Utah-LEOs have opened taser hunting season on drivers

[ericfoerster]

Just as I thought

 

Might want to direct your attention here:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

 

Seems we are well down the list here too:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922223.html

 

Think again.

[BigArn]

I didn't ask what was the safest city or state now did I. I asked why Texas is at the top of the list for putting people to death, but you spoke of Texans obeying the law more so then the rest of the country.

Please slow down and re-read what you type earlier in this post. And then answere that question. Then maybe Andy will give your bullet back.

[ericfoerster]

Lets see...we have 23-25 million people living here and we have a death penalty.

 

Simple math...easy answer.

 

Andy, where are you? I need my bullet back.

 

Now where did you put that pencil sharpener?

[BigArn]

I bet you were good a dodge ball

[bmurphypdx]

FWIW, Washington State Troopers no longer require signatures on tickets (don't ask me how I know - well, OK, I got a ticket in my cage the other day). This pretty much answers the question of whether a signature is really necessary - it isn't. Do what the officer says - always - really? WOW, that is a police state. Most cops are good guys, thankfully, but, like anything else there are some bad apples out there. I reserve the right to use my own judgment about responding and if the cop uses force unnecessarily, he'll be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

[ericfoerster]

I bet you were good a dodge ball

 

I bet you weren't

 

(this is fun)

[BigArn]

No I got kicked out all the time for picking on people from Texas. They were kind of slow in getting out of the way

 

Yea this is fun.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I reserve the right to use my own judgment about responding and if the cop uses force unnecessarily, he'll be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

 

That's your prerogative. If you choose to comply you can still file a complaint/lawsuit at a later date. If you choose not to comply, you can file your lawsuit later, but in the meantime you're likely to be suffering from:

 

-burning eyes (due to pepper spray)

-broken bones and bruises (due to nightstick action or hand-to-hand combat)

-whole-body agony (due to being tazed)

-decomposition (due to having been shot to death)

 

Picture this:

You're sitting at a traffic light. The light turns green, but there's a bus approaching rapidly from the left, and it's obvious he's going to blow through his red light. Do you proceed immediately into the intersection, yelling out the window "I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY" and thinking about the lawsuit you'll be filing after the crash, or do you hold back and surrender right-of-way to the idiot bus driver?

[russell_bynum]

[BigArn]

[BigArn]

Just as I thought

 

Might want to direct your attention here:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

 

Seems we are well down the list here too:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922223.html

 

Think again.

 

So OK you got some safe cities there in texas but what about this.

 

Men's Health magazine ranked cities on their danger from alcohol.

 

The rankings were based on factors such as fatal drunken driving crashes, liver disease and laws about when and where to buy alcohol.

 

They were listed from most dangerous to least dangerous.

 

100. Denver

99. Anchorage

98. Colorado Springs, Colo.

97. Omaha, Neb.

96. Fargo, N.D.

95. San Antonio, Texas

94. Austin, Texas

93. Fresno, Calif.

92. Lubbock, Texas

91. Milwaukee, Wis.

90. El Paso, Texas

89. Spokane, Wash.

88. Washington, D.C.

87. Columbia, S.C.

86. St. Louis,

85. Bakersfield, Calif.

84. San Diego, Calif.

83. Cheyenne, Wy.

82. Aurora, Colo.

81. Houston, Texas

 

Just a few that I copied, but man it seems like the Lone Star state is on top of this list to.

[jaytee]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

Punishment ??? Prove your statement.

 

The deployment of the taser here is not in question to most LEO’s. If you look at several factors you can quickly determine the use of the taser was prudent for several reasons.

 

The officer was alone with an obviously upset person.

The suspect appeared to have something in his pocket on the right side.

The incident took place on the traffic side of SUV. Not a good place to go “hands on” and get yourself thrown into traffic.

The suspect refused to do anything the officer asked.

 

As an officer you have to ask what tool would most effectively end this situation with the least amount force and possible injury. If the stop were on the non-traffic side I’d have gone with a simple leg sweep with a dose of pepper.

I think a lot questions would be answered if we knew where the taser was in their use of force continuum. Some agencies have the taser prior to hands on and others it is after.

I’d still argue that going into a hands situation on that side of the car is bad news.

 

<sigh...>

 

Not sure why I persist in a thread that has so much obvious trolling when there are clearly larger social questions that this incident is reflective of, but I'll try.

 

As to 'proof' - none is needed. The difference between punishment and coercion is a fine line. I reject the notion that punishment happens solely after the fact. In this case the officer had several options. He chose the one that was most convienent for himself and extremely painful for the driver. Maybe he honestly thougth he was about to be shot by the driver (I doubt it), or maybe he had a bad day, a bad attitude and met a driver who was pushing his buttons and he let down his profesionalism just enough to make a bad (albeit apparently legal) judgement call.

 

So What.

 

My comments that you quoted have very little to do with the particular incident in question and instead deal with the rising incidence of questionable taser use. Questionable not by the departments who are using these guidelines in their force continuum, but rather questionable by the civilian world that is subjected to them.

