I guess this even took place a couple of months ago, but the video of the entire incident was released very recently. You can see the entire video on youtube HERE
Living in Utah, I have had my fair share of experiences with law enforcement. Especially when it comes to speeding. Actually I never thought it was a fair share, but that's a different story.
When I was younger, my dad was pulled over for speeding. When he received the citation and was told to sign it, he asked the Highway Patrolman what would happen if he didn't sign it.
"I'll have to take you down to jail."
"Ok" my dad responded and went ahead and signed the ticket. He's always told me that there is no law requiring you to sign it, but he just assumes it's better to sign it and get on with your day. (As does 99.99 % of people who are asked to sign them)
One thing you can do, is just write "Signed under duress." and you can later argue whatever you want in court. My father has done this in the past, but has lost faith in the legal system for various reasons and knows nothing will become of it in court. So he just signs the tickets now. If this method works for you, then great. Otherwise read the rest of the article.
Fast Forward to this event where I see on the news a highway patrolman tasing a man and arresting him for refusing to sign the ticket. We could go over various things in the video, but I'll just let you watch it yourself. It's much easier this way. I'm only going to go over a few specific events.
Knowing what my father has told me in the past, I've decided to take it upon myself to research the law a little bit and find out if you are really required to sign the citation or not. This is, of course, regarding Utah and it's laws. Your local or state laws probably differ.
The Utah Code can be seen at this link
http://le.utah.gov/~code/code.htm
Go ahead and research whatever you want for yourself if you'd like. Here's what I found.
"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. "
What does this mean? Let's first explain something. Traffic violations, like speeding, are crimes. When you receive a citation (a ticket) it contains the charge of the crime you committed. You are required to go to court where you can plea, Guilty or Not guilty (or No Contest). At that point you would accept the charges, or go onto arguing the case at the trial.
Traffic violations happen quite regular though. Nearly everybody has received a traffic violation. Because of this, the states just went ahead and made it easier to deal with these alleged crimes. If you don't want to go to court, you can just accept the charge and pay the set fine. Undoubtedly most people take this path.
Now, back to that law I posted. Like I said, speeding is considered a crime. You can be arrested (taken into custody) for a crime. Being that speeding is such a common thing, you just receive a citation instead. You are responsible for taking care of that alleged crime. Whether it's accepting the charge and paying the fine, or taking it to court to dispute the crime.
Long story short, 77-7-18 says that instead of being arrested (taken into custody) you can just be given (issue and deliver) a citation.
Does it require you to sign the citation? No. Most certainly does not. Go ahead. Scroll back up there. It hasn't changed. It does not require you to sign the citation. All the officer is required to do is deliver the citation. Law Enforcement have become so accustomed to just requiring people to sign the citation. For what reason? There could be a hundred reasons. Who knows. It's likely a Judge, somewhere, at some point has probably said that receiving the citation requires a signature. Is this law? No. But once at court, this argument could be used against you. This is, of course, speculating that a Judge even did all of this. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. It might mean something else to you.
Does this mean that if you don't sign the citation, you don't have to appear at or contact a court?
No. You most certainly DO have to appear or contact the court. according to 77-7-19 Section 3
So whether or not you even signed the citation, as long as you received it, you are required to make some sort of contact with the court. (Depending on whether or not you accept the charges, of course)
(3) A person who receives a citation and who fails to comply with Section 77-7-21 on or before the time and date and at the court specified is subject to arrest. The magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest.
In fact, not only can a warrant be issued for you arrest, but you are guilty of ANOTHER crime for not contacting the court. Taken from 77-7-22
77-7-22. Failure to appear as misdemeanor.So, the argument that "Signing a citation only means you are accepting to contact the court" serves no purpose at all. There's no reason for a signature, regardless of whether or not you are supposed to sign it. There's no reason for that argument either. The very fact that you received the citation, requires you to contact the court. Not only would you get arrested, but you would committed another crime.
Any person who willfully fails to appear before a court pursuant to a citation issued under the provisions of Section 77-7-18 is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he was originally cited.
So. Applying what we have learned to this event would mean that arresting someone for not signing a citation is unlawful. Issuing the citation is sufficient to the law. They don't have to sign the citation to agree to contact the court. They MUST contact the court. It doesn't matter what you write on the ticket. In fact, you could role up the citation and smoke it for all I care. (Disclaimer: This does not get you high....In fact, that's probably against the law to destroy the citation. Dont do it.)
What does this mean? This particular Highway Patrolman has no reason to arrest him. Let alone give him whatever reason he had to use a taser on the person. This is unlawful arrest. We'll get to that later.
So. He arrested this man. Let's go over the what the Utah State Code says about arresting a person. According to Utah Code Section 77-7-6
The Highway Patrolman in the video, did NOT inform him he was being arrested when he pointed the taser at the man. As far as that driver was concerned, he was about to be killed. (Keep in mind, the driver had though that was a real gun. I read this somewhere online. Sorry, I do not know the source) 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 to 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."
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.
According to 77-7-6, the only exception to NOT informing the driver of the arrest, is clearly stated in a, b, and c. None of those circumstances applied. I'm sure they could be argued. I'm sure they will be argued. From my opinion, those circumstances did not exist. Besides, if those circumstances DID exist, then the officer has little to worry about. He already has the taser pointed at him and ready to fire.
For whatever reason this officer forgot to follow the law (perhaps he didn't know the law?) it's most certainly going to cost him. If the law requires someone to drive a certain speed, the law requires officers to make an arrest properly. Letting one get away with one crime, and convicting the other of another crime is not justice.
With all that said above. What crime did the OFFICER commit. Well, I would be inclined to say "Unlawful Arrest." However, I do not know what the penalty for that is. Or, if that crime even exists. So if this wasn't grounds for arrest, then what happened?
1 - The driver was restrained against his own will.
2 - He was placed in the back of a car against his own will. Meaning, he was kidnapped.
3 - He was assaulted with the taser.
That's really all I can think of right now. I do not know of the pentalties for each crime the officer committed. I would imagine kidnapping is a felony. Again, I am only a concerned citizen of Utah. I am not an attorney. All this information was gathered today, thanksgiving. I only bring you the information I know. And urge my fellow citizens to study their local laws to prevent corruption from ensuing.
If you would like. Contact the Utah Highway Patrol and make sure this officer receives justice for his crimes. Don't stop their. Contact the local attorney's office. Make sure the officer is prosecuted for his crimes. If the attorney's refuse to press charges, contact the Bar association and report them. Finally, contact the Utah Attorney Generals office and let them know you don't want Officers to get away with crime. Furthermore, whatever happens to him because of his crimes, I would ATLEAST expect him to lose his job and not be allowed to work for the public again.
