Utah-LEOs have opened taser hunting season on drivers

[barncobob]

http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/

[ericfoerster]

My hat is off to them. You act like that on a traffic stop in most places and you would be dead. A taser was the least of that idiots problem. I'll bet he pays a little more attention next time a police officer tells him what to do.

 

Sorry to be so harsh, but it's true. That cop was alone on a road in the middle of god knows where. The guy had his hand in his pocket and wouldn't stand still. I've made hundreds of drug cases on guys who act just like that.

 

Want to bet we wouldn't know about this stop if the guy had signed the ticket and moved on

 

This battle has been fought numerous times and the ruling stands. The Supreme Court says "we" control the traffic stops.

[awagnon]

I agree with Eric, the guy had it coming, if not more. What's sad, is the jerk has made such a fuss about this that the LEO has had death threats.

[russell_bynum]

Dude got off easy if you ask me.

[ghaverkamp]

Want to bet we wouldn't know about this stop if the guy had signed the ticket and moved on

 

This battle has been fought numerous times and the ruling stands. The Supreme Court says "we" control the traffic stops.

 

This guy probably had it coming, but I'm not convinced the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement to sign a ticket. What's the compelling state interest in having a signed ticket?

[ericfoerster]

The actions of the driver and passenger are controlled, not the signing of the ticket.

 

But I'll go one step further and tell you that if he refused, which he did, he would then be arrested. That arrest is legal and so is all the force necessary to make the arrest if conditions warrant, which they did.

Take a good look at the suspects right hand in the video. I know many a trooper who would have sent that guy on a trip to meet jesus.

[swilson]

I'm not convinced the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement to sign a ticket. What's the compelling state interest in having a signed ticket?

 

You're misunderstanding what happened. The guy wasn't tased for refusal to sign a ticket. He was tased for resisting arrest by not obeying the officers orders.

 

In addition to just not obeying his orders, after being told to put his hands behind his back he then reached for his waistband or pockets where he could possibly get to a weapon and was walking back to his vehicle which could also contain a weapon or could be used as a weapon. Big, BIG, safety concerns for the officer. The courts will have no problem at all with this use of force.

 

Just for info... in California and probably most other states, if you refuse to sign a citation you will be brought before a magistrate... which means you'll be given a free ride there in handcuffs, in the back of a patrol car. If the guy had just turned around and put his hands behind his back he would have been cuffed and put in the car... it was the guys actions that earned him the taser.

 

I've never had a refusal to sign go that bad... once I explain to the nice citizen that there are two choices they always choose to sign.

 

Sign the ticket, be free to go about their business and sleep in their own bed tonight and meet with me another day in court to argue their case.

 

OR

 

Be handcuffed, ride in a patrol car, get your photograph and fingerprints taken, sleep in the county jail, and see a judge tomorrow (or the next available court day).

 

[ghaverkamp]

But I'll go one step further and tell you that if he refused, which he did, he would then be arrested. That arrest is legal and so is all the force necessary to make the arrest if conditions warrant, which they did.

 

Well, he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested, and according to some of the articles I read, it's not even that common in Utah for the officer to arrest the person for refusing to sign.

 

I haven't watched the video, but I'll take your word for it that the guy deserved what he got, especially once out of the car and disobeying orders. But he wouldn't have been out of the car but for a stupid law requiring him to sign something the ticket, presumably to say he'll appear. That seems nothing but a needless formality to me (and perhaps little more than to provide a mechanism for officers to get a shot to search a vehicle.)

[MotorinLA]

Want to bet we wouldn't know about this stop if the guy had signed the ticket and moved on

 

This battle has been fought numerous times and the ruling stands. The Supreme Court says "we" control the traffic stops.

 

This guy probably had it coming, but I'm not convinced the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement to sign a ticket. What's the compelling state interest in having a signed ticket?

 

I don't understand, Greg.

 

The state's interest is that the offender signs a 'promise to appear' to take care of the matter in court. An offender signs a promise to appear (the ticket) in lieu of being transported directly to a magistrate (or jail outside of regular court hours) at the time the offense is committed.

