Cop tasers man who refuses to sign speeding ticket

[buffgator]

I have an idea for all you anti taser people who say put hands on. You guys wrestle on the side of a highway with trucks and cars whipping by. Or let him disobey orders, walk to his car, and then pull a gun. Anyone who purposley disobeys orders that are clearly given is considered a threat. I know that all you guys think that his life (the officer) is not valued because its not yours, but I bet he disagrees.

[sooners04]

Well said!!!

[Coop77]

People also have died from drinking too much water so should we ban water?
You can’t take the very small percentage of people that have a reaction to the taser and ban it.

I didn't say they should be banned. I said they should be used for defense.

Also comparing tasing to a gun is just dumb. I'd rather be tased any day of the week then shot.

Ok, pepperspray. Baton. Whatever. The point was using a weapon on someone who is not being violent, and has their back turned to you, is not appropriate, and should not be their first resort in such a situation.

You ever see the taser being used on a suspect fleeing from officers? I have. So are you going to tell me that running from the cops is considered "threatening?"

No. That's a different situation.

[Coop77]

You keep arguing, but I would like to know what you would have done in this situaiton if you were the cop. Remember, this guy is under arrest, how would YOU handle it?

I would have handed the guy his copy of the ticket and said see you in traffic court have a nice day. There's a checkbox that says "refused to sign."

[sooners04]

Then you might be in violation of department policy and been repremanded for it. Good choice!!! No reason the officer's career has to suffer because this asshole refuses to cooperate with him. Obey the law and law enforcement and this stuff doesn't happen, its that easy. SHEESH!! There is no checkbox that says refused to sign on our citations, but it varies state to state I'm sure.

[thegodfather]

Then you might be in violation of department policy and been repremanded for it. Good choice!!! No reason the officer's career has to suffer because this asshole refuses to cooperate with him. Obey the law and law enforcement and this stuff doesn't happen, its that easy. SHEESH!! There is no checkbox that says refused to sign on our citations, but it varies state to state I'm sure.

Ok, I reviewed the video again. At no point before the officer actually shot the 'suspect' with the taser did the officer ever say "You are under arrest." He said, put your hands behind your back. However, this would never satisfy a court. For the person to know he is under arrest, the officer must identify as such. You cannot say "Put your hands behind your back," "Dont move," "Come here," etc, etc, etc... Those things do not suffice. So I disagree, this man did not KNOW that he was being arrested, because the officer never said so. It is not up to the public to determine and decifer the officers language to know if he is under arrest or not, or if he has committed an offence that he needs to be arrested for. Watch the video again, he at no point before using force on the man ever said "You are under arrest," the point at which you are no longer free to go. It does not matter that he was given a direct order by the officer to put his hands behind his back, he was not being detained by the officer at that time, because he never identified to the man that he was in fact being detained, he simply gave a command like "Put your hands behind your back." Not to mention, the officer was not able to tell the man how fast he was going, therefore he never identified to the man what crime he had committed. The officer basically "imagined" the crime the man had committed, and then when he would not sign the fraudulent charge, was arrested for non compliance. You cannot be cited for "speeding" without a specific speed being asessed. This is asinine, because the definition of speeding is associated with a specific speed.

All the legal bullshit aside. You can pretty much tell from the video that had the officer had a little more patience, exercised a little more restraint and professionalism, that he most likely would have been able to handle the situation without violence. The officer is the one who escalated the situation.

[thegodfather]

Also, please take notice in the video, that the officer reaches for the taser immediately after putting the clipboard down, before the man had ever disobeyed any direct order.

[abstrack]

The office didnt grab his taser immediately after putting the clip board down. He placed the clip board down, ask the guy to place his hands behin his back for detainment, the suspect blantely refuses, the officer draws his taser, the suspect still ignores the officers request to put his arms behind his back and begins to walk away, the officer then tasers the suspect.

If the guy would have just stopped arguing with the officer and took his complaint to court, then there would not be an issue. The suspect did nothing but refuse listen to the officers orders while trying to give him a citation for speeding.

