probably only get tazered if the cop already had his tazer out, otherwise it's left hand OC spray, right hand firearm. Yes stay on the ground if you've been arrested, but better yet, and to avoid the tazer shot, don't try climb back in your car to leave once you've been placed under arrest. As for opening the door, that is iffy. I would not be allowed to, but the situtaion has gone from normal to abnormal. THe cop could be checkig her out to make sure she isn't flipping out or getting hysterical, and that she's ok to drive. Removing barriers between you helps re-establish raport. Checking the front seats? our SOP's say we could do this.Make sure the vehicle is clean and weapon free before releasing it back to the passenger. Also make sure there isn't anything like bags of coke, dead boddies or open alcohol containers that the new driver can get rid of. Call it a crutch if you want, I call it a very handy tool that reduces the level of violence, the humiliation all round, and the danger to the cop. You saw the badguy take the hit. The cop was instantly back in controll of the situation, and the guy was up and mobile again within seconds, without any danger to the cop. How is any of this a bad thing? Personally I wouldn't have left him on the ground like that to secure the passenger, mainly because the cop couldn't see him any more, but that's why the guy was cuffed. KBK |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 10:48pm
No, but more so then you and the average person who has had absolutely no education on the matter. -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 11:18pm
| lol |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 12:52am
|
Okay, so what does it mean if I disagree with you then? Furthermore, what if Kayback and I disagree? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 1:01am
Point being? Disagreements are ok and are supposed to exist, flavor of life. I was commenting on his smart ass post saying I'm a know it all. But go ahead, give us your view on the matter. I've actually been waiting for it all day. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 1:04am
|
I actually don't have one on this matter. The facts in this case are quite complex and I do not feel the need to form an opinion and pretend like it is absolute in its value. There are many clases of cops and tasers that are clearer than this. However, I am actually quite confused and will refrain from stating a "fact" because there are too many situational factors. By the way, how could you be waiting for a response by me all day? It's Thanksgiving, there's better things to be doing. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 1:14am
|
Not "physically" waiting.
Dune, you as a cop know that you have to make a decision on the spot with only the information available. With that in mind, seeing what you saw, what then? -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 3:36pm
|
I can't get the video to work. It seems to me that this depends on what the ticket was for. If this guy was just a traffic ticket, they already searched him and found no weapons, there's no need to tazer him just for walking back to his car.
I'd probably be a bad cop because I'd have just taken out my pistol and shot it in the ground. No harm done, but the guy gets the message quite clearly. I have a feeling most departments would frown on something like that though. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 4:42pm
|
When a Cop is doing something I disagree with, I generally go along with it. They generally tend to be nicer when your not cussing them out or arguing with them. That being said, I have never been in a situation I didn't talk myself out of by just being polite. -------------
|
Posted By: Enmity
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 7:33pm
|
Honestly i think the cop had the right to taze him, but also the man had the right to know his rights and what he was being charged with, the cop obviously had no idea what speed the man was actually going and was full of it. I don't think that the man was actually speeding, and the cop just wanted to give an arrest/ticket.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 7:57pm
Wow, are you serious? A cop ONLY has to read your rights WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONED. If you get arrested, your rights do not ONCE have to EVER be read to you. If you are going to be questioned in connection to a crime, THAT is when they are read, but it doesn't have to be until before the actual questioning. Yes, the cop knew what speed the guy was going. It's called radar/LIDAR,. You're right, you have the right to know your charges, IN COURT. Even if the guy wasn't "really" speeding, he could have contested it in court and won. A cop wont jeopardize his job over a small speeding infraction. -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 7:59pm
|
KBK God didnt invent the courts.