Still not satisfied? Thinking tasers are too much? Contact your legislators. Get them to do whatever they can. Restrict tasers from officers using them. Limiting the use of tasers by officers. Increasing the penalties for unlawfully using the tasers. Increase the penalties for not making an arrest properly. Or banning tasers all together. Whatever you want. I'm not saying I want all those things to happen. I may not even agree with any of them. I am only urging you (the reader) to do something about it.
Do whatever you want. This is your country. If you see something wrong with the system, make sure it gets changed.
Contact Info for various institutions:
Utah Highway Patrol
http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/contact_uhp.htmlCounty Attorney
Local Vernal Office (closest to incident
152 East 100 North
Vernal, Utah 84078
Office: (435) 789-8575
Fax: (435) 789-8575
Mon - Fri 9am to 5pm
JoAnn Stringham
152 East 100 North
Vernal, Utah 84078
(435) 781-5436
(435) 781-5428 (fax)
Mon - Fri 8am to 5pm
Attorney General
Contact Page
Link to the digg submission. Digg to help expose the corruption!
http://digg.com/politics/Hwy_Patrolman_arresting_and_tasing_man_for_breaking_law_which_doesn_t_exist
60 comments:
First of all, I believe that cop was out of line, especially in not making it clear exactly what the driver did wrong and to what extent.
However, I think the requirement of signature is good for 2 reasons: it prevents crooked cops from just writing tickets, leaving it up to you to prove you never received one, and it prevents the hassle of a lot of people claiming they never received a ticket when they actually did.
Good point. I didn't think of it that way. Maybe not in all cases, but at least in ones like these you still have the video of the entire incident taking place. Which is proof that someone did receive the ticket.
I saw the video.
I don't believe he was tasered because he refused to sign the ticket.
I believe he was tasered because the cop told him to stand still. The driver started to walk off in order to look for the speed sign they were arguing about.
A cop can't force you to sign a ticket, as you point out. However, when a cop tells you to stand still, you need to stay put. You don't have the option of walking away. For any reason.
I re-watched the video and asked myself if it was conceivable that the driver was planning on trying to escape. It certainly was. He was walking away to find the speed limit sign, but he was also walking closer to the driver's side of the car.
Honestly, the cop didn't know what the driver's intentions were. Maybe he was really trying to find the sign. Maybe he was inching closer to the car door to make an escape. Maybe he was thinking of pulling out a gun from underneath the driver's seat. Who knows?
If you were the cop, and the person you pulled over starts walking over to the car and may have a gun hidden in the car, what would *you* do?
The guy was acting irresponsibly. After being ordered to stand still, he should've stayed still. Disobeying a cop like that can't have good consequences; it can only end up badly.
Personally, I think cops are too fast with the taser guns these days, but I think in this case, the cop was justified in its use.
"However, I think the requirement of signature is good for 2 reasons: it prevents crooked cops from just writing tickets, leaving it up to you to prove you never received one, and it prevents the hassle of a lot of people claiming they never received a ticket when they actually did."
Indeed, if such a requirement was based in law - it would be fine. But whatever reasons you may be able to come up with to uphold such a requirement, you cannot and should not be able to forcibly enforce it, unless being able to cite applicable law to back your claim - especially as an enforcer of the law.
"The driver was being an asshole. He deserved to be tasered, arrested and humiliated."
I think that comment makes you an asshole - does that mean you deserve to be "tasered, arrested and humiliated"? - at best your post is ignorant, at worst, you actually understand the implications of your statement, if carried out into real life - and think it would be acceptable.
"Personally, I think cops are too fast with the taser guns these days, but I think in this case, the cop was justified in its use."
I agree wit the first part - be definitely not the latter - I think it is very clear that the use of a taser was, if not unlawful, then at the very least negligent or irresponsible. If you look at the Taser® Use ecommendations
for Law Enforcement Officers it is very clear that this was not a warranted use of the taser device. The very first line very clearly states "Only use TASER for physically assaultive subjects" - the driver was clearly not acting aggressively, nor posing any direct threat to the security of the officer.
Just because there existed the possibility of him trying to escape, the officer has no right to physically subdue him until any such attempt is made, nor even then is he allowed to use the taser unless the detainee is resisting to such extent that he is considered to be assaultive and or violent.
A few points.
First, the statute governing issuing citations says "...in lieu of taking a person into custody, [any of this group of people] may issue and deliver a citation..." (emphasis added). They always have a choice of whether they want to issue a citation instead of arresting you. Now, it's much more convenient for everyone for them to issue a citation rather than arrest you, so that's what they usually do. But if you refuse to sign the ticket, you can later try to argue that you never received it. At this point, the officer may decided that the inconvenience of arresting you now is less than the inconvenience of arguing later about whether you really received the citation. It's still up to the officer's discretion to issue the citation or arrest you, so they can change their mind and just arrest you if you don't chose to sign the citation.
Second, in the exceptions to the rules for making an arrest, the third is "...the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense...". I think this very clearly applies when you've been stopped for speeding. The officer obviously pursued you immediately after the commission of the offense (speeding). What this law is really about is if a warrant has been issued and the cops track you down and find you somewhere, they have to tell you why they're arresting you. When you've just been stopped for speeding, it's supposed to be pretty obvious what the reason for the arrest is.
If you were the cop, and the person you pulled over starts walking over to the car and may have a gun hidden in the car, what would *you* do?
I'd probably have followed the law governing use of a lethal weapon. That way, I wouldn't have to lie in my report later.
The guy was acting irresponsibly. After being ordered to stand still, he should've stayed still.
The officer also instructed him to turn around, so now a guy who is being intimidated by a bully who refuses to explain his actions is required to decide which instruction to follow. An officer should communicate clearly. Issuing contradictory orders while prepared to use a lethal weapon has only one predictable outcome.
The officer should not have used the taser and he shouldn't have lied about how the incident occurred later. Why would an innocent officer alter his report unless HE felt he'd done something wrong?
I think Thomee has it right about the arrest being justified. He has the option to issue a citation or arrest. The tasering was not justified though.
Silver, Based on your theory of how he was "trying" to possibly escape your assumption would be that in order to prevent someone from escaping a crime of such a low caliber that a cop whom if did have a gun should shoot someone in order to prevent such escape. The mere fact that the cop thought it was in his jurisprudences to use a taser weapon on someone proves that he has a chip on his shoulder and should be severely punished and humbled. I don't know how you were brought up, but police are SUPPOSED to "protect & serve" but they do no such thing. They are here to feed the justice system with more labeled criminals than they are truly here to help the public at large. Now ask yourself does this even moderately represent a fraction of what a police state is?