[thegodfather]

The office didnt grab his taser immediately after putting the clip board down. He placed the clip board down, ask the guy to place his hands behin his back for detainment, the suspect blantely refuses, the officer draws his taser, the suspect still ignores the officers request to put his arms behind his back and begins to walk away, the officer then tasers the suspect.

If the guy would have just stopped arguing with the officer and took his complaint to court, then there would not be an issue. The suspect did nothing but refuse listen to the officers orders while trying to give him a citation for speeding.

He was free to go. The officer never said "You are under arrest," therefore he was not under arrest at that time. It is not up to the suspect to "ASSUME" he is under arrest. The escalation of force was not nessecary, certainly not with a taser that has the potential to stop your heart. The taser is a LESS THAN LETHAL means of force. It was originally designed to be used IN LIEU of deadly force such as shooting an armed suspect with a gun.

[Logan13]

Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil. That what judges are for.

it is easier for many to hold police officers accountable rather than asshole civilians.

[DSM4Life]

who cares anymore

[Logan13]

who cares anymore

"Don't taser me Bro"..................

[DSM4Life]

"Don't taser me Bro"..................

If that was me, after the cop pulled the trigger i would have just grabbed the tasers mid-flight and said "Now what?"

[Logan13]

If that was me, after the cop pulled the trigger i would have just grabbed the tasers mid-flight and said "Now what?"

Matrix does kick ass..........

[Dizz28]

Matrix does kick ass..........

It's on right now, SciFi channel

[sooners04]

Not to mention, the officer was not able to tell the man how fast he was going, therefore he never identified to the man what crime he had committed. The officer basically "imagined" the crime the man had committed, and then when he would not sign the fraudulent charge, was arrested for non compliance. You cannot be cited for "speeding" without a specific speed being asessed. This is asinine, because the definition of speeding is associated with a specific speed.

Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. The refusal is the arrestable offense. You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:
(1) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with section 60-6,185, the limits set forth in this section and sections 60-6,187, 60-6,188, 60-6,305, and 60-6,313 shall be the maximum lawful speeds unless reduced pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits:

(a) Twenty-five miles per hour in any residential district;

(b) Twenty miles per hour in any business district;

(c) Fifty miles per hour upon any highway that is not dustless surfaced and not part of the state highway system;

(d) Fifty-five miles per hour upon any dustless-surfaced highway not a part of the state highway system;

(e) Sixty miles per hour upon any part of the state highway system other than an expressway or a freeway, except that the Department of Roads may, where existing design and traffic conditions allow, according to an engineering study, authorize a speed limit five miles per hour greater;

(f) Sixty-five miles per hour upon an expressway that is part of the state highway system;

(g) Sixty-five miles per hour upon a freeway that is part of the state highway system but not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways; and

(h) Seventy-five miles per hour upon the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except that the maximum speed limit shall be sixty miles per hour for:

(i) Any portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways located in Douglas County; and

(ii) That portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways designated as Interstate 180 in Lancaster County and Interstate 129 in Dakota County.

(2) The maximum speed limits established in subsection (1) of this section may be reduced by the Department of Roads or by local authorities pursuant to section 60-6,188 or 60-6,190.

(3) The Department of Roads and local authorities may erect and maintain suitable signs along highways under their respective jurisdictions in such number and at such locations as they deem necessary to give adequate notice of the speed limits established pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section upon such highways.

The officer can visually observe a vehicle exceeding the limit and write a citation per this statute.

[Logan13]

Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. The refusal is the arrestable offense. You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:
(1) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with section 60-6,185, the limits set forth in this section and sections 60-6,187, 60-6,188, 60-6,305, and 60-6,313 shall be the maximum lawful speeds unless reduced pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits:

(a) Twenty-five miles per hour in any residential district;

(b) Twenty miles per hour in any business district;

(c) Fifty miles per hour upon any highway that is not dustless surfaced and not part of the state highway system;

(d) Fifty-five miles per hour upon any dustless-surfaced highway not a part of the state highway system;

(e) Sixty miles per hour upon any part of the state highway system other than an expressway or a freeway, except that the Department of Roads may, where existing design and traffic conditions allow, according to an engineering study, authorize a speed limit five miles per hour greater;

(f) Sixty-five miles per hour upon an expressway that is part of the state highway system;

(g) Sixty-five miles per hour upon a freeway that is part of the state highway system but not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways; and

(h) Seventy-five miles per hour upon the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except that the maximum speed limit shall be sixty miles per hour for:

(i) Any portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways located in Douglas County; and

(ii) That portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways designated as Interstate 180 in Lancaster County and Interstate 129 in Dakota County.