MBD, What you didnt get on my post is how easy is for young people to start off with "Man Screw that Pig" Mentality. Specially you who is quick to go to bat for reporters and your chosen profession. In that same standard that you are lumping together all Cops then does this mean that all Journalists nowdays make up stories just like that dude from the New York Times? It's just not you but about 80% of the ones who reply on the OMG COPZ TAZERED A DOOD! -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 8:06pm
I stand up for good reporters who get lumped in. I point out and alienate bad reporters who make the rest of us look bad. Police should do the same. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 8:07pm
Never did I try to lump together police, or ever once claim that I dislike all police officers. -------------
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 9:35pm
|
In this case, the cop made an unlawful arrest. The Citation: "77-7-18. Citation on misdemeanor or infraction charge. A peace officer, in lieu of taking a person into custody, any public official of any county or municipality charged with the enforcement of the law, a port-of-entry agent as defined in Section 72-1-102, and a volunteer authorized to issue a citation under Section 41-6a-213 may issue and deliver a citation requiring any person subject to arrest or prosecution on a misdemeanor or infraction charge to appear at the court of the magistrate before whom the person should be taken pursuant to law if the person had been arrested. " Long story short, 77-7-18 says that instead of being arrested you can be given a citation. Does this mean you have to sign it? No. However, being given it, you ARE required to contact or appear in court. The officer is only required to deliver you the citation, nothing else. The arrest: "77-7-6. Manner of making arrest. (1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when: (a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape; (b) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or (c) the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape." The driver was NOT informed when the officer was pointing the taser at him. If the officer told him he was being arrested, the reason he was being arrested, and the authority he had to arrest him BEFORE he was placed in handcuffs, then the driver MUST listen to the officer. But ONLY AFTER all that is said. The only thing the driver was told was "Place your hands behind your head" and "turn around." The only exception to not informing the driver of arrest is in a, b, and c, of which none of those circumstances are applicable in this situation, in my opinion. Utah State Code: http://le.utah.gov/%7Ecode/code.htm ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 9:40pm
|
was Utah the state where this took Place? I know that in Mass you can arrest for that. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 10:42pm
Bolt, don't go any where near a law book unless you can back it up.
While you may consider the first time the officer tries to make an arrest unlawful, the second time CANNOT be called unlawful. In the state of Utah, you cannot refuse arrest, lawful or not (State v Gardiner, 1991). He refused arrest. Whether or not Utah has it as an arrestable offense for not signing a ticket is now a moot point. He refused arrest. The actual commission of walking away while being arrested is an offense. He was walking away not listening to the officer and he had his hand in his pocket... he's lucky that all he got was a taser. By the way, look at what I found on google. http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Sheriff/InmateDetail.asp?id=179391 - http://www.co.utah.ut.us/Dept/Sheriff/InmateDetail.asp?id=17 9391 Her charges are A) Failing to obey Police B) Resisting arrest Sound familiar? And I don't understand why you brought up the citation part? It's common knowledge that an officer can cite in lieu of arresting someone. It is ILLEGAL for an officer to let a crime go without repercussion. (READ: A warning is considered a repercussion) -------------
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 10:55pm
Are you implying that he is lucky the cop didn't shoot him with his firearm? Do you really think that walking away from a cop is grounds for getting shot in the back? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 10:57pm
Did I say that? No. I'd take a taser over being beat with a night stick or sprayed with OC anyday. But, IF the officer DID have his firearm out and he made any sudden moves after having his hand in his pocket... -------------
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:00pm
|
What do law books and myself have anything to do with this? It was impossible that he was refusing arrest because the officer never informed him that he was placing him under arrest UNTIL he was laying on the ground ALREADY in handcuffs and taser'd. Did you watch the video? He was told to step out of the car and as soon as the officer reaches his cruiser, he turns around PULLING the taser out before the guy can get a word in edgewise. Don't bother defending the officer. (His rights were never read to him either. I don't know about that but the general rule is no rights, no arrest; right? From what I know from COPS, anyways.) EDIT: Both his hands were visible.. Maybe only his thumb was in his pocket. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:21pm
|
Wow, I'd love to hear what you think of the cops that beat up Rodney King, or a number of other caught on video beatings for that matter. |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:25pm
If I remember correctly, at least a few people who are educated in this area have said a taser is the final tool used before a firearm. Just because you would rather be tasered does not make it SOP. |
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:27pm
Saying what you would do is a lot easier from the safety of your computer desk whale, If you were out in that situation you would feel differently. ------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site 
|
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:34pm
|