This cop should have informed this individual that he would and must appear in court if he did not sign that ticket and if he was not, an arrest warrant will be issued immediately for his arrest. If the man tried to prove himself, the cop would say you can take it up with your lawyer of the judge with evidence proving your case. Otherwise it's in your best interest to sign and wave your dispute and pay your ticket.
What I want to know is WHY the cop suddenly changed his behavior & went into instant aggressive/threatening (pulling a taser) mode after asking the guy to walk back to the vehicle with him. The officer even turned his back on him while walking back to the cop car. I think it is possible that the cop manipulated the situation, by acting in an unwarranted agressive manner just to scare the guy into reacting , thereby allowing the cop to arrest him. Its a tactic that cops have done before to esulate the situation so they can arrest someone.
How would YOU react if calmy asked to get out of your car & come back to the back of your veihcle & once you do the cop whips out a "gun-shaped" object & points it at you threateningly & starts screaming orders at you? I am willing to bet you would think this was completely uncalled for behavior & would be somewhat shocked.
Well, it looks like you went through the statutes and made your conclusions, but, guess what? Your construction of the statute doesn't mean anything. Only a court interpretation of the law is binding, so, nice try smart guy, you have presented us with nothing of value.
From the overall attitude displayed by the cop, it sounded like he was in a bad mood/having a bad day and took it out on the speeder.
I think I also heard him threaten to taser the pregnant wife.
Perhaps if the cop had answered the guy's repeated question of how fast was I going ... it would not have gotten out of hand.
As somebody before me said ... just give the citation and say that if you disagree just present yourself before the judge.
Cops HAVE become too trigger happy with tasers. As of yesterday, 275 people have been killed in North America by tasers, they have tasered men sleeping on couches, tasered hypoglycemic disbetics and a 90 year old woman in a wheelchair ... six times.
They certainly are a brave lot aren't they?
True, the public only hears about the outrageous use of tasers ... there are many more good cops than these assholes who get in the headlines ... but they all get painted with the same brush.
I work and there are rules to follow. If I fail to heed the rules I can be fired. This cop should be fired as should all those who misuse their weapons.
Just wanted to add that you obviously have no legal training, to point out a least one misuse of legal terminology - your use of the word assault in your "conclusion" is completely wrong. An assault wouldn't involve actual physical contact, and it doesn't matter anyway because police officers are generally exempt from what you are probably talking about anyway.
Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about and this case involves issues you don't even mention......it's hard to explain just how wrong and misguided you analysis is, so stick to whatever it is you do and quit helping to perpetuate the circulation of mis-information by keeping this crap to yourself.
17 year old girl, handcuffed and in police custody tasered ...
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/10266
no charges to be filed against the officer
"...but I think in this case, the cop was justified in its use."
I really don't see how you can say that he was justified. Officers are not supposed to resort to that until they are being assaulted, or the person is possibly about to do harm to themselves.
I've seen videos where cops get attacked and don't use tasers. They simply tackle the suspect to the ground and handcuff them. I don't know what is wrong with this new breed of police officers that feel the need to use a taser in almost all situations when it is simply unnecessary.
I believe that all cops that are caught unlawfully using a taser should be heavily fined and possibly lose their jobs. If more cops see the consequences that will be brought upon them, maybe they will be more cautious to be so quick on the draw.
The driver was a bit over the line in his attitude. The cop was over the line with the use of the taser. The failure was on the part of the cop, who demonstrated no knowledge of how to defuse a situation by any means other than force. Any well-trained officer should have been able to ground the situation without the use of force.
Understanding and using psychology are a big part of every cops day to day job. While the drive was unreasonable in attitude, he was asking reasonable questions.
Even though, as I recall, there has been some stripping of the need for the reading of the rights under Patriot Act Provisions, it seems that had the cop recited the Miranda rights it would have helped ease the situation.
to quote Mike:
"Well, it looks like you went through the statutes and made your conclusions, but, guess what? Your construction of the statute doesn't mean anything. Only a court interpretation of the law is binding, so, nice try smart guy, you have presented us with nothing of value."
The winner is...MIKE! This EXACTLY why going to court is useless. This is the strongest point against the officer's actions. The driver was attempting to resolve the situation before the cop (seemingly out of nowhere) pulled a taser on the driver. Yes. Mike you are right. Something I should have put in my blog. I do not expect the driver to win anything in court, but I will never give up hope that he should.
Sounds to me like if you don't sign it the officer need to take you into custody for the crime. They can't just let you not sign it and leave the scene and let you go about your business. So just not signing is not an option. Not signing and going into a lockup (until you are processed...) is the other option.
That is what was happening in the video. The guy refused to sign and so was being taken into custody. All by the book it seems.
That being said, I believe he should have been told the speed the officer believe him to be going and once he was in custody he should have been read his rights.
But the guy was not thinking too clearly and was being difficult. Instead of arguing back and forth, he should have just asked the questions and been taken in. They he could have (once he was taking in) documented that the officer did not do a,b,c and etc. That way the officer would clearly have been in trouble for a poor arrest.
But instead he kept up pestering and it escalated etc.
The officer was certainly a ***** for what he did but many officers are on a power trip so you should expect it. The best way to deal with it is to just go along with it . Its fine to state you objections (once is enough) but once the officer states he is taking you into custody, you don't have much choice and should not continue to argue. Thats just common sense.
I hope the officer is reprimanded (maybe tazered :)) but if you learn anything from this, its how NOT to act with police.
I've always been told that you'll be arrested if you don't sign the traffic ticket, but apparently this guy never heard of such a thing? I guess he also never heard that there's absolutely no point in arguing with a police officer. The place to argue your point is in court. To me, this is common knowledge and I'll bet that officer thought this guy was either mentally retarded or he was screwing with him (maybe a little high too?). On that reason alone I can see how the cop would be so frustrated that he'd want to stop playing this guy's game, stop answering his stupid questions and just place him under arrest to end the issue. If that guy was mentally ill and the cop was mistaken, then chalk it up to a learning experience.
Signing the citation is for YOUR protection. Signing it proves to the court that you received the citation -- that the police office just didn't write one up for you on a whim, filed it with the court, and didn't deliver it to you. That would make you liable for a court appearance that you have no knowledge of. You should WANT a law requiring you to sign the citation, because its the only way to protect yourself from unknown citations. Get it?