(2) The maximum speed limits established in subsection (1) of this section may be reduced by the Department of Roads or by local authorities pursuant to section 60-6,188 or 60-6,190.

(3) The Department of Roads and local authorities may erect and maintain suitable signs along highways under their respective jurisdictions in such number and at such locations as they deem necessary to give adequate notice of the speed limits established pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section upon such highways.

The officer can visually observe a vehicle exceeding the limit and write a citation per this statute.

They do not care what the laws states.....they view the world through "feelings" alone.

[sooners04]

Who is they? and if so, then "they" should look at both humans feelings.

[Prada]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...q42Tcis4BRjxuw

PARIS (AFP) — Antoine di Zazzo says he has been 'tasered' more than 50 times and never felt the worse for the ordeal.

One of the biggest Taser representatives outside the US base, Di Zazzo also gave a surprise blast of the stun gun to French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen and offered a test dose to Nicolas Sarkozy before he became France's president.

Sarkozy diplomatically declined, according to di Zazzo, but the president's no-nonsense law and order tactics are one reason why the engineer businessman is confident of huge demand for the gun, despite controversy over its use in North America and being declared a form of torture by a UN committee.

The French leader vowed before his election in May to buy a Taser -- which paralyses targets -- for every policeman and gendarme in France which could provide a market for at least 300,000 guns alone.

The Taser France chief said he has endured more than 50 Taser shots during tests and demonstrations of the gun.

"You cannot call it real pain," said di Zazzo. "I just found that time was infinitely long." In reality, a shot from the gun, which packs a 50,000 volt punch immobilises suspects for a few seconds.

National Front leader Le Pen, who was 79 at the time, went to inspect the gun last year because of the headlines it made when Sarkozy made his pledge as interior minister. "He did not want to try it but I took him a bit by surprise," said di Zazzo.

"He has special protection because he is a leading politician but I got round them and fired into his shoulder. He fell over but got up again and then went around telling people: 'You are shaking the hand of the man who has tried Sarkozy's toy'."

There are already about 250,000 of the stun guns in use, mainly in North America, but about 70 other countries are buying or trying Tasers -- including Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, said di Zazzo.

All countries are watching the debate in the United States and Canada over the use of the gun which fires two probes at targets at speeds of more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) per hour.

The electric jolt in the probes causes what the US company calls the "immediate loss of the person's neuromuscular control". The suspect is temporarily paralysed.

There has been much debate in Canada after a 40-year-old Polish man died last month after he was 'tasered' by police. Another 36-year-old man died Saturday five days after an altercation with police who used a Taser to su**ue him.

There have been at least three other deaths this week in the United States after police use of the Taser.

Amnesty International has said there have been about 300 deaths around the world after Taser use and has called for it to be suspended while a full investigation into the impact is conducted.

On Friday, the UN Committee said the stun gun "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture".

Taser International says that no death has been attributed to the use of the gun and that the controversy is caused by misunderstanding of new technology. It has won more than 50 legal cases in the United States alleging the gun was linked to a death.

"If electricity was to kill it would do so straight away," said di Zazzo. "In most of these cases people have carried on fighting or struggling after they were hit by the Taser and had recovered. In a lot of these cases there is a drug overdose or cerebral delirium involved."

"In Canada, the man carried on struggling afterwards and was hit by batons and the police knelt on him. You can also die from being hit with a baton or knelt on," he added.

Taser says its device "saves lives" because it is an effective alternative to a real gun. Each stun round is videod by a camera on the gun for future evidence.

Di Zazzo's French company is also developing a mini-flying saucer like drone which could also fire Taser stun rounds on criminal suspects or rioting crowds. He expects it to be launched next year and to be sold internationally by Taser.