[ghaverkamp]

The state's interest is that the offender signs a 'promise to appear' to take care of the matter in court. An offender signs a promise to appear (the ticket) in lieu of being transported directly to a magistrate (or jail outside of regular court hours) at the time the offense is committed.

 

I understand that is the pretense. I don't buy that it's the least bit necessary. Whether a person signs a promise to appear or not, they can still be commanded to appear. I don't see how the signing of a promise to appear amounts to anything more than forcing a situation that might result in greater invasion.

[Roadwolf]

Man, I have watched this video several times over and have come to the following conclusions, from a civilian point of view:

 

1. The driver was hot headed at times... he could have handled it better... if it were me, I would have saved my arguments for court as to the sign for the lower speed limit... note in the video that it was before the trooper's car and the case could be made that the driver either did not see because of the trooper's position to the sign, thus blocking it from view or that because the trooper was ahead of him and pulling off the roadway, that this was the focus of the driver, thus causing him to not see the sign in the first place.

 

2. I believe the cop accelerated the situation much too quickly... he was a bit premature in his drawing of the tazer. He could have handled the situation better, but his attitude is very apparent here. Sorry if you don't agree, but I think if he had done or said something like this... "Sir, by refusing to sign this, I can take you to jail right now." (which I did not hear, only "Sir, step out of the car!)... then the guy walks past the trooper pointing in the direction of the sign (which in subsequent interviews with the suspect has said repeatedly that when the officer asked him out of the Durango, he thought the trooper was going to show him the sign that he just passed, so he was surprised with the pulling of the tazer). The officer's orders to put his hands behind this back to some may not register, as obviously was the case in this guy's situation... you can see that the driver has no idea what he is talking about, and instead of saying you are under arrest, the officer repeats put your hands behind your back and it does not click with this driver, especially when the tazer is drawn. As to the putting hands in his pockets, watching this several times, it looks like a nervous reaction of the driver, looking for his keys, who knows? Should he have done it? Probably no. But it sends the officer into overreaction-land, in my opinion.

 

I note that some of the responses here have backed the the trooper and that they come from the law enforcement perspective. I really know that it must be a dangerous job out there and that this guy was out there alone (at least for the first 15 minutes of the video), so he was concerned for his safety, but I think that he may have been jumping the "gun" prematurely and that better communication skills could have been used. Interesting his description on the suspect's demeanor to the other officer too, as well (he was jumping and carrying on and what not comments - I am paraphrasing here). I think that a lot could have possibly been done to diffuse the situation if the trooper had been a bit more patient with this driver (and then maybe not, the driver could have still escalated it further, but we will never know because of the way this ended).

 

I know that this will rile some of you officers out there, but this is my honest and reflective opinion after watching this video.

[BigArn]

Flusssssh, what, what was that sound, ohh more of our rights being flushed down the toilet.

[MotorinLA]

Roadwolf,

 

my suggestion to you would be to watch a few episodes of Under Fire on CourtTV. Although I'm sure you'll have much to critique after watching a few episodes, I think it will give you a good idea of how fast things can go from 'routine' to out of control.

 

If you have never been a police officer, you have no idea of what we deal with on a daily basis. When was the last time you pulled a gun off a guy that you just stopped for a minor infraction? How many individuals have you dealt with that have committed violent crimes, such as armed robbery, rape or murder? When was the last time you were in a fight for your life?

 

You judge from the perspective of a person with little or no experience in the field of law enforcement. If you knew how many criminals you unwittingly come in contact with on a daily basis and how little many of these individuals would care about inflicting harm on you, I think you would sleep a lot less restfully at night.

 

What you see on the taser tape is guy who 'just misunderstood' what was going on and got zapped. What I see is an individual who is acting in a nervous manner, who is non-compliant with verbal commands and who is running towards his car, possibly to arm himself or jump back in his car to evade arrest. That may seem far fetched to you, but from my experience, not speculation,I can tell you that it is a real perceived threat.

 

By the way, I have been tased a couple of times and it's not that bad.

[David]

By the way, I have been tased a couple of times and it's not that bad.

 

So then why don't you just sign the ticket instead of going through that each time?

 

Just kidding.