"Even though, as I recall, there has been some stripping of the need for the reading of the rights under Patriot Act Provisions, it seems that had the cop recited the Miranda rights it would have helped ease the situation."
While I see your point that it might have helped to defuse the situation (though I doubt it) - technically, a cop "should" only mirandize a suspect, if he intends to question him, and use the answers as evidence. See here: [Wikipedia]
As other people have stated, it is quite possibly (and probably) true that the arrest was warranted, however, this does in no way excuse the use of the taser (see my previous post)
If anything, the officer should have informed the driver that his options were:
1) sign the citation
2) sign the citation under duress
3) being taken into custody
(I'd forgive him for not knowing the correct statute of the top of his head - to keep the situation at a calm level, he could have radioed in and asked, if he believed this information could have helped convince the driver to sign it)
"Its fine to state you objections (once is enough) but once the officer states he is taking you into custody, you don't have much choice and should not continue to argue. Thats just common sense."
He is never told WHY he is being taken into custody - and this is important - he has the right to know. Though it is obviously speculation, I'm very confident that had the officer explained that he would have to take him into custody if he refused to sign it, the situation could have been dissolved much more easily.
"Signing the citation is for YOUR protection. Signing it proves to the court that you received the citation -- that the police office just didn't write one up for you on a whim, filed it with the court, and didn't deliver it to you. That would make you liable for a court appearance that you have no knowledge of. You should WANT a law requiring you to sign the citation, because its the only way to protect yourself from unknown citations. Get it?"
Untrue - signing it doesn't protect you from anything. However, a law requiring a citation to be signed would. Until one such law exists, signing it gets you nowhere, except you will not be taken into custody, but unless you sign it under duress, you are technically admitting guilt.
the guy had his hands in his pockets. he could have a weapon in his pockets. the look he was giving the officer could be interpreted as a dangerous one. too many cops have been killed because someone mad a quick reach for a gun and shot the cop. the cop HAS to assume that they guy has a gun. if cops do not, that is when things get bad. if a cop feels threatened he has the right to use the force necessary to take control of the situation. some cops don't carry pepper spray (usually not their choice). that may be the only non-lethal form of subduing a suspect.
he may not have been speeding. but you DO NOT argue it on the side of the road. if you get busted for having crack on you, you don't get to argue your innocence right then. this is the same for a moving violation.
the wife did not help by being hysterical. and the officer did not know that she is pregnant. as far as i know she did not inform him that she was pregnant. when he told her to get back or be tasered she did because she knew it could be bad. even though she thought he was in the wrong she did what the officer had told her to do.
she came up on the officer from behind without him knowing until the last moment. she could have easily had a gun and shot him in the back.
point is DON'T FUCK WITH THE POLICE
if they are wrong then the courts will protect you. if you don't trust the courts then you need to move to a place that you do trust the courts (or avoid the places that you don't agree with).
in most cases if you are polite to the officer (whether you agree or not) then he will be polite back. most cops don't arrest you for your convenience. if you want to be arrested and have force applied to you then you need to argue with the officer and make him/her feel threatened. that or just stay in the car and don't give them any reason. kill them with kindness.
The highway patrolman evoked hostility when he pulled out the taser. To tell you the truth, he looks like a whack job and should be in a mental institution. By walking back and immedialetly pulling out the taser gun makes him look like Barney Fife.
The patrolman made several mistakes on that traffic stop in including lying. The patrolman should have walked back to the patrol car and said "Please stand there with your hands out. You are being put under arrest for failure to sign the ticket. Please turn around and put your hand behind your back so I can put the handcuffs on you."
I do not agree with what the cop did or how he went about it. BUT if you look on this site:
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/Citations/citations.html
and jump down to the section about being stopped you will see a paragraph that states;
"If you are cited, try to remain calm and listen to what the trooper is telling you. Remember that by signing the citation you ARE NOT admitting guilt, it is just a promise to contact the court. If you don't sign, state law does give the trooper the authority to place you under arrest and transport you to jail or to the court to post bail."
So somewhere in the state law there is a provision for requiring a signature. So the cop was kinda right in saying that he had to arrest the guy for not signing. But he probably should have said that was going to happen before pulling him out of the vehicle and tasing him.
Tasers are weapons and should be illegal, We the people are just letting America be taken over by a bunch of gun toting dully elected traitors to the Republic.
i watched the video a few days ago, and my question is, did the guy actually know that he was being arrested? i don't remember hearing the cop tell him that he was going to arrest him when he said to get out of the car. it looked to me like the guy thought they were going to look at the speed limit sign, and was pointing to it and walking towards it, when the cop pulled out the taser. i, too, thought it was a gun at first, so i understand why the guy might have reacted the way he did [although my first reaction would probably be to freeze]. he could have handled the situation better, but i think the cop was completely in the wrong in the way he acted towards the man when he didn't tell him he was arresting him, how fast he was going, tasered him, or refused to read him his rights. or when he was screaming at the guy's wife.
It's a little silly to be discussing this at all. Everyone involved is going to be pursuing whatever legal options are available to them, and the way we'll know what's legal or illegal is what a court says it is. All of the angry blogs written by non-lawyers in the world won't change that. And no, I don't think this is behavior representative EITHER of police or citizens.
That said, in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions, you are in custody the moment you're pulled over. Just because you're not hauled off to jail every time you get a speeding ticket doesn't mean you're not temporarily "under arrest." Don't believe me? Ask the next cop if you're free to go (the acid test for custody) when you roll down your window. What do you think he'll say?
I have a question?
If you do not sign then what is the proof that the officer has that he gave you a citation. I think there has to be a paper trail for that exact reason.
The abuse of power from the officer is obvious but the whole idea that you do not have to sign does not make sense to me.
Well, I'm glad to see I was declared the winner. But, to address the comment following my official declaration of victory, knowing that you will probably not prevail in court doesn't mean that you should stage your own personal revolution against the system. As lame as it is, one must fight against laws that are perceived to be unjust through proper channels. The police officer has no ability to change law or police policy. To argue with him is completely useless, and will end in nothing but pain and empty pockets. If the driver so desires he can argue in a court that the ticket signing laws should be changed. The problem with this is that signing the ticket doesn't really mean much, you aren't admitting guilt. I can say with relative certainty that this isn't going to fly. But, you could challenge it if you wanted to devote the time and money...
But come on people, this system is actually set up to benefit you! The officer only issues the ticket and you get to argue the merits elsewhere - it's a separation of powers in a sense, and is beneficial to you! I don't think I have to elaborate more.