[Coop77]

Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. The refusal is the arrestable offense. You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:

I think you're mistaken there. At least in Utah, where this occurred, not signing is itself not a crime. See link below, or google it yourself.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230005,00.html

UHP spokesman Cameron Roden said if a driver refuses to sign a speeding ticket, the officer who pulled that person over has several options.

"If you sign a citation, it's not admitting guilt by any means. It just says you'll promise to appear in court," he said. "If someone refuses to sign the citation, they're refusing to appear in court."

At that point, the arresting officer has the option of taking the driver into custody and to a hearing before the local magistrate, Roden said.

Salt Lake civil rights attorney Brian Barnard agreed police do have the right to arrest a driver who does not sign a speeding ticket.

Refusing to sign a ticket is not a crime under Utah state law. Signing a citation but then failing to show up in court, however, is a class B misdemeanor.

Another option if a driver refuses to sign a ticket is for the officer to "put it in the car in a professional manner and leave it at that," Roden said.

[Coop77]

PARIS (AFP) — Antoine di Zazzo says he has been 'tasered' more than 50 times and never felt the worse for the ordeal.[/url]

Antoine di Zazzo obviously has a healthy heart. This doesn't really prove they're harmless, if it's supposed to.

[Prada]

Antoine di Zazzo obviously has a healthy heart. This doesn't really prove they're harmless, if it's supposed to.

No that wasnt the point. It was more to point out the legal issues and complications regarding Tasers is not limited in the US. I just found it an interesting article. Like the flying saucer in riots.

[thegodfather]

Taser says its device "saves lives" because it is an effective alternative to a real gun. Each stun round is videod by a camera on the gun for future evidence.

Ok, that just made my point exactly. It is an effective alternative to a real gun, and as such, should ONLY be used in situations where the Officer would be using his REAL GUN, but INSTEAD, uses the Taser as an alternative to killing the suspect. It was NEVER meant to be used as a FIRST RESORT to su**ueing a suspect.

[Teabagger]

I think you're mistaken there. At least in Utah, where this occurred, not signing is itself not a crime. See link below, or google it yourself.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230005,00.html

I think I said that earlier....I'm...uh...shall we say...pro cop, but I think this cop acted, or reacted in an unprofessional manner which only reinforces the stereotype some here have of the cops being nothing more than "jack booted thugs". The cop acted the way he did because he could...maybe he was having a bad night, or his wife or g/f or b/f was pumping the neighbors cat...I don't know and don't care...but when he wears that uniform he better have his shit in one sock and leave his personal issues at home.

[Prada]

Ok, that just made my point exactly. It is an effective alternative to a real gun, and as such, should ONLY be used in situations where the Officer would be using his REAL GUN, but INSTEAD, uses the Taser as an alternative to killing the suspect. It was NEVER meant to be used as a FIRST RESORT to su**ueing a suspect.

Yes exactly and that is where the problem is. Using the gun in unnecessary situations.

[Act of God]

The entire ordeal could have been avoided with a level-headed cop:

"Sir I am asking you to sign this ticket only to acknowledge your receipt of it and to assure your appearance in court. This in no was implies guilt on your part or admits guilt. Refusing to sign the ticket gives me the right to take you into custody"

That is better than

"sign this! No? Get out! TASE"

[FLBMWMech]

For the record-- I think 90% of taserings are ridiculous. I read a news article about a school resource officer tasering a 6 year old who was throwing a tantrum.

That being said:
Its not the police officers job to explain laws to you. You sign promising to appear in court OR they take you to county jail for processing and then Bail procedure to ensure you'll show up in court.

Two: If the officer pulls you over-- tells you to get out of the vehicle-- It is not required of him to explain to you WHY and then ask you if you agree with his reasoning.

Three: If you walk away from an officer that is telling you to STOP, and you are going toward your car then you are presumably attempting to escape or going for a weapon. He's lucky the officer didnt actually shoot him or beat him black and blue with a nightstick for resisting arrest.

Four: In a situation where you are stopped by any peace officer-- If he tells you to keep your hands in plain sight, YOU MUST. If he tells you to Stop, YOU MUST. If he tells you to get on the ground, YOU MUST.
He doesn't have to first recite 25 lines of legal disclaimer before putting handcuffs on you. He doesn't have to tell you the reason that you're being arresting or detained before he su**ues you (not sure what moronic TV show someone picked that up from)

If this guy would have signed the ticket, he wouldnt have been arrested. If this guy would have followed instructions while the officer was taking him into custody, he wouldn't have been tazed.