[Roadwolf]

MotorinLA,

 

 

my suggestion to you would be to watch a few episodes of Under Fire on CourtTV. Although I'm sure you'll have much to critique after watching a few episodes, I think it will give you a good idea of how fast things can go from 'routine' to out of control.

 

I don’t doubt that happens and that a police officer has the right to assess the situation and determine what the appropriate response should be, whether to fire a bullet, a taser, tear gas or call for back up and wait it out. It is different in many situations, but I would say that because that happens alot, it does not necessarily mean it happens all the time and in the situation presented here in this video

 

If you have never been a police officer, you have no idea of what we deal with on a daily basis. When was the last time you pulled a gun off a guy that you just stopped for a minor infraction? How many individuals have you dealt with that have committed violent crimes, such as armed robbery, rape or murder? When was the last time you were in a fight for your life?

 

Agreed, and how could I know what it is like, I am NOT a police officer. To expect me to understand fully what you go through is not fair, just like I wouldn’t expect you to understand the finer points of Photoshop, InDesign, QuarkXpress, etc, because that is MY job and what I am experienced at... What I can tell you is from an outsider’s position, you can tell me if you don’t like my work’s effort, just like I can see from an outsider looking in that this video portrays the situation where both parties appear to be at fault (I will note that I have read comments from other law enforcement officers on other internet boards that agree with my position on the officer’s actions, so it is not a blanket statement that all law enforcement officers tend to see this as you do).

 

You judge from the perspective of a person with little or no experience in the field of law enforcement. If you knew how many criminals you unwittingly come in contact with on a daily basis and how little many of these individuals would care about inflicting harm on you, I think you would sleep a lot less restfully at night.

 

Just because I benefit from the services of law enforcement (to protect and to serve) does not mean that I turn a blind eye to the overzealousness of some officers. I have met a few state troopers and others getting performance awards and as bad as it is getting a ticket for speeding, the ones that handled it professionally and with a duty of protecting and serving the public got a thumbs up in my book. The ones that decided to handle it as a drill sargeant and as Darth Vader left a sour taste in my mouth (granted, they don’t have to act that way, but you sure appreciated the difference).

 

What you see on the taser tape is guy who 'just misunderstood' what was going on and got zapped. What I see is an individual who is acting in a nervous manner, who is non-compliant with verbal commands and who is running towards his car, possibly to arm himself or jump back in his car to evade arrest. That may seem far fetched to you, but from my experience, not speculation,I can tell you that it is a real perceived threat.

 

We will just disagree here... he was not running towards his car, he was taken aback by the drawing of the taser, not believing what was happening... at this point, though, I almost think that the tasing is inevitable... the guy is now freaking out because of seeing it and the cop has crossed that line of no return, he has to pull the trigger to follow through with it. In my view, this did not have to happen.

 

By the way, I have been tased a couple of times and it's not that bad.

 

That is like saying I have been waterboarded and it’s not that bad. Look, obviously it hurts like the dickens and in some published cases, people have died. I have a heart condition, and I sure as heck wouldn’t want to be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity. Can’t be good to some.

 

Respectfully,

 

Chris Parker

[tallman]

What rights?

The right to refuse to comply with a lawful order?

 

Here's what I drove up on yesterday. The driver was shot.

http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS01/712040321

 

Do what you're told and drive home, unless you have something to hide.

[Wyn]

Eh, he deserved it. Shut up, give em your paperwork, sign your ticket, and move on. Geez, it's so easy anyone can do it.

 

Then again, his parents probably never taught him any better.

[Ken H.]

What rights?

The right to refuse to comply with a lawful order?

 

Here's what I drove up on yesterday. The driver was shot.

http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS01/712040321

 

Do what you're told and drive home, unless you have something to hide.

I guess that's my reaction too. The Utah driver was being foolish, the adrenalin was flowing fast and hard on both sides, and he got tasered. Did the LEO over react, maybe, maybe not, but better tasered than shot. The fact that the LEO drew his taser rather than his firearm it seems to me shows that he wasn't too far over the top and was taking the route of least (or at least lesser) force. At least the driver has a better chance of living to argue about it later.