This only addresses the not signing the ticket bit, which is pretty much irrelevant anyway. At a glance the only real issue in this case seems to be whether the police officer used excessive force in using the taser, or, put another way, did he follow procedure. If there is going to be any legal action taken on the part of the driver I can almost guarantee that it's going to be on this.
My prediction - no exception here for resisting arrest, cop was justified, driver gets nothing but 15 minutes of fame on the internet and some taser marks to remind him to not be an idiot next time.
You signing the ticket proves that you received it. If you refuse, the cop still has to prove that you received the ticket, so what do you do? Get arrested. Your booking photo and the bond you have to pay proves you were notified of your charge. Video cameras don't film the driver's face from his car. What is the cop supposed to do? Pull out a Nikon and take his picture handing him the ticket? Im sure that would go over well.
Why should the cop be respectful and patient with someone who is not being so with him? Roadside is not the place to argue over a ticket, that is what a courtroom is for.
The driver was refusing to obey lawful commands aka "turn around and put your hands behind your back." He refused to do that. Instead, he starts walking away. That is considered fleeing, whether you are running, walking, or skipping. Someone fleeing from a lawful arrest is a justified use of force by taser. What if the cop was to walk up and grab him by the arm near his car door? The guy could reach in and grab a gun and blow his brains out, and this video would not be on Digg and the news. Those vidoes never get shown. Instead, he uses a Taser on a fleeing person resisting arrest.
Officers only make an arrest when the person is under control. That guy was not under control, and he was refusing to come under control.
Lastly, I would point out the statute you bring does not say either way if the person has to or can refuse to sign the ticket. It says issue and deliver. How do you issue or deliver? You assume deliver only means hand to the person. When you "deliver" milk to the grocery store, does not someone sign the receipt? "Deliver" is a vague (aka gray) word, and in itself, does not define how the ticket issuing process goes. Years of criminal experience shows that people that have refused to sign tickets later come back and say that the officer never even pulled them over. Back before there were cameras. Most cop cars in America still don't have cameras because they are too expensive. The case law shows that if they refuse to sign, its in justice's best interest to arrest.
Stop picking on this cop just because you don't like cops. Everything he did was by the book and correct.
Completely amazing that you are missing the point of why he was tased entirely. No, it isn't illegal to refuse signing a citation. But when you're talking to an officer, being a complete pain in the butt, you sure as heck don't turn your back on him and start walking to the car, until he tells you. Which is what he did. The officer did what any officer would have done. Without knowing what the heck the kid was doing, he tased his ass. When an officer is checkign on you, you don't go and do whatever you want to do. Anyone that tries that crap, deserves to get shot and/or tased.
Don't forget about a tort claim against this moron. He's probably not going to be able to claim immunity since I'm guessing the shit that I just saw was out of the scope of his employment, and maybe some kind of intentional / dignitary tort.
I saw negligence, assault, battery, and hell, the wife might even have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I'm a first year law student and I was literally going to bed when I saw this post, but I've vowed to spend 3 more hours studying so that I can one day screw over assclowns like this.
As someone that has received plenty of tickets from UHP, trust me when I say that signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt. The ticket painstakingly explains that your signature is not an admittance of guilt, but rather an acknowledgment that you received a ticket and must contact the court.
Anyone that fights a ticket with a cop does not understand how the system works. Once a cop has submitted your ticket and given you a print out, you have to work through the courts. There is no appealing to the cop at that point. Up until the time that the ticket is printed (which means your infraction is in the system) you can plead, or prostitute yourself out or whatever. After that, the officer can do nothing. You now must argue your points in court. It is the obligation of the officer to turn you over to the legal system, not to judge you. You are then subject to the courts. You have a chance to appeal and even have a jury of your peers review the case, but it is usually best to just work with the judge at traffic court rather than spending the time and money to go all the way to trial.
Two things wrong with this:
1 - The cop appears not to be clear about how the situation might escalate from a citation to an arrest. I say "appears" because we can't make out most of the conversation while the driver was still in the car. Moreover, the facts of a criminal trial don't get discussed at the moment of arrest. That is what the court is for. You don't get the option of waiting to fully understand the reasons you are being arrested before you are expected to cooperate with an arresting officer.
2 - The cop initiated the arrest by pulling a Taser. Just like pulling a gun, this creates a situation where it is impossible for the situation to de-escalate. When you pull a Taser, you might immediately thereafter have to use it. That is exactly what occurred.
Both of these issues are matters of professionalism, not legality (IMHO). The cop may well have been an incompetent jerk about what he did, but he didn't really do anything wrong. I'm not convinced about that "you don't have to sign a ticket" thing. My understanding, which is corroborated by the citations of law on this page, is that if you break a traffic law, you can be arrested. The citation is a convenience. You don't want to cooperate with the process of being cited? Fair enough. Option 1 it is.
As for the actual Tasering incident, the cop really had no other choice. The driver had every opportunity to realize that he was being placed under arrest, and chose instead to attempt to flee the scene. Cops don't have time to argue the finer points of criminal law in a situation where they might be killed by split second indecision. If a cop pulls a weapon on you, it is not reasonable to think that you can escape the situation by simply dismissing it and going back to your car. If you don't follow the instructions from that officer, you should fully expect said weapon to be used.
Joshua,
You would be correct in saying that the driver could sue for all this stuff. Any 1L tort class is going to teach you that someone can sue for anything...not getting your claim(s) dismissed is another story. I don't think it would be correct to quickly come to the conclusion that he is acting outside the scope of his duties as a police officer.
If you're going to break out the books, a tort textbook should have some info on defenses and immunities for police officers. I would like to see what you come up with. But, as I said, I think it's going to be hard to argue that he was acting outside the scope of his employment.
"Hwy Patrolman arresting and tasing man for breaking law which doesn't exist" ... that's a misrepresentation of the truth. He was being arrested for speeding, after refusing the alternative to arrest, which is a citation. The officer was within his rights to arrest him for speeding.
Lots of interesting points of view.
My opinion, is that the Utah Highway Patrol will investigate, and conclude that in this incident, normal police procedures were followed, and the patrolman will be exonerated.
Sadly, it is not a crime for a policeman to be a sadistic thug. And when incidents such as this are "investigated", the police forces will "circle the wagons" and generally conclude that procedure was followed and someone other than the police officer was at fault.
Besides, it appears that the US police forces have developed a taste for tasering folks. I guess that if law enforcement is deprived of having a little waterboarding fun with their victims, then zapping folks with a high-powered cattle prod (what a taser is) will have to serve as a poor substitute for entertainment.