 

This civilian world, including oversight boards, city councils, etc., ultimately has authority over the various police departments. To the degree that the apparent 'abuses' by police of the taser tool get noticed by the civilian authorities, there are potential policy repercusions. One of those repercusions is likely a modification internaly of training and use-of-force placement of the taser, to even the imposed banning of its use by the civilian authorities.

 

THAT is the issue I am driving at. I dont care very much if johnny law tases joe civillian and its legal, I do care about the larger policy question about the decision to use tasers on a regular basis when there are many many cases of questionable use.

 

JT

[russell_bynum]

The rankings were based on factors such as fatal drunken driving crashes, liver disease and laws about when and where to buy alcohol.

 

Laws about when and where to buy alcohol? WTF? What does that have to do with anything?

 

Base it on DUI accidents and you'd have something worthwhile, but when you include some nonsensical variable, you contaminate your results.

 

In computer terms: Garbage in, Garbage out.

[Marty Hill]

Hey Eric,

 

How are things? Slow I guess or you wouldn't bother playing rope-a-dope.

 

Take care and shoot straight.

[tallman]

This thread...

KO

[ericfoerster]

Slow I guess or you wouldn't bother playing rope-a-dope

 

A nation of sheep Marty, that is why it's so easy. I must admit I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

 

Take care amigo

 

God my casting arm hurts

[ericfoerster]

Ok, I've played golf and walked the dogs and I'm ready for more.

 

 

the Lone Star state is on top of this list to.

 

 

Ok, your point is?

 

San Antonio metro- about 1.3 million

El Paso- ½ million (with 1 million + a day with the cross border traffic)

Austin metro- 1.5 million +

Houston metro- 5.5 million

Lubbock- 250,000

 

So, roughly 9 million people are counted against cities with much less population. What is the per capita rate? What is the source material for the data? How is it measured? Is it from an unbiased source?

 

There are readily viewed flaws with the study that seem to jump right out. Fargo is ranked higher than San Antonio. A city of roughly 1.3 million people ranks better than one with 90,000’ish. Seems like we are doing pretty well then, right? I mean Men’s Health printed it so it must be true.

 

I never used Men’s Health magazine to gather empirical data during college. I can see why it’s not good source material with that kind of sensationalism going on.

 

What was this all about again?

 

WIT

–noun 1. the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure.

2. speech or writing showing such perception and expression.

3. a person having or noted for such perception and expression.

4. understanding, intelligence, or sagacity; astuteness.

5. Usually, wits. a. powers of intelligent observation, keen perception, ingenious contrivance, or the like; mental acuity, composure, and resourcefulness: using one's wits to get ahead.

b. mental faculties; senses: to lose one's wits

 

 

[Marty Hill]

Slow I guess or you wouldn't bother playing rope-a-dope

 

A nation of sheep Marty, that is why it's so easy. I must admit I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

 

Take care amigo

 

God my casting arm hurts

 

Didn't we promise to leave the sheep to Wurty? I hope he still loves us.

 

Remember, always aim for the head.

[ericfoerster]

always aim for the head

 

Only with a taser

[Pilgrim]

and went on my merry way

 

I'd still taser you

 

Twice - the second time just for fun.

 

To all you folks who who don't get it, try this on for size: You get shot, there are no do-overs. You end your shift on a gurney, in the hospital, if you're lucky.

 

Pilgrim

[chrisd]

Just as I thought

 

Might want to direct your attention here:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

 

Seems we are well down the list here too:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922223.html

 

Think again.

 

Why is motor vehicle theft factored into these rankings?

[ericfoerster]

Why is motor vehicle theft factored into these rankings?

 

My guess is the stats came from the UCR reports.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

[Ken H.]

My comments that you quoted have very little to do with the particular incident in question and instead deal with the rising incidence of questionable taser use. Questionable not by the departments who are using these guidelines in their force continuum, but rather questionable by the civilian world that is subjected to them.

 

This civilian world, including oversight boards, city councils, etc., ultimately has authority over the various police departments. To the degree that the apparent 'abuses' by police of the taser tool get noticed by the civilian authorities, there are potential policy repercusions. One of those repercusions is likely a modification internaly of training and use-of-force placement of the taser, to even the imposed banning of its use by the civilian authorities.

 

THAT is the issue I am driving at. I dont care very much if johnny law tases joe civillian and its legal, I do care about the larger policy question about the decision to use tasers on a regular basis when there are many many cases of questionable use.

On that I certainly agree. There is going to be bad LEO's, or LEO's with bad days, or bad training, or whatever who use them when they shouldn’t.

 

But I think too we have to remember they are a fairly new thing. And a very graphically visible thing to boot. Somebody laying on the ground withering in pain on the 11 o’clock news garners strong emotional reactions in people. OTOH, we rarely see footage on the nightly news or YouTube of the suspect just shot by the LEO laying on the ground bleeding to death. Even if captured on tape it wouldn't be considered acceptable footage to use, where as someone getting tasered for some reason is. So public outcry from being visually 'connected' to these incidents is larger.