 

Now the recent death involving a tasered person in the Canadian airport, that's a whole different story in my mind. Tasering that guy was inexcusable.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Um, let me see. The LEO has pepper spray, a baton, a Tazer, a gun, and a specific set of guidelines when to use them.

 

Explain to me why anyone thinks that they shouldn't do what he says?

 

 

Greg, the signature eliminates a lot of other crap that the court would have to do to "mandate" that someone show. Once signed, the court knows that the offender is aware of the date and time that he must show. (It's on the ticket.) If the court sends things in the ordinary mail, they cannot be sure that it is delivered. So they send it signature required and there's no one to sign for it. So a Deputy shows up at the door to deliver it, and guess what? The guy has to sign that he received it! This whole mess could be prevented by just signing it at the scene.

[Mike]

Former cop speaking here . . . one who's done traffic stops, confronted armed individuals, and has apprehended individuals who resisted arrest. My take is that the cop, through a combination of miscommunication and a need to be a hard-ass, caused the escalation. The driver was actually pretty compliant--he pulled over immediately and followed the cops orders until the point that the officer drew the taser, scaring the bejeezus out of the guy.

 

Two points are worth remembering: (1) Many people believe that signing a ticket or any other type of "legal" document is an admission of guilt; the officer never attempted to explain that. (2) After complying immediately with the order to exit his vehicle, the motorist is confronted with a very loud--and seemingly inexplicable--order to put his hands behind his back and an almost simultaneous drawing of a weapon (which looks like a gun to the average Joe).

 

I don't believe the officer intentionally did anything wrong, but I think a large part of the responsibility for this rests on his shoulders. That in no way excuses the B.S. he's had to put up with since this incident occurred.

[Schupo]

Let's not confuse the two issues of signing the ticket and overall safety of the stop. A traffic stop is an investigative detention. The officer has the right to use a reasonable amount of force to get the violator to comply with the conditions of this detention.

 

When anyone who is detained by law enforcement, whether in a vehicle or on foot, starts arguing, prancing about, and making furtive movements, they are signaling, perhaps inadvertently, that something really dumb (like, possibly, an assault on the officer) is about to happen. The officer in that situation has to now consider a number of variables: traffic on the roadway where he/she might be pushed, shoved, or thrown, if he/she goes hands-on with the violator, or where the violator might blindly stumble if blinded by pepper-spray; passengers in the vehicle who might want to assist the driver; availability of weapons inside the car; ETA of the nearest back-up unit; etc.

 

Situations like this are dynamic and fast-moving. Action beats reaction. This trooper absolutely had to get this situation under control safely. The Taser was his most appropriate tool.

[hANNAbONE]

i mUST bE dense -- I cannot find the video link on their webpage...

 

I see their narrative - but no link...

 

where is the video??

 

TIA

[Roadwolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrtQJHaX1Do

[Deans BMW]

I belive that the LEO had more than a bit of meaglomenia, Barney Fife, want a be tough guy exhibited. That can cause never ending legal hardships on him.

[baggerchris]

I was a Deputy in Arizona for a short time in the early 70's. Scared the wits out of me and I got out pronto. Traffic stop; late at night muliple folks in the car acting strangly, getting out; coming around; making threats; closest help 75 miles away. All I had was my issue handgun. Thanks to my training no lives were lost, but it was dicey there for awhile. No Thanks. My hat is off to our LEO's,even tho I recognize like the general population, there are good ones and a few bad apples in the bunch. Sign the ticket and make it easy on all concerned. Don't, and go directly to jail.

[smiller]

The driver shouldn't have ignored the officer's instructions but the officer was at least partially at fault for the escalation. The LEO didn't appear to make even the slightest effort to remain calm and explain/defuse the situation, clearly had an attitude, and appeard to be using the taser as much as a punishment as a means for self-defense. If the Utah Highway Patrol considers that an acceptable level of perfoprmance of its officers then as a citizen I'd be concerned.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

The driver shouldn't have ignored the officer's instructions but he clearly wasn't a threat either.

 

Hindsight's a wonderful thing. We know now that the driver wasn't a threat, but in the instant that he was ignoring the officer's instructions, the same could not be said.