What a laugh to watch your cattle-prod victim twitch and struggle on the ground to regain control of his/her limbs. Seems to be situation normal for modern law enforcement.
Protect and serve has mutated into "Intimidate and dominate".
I'm not endorsing the use of tasers; however, your research is substantially flawed. The citation code section that you cite is purely permissive, leaving the officer with the discretion of making an arrest. In fact, another section confirms this discretionary authority:
77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers.
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
The speeding offense clearly occurred in the officer's presence. While he "may" issue a citation under 77-7-6, he also "may" make an arrest.
Furthermore, had you taken your research to the appropriate extent necessary to determine whether the officer was acting under proper authority, you would have found that the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Harmon, 910 P.2d 1196 (Utah 1995), noted that Utah Code sections 77-7-2, and -18 "are couched in permissive language allowing police officers, at their discretion, to either cite or arrest for traffic offenses committed in their presence."
While I appreciate your emotional response to a violent police interaction, you should not attempt to derive a legal conclusion from a half-hearted Google research project . . . unless, of course, your only point is to invoke the knee jerk reactions of Digg users and land on the front page.
The thing that nobody seems to remember is this:
1: The second Patrolman arrives due to the Drivers WIFE calling 911 about what is going on.
2: When the second officer asks the primary officer what had happened there, he describes the situation in a way that makes the taser officer seem like he was about to be attacked/harmed/killed.
3: Without going out there too far, I'd say the taser officer basically lied about what happened.
4: The driver's miranda rights were never read to him nor was he told why he was being detained.
I'm from alabama, and there seem to be more and more incidents of these unneccessary taserings happening. Maybe it's that the cops don't give tasers the same respect as a regular sidearm, I don't know. My thinking is that they have been taught in all their training to respect the firearms and only use them when they feel bodily harm is imminent. With tasers, since they are non-lethal, they seem to be a little more ready to fire away.
I think this officer handled the situation in the worst way possible, and I think it might be due to his personality. A normal person doesn't act like that. Hopefully, he'll be taken off duty and recommended to find a new career.
Issuing the citation in lieu of arrest doesn't make the citation and arrest mutually exclusive. He can arrest you, he can issue a citation, he can arrest you then issue you a citation, he can issue a citation then arrest you.
The point is that nothing in the law says you have to sign it, nothing in the law says he has to arrest you if you don't. Sure, he can arrest you if he sees fit, whether you sign it or not.
Ever gotten a parking ticket?
Did you have to sign it when received?
Ever been caught by a speed camera?
Did it make you pull over and sign a ticket?
The citation is an affidavit from the officer stating that at a certain time and place, he had probable cause to believe a person committed an infraction, and gives some level of description of the infraction, the surroundings, and the individual he believes did it.
Without a piece of law on the books saying you have to sign it when asked to, I can't imagine why anyone would believe you have to. He may want you to in order to make himself feel better about the whole thing. But, it is a really silly idea. A signature is meaningless without a notary or some other formal witness asserting that the signature belongs to a particular person. Making you sign it doesn't accomplish this.
The piece that seems to be missing at this point in the exchange, is that the officer doesn't appear to have informed the guy he was being placed under arrest (maybe he mouthed it and the the guy isn't a very good lip reader?).
The guy's attitude is irrelevant. His actions are not. Legally, you can argue and be an ass all you want as long as your aren't threatening anyone or in the process of committing a crime. Practically speaking, its not the best thing to do, for obvious reasons. You may have heard the term "contempt of cop". This is what it refers to. I don't need to be cordial to the officer. I don't need to kiss his ass. I do need to follow his lawful orders however.
Question is, how fine of line is he allowed to put you on by giving you conflicting orders, apparently so he can establish a pretext that justifies using force he seems to have decided to use before any justification existed.
Since we are nitpicking each other's comments, I'd like to rag on the use of the words "right" and "wrong" in place of "legal" and "illegal".
While what the officer did in this situation will probably prove to be entirely legal by interpretation of the courts (more likely by interpretation of a prosecutor who will refuse to prosecute him, thereby denying the matter a day in court, at least a criminal court), nothing he did beyond stopping the guy for speeding and issuing him a citation was possibly "right".
It doesn't matter how much of an attitude the guy had, how retarded he may have looked, how many wild speculative theories someone can conceive about the potential violence the guy could be about to unleash, or whether or not the cop was having a bad day. The cop created the bad situation, saw to it that it escalated, and whether it was his intention in the beginning or not, is fully responsible for the confusion and overreaction that resulted in the outcome you see on the video.
The reality is the guy did absolutely nothing that a reasonable person could interpret as a threat justifying the use of force that was used here.
To be a bit more speculative, I would suggest the cop was merely in a pissy mood and felt like taking it out on someone.
Suppose for a second that he really did fear the guy was going to try to kill him, whether it be with a gun he was going to retrieve from his car, or one he had in his pocket where his hands were. If the cop really believed this, while he is alone and outnumbered by a suspect and a companion alongside the highway, how much of an idiot is he for drawing a taser instead of his sidearm? Seriously, if he really believes the guy is an imminent threat, he would be a moron to suppose the chick in the car isn't. To then draw his "less than lethal" weapon to ensure his safety, would be the just as stupid and fatal of mistake as the inaction many who believe he had reason to fear for his life were alluding to.
Lane,
Well put.
First, love your post. Citing to statute is precisely the thing to do when making any sort of legal argument. It's much more effective than 'Obviously the cop was out of line' or Mike's statement earlier of 'you don't know what you're talking about'.
I agree with Nepawoods. The Utah statutes you cited allow an officer to either cite or arrest for a crime. He has discretion to do either, depending on the crime. If the defendant/motorist elects not to sign the citation, then the arrest would be for the crime (speeding), and not for failing to sign the ticket.
So technically, yes, there is no law requiring you to sign a ticket. The issue/delivery thing mentioned for citations could have included something to indicate a signature (like actually using the word signature or the word acknowledgment), but didn't. One of the tenets of statutory interpretation is that words that could have been inserted and weren't are deliberately left out.
I also agree with the others who have pointed out that in a situation like this, the burden is on the officer to act professionally, keep his emotions in check, and not escalate the situation unnecessarily. The motorist/defendant is, however, under no such duty to keep his emotions in check -- that's what's great about being a civilian. The flip side, however, is that don't think for a moment that a cop isn't remembering everything you do and say so that he can put it into his report or tell it to the judge later.