 

And because they are newer, just like anything, there inevitably is a certain 'shaking out' period as everyone sorts out to what/and when is an acceptable use and what isn't. I think we’re in that now. Are LEO's in general too quick to taser these days? I don't know, but I think the visibility of the incidents may lead us to that conclusion even if it proves out to not be true in the long run.

 

But if tasers in the end get curtailed, I think that would be a shame. Because the same LEO under the same conditions drawing his firearm often has a far more permanent outcome. Then you end up with a victim of the “bad LEO” who is right, but dead right. If an overzealous LEO tasers someone, the someone still (likely, there have been deaths) has a chance to challenge the use and prove their case that the use was wrong. Not that that makes the inappropriate use at the time unchallengeable, just that at least it can be challenged by the ‘taseree’ (sp?).

[ericfoerster]

Ken, you bring up some valid points and they are well crafted for the public.

 

I might suggest a quick trip to google or to you tube on the subject of officer deaths in the line of duty. Seems to be a rise in our death rates going on.

 

The outline in chalk could be another officer if we left folks run around with their hands in their pockets.

 

I am just saying that we need protection too.

 

Another great point of view, Ken. That kind of substance makes think, I like that

[russell_bynum]

I do care about the larger policy question about the decision to use tasers on a regular basis when there are many many cases of questionable use.

 

Honestly, I can't recall hearing many stories of taser use that I considered questionable.

[jaytee]

I do care about the larger policy question about the decision to use tasers on a regular basis when there are many many cases of questionable use.

 

Honestly, I can't recall hearing many stories of taser use that I considered questionable.

 

UCLA

UofF

Vancouver

Jerseyville

LAX Lake City

boston

 

For the lazy - you know who you are!

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg if you google taser incident or taser controversy. There are DOZENS of hits for taser usage that is causing controversy. The taser is being used for punishment, it is killing people , and its fostering a dependence by our law enforcement on it (IMHO), instead of a higher level of training on how to deal with the public a little better.

 

But whatever your opinion on the subject, its very hard to deny that there are a lot of people very uncomfortable with the way tasers are currently being used.

 

JT

[Bud]

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.

 

Obviously nothing. But it is in Riders Discuss Other Topics so one should have no expectation of it having to do squat with riding.

[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.

 

Obviously nothing. But it is in Riders Discuss Other Topics so one should have no expectation of it having to do squat with riding.

 

It wasn't in this forum when I made that comment.

[Ken H.]

The outline in chalk could be another officer if we left folks run around with their hands in their pockets.

 

I am just saying that we need protection too.

Oh absolutely, no argument from me there.

 

When I think about people who choose to get into law enforcement I alternate from thinking they are totally nuts, to having total admiration and awe for them. Or maybe both!

[tallman]

We know who they are.

http://www.odmp.org/graphs/currentvslast.php

http://www.njlawman.com/2002_line_of_duty_deaths.htm

During Police Week and on Peace Officer's Memorial Day (May 15th of every year by Act of Congress) family survivors are invited to attend a memorial service at the American Police Hall of Fame now located in Titusville, Florida.

[Agent_Orange]

Home > Products > Law Enforcement & Corrections > TASER XREP

TASER XREP

 

 

 

 

Introducing the TASER XREP – the eXtended Range Electronic Projectile. XREP is a self-contained, wireless projectile that fires from a standard 12-gauge shotgun. It delivers the same Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) bio-effect as our handheld TASER X26, but can be delivered to a distance of up to 100 feet, combining blunt impact with field proven TASER NMI.

The core technology that made the XREP possible is the XREP engine. A stunning engineering achievement, the XREP Engine provides the same bio-effect as our field proven X26, but from an electronics package that weighs only 2.4 grams and consumes less than one tenth of a cubic inch. In order to achieve a wireless projectile, the battery is fully integrated into the chassis and autonomously provides the power to drive the XREP engine for its full 20-second cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

The XREP comes pre-packaged in shell that is compatible with existing 12 gauge launchers. The transparent shell ensures officers properly identify the XREP prior to loading it in the shotgun.

 

As the TASER XREP is deployed, a rip cord attached between the shell and the projectile activates the projectile. Once activated, the TASER XREP is “live” as it comes out of the barrel. The XREP autonomously generates incapacitating Neuro Muscular Incapacitation for 20 continuous seconds -- enough time to close the distance and take the offender into custody without risking injury to officers.

 

Not only does the XREP incorporate a revolutionary electronic payload, the XREP also incorporates a radical new spin stabilization technology to maximize accuracy. As the XREP leaves the barrel, 3 torsion spring fins deploy, causing the projectile to spin, even when launched from a smooth bore, providing superior accuracy and flight stabilization. The TASER XREP launch velocity is approximately 300 feet per second.