 

Maybe it's just me, but understanding that LEOs have a terribly tough job, made even more so when their every action can be scrutinized from our warm and comfy homes, I make sure that every action I make during a traffic stop is done in a manor to calm the officer. I don't do anything until the officer has agreed and knows my intentions.

 

The side of the road isn't the place to argue your case with the officer.

 

What you don't see with this video is how this officer's stops normally go, when the detained driver does as instructed. I'll cut the officer some slack unless other proof can be presented that he is typically hostile in his encounters with the general public.

 

Maybe I've just had more traffic stops than the average person and learned to behave over time. There was a time in high school when we were told (by our peers) that challenging a LEO's instructions would make them nervous and would make it more likely that you'd get off with a warning. Over the years, I've learned that only one piece of that advice was accurate.

[BigArn]

What rights?

The right to refuse to comply with a lawful order?

 

Do what you're told and drive home, unless you have something to hide.

 

Yes mam do what your told. How about the LEO answering some of the questions the driver had?? Huh, no he doesn’t have to do that and didn't even try to, but now we have to obey what the LEO tells us or get shot!!!! What about OUR rights. Don't sign the ticket and get tazed, I guess he should be happy for not getting shot for not signing huh??? Yea I hear that flushing sound. Tazers for not signing a ticket, un lawful roadblocks stopping law-abiding citizens, we are heading in the wrong direction, and fast.

[smiller]

Maybe it's just me, but understanding that LEOs have a terribly tough job, made even more so when their every action can be scrutinized from our warm and comfy homes

I don't disagree at all. It's a very tough job and a LEO needs to have a lot of discretion if it is to be done properly and safely. But this doesn't mean that an officer's judgement should never be questioned. Every case if different but in this particular example the LEO was probably having a bad day and as a result had a short temper (or at least I hope it was something like that because if the temperment he displayed during this stop is normal for him then he really should be looking at another line of work.) The officer's attitude contributed to the escalation, he made no real attempt to defuse it, and he clearly could have behaved more professionally in his early contact with the driver. I'm not saying that the guy should be fried over this, but the his behavior shouldn't be summarily dismissed as acceptable either.

[awagnon]

Tazers for not signing a ticket

 

No, he got Tazered for resisting arrest. Utah interstate highways are major arteries for drug running from the south. Other incidents haven't turned out this mild. Try, if you can, to put yourself in the LEO's shoes.

 

Now the driver is thinking of suing the LEO. That should be interesting....

[BigArn]

Tazers for not signing a ticket

 

No, he got Tazered for resisting arrest. Utah interstate highways are major arteries for drug running from the south. Other incidents haven't turned out this mild. Try, if you can, to put yourself in the LEO's shoes.

 

Now the driver is thinking of suing the LEO. That should be interesting....

 

Why was a speeder being arrested? For not signing the ticket maybe?

[ESokoloff]

I feel Trooper Gardner could have handled this better & perhaps prevented the motorist to act the way he did.

 

I also did not like the fact that Gardner's car was between the motorist & the 40-mph sign. Garder states that there was a sign 1/2 mile back that the video does not show so we don't know for sure if the motorist passed an unobstructed sign.

 

At the end of the video when asked by the other LEO what happened Gardner explains that he fired the taser after stating "turn around right now or I'll taser gun you" (as far as I can tell), yet I never heard him say that to the motorist.

This troubles me

[David]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

[Mike]

I think anyone who's been an LEO would tell you that you have to cut an officer making a traffic stop a little bit of slack. Statistically it's among the most dangerous things that a cop does--the officer is dealing with the very substantial danger from traffic and, in many instances, a situation where he doesn't know who's in the vehicle or what those occupants may have in mind. Every year a fair number of LEO fatalities arise from officers being struck by passing vehicles or the use of weapons against them.

 

My spidey sense tells me, though, that the LEO's conduct in this instance contributed to the escalation--it's hard to tell from the audio, but it sounds like he allowed himself to get baited into an argument over whether a violation occurred; he did not explain to the guy the implications of not signing the ticket; and he went from zero to pulled weapon in a manner that I, even as someone who's been in similar situations, find inexplicable. I can only imagine how confused and scared the motorist was--he complies with the officer, gets drawn on (yeah, it's not a gun, but it sure as heck looks like one), and tries to retreat.