[Act of God]

The point is that simple conversation skills that we learned in grade school could have averted the situation. Unfortunately, this cop was touting the "do as I say no matter what" attitude a lot of police officers front with. He was more interested in being a bad ass and getting his way when a simple conversation with a CLEARLY non-aggressive person would have yielded safer and better results.

You aren't legally bound to do anything a cop tells you to do. I'm willing to bet my 3 years of law school and 5 years of practice that I know more than you do on the subject.

[thegodfather]

The point is that simple conversation skills that we learned in grade school could have averted the situation. Unfortunately, this cop was touting the "do as I say no matter what" attitude a lot of police officers front with. He was more interested in being a bad ass and getting his way when a simple conversation with a CLEARLY non-aggressive person would have yielded safer and better results.

You aren't legally bound to do anything a cop tells you to do. I'm willing to bet my 3 years of law school and 5 years of practice that I know more than you do on the subject.

Thank you...Can you please reaffirm what I have been saying earlier in the thread. The Taser was only meant to be used in situations where the officer would otherwise SHOOT the suspect using DEADLY FORCE. That is why it is called a LESS THAN LETHAL OPTION. This is because, there is a lot LESS of a chance the Taser will kill the suspect, not a 100% chance that the suspect will not die. Tasers use amounts of electricity that can disrupt heart rhythms. That is why they are absolutely NOT APPROPRIATE for su**ueing suspects with just because they're not doing what you say. Additionally, the situation in this case could have easily been resolved much more diplomatically.

[Act of God]

Don't forget, even assuming both sides are both wrong (assholes) the POLICE OFFICER is trained to deal with all types of people. They go through the academy and are TAUGHT not to let people rile you. Even if you spit in the cop's face they are taught to keep a level head (although I wouldn't expect anyone to tolerate that). The officer has the badge, the gun, and the taser. He is held to a higher standard and is expected to be the "adult" in the situation, not the bully.

[buffgator]

what kind of lawyer are you?

[buffgator]

heres a poll, which one of you anti taser guys would wrestle him to the ground?

[Coop77]

I don't think the only options are a) wrestle or b) taser. There situation didn't call for a physical altercation at all.

[Dizz28]

I don't think the only options are a) wrestle or b) taser. There situation didn't call for a physical altercation at all.

it didn't, I think there might have been other options available at the time? Something called common sence comes into play here. Does this guy really look like that much of a threat. Right when the officer got the guy to the back of the vehicle...before (the suspect) turned around to walk back to his car...the officer was already taking out his tazer escalating the situation without any provocation.

I agree with godfather, tazers should be used as less than LETHAL options, as in the suspect is about to or using physical force against the piece officer. I think this police officer excercized the weight of his badge instead of acually trying to resolve this situation in due course.

and also, the police officer never said "i'm placing you under arrest for..." which is required to be announced in some form as it happens, right?

[qualityclrk1]

i wouldn't have wrestled anybody to the ground...did the cop ever say "place your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for w/e w/e w/e" ?? i really don't know, could someone clear it up for me, i haven't seen the video w/sound- work computer doesn't have speakers

[qualityclrk1]

if the cop would have said that, then the man turned and walked away, thats about the time the cop should have slammed him onto the car....where was assistance?

[qualityclrk1]

who cares anymore

DSM i posted in the computer forum again....i just know how u love talkin about old shit....

[Dizz28]

i wouldn't have wrestled anybody to the ground...did the cop ever say "place your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for w/e w/e w/e" ?? i really don't know, could someone clear it up for me, i haven't seen the video w/sound- work computer doesn't have speakers

He said "put your hands behind your back" as he was grabbing his tazer, Which one can assume ment "you're under arrest" ....but that won't hold up in court

[Act of God]

what kind of lawyer are you?

Trial

[buffgator]

the whole situation was pathetic, but both guys are jack asses. You dont walk away from a cop who is telling you to put your hands behind your back. Also though you dont let someone walk away when your trying to arrest them.