 

The nose assembly of the XREP contains 4 forward facing barbed electrodes and the collapsible electrode cowling. On impact, the forward facing barbed electrodes attach to the body of the target.

 

The energy from the impact breaks a series of fracture pins that release the main chassis of the XREP which remains connected to the nose by a Kevlar reinforced fiber. As the chassis falls away, 6 cholla electrodes automatically deploy. Named after the famous desert cactus, the cholla electrodes penetrate clothing to deliver the TASER XREP’s powerful NMI over a greater body mass.

Another innovative and unique feature of the XREP nose is the reflex engagement electrode. A normal reaction to the pain of a projectile impact is for the subject to grab at the impact site. If the subject tries to grab or disconnect the XREP projectile, the reflex engagement electrodes complete a circuit allowing TASER NMI to discharge from the Nose Electrodes, through the subject’s body, out to the hand that grabbed the XREP. This creates a significant spread that allows the XREP pulses to affect a large body mass, causing overpowering Neuro Muscular Incapacitation.

To maximize incapacitation, the XREP engine incorporates a microprocessor controlled optimal electrode selection technology. Twenty times per second, the XREP Engine checks for the best electrode connection to maximize the contact spread and achieve greatest incapacitation. If the Cholla or Reflex Engagement electrodes make contact, the XREP engine automatically delivers NMI impulses from the nose electrodes to the selected electrode. In fact, if the subject even grabs the tether, a live hand-trap wire makes a connection and the NMI effect is delivered through the hand, preventing the subject from letting go. If none of the preferred electrodes are in contact, the XREP delivers its impulse across the front electrodes, creating a painful stimulus to distract, disorient, and entice the subject to grab for the XREP making a hand connection, or to move in reaction to the pain which can help the cholla electrodes on the main chassis to engage.

 

 

 

 

 

The XREP will be released into a pilot field test phase in the fall of 2007. The pilot stage is expected to last 6-12 months before full production release.

 

TASER XREP: The most technologically advanced projectile ever fired from a 12 gauge shotgun.

[ghaverkamp]

Can you imagine a society where people just walk off from peace officers when they don’t like the reason they are stopped. I’ll agree they know probably know where to find the suspect. I can also assure you that finding a person based on drivers license information alone is not always the best way accomplish this task. Collection of fines and fees for out of jurisdiction offenders is a pain and often times these fines are never collected.

 

So what? The officer here has already been back to the car with the guy's information, so he knows as well as he's going to know whether the guy has warrants or is a fugitive.

 

Whether fines are going to be collected or the guy is going to be held responsible in some other way strikes me as addressing the wrong issue. Mitch asked whether using (largely) non-lethal force over a dangerous high-speed chase was worthwhile. Now, you're saying either is justified because the state may lose out on some fines.

 

I'll just posit that this whole situation is not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. Certainly, it raises enough of a question for a noted Fourth Amendment scholar to post about it, even if he didn't give any conclusions. That's not to say it's what cops want to hear. But the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment aren't written to protect cops.

 

In this particular video, the guy never puts his "hands" in his pockets. His right thumb enters his pocket. He's never told he's under arrest, even though the officer has ample opportunities to inform of that before the guy even leaves his car. Is being ordered to put your hands behind your back sufficient to make an arrest? If so, Terry's out the window.

 

Here, you have a guy who's maybe never been pulled over before making the stupid decision to argue with the cop. He says he's not signing until he sees the sign with the cop, and the cop does what? Tell him that he's under arrest? No. He tells him to "hop out of the car."

 

The driver might have been a moron, but the cop seems to have been just as much of one, only he's been issued a weapon. It's hard to find much reasonable about the whole mess.

[ericfoerster]

Ah Greg, you are much too smart to go here.

 

Is being ordered to put your hands behind your back sufficient to make an arrest? If so, Terry's out the window.

 

Tell me you can't defend that as an arrest. Do you think he was free to go? Was the stop short in duration and with limited scope?

I have never heard the words "put you hands behind you back" to mean you are free to go. That is a leap even superman can't make and I doubt there is a Judge or jury that would buy it either. That failed the BS litmus test.

 

You know as well as I that this is no Terry stop, not even close.

 

I've been a party to several suppression hearings where this very issue has been covered. Seems when it's your client that is being "detained" it is always called an arrest. Funny,now in this one,the attorney argues against the arrest.

 

Smells fishy to me.

 

Would a "reasonable person" think they were free to go after they were told to exit their car and put their hands behind their back?

[ghaverkamp]

Tell me you can't defend that as an arrest. Do you think he was free to go? Was the stop short in duration and with limited scope?

I have never heard the words "put you hands behind you back" to mean you are free to go. That is a leap even superman can't make and I doubt there is a Judge or jury that would buy it either. That failed the BS litmus test.

 

You know as well as I that this is no Terry stop, not even close.

 

It certainly wasn't a Terry-esque once he pulled the Taser. (Obviously, it wasn't a Terry stop beyond that, because there was probable cause to detain.) Prior to that, things were pretty casual. Would a reasonable person think he was free to go? The reasonable person generally seems to be an idiot; years of watching "Cops" (which I'll admit I'm sure is filled with only the most TV-worthy incidents) suggests to me that people freak out when cops pull something on them.