 

Even if you agree with me--and I know a lot of people would not--I don't see this as misconduct. Rather, I see it as a situation where the combination of a slightly belligerant motorist and a cop making less than optimal decisions caused an unnecessary escalation.

[bojohnson]

It looks to me like the officer was more concerned over "who's in charge" than he was trying to calm the situation. That being said, the driver failed to understand what most people know, that when confronted by a law enforcement officer you keep your mouth shut and act like an adult - if for no other reason than they can apparently taser at will. They're were both a couple of jerks, IMHO.

[smiller]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

It sure beats discussing which oil is best.

[BigArn]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

 

Oh David it gets passionate when the words "Oil" "tires" and "exhaust" gets mentioned.

But I agree it's silly, fun but silly.

[jaytee]

Talk about the wrong board to go off on the average citizen's frustration with the trend towards God-complexes many LEO's seem to have...

 

Anyhow, The officer has state-granted powers: power to detain, power to arrest, power to use various degrees of force up to and including lethal. It is a fact of survival that people without power need to be cautious around peopel with power.

 

While there are *some* protections built into our system of justice for the common citizen, the average citizen's understanding of those protection is typically incomplete. Relying on those protections in an adversarial confrontation with an LEO is just a bad idea, especially since many LEO's likewise have an incomplete understanding of civil rights.

 

So, while I completely agree that the driver was not acting with much common sense, this truly seems a perfect-storm to me: The officer was agressive and had a God-complex with the force of teh state and the force of his armaments and trainign backing him up. The driver had a complete misunderstanding of the power differential and felt that an injustice had been done to him. Add the third mix of an easy-to-use non-lethal means of force (namely the taser) and we get a situation that nearly *had* to end the way it did.

 

So hypothetically, what if the officer had no taser? Would he have reached for pepper-spray or a gun? I'm betting he would have spent more time reasonign and explaining the situation rather than just throwing down on the driver. Maybe I am wrong and the state of our "free" country is even more dire than I suspect.

 

JT

[Mike]

You raise a question that's been debated in LEO circles--whether the Taser, being touted as a intermediate non-lethal level of force--is being used too readily. You don't have to search very hard to find a lot of instances where Tasers seem to be used inappropriately.

 

This will date me, but when I was a cop (a long time ago), the only weapon I had available was a gun. That wasn't a particularly good situation either, since the only way to means of escalation was to resort to the threat or use of lethal force.

[jaytee]

Mike, this actually is a conversation I have been having with a few of my LEO clients ever since the UCLA tasing incident: Wiki UCLA taser incident

 

I suspect that in the near future more departments will develop substanitially narrower guidelines for the appropriate use of tasers to prevent perceived abuses.

 

JT

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Not a direct relpy to Mike. Just a convenient place to click...

 

So I just opened the YouTube link above to watch the video for the first time. I stopped it at 1:20. If you listen closely to the audio you can already hear the driver making excuses. The officer has already asked him for the license and registration TWICE.

 

There is an edit.

 

By 2:30 driver is already telling the officer "no you're not" when told that he will be recieving a ticket.

 

He had 15 seconds of being told "turn around and put your hands behind you back" 3 times, and still turned away from the officer and began to walk away.

 

After being tased, he still argues with the officer "I first want you to understand something." "Please, please, just let me expalin to you."

 

Gimme a friggen break. He breaks all the rules of "appropriate conduct" during a trafic stop. He may not have deserved being tazed, but he certainly earned it.

 

I'll add that the camera doesn't show what was in the car, what was going on inside the car, the odor of the drivers breath, whether it appeared that he was intoxicated or any other hundreds of factors that be present.

 

Sorry, but I'll side with the LEO.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

 

It's winter.

 

I'll start another oil thread momentarily.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

 

Aren't you the one who posted the argument calendar a couple of years ago, for things to fill our time while it's snowing outside? I can't find that thread right now (which is a damn shame, 'cuz I had a good post in there on raccoon-related topics), but if this subject wasn't on your original schedule, consider it a last-minute agenda change.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

He may not have deserved being tazed, but he certainly earned it.