Comparing this to Rodney King wouldn't even be close. That was 4 on 1. This is at least 2 against 1. This man would obviously not listen to authority, and it appeared he was going to get back into his vehicle and drive off. There are too many variables that we do not know to pass judgement on this. We can't make assumptions on any of this. Could the officer see/smell drugs inside the car, were there more than 2 people, what was said during that part that was edited out. By him attempting to climb back inside his car and possibly drive off, did he have something to hide, was he on drugs. We know too little of the situation to make any type of call. All we see is the point of view of the car, and some of the conversation. *edit*, thanks Linus, i didn't even notice he had his hand in his pocket, that just throws up even more questions. This cop had a reason for being suspicious, and he acted on it. ------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:37pm
|
I wasn't comparing it to Rodney King, let's not start a discussion that has nothing to do with the topic. I was refering to Linus's statment about how it would at some point in that situation have been okay for the officer to use his firearm. As some people have nailed Whale for going to bat for journalists, the same could be said for many forumers going to bat for cops. This does not pertain to this situation as I have already stated that I do not know enough to comment on this one, but I would just like to know out of curiousity how he felt about the Rodney King situation. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:39pm
He saw him doing 65 in a 65 zone....thats not a crime. The cop was clearly in the wrong: http://exposedcorruption.blogspot.com/2007/11/hwy-patrolman-arresting-and-tasing-man.html - http://exposedcorruption.blogspot.com/2007/11/hwy-patrolman- arresting-and-tasing-man.html |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:42pm
Are you kidding? He doesn't even have to sign it. The ticket's been issued, and the ONLY thing that was being debated was the location of the sign, which can be settled in court. Let the dude go. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:46pm
|
[thing to do with this?It was impossible that he was refusing arrest because the officer never informed him that he was placing him under arrest UNTIL he was laying on the ground ALREADY in handcuffs and taser'd.[/quote]
Because you do not understand what you're talking about. You simply go by what is on TV. You do not have to be told you're being placed under arrest to be under arrest. A person is under arrest when a law enforcement officer physically takes them into custody or otherwise deprives them of their freedom of movement in order to hold them to answer for a criminal offense. Courts determine whether a person was under arrest in any given situation by asking whether a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave under the circumstances.
I know I watched the video, question is, did you? 2:03 is when the officer first tell him to turn around and put his hands behind his back. At that moment, the guy had his right hand to his side next to his pocket. You can see next to where his hand is is a black object (his cell phone) Right when the cop sees where his hand is is when you see him pull the taser AND STEP BACK A FEW FEET. This shows that the officer senses that something is not right. Watch his right hand on his way back to the car, it makes a motion like he is trying to get into his pocket. A lone officer is not going to take the chance that he is reaching for a weapon.
For their departments, maybe. I wouldn't know. But for places like Dallas, OC spray and Taser come before hands on. It really depends on the departments use of force continuum. size=6]Dune[/quote], I really wish you would quit skirting around the topic and actually partake in this. You have the most experience here on this topic. CHOOP, I'm not going to believe a blog that has no evidence. But it's good to see that Bolt used a blog as his whole argument. Plus I don't know where you got the 65 in a 65 idea... the speed limit was 40. http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3899692&page=1 - http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3899692&page=1 -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:48pm
|
No, he was entering a 40 zone and slowing down. The cop thought that the sign before it also said 40, which it apparently doesn't.
I don't think I'll even bother debating in this thread, I'll just say that I feel bad for those of you who think the cop did the right thing. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:49pm
Proof, choop, proof is all I ask of you. I don't see 65 mph ANYWHERE. But still, the second you get into a new speed zone you HAVE to be going that speed that is posted. Cops often set traps where it drops 10+ mph to catch people. Common practice. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:53pm
|
I'm not skirting the issue, there are plenty of other situations I have voiced my opinion on. This just happens to be one that there are way too many possibilities that factor in for me to pick a path. I have decided not to take a side because I am not about to act like I was there and have any room to make an absolute. |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 23 November 2007 at 11:57pm
|
You're right, I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about. I just have an opinion after watching the video and reading various articles and blogs about it. And it's not going to change. The cop escalated the situation into what it was. That is a fact. (Tasers are considered potentially lethal weapons, right?) ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 12:00am
Every form of force an officer has after verbal communication has the potential to kill. That's why it is called LESS-then-lethal and not non-lethal. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 12:53am
This is what I was getting at. The entire situation can be summed up as such. Asshole cop was an asshole to asshole motorist. I am of the opinion while neither being an asshole is good, the police officer is the professional, and therefore shouldn't be an asshole. It causes more damage than asshole motorist. If the cop would have just let the guy go after not signing the ticket, and not tried to be a macho "Watch me show this guy" by arresting him, then none of this would have happened. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 12:53am
Ditto. The blind support for those in authority is mildly frightening. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 12:59am
|
MBD thats the part you keep missing.