 

I don't see where "put your hands behind your back" is a whole lot different from "keep your hands in your pocket" or "put your hands on my hood while I pat you down." Are Terry cues the same as "feel free to go?"

 

Most importantly, it's a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here, in response to the guy saying he wasn't going to sign, the cop responds, "Ok, hop out of the car." The guy clearly comes back, prepared to plead his case, and it wasn't until he started gesturing and pointing that the cop tells him to put his hands behind his back. Then the cop pulled his Taser. Maybe the guy thought he just got too close and should move away. It's not like the cop was communicative. He didn't tell him to stop. He didn't tell him to stay put. He told him to put his hands behind his back, right after he had been pointing.

 

I think it's horrible that traffic stops are the riskiest of events for police. Clearly, it's also horrible that the police have to be paranoid and suspect the worst of everyone, which is clearly the only way to justify what happened in this video.

 

However, that doesn't suggest to me that the answer is to give the police free rein. Like my disagreement with Mitch's suggestion that the only alternative to stop possible flight and a chase was to Tase, maybe the answer to dangerous traffic stops is not to have traffic stops. Is it really better that we have a bunch of police running around who think that nervous movements are reason to pounce?

 

I've been a party to several suppression hearings where this very issue has been covered. Seems when it's your client that is being "detained" it is always called an arrest. Funny,now in this one,the attorney argues against the arrest.

 

I would assume that has more to do with Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues though. If I want to suppress a search or seizure, then I absolutely don't want it to be an arrest. We already know that those grant the right to search.

[AdventurePoser]

 

I love this stuff....

 

Steve in So Cal

[NoLongeraK1200RSRider]

Here I am.. late to the party.. but I do feel I just have to add this.. not in response to the question of whether or not this incident was over the top or not.. but to address the quick use of a tazer on my son recently. He was leaving a private house party.. outside for whatever reason were two local cops.. they were ordering others leaving to "pour their drinks out" before allowing them to proceed. My son had no drink on his person, was walking by the officers and said "Hello, how is it going?". One of the officers (who had a case on my son thrown out of court a few years prior) told him to "stop" which my son did. He was then made to sit cross legged on the ground and was told to "place your hands behind your back" by this same officer. My son asked him "why, what did I do?" and the officer preceeded to shoot him in the chest with a tazer. No warning, no nothing.. in my humble opinion this was unwarranted for two reasons.. one.. nothing my son did was threatening to the officer and two..just because your case was thrown out of court as being unfounded doesn't give you the right to harass someone who got the best of you. Just my .02cents.. and a chance to vent something that has been chewing at me for some time now.

[tallman]

Tell me you can't defend that as an arrest. Do you think he was free to go? Was the stop short in duration and with limited scope?

I have never heard the words "put you hands behind you back" to mean you are free to go. That is a leap even superman can't make and I doubt there is a Judge or jury that would buy it either. That failed the BS litmus test.

 

You know as well as I that this is no Terry stop, not even close.

 

It certainly wasn't a Terry-esque once he pulled the Taser. (Obviously, it wasn't a Terry stop beyond that, because there was probable cause to detain.) Prior to that, things were pretty casual. Would a reasonable person think he was free to go? The reasonable person generally seems to be an idiot; years of watching "Cops" (which I'll admit I'm sure is filled with only the most TV-worthy incidents) suggests to me that people freak out when cops pull something on them.

 

I don't see where "put your hands behind your back" is a whole lot different from "keep your hands in your pocket" or "put your hands on my hood while I pat you down." Are Terry cues the same as "feel free to go?"

 

Most importantly, it's a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here, in response to the guy saying he wasn't going to sign, the cop responds, "Ok, hop out of the car." The guy clearly comes back, prepared to plead his case, and it wasn't until he started gesturing and pointing that the cop tells him to put his hands behind his back. Then the cop pulled his Taser. Maybe the guy thought he just got too close and should move away. It's not like the cop was communicative. He didn't tell him to stop. He didn't tell him to stay put. He told him to put his hands behind his back, right after he had been pointing.

 

I think it's horrible that traffic stops are the riskiest of events for police. Clearly, it's also horrible that the police have to be paranoid and suspect the worst of everyone, which is clearly the only way to justify what happened in this video.

 

However, that doesn't suggest to me that the answer is to give the police free rein. Like my disagreement with Mitch's suggestion that the only alternative to stop possible flight and a chase was to Tase, maybe the answer to dangerous traffic stops is not to have traffic stops. Is it really better that we have a bunch of police running around who think that nervous movements are reason to pounce?

 

I've been a party to several suppression hearings where this very issue has been covered. Seems when it's your client that is being "detained" it is always called an arrest. Funny,now in this one,the attorney argues against the arrest.