 

I don't understand why people keep discussing whether or not he "deserved" to be tazed. "Deserved" doesn't enter into it: the implements on a LEO's utility belt are not for meting out justice, they are for gaining/maintaining control of the immediate situation and preserving the safety of the general public, the LEO, and (finally) the arrestee. "Deserved" gets addressed at a later time/date, when the arrestee is charged/tried/sentenced/fined for resisting arrest.

[Rotor]

What rights?

The right to refuse to comply with a lawful order?

 

Do what you're told and drive home, unless you have something to hide.

 

Yes mam do what your told. How about the LEO answering some of the questions the driver had?? Huh, no he doesn’t have to do that and didn't even try to, but now we have to obey what the LEO tells us or get shot!!!! What about OUR rights. Don't sign the ticket and get tazed, I guess he should be happy for not getting shot for not signing huh??? Yea I hear that flushing sound. Tazers for not signing a ticket, un lawful roadblocks stopping law-abiding citizens, we are heading in the wrong direction, and fast.

 

Apparently, you or a family member has never been the victim of an impaired driver. I'm fairly confident it would change your position on road blocks. As for your rights; that is exactly what most LEO's are trying to protect. Including the right of free speech and open condemnation of what you perceive as unjust. As far as this specific incident goes, we could pick this apart for days. Obvious problems on both sides: tactically and professionally.

[russell_bynum]

Don't sign the ticket and get tazed, I guess he should be happy for not getting shot for not signing huh???

 

Yes...he's very lucky that the trooper had something like a taser. The alternative when someone is resisting arrest is:

Smith&Wesson, or Nightstick of Justice.

 

He wasn't tased for refusing to sign the ticket, he was tased for resisting arrest.

 

I don't care if the cop is being a completely unreasonable, raving a**hole. He says jump, I say "How high?" on the way up.

 

The time to argue is in court, not on the side of the road.

[ESokoloff]

UHP announced there was a breakdown in communication. Investigators feel the officer who dealt with Jared Massey in this incident did not communicate well enough with Massey when giving him the speeding ticket.

[bobbybob]

My brief 2 cents:

1) the cop lied to the other officer when he said he gave the guy a warning to "turn around and put your hands behind your back or I'll taser you". He did not say ANYTHING about whether what he was holding was a gun or taser. No warning---just "turn around" and then ZZZZZZZAPPPP!

 

2) He never told the guy what the options were for not signing the ticket.

 

The cop blew this one, caused it, escalated it, whatever.

 

(edit: Oh yeah, lets not forget about the attempted coverup--see above posting)

[russell_bynum]

Why was a speeder being arrested? For not signing the ticket maybe?

 

Exactly.

 

You sign the ticket to say "I'll take care of this"...either by paying it, or by fighting it in court. If you don't sign the ticket, then you go to jail and the state forces you to take care of it.

 

The choice is yours.

 

When the driver refused to comply with the officer's commands, he made the choice to be arrested.

 

He continued to refuse to comply when the officer was trying to arrest him. What was the officer supposed to do that that time? It is his job to arrest the guy. He can eithr shoot the guy, beat him into submission, or tase him.

 

Given that the trooper was alone in the middle of nowhere with multiple people in the car he stopped, I can totally understand why he was eager to get control of the situation very quickly.

[Mike]

Given that the trooper was alone in the middle of nowhere with multiple people in the car he stopped, I can totally understand why he was eager to get control of the situation very quickly.

 

Totally understandable. My point, though, is that the officer contributed to the confusion that brought things to this point. I wasn't especially impressed by the subsequent off-camera conversation, either--"He took a ride with the Taser . . . hurts, doesn't it?"

 

There are lessons for all of us in this, though. It's simply a no-win situation for any motorist hoping to fight his ticket on the side of the road. The officer is going to be amped-up and concerned about his safety. Being a confrontational dick is not a winning strategy for someone who's been pulled over. Even if you get away with not being zapped, arrested, or shot, you're certain to give the officer plenty to remember and lots of motivation for showing up to testify at your hearing.