It is ILLEGAL for a cop not to punish someone for breaking the law. And not signing the ticket is breaking the law. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 1:09am
We established a few pages ago that it is common practice for the officer to put "refused to sign" on the ticket and process it as normal, and that generally only the most assholeish of cops will actually arrest someone for something as silly as signing the ticket. And why are you randomly bolding words? I can read, thanks. -------------
|
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 5:53am
|
Whether the cop is being an asshole or not, its still within HIS right to excersize that extent of the law. Just because other cops might be lax on certain situations doesn't mean that he has to be. Maybe simply putting "Refused to sign" is not acceptable in his area. Many laws and practices change as you go from city to city. Cities have their own ordnances, and states have different laws. You guys are just back to assuming variables that you don't know. We shouldn't jump down either persons throat really. ------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 10:55am
|
I have to step in on this one. It may be technically illegal, but cops have one of the greatest tools available, discretion. It is what makes a good cop good, and a adequate cop makes mistakes. If everyone was arrested for the small infractions they made, there would be many more of these incidents as I know many people that would fight against a simple underage, MIP, public nuisance, or many other technically arrestable things. Discretion is the key, and this is where people have formed on both sides of the issue. |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 11:10am
|
It is NOT illegal to sign a citation, just illegal to ACCEPT it. There's a difference, and the officers only job in this instance is to DELIVER it. From my understanding. EDIT: That didn't make sense. It's not illegal to refuse signing a citation or writing "Signed under duress", just illegal to refuse acceptance of the citation. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 11:16am
Wait, what? Am I the only one confused by this?
I don't see why you posted this? I already wrote about police discretion. And I also stated that just a mere warning is "punishment" enough in courts eyes. Or is Ohio different from Texas / Michigan on this matter? -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 12:41pm
So the fact that he was illegally arrested in the first place, and has no charges for anything before he decided to walk away? The cop just placed him under arrest for <poops> and giggles the first time? That doesn't seem wrong to you in some way? Or at least enough to piss someone off? This guy got a speeding ticket (from what I can judge from other posts, vid's still not working for me). I'd already be pissed as hell if the cop made me get out of the car and searched me and the car just for doing 1-5 over the speed limit. Once the cop knows you don't have weapons, drugs, aren't drunk, etc., and the person isn't violent (and isn't being charged with a crime.... civil infraction is different and civil infraction = speeding ticket), I don't understand why he isn't allowed to walk back to his car. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 1:13pm
|
Bunkered.
I don't know what Utah's law is regarding signing the ticket or not. I do know that many states have it as an arrestable offense if you do not sign. That, however, is besides the point once he refuses arrest, and even if the first one is deemed unlawful, I'm fairly the second one will be found lawful BECAUSE of state v Gardiner. No, if the first one is deemed as unlawful I will not back it up. Unlawful is unlawful, not matter what. The cop did not "search the car and him for doing 1-5 over". He was arrested, and then the car was searched because it is policy to search the immediate surroundings of a vehicle before you release it to someone else. Yes, speeding ticket is a civil infraction. Refusing arrest is not. And if Utah has it in their law, refusing to sign a ticket is also not JUST an infraction. Please, search for when you are considered under arrest. THAT is why he can't just walk back to his car. -------------
|
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 1:29pm
|
Whoa whoa, lets get very clear bunkered. That man was legally arrested for failing to obey the orders of an LEO.
------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 1:42pm
The officer said in the video he was arresting him for not signing the speeding ticket. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 2:07pm
Which is not obeying a LEO. And he specifically says so at 3:06 and 3:18. GG. -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 24 November 2007 at 2:23pm
|
Something a lot of people say is why is the cop being an asshole. Just because a cop can cut you some slack doesn't mean he has to. He isn't being ass when he's doing his job. Like The Guy says, depending on what the station standing instructions say procedure might be to take non signers in. He may have been doing it because he is one of those people who do everything by the book. But the driver BROKE THE LAW. Then he refused to sign the citation, i don't know their procedures but that is also against the law. Then after the cop arrested him for that, he tried to escape arrest. Again ILLEGAL. He got tazerd and put in chains.
Another widely misunderstood concept is the so called ladder of force. "ladder" is a pretty good description, but not entirely true, it's more of a flow diagram. The ladder is accurate for the steps as far as verbal, physical, less than lethal, less lethal and them lethal force, but all those steps have various substeps and options. The cop can move part some steps, move on to others, or skip them as needed. There are some requirements that must be filled to reach some steps, Like moving on from verbal to physical force, but you don't need to hit every rung if you deem it isn't safe or there isn't time. You must just be able to back that choice up. |