 

I would assume that has more to do with Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues though. If I want to suppress a search or seizure, then I absolutely don't want it to be an arrest. We already know that those grant the right to search.

 

 

Whew, I feel better now, all this agreeing with Greg recently has given me a headache.

Maybe the answer to dangerous traffic stops lies elsewhere.

Perhaps a reward system for not violating traffic laws.

Perhaps electronic shutdown of offending driver's vehicle.

Perhaps electronic marking of the vehicle, GPS surveillance, followup intervention when car and driver are stopped and surrounded.

Perhaps a warning , LEO fires paintball gun with colors to represent various violations. When a parked vehicle is found with these markings, the car is impounded.

Perhaps an explosive device implanted in the drivers license. When you are observed violating certain protocols, it is detonated.

The real answer is the simplest.

Follow the rules.

If you break them and are stopped, do what you are told to do.

Dispute the event at the appropriate time and place, with, if desired, full legal representation at that time.

We may become the only Society that makes it illegal for professional law enforcement to do their job.

Personally, I have no desire to be tayzereeded, I have been right and the LEO wrong.

I have been told to" be quiet or go to jail," even though I was right, and there were witnesses standing there supporting my assertion.

It wasn't easy to shut up and follow directions from a young, inexperienced,, unprofessional jerk.

But I did, and life goes on.

Fortunately, this experience makes up less than .01% of my experiences interacting with LEO. At some point, it is up to the driver to respond as a professional citizen who is licensed by the state to legally operate a vehicle with the knowledge that they may be required to follow directives from a LEO as part of the contract we made to obtain a license.

 

[motorman587]

Tell me you can't defend that as an arrest. Do you think he was free to go? Was the stop short in duration and with limited scope?

I have never heard the words "put you hands behind you back" to mean you are free to go. That is a leap even superman can't make and I doubt there is a Judge or jury that would buy it either. That failed the BS litmus test.

 

You know as well as I that this is no Terry stop, not even close.

 

It certainly wasn't a Terry-esque once he pulled the Taser. (Obviously, it wasn't a Terry stop beyond that, because there was probable cause to detain.) Prior to that, things were pretty casual. Would a reasonable person think he was free to go? The reasonable person generally seems to be an idiot; years of watching "Cops" (which I'll admit I'm sure is filled with only the most TV-worthy incidents) suggests to me that people freak out when cops pull something on them.

 

I don't see where "put your hands behind your back" is a whole lot different from "keep your hands in your pocket" or "put your hands on my hood while I pat you down." Are Terry cues the same as "feel free to go?"

 

Most importantly, it's a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here, in response to the guy saying he wasn't going to sign, the cop responds, "Ok, hop out of the car." The guy clearly comes back, prepared to plead his case, and it wasn't until he started gesturing and pointing that the cop tells him to put his hands behind his back. Then the cop pulled his Taser. Maybe the guy thought he just got too close and should move away. It's not like the cop was communicative. He didn't tell him to stop. He didn't tell him to stay put. He told him to put his hands behind his back, right after he had been pointing.

 

I think it's horrible that traffic stops are the riskiest of events for police. Clearly, it's also horrible that the police have to be paranoid and suspect the worst of everyone, which is clearly the only way to justify what happened in this video.

 

However, that doesn't suggest to me that the answer is to give the police free rein. Like my disagreement with Mitch's suggestion that the only alternative to stop possible flight and a chase was to Tase, maybe the answer to dangerous traffic stops is not to have traffic stops. Is it really better that we have a bunch of police running around who think that nervous movements are reason to pounce?

 

I've been a party to several suppression hearings where this very issue has been covered. Seems when it's your client that is being "detained" it is always called an arrest. Funny,now in this one,the attorney argues against the arrest.

 

I would assume that has more to do with Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues though. If I want to suppress a search or seizure, then I absolutely don't want it to be an arrest. We already know that those grant the right to search.

 

""""Is it really better that we have a bunch of police running around who think that nervous movements are reason to pounce?"""""

 

Glad you are not my back up partner. Cause that thinking will get you killed or injuried. Any movement should be taken seriously. If you did not think that the driver's action were not serious, than you not need to apply. Again the cop was not great, but resisting is resisting.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Well, nobody has tazed me yet.

I follow a few simple rules when dealing with LEOs performing their duty.

 

Stand quietly and calmly next to my bike. I usually have removed my helmet prior to getting off and placed it on the seat, not in my hands.

 

From then on, I make no moves, towards pockets or luggage without first indicating to the officer I plan to do so. Example, when instructed to produce my license, I point to the pocket it is in first and say I'm reaching there giving time for the officer to grant me permission. Same with bike paperwork, which is usually in my tank bag or tail trunk. Get permission then slowly open. Give the LEO time for a look before reaching in and, if the paperwork is in a compartment, indicate the compartment or sub-bag first.

 

While presenting my paperwork, I may plead my case a bit or offer an explanation, if they are unreceptive, I just shut up and take my medicine. Most of my encounters have resulted in a warning, a couple have gotten me tickets and I deserved them in almost every case.