I disagree, however, with those who say that a signature protects you from being cited without your knowledge. I don't know how tickets in Utah work, but in California, your ticket doesn't tell you your court date. The court assigns the date later which means that you will almost certainly get a mailing (possibly several) telling you to appear at this time, at this courthouse, on this day. If you don't appear, then you also get a misdemeanor Failure to Appear charge and, possibly, a bench warrant for your arrest.
The signature requirement is likely to protect the cop by making it difficult for you to argue later that you were never cited. Strange though, that the Utah legislature (and the California one as far as I know), never bothered to codify a signature requirement.
I think the bottom line for this case is to use your judgment when dealing with the police. If your cop is nice (relatively), ask questions and probe a little to make sure that he knows what he's doing. If he's a jerk who's 2 seconds away from shooting you in the butt, be calm and do what he says --- and get the video of the incident, just like this motorist did. In the meantime, remember everything the cop said and did, write it down, and find a lawyer who loves to sue.
Not every cop is dumb, but do a little research and you'll find that cops often don't know the laws they're charged with enforcing.
The cop was an ass, and deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law, but the driver was an ass and a fool as well. While there was no justification for the use of the taser, anyone with half a brain realizes that you don't handle a situation like this by lipping off to a cop. You speak very respectfully, and you never boss them around. They may have no right to react as this jerk did, but why push your luck?
One reason we have cops with chips on their shoulders is that we have idiots like this who try to push their buttons. If you want better cops, the first step is to reduce the antagonism between cops and citizens. The cops are at fault for this, but so are citizens. Whichever category you fall into you can do something to fix the situation.
(And yes, fire the bastard in the meantime.)
Andy!!!!,
I still stick by my "you're way off" post. Lane's citation just helps to prove my original assertion - that BS legal analysis is, well, BS. Sorry, but I didn't feel like looking up cases and statutes tonight. In the past I've done it and people don't listen anyway.
What I find amusing is that you applaud Lane for bringing binding law into the picture, but then you go on to make some unsupported statements. And thanks for bringing tenants of statutory interpretation into it needlessly. Lane's cite, which does appear to be good law, already tells us how the Utah SC construed the statute.
Firstly, I also think the officer was way out of line, but you have it all wrong.
It is generally held in all the 50 States that from the second a badged police officer "pulls you over," you are technically under arrest.
For most traffic infractions and some traffic-related misdemeanors, the decision whether you are released under your own recognizance or hauled into the local police station is up to you. That citation that the officer is giving you is a no money bailment. If you refuse to sign it, you are basically indicating that you are refusing to be released on $0 bail, and therefore you will be processed at a local police station and arraigned before a magistrate or municipal court judge.
Signing "under duress" or "u.d." after your name is not only inappropriate, it makes you look stupid before a judge. What reasonable person would claim that a bail amount of $0 was unreasonable and request to be hauled to jail?
The way I see it sometime tasering someone will certainly kill them. Pepper spray would have worked just as well or even a a couple blows from a baton. The cop could have just been more patient instead of worring about his quota for the night. However, most cops are used to people either fighting back or completely folding. Not many people venture into the realm of logical explanations when pulled over so maybe I can understand why an a-hole cop would taser someone for being making their job a little bit harder.
I think next time I get pulled over I will time how long it takes from the time I stopped to the time the citation is handed to me. Then I will take exactly that much time to sign it. Double that if it is really friggin cold or raining. Just for a little payback.
But then again, I'm white and live in Kansas City, Missouri. Basically I'm immune from traffic laws.
Tyler, if you would like to escape blogspot, I'd like to sponsor a real site for you (a domain and hosting).
Drop me an email. Me [AT] douglashaber.com.
Good Lord, do you freak out when the Fed-Ex guy asks you to sign for a parcel too? There's a big difference between being CHARGED with something, and CONVICTED of it. Sign the stupid ticket and get on with your day. Society is not out to get you. (Posted under duress!)
Here where I live in Connecticut, they tell you this specifically:
"By signing this, you are not pleading guilty. You are only acknowledging that you have received a copy of the citation. You may refuse to sign if you wish, but for your protection, I recommend that you sign."
... or something very similar. Every officer says it differently.
Me, I just sign them, then fight it in court. Fortunately, on the tickets we get here, right under where the signature goes, it says in writing that you're not pleading guilty or surrendering any rights by signing.
I'm gratified to see that I'm not alone in my thoughts on this. I got into a bit of an argument (former cop blogger) and this guy basically insulted my intelligence for daring to postulate a dissenting opinion.
That's what bothers me, your commenter (above) described this accurately; police in America have gone from "To Protect and Serve" to "To Intimidate and Dominate".
Sadly I really don't know if this is going to change anytime soon.
It may seem like an amusing afterthought, but did the officer have the authority to search the victim's vehicle the way he did?
Hi there, I would be very interested in your thoughts on something the cops do up here in Alberta, Canada. If they give you a speeding ticket, they'll also give you a further "Careless Driving" charge which, of course, the prosecutor will offer to waive in exchange for a guilty plea on a different charge. It's ludicrous. I think it's double indemnity. Why should someone get two tickets for the same offense? And is there any sort of law against needless, meaningless citations? I would bet that 90% of all careless driving charges are waived and not pressed. What do you think? Would love to hear from you. Best. C5
First of all, the man wasn't tasered and arrested for failing to sign the ticket. He was tasered and arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order. It isn't clear why you didn't cite that part of Utah law in forming your argument.
Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between a civil infraction and a criminal offense and keep referring to speeding as a crime.
A civil infraction is something you'd generally get a ticket and pay a fine for, such as speeding or playing your radio too loud at 2 a.m. in the neighborhood.
A criminal offense includes both misdemeanors and felonies, both of which are be punishable by time in jail or prison. Speeding only reaches the level of criminal offense when the speeds are in such excess of the posted speed limit that it is considered reckless driving.
You conveniently choose to cite some parts of the law while ignoring other parts and you pretend that the driver had no responsibility for escalating the situation. That's irresponsible.
You are also making refusal to sign the ticket the central point of your argument while ignoring the bigger questions someone versed in the law should be asking.
1. Was the officer justified in demanding that the driver exit the vehicle in the first place?
2. Did the officer give a lawful order? If the answer to question #1 is no then would the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine mean that #2 is also no?
3. Did the officer use excessive force?
4. Did the officer have probable cause to search the vehicle after arresting the driver?
I assume that you already know what probable cause and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is and will spare you explanation.
On the question of excessive force, I'd guess that the officer's actions will be found justified. Maybe he was just itching to use that cool new taser, but the fact remains that the driver was agitated, refusing to comply, and walking away. They were standing on the shoulder of a highway and it would be reasonable for the officer to assume that the driver might physically resist arrest, which could lead to a scuffle that might cause both the officer and the driver to stumbled out in front of incoming traffic. Using the taser -- and the driver was warned he'd be tasered -- would be justified under those circumstances.