 

A LEO has a need, and indeed, a mandate to control the situation, both for his own safety and yours. Traffic stops do not happen in classrooms or empty parking lots, they happen along side often busy highways. The poor guy has enough to worry about just keeping you and himself from getting run over. The fact that he has absolutely no way to know who or what he is about to encounter when he steps out of the patrol car is bound to get the adrenalin level up some.

 

I, for one, am glad there is an alternative to fists, the baton or a gun.

[Lawman]

Thank you Ed..I only wish everyone were as cooperative.

[ericfoerster]

Terry stops still have nothing to do with this at all, pre or post taser. Probable cause existed to make this stop in the first place. Terry was a different animal.

 

This was also not a search or detention argument as it was clear the intention was arrest. The grounds for the arrest are good, it was the execution of said arrest that were bad. The bad execution was exacerbated by the poor communication skills of the officer and poor life skills of our young driver friend.

 

Nervous officers tend to make it home at the end of their shift. To be perfectly frank with you, we can always go back to the simple argument of no contact, no problem. If you don’t break the law you’ll never find out how nervous I am, right?

My guess is that after a few thousand arrests and many roadside fights the nervousness just kind of creeps up on you over the years. It is very hard to ignore the God given gift of self preservation.

[Dave McReynolds]

To be perfectly frank with you, we can always go back to the simple argument of no contact, no problem. If you don’t break the law you’ll never find out how nervous I am, right?

 

Despite the fact that I agree with most of what you and others have said about how to act in a traffic stop, and defer to your judgement about whether it was a righteous tazing, I just couldn't let this pass.

 

While most stops are probably the result of the motorist violating the law, a lot of them are not. Otherwise, why even have judges? In the case here, for example, nobody has ever gotten to the underlying issue posed by the motorist. Maybe he wasn't speeding, or maybe the sign was blocked. We'll probably never know.

[ghaverkamp]

Terry stops still have nothing to do with this at all, pre or post taser. Probable cause existed to make this stop in the first place. Terry was a different animal.

 

Correct. I said as much in my last response.

 

This was also not a search or detention argument as it was clear the intention was arrest. The grounds for the arrest are good, it was the execution of said arrest that were bad. The bad execution was exacerbated by the poor communication skills of the officer and poor life skills of our young driver friend.

 

Only, you find it much clearer than many others who have viewed the video. If that was the officer's intention, why didn't he say that? Ever? Throughout the entire episode?

 

I will agree that "execution of said arrest [was] bad." And that's why this becomes a Fourth Amendment issue. Officers may use only reasonable force when executing an arrest. From Graham v. Connor, one must balance the government's interest against the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment rights: "proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

 

The crime (assuming speeding is a crime in Utah; it's not in California) was doing something over 40 in a 40. The driver says 52. Other than those making up stories about his hands being in his pockets, there is no other evidence that the man was an immediate threat. He had has back turned to the officer when he was Tased. Finally, he clearly wasn't actively resisting and in my opinion, it's a stretch to argue he was trying to evade; first he'd have to reasonably know he was under arrest.

 

Nervous officers tend to make it home at the end of their shift. To be perfectly frank with you, we can always go back to the simple argument of no contact, no problem. If you don’t break the law you’ll never find out how nervous I am, right?

 

My guess is that after a few thousand arrests and many roadside fights the nervousness just kind of creeps up on you over the years. It is very hard to ignore the God given gift of self preservation.

 

Yes. And I'll simply return to my ignored (by you, John, Tim, and Dave) point that the Fourth Amendment requires the balancing test I presented above. If the governmental interests don't outweigh the intrusion into individuals' rights, then we've got a constitutional issue. Therefore, if roadside stops for minor infractions have intruded so far into individual rights that the least bit of innocent nervousness or mistake on the part of a citizen results in a Tasing or combative take-down, perhaps we need to return to reassess the governmental interests at stake.

 

Even the governmental interests are at odds. On one hand we've got protection and safety of police officers versus collecting fines. Now, I recognize that there are other crimes that are stopped in traffic stops, but if the officer knows that from the start, then treatment of the stop can be handled differently.

 

I'm all for your self-preservation, Eric. And because of that, I'm suggesting that because traffic stops are so dangerous, perhaps its worth questioning the governmental interests in traffic stops. Rather than risking injury either to you, your fellow officers, or moronic motorists, maybe things have simply escalated too far. Maybe there is an alternative that protects officers and protects individual rights.

[Dave McReynolds]

Yes. And I'll simply return to my ignored (by you, John, Tim, and Dave) point that the Fourth Amendment requires the balancing test I presented above. If the governmental interests don't outweigh the intrusion into individuals' rights, then we've got a constitutional issue. Therefore, if roadside stops for minor infractions have intruded so far into individual rights that the least bit of innocent nervousness or mistake on the part of a citizen results in a Tasing or combative take-down, perhaps we need to return to reassess the governmental interests at stake.

 

Even the governmental interests are at odds. On one hand we've got protection and safety of police officers versus collecting fines. Now, I recognize that there are other crimes that are stopped in traffic stops, but if the officer knows that from the start, then treatment of the stop can be handled differently.

 

I'm all for your self-preservation, Eric. And because of that, I'm suggesting that because traffic stops are so dangerous, perhaps its worth questioning the governmental interests in traffic stops. Rather than risking injury either to you, your fellow officers, or moronic motorists, maybe things have simply escalated too far. Maybe there is an alternative that protects officers and protects individual rights.

 

I'll try to compare what you're saying with something I actually know something about: income taxes.

 

As you're probably aware, people have attacked the income tax on various grounds, including constitutional arguments. None of which have been successful. To the point that if anyone even raises a constitutional issue with respect to the income tax, they will probably be fined for wasting the court's time. And of course the courts have responded to arguments attacking the basis of the income tax with legal arguments supporting the basis of the income tax. But it has always seemed to me that it was a foregone conclusion that they would do that. For the Supreme Court to overthrow the income tax would essentially destroy the government; I see no way the we could successfully move from one system of taxation to another without testing and projecting the impact of the change, and the legislative give and take of the political process that defines our system of government. I think the courts realize that, and therefore would always think of some legally justifiable argument to not shoot the goose.

 

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to doing away with traffic stops?

[ghaverkamp]

Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to doing away with traffic stops?

 

I don't think they're entirely congruent.

 

The constitutional arguments against income taxes are usually based on the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't properly ratified. For the Supreme Court to rule otherwise now would be a substantial change to nearly 200 years of case law.

 

I'm not suggesting that traffic stops are unconstitutional, nor do I even personally believe that there's anything wrong with the current Fourth Amendment applications to use of force in arrests. Rather, I'm asking whether we might not have moved too far given the current Fourth Amendment application.

 

The way to effect change is for people who have their rights violated to sue under section 1983. Unfortunately (or fortunately -- I guess it's a mixed bad), most whose rights may have been violated are pretty unsavory people. The courts do a pretty good job of finding ways out of granting them relief. However, examples such as the one that started this thread may gain traction. Many of them, and departments will have to change their policies, much as many have changed their pursuit policies.

 

Of course, that means we'd have to find alternative means of doing the same job, and many of those means would be unattractive to folks, too. We don't tend to like traffic enforcement cameras, tracking by RFID or location transmitters, "blackboxes" or strict liability for violations. However, those are all alternatives to putting police and citizens in contact in traditionally dangerous situations. And all of it can be done with changes in findings of fact, not changes in law. I think that's the biggest difference with constitutional questions of income taxation.

[Dave McReynolds]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that suddenly eliminating traffic stops would have a similar negative impact on society as suddenly eliminating the income tax.

 

The courts are happy to find that a particular income tax law does not apply to a particular set of facts, because it doesn't have any significant impact on the operations of the government. Under the same reasoning, a court would probably be much more likely to make a ruling that limited certain specific procedures in a traffic stop than one that made traffic stops illegal or questionable in general, which may be what you're saying also.

[ghaverkamp]

The courts are happy to find that a particular income tax law does not apply to a particular set of facts, because it doesn't have any significant impact on the operations of the government. Under the same reasoning, a court would probably be much more likely to make a ruling that limited certain specific procedures in a traffic stop than one that made traffic stops illegal or questionable in general, which may be what you're saying also.

 

Yes. I agree. Certainly, if a court suddenly decided it was unconstitutional to tax income from tips because tips are really like economic damages in a lawsuit, there would be a large impact. If courts started finding that use of physical force on unarmed individuals during traffic stops was unreasonable use of force to effect an arrest, then that would also create a change in the handling of traffic stops. Eventually, if the range of acceptable use of force was diminished, states would have to find alternative means to accomplish the same ends.

[Lawman]

If I fail to sign my tax return next year does this mean someone from the government is gonna show up and taser me?

[ESokoloff]

The grounds for the arrest are good, it was the execution of said arrest that were bad. The bad execution was exacerbated by the poor communication skills of the officer and poor life skills of our young driver friend.

 

Thank you for that Eric.

 

That about sums up the arresting phase of this incident.

The motorist did not want to sign the ticket as he did not feel(know) that he had done anything wrong.

At that point the officer had to make the arrest.

Unfortunately the officer failed to convey this to the motorist.

 

Again, unless there was a speed sign the 1/2 mile back as the officer states (not just a notice of a reduced speed ahead) I'm concerned that the officer was over aggressive on making this traffic stop which led to the motorists confusion.

[Dave McReynolds]

Certainly, if a court suddenly decided it was unconstitutional to tax income from tips because tips are really like economic damages in a lawsuit, there would be a large impact.

 

Interesting parallel. Why shouldn't tips be a non-taxable gift from the customer to the wait(insert your favorite pc suffix)? Tips are freely given, and being classed as gifts would be totally in accordance with the tax law. But try to get a court to agree with that? Good luck!