Maybe you and I saw different videos.
"Maybe you and I saw different videos."
I think we did, because I can't find the spot where he informs the subject he is being placed under arrest. Pretty black and white that under the circumstances you see in the video, he needed to do that (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE77/htm/77_09007.htm).
Having not done it, and having not been threatened by the subject, his use of force was not justifiable.
The trooper failed to state his intentions, acted with undue hostility, and created a confusing situation that was beyond the comprehension of the individual he was confronting. Had he stated his intent to arrest the driver, none of that would really matter.
The trooper's personal safety is a very valid concern, but you were watching a different video if you saw anything before the trooper drew his weapon and aimed it, that the driver did which could reasonably be considered to be either physically threatening to the trooper, or an attempt to flee on the part of the driver.
Furthermore, there are many other actions/inactions on the part of the trooper that discount the notion that he feared for his life or was in fear that the subject was going to violently resist. Most notably is the point prior to when he intends to effect the arrest, where he turns his back to the subject for a pretty substantial period of time. Pretty stupid thing to do when someone who is a "threat" to you is behind you.
In terms of covering his own ass and protecting himself, his procedures are very sloppy.
It is really easy to see how much of an ass the driver makes of himself and not notice that the trooper made just as much of an ass of himself. The problem there is that is the trooper's job to be professional, and leave his attitude in his locker when he puts on his uniform.
Watch his body language and listen to what he says in the first minute after he approaches the vehicle, before the driver says anything more than greeting him. His tone, choice of words, and overall demeanor suggest he is having a crappy day, and it only gets worse from there.
For those who suggest the driver's crappy attitude earned him what he got, I hope it never happens to you. Or, maybe it has at some point.
I have had occasions to "chat" with police officers many times in my 16 years of driving. I have lost count, but I think I have been stopped at least 50 times in more than 10 states, never twice by the same officer. About every type of agency that normally does that stuff as well (city police, park police, forest service LE officer, DNR officer, state troopers and even once on an Army base). All but one of them were completely professional, and made this trooper look like a real tool.
The one who wasn't could have been this guy's dad. I mistakenly parked in a commercial loading zone thinking it was a regular one (they are signed almost identically here save for the word commercial being on one and not the other). I hadn't gotten more than 5 feet from the door of my pickup before he approached and began chewing me out, threatening to issue me a citation and tow the car, before I could even say a word. He was in his 50s, overweight, stunk of coffee and cigarettes, and his mood was what you might of expect from someone who's car just got crushed by a crane. In other words, the exact opposite of what most people consider professional.
All he had to do was say "thats a commercial zone, you can't park there" and I would have said "oh crap, I didn't realize that" and hopped back in the pickup and moved it.
He instead chose to spend a good 5 minutes lecturing me and repeatedly threatening to cite me and tow the car, all the while I stood there with my mouth shut. Eventually he ordered me to get in my pickup and move it, and repeated the threat to cite me and tow the pickup.
Seeing this video reminds me very much of that officer, because while in both situations there was plenty of room for the subject to exhibit a poor attitude and make things worse, the cop is the one who made it bad in the first place.
There was no reason for his initial hostility and aggression, there is no reason why couldn't simply tell the driver what speed he believed he was going, there was no reason he couldn't explain to the driver why he needed to sign the ticket, and there was certainly no reason to have him get out of the car and arrest him.
Sure he is well within his power to arrest someone for speeding, but there wasn't any need for him to do that here. Not signing the ticket is no reason to arrest him. Maybe if the driver had no ID on him or something, might make sense, but that didn't happen here.
He made the decision to arrest the driver to prove his point, that he is in charge and the driver has to do what he says. He pretty well affirms this when you see him speaking to the wife, and later to the second officer who shows up.
Bottom line, he is either an asshole or was just having a bad day. This kid was dumb enough to give him someone to take it out on.
The United Nations has determined that the use of a taser is a form of torture.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22814674-23109,00.html
Why does the government think that torture is now ok in the United States? The Geneva convention was implemented so that torture would be criminalized during wartime periods but we are doing it a Guatonamo. And it appears that we are even doing on our highways.
Yeah, Joe is probably right. Cops should stop using non-lethal force to subdue uncooperative or threatening suspects and get back to just shooting them or beating them with batons. I mean, what other possible use could there be for a taser or other non-lethal weapon than to just torture people for the fun of it?
Seeker, what is the point of the officer causing conflict? The highway patrol already had the driver on record stating that he was driving 68 and he had just passed 40 mph sign. He simply could have written refused on the bottom of the ticket and let the courts deal with it. The courts would have sent two officers out to arrest him later when he didn't show up for his court date. If he refused arrest at that time, then beat the hell out of him. This situation could have been avoided.
Let the courts deal with the problem. In addtion, when you have an outstanding speeding ticket, you can't renew your drivers or car license. Why the need for all the conflict? In my mind, the highway patrolman felt intimidated by this guy and felt he needed to show him a lesson.
Tasers are lethal.
They have killed hundreds of people.
Cops need a NON-lethal method of subduing (what the cops judge to be) dangerous individuals.
It is time for the taser to be replaced. Unfortunately, the next device will probably be even less NON-lethal.
Tasers are not lethal weapons. They are not designed or used to kill people. By your logic, anything that has killed someone is lethal -- like baseballs and garbage bags.
I'm not defending the use of tasers. However, the media has really distorted the facts about tasers. If a person is tasered and then dies from injuries sustained from being sat on by police officers during the arrest then the article will merely say that a person died after being tasered.
I'd like to see statistics of people who have died as a direct result of being tasered and not some other cause.
Now lets point out the fallacy in this post. First, the law says that an officer "may" cite instead of arrest, not "must" cite instead of arrest. So you can argue all day long that a signature is not required, but the argument is moot because the officer has the authority to arrest regardless.
Second, the blogger wrote: "It's likely a Judge, somewhere, at some point has probably said that receiving the citation requires a signature. Is this law? No." Actually, if this is true, then it is law. The blogger posted no authority for the meaning of "issue and deliver." Does the "issuance" of a citation require a signature? This is something that is usually addressed by a judge if not spelled out in the statute.
Finally, the blogger said that the requirements for not informing the driver the reason for arrest have not been met. However, he admits that the person has just committed a crime (which is why the cop stopped him in he first place), thus the third element is met. And strong arguments can be made that the first and second were met as well.
Post a Comment