Utah HP tasers John Gardner

[Archaea]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/u...rist&printer=1

This sucker should never work again. This is outrageous.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/u...rist&printer=1

This sucker should never work again. This is outrageous.

I don't know what you think the cop did wrong. Any time you get a traffic ticket the police can arrest you or they can release you on a summons, which you have to sign as acknowledgment that you will appear on the court date indicated. If you won't sign then the officer arrests you.

Here, the guy wouldn't sign. The officer orders him out and attempts to arrest him. He tells him to place his hand behind his back which is a perfectly lawful command. The guy says no then tries to walk away. The officer could have tackled him, taken his legs out with a baton, etc to effect the arrest. Reasonable force can be used to make an arrest. I think he actually employed the least harmful tactic he had available. If he tackles him he risks being injured. A gun was not called for at that juncture.

Help me understand what is improper here. You sign your ticket or you get arrested, period. You disobey the lawful command of an officer who is arresting you, expect you are going to be subdued. Looks proper to me. Maybe I have missed something.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't know what you think the cop did wrong. Any time you get a traffic ticket the police can arrest you or they can release you on a summons, which you have to sign as acknowledgment that you will appear on the court date indicated. If you won't sign then the officer arrests you.

Here, the guy wouldn't sign. The officer orders him out and attempts to arrest him. He tells him to place his hand behind his back which is a perfectly lawful command. The guy says no then tries to walk away. The officer could have tackled him, taken his legs out with a baton, etc to effect the arrest. Reasonable force can be used to make an arrest. I think he actually employed the least harmful tactic he had available. If he tackles him he risks being injured. A gun was not called for at that juncture.

Help me understand what is improper here. You sign your ticket or you get arrested, period. You disobey the lawful command of an officer who is arresting you, expect you are going to be subdued. Looks proper to me. Maybe I have missed something.

You get arrested for failing to sign a ticket? That's absurd. And then you get tasered? Perhaps in your part of Talibanistan that seems right but it seems wrong to me. And the commanding officer apparently is reviewing the situation. What harm is there if a person doesn't sign it?

Geeze, from ticket to arrest and tasering.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You get arrested for failing to sign a ticket? That's absurd. And then you get tasered? Perhaps in your part of Talibanistan that seems right but it seems wrong to me. And the commanding officer apparently is reviewing the situation. What harm is there if a person doesn't sign it?

Geeze, from ticket to arrest and tasering.

I think having the citizen sign the ticket shows that the cop did his job the right way. It keeps the cop in check. Among other things.

What is the cop supposed to do if he won't sign the ticket? Let him go on his merry way?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You get arrested for failing to sign a ticket? That's absurd. And then you get tasered? Perhaps in your part of Talibanistan that seems right but it seems wrong to me. And the commanding officer apparently is reviewing the situation. What harm is there if a person doesn't sign it?

Geeze, from ticket to arrest and tasering.

You didn't know that? Whenever you are released on a summons your signature is your promise to appear. Otherwise you get arrested and a magistrate makes a decision on bail. It is a criminal offense.

So when the officer tries to make the arrest and the guy disobeys, heads back to his car to leave and reaches into his pocket.....what is the officer supposed to do? This belligerent kids does this to himself. The part that amazed me was then this moron gets up off the ground and approaches the officer from behind. Wow. When I saw that part of the video I was cringing and thinking this guy is about to get acquainted with Mr. Baton.

When the cops pull you over or tell you to do anything, you do it. These guys get killed in the course of traffic stops. That is just common sense. This kid had none.

I will say that I think the officer orders him out of the car too soon. I think the better course is to try and calm him down and explain that signing is not an admission of guilt, but once he orders him out (which he is well within the law to do) to effect and arrest, what follows is created by the kid. My guess is that if he doesn't resist the officer puts him in cuffs, explains the choice to him again and the kids signs the stupid ticket.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You didn't know that? Whenever you are released on a summons your signature is your promise to appear. Otherwise you get arrested and a magistrate makes a decision on bail. It is a criminal offense.

So when the officer tries to make the arrest and the guy disobeys, heads back to his car to leave and reaches into his pocket.....what is the officer supposed to do? This belligerent kids does this to himself. The part that amazed me was then this moron gets up off the ground and approaches the officer from behind. Wow. When I saw that part of the video I was cringing and thinking this guy is about to get acquainted with Mr. Baton.

When the cops pull you over or tell you to do anything, you do it. These guys get killed in the course of traffic stops. That is just common sense. This kid had none.

I will say that I think the officer orders him out of the car too soon. I think the better course is to try and calm him down and explain that signing is not an admission of guilt, but once he orders him out (which he is well within the law to do) to effect and arrest, what follows is created by the kid. My guess is that if he doesn't resist the officer puts him in cuffs, explains the choice to him again and the kids signs the stupid ticket.

I agree with you that the kid was a retard and the officer was technically correct, but why does the cop have to be such a dick? Why not tell the kid how fast he is going? Why not explain that failure to sign will result in his arrest before simply ordering him out of the vehicle. It did not have to escalate to this point.

It's this arrogant, disrespectful, "I AM the law" and "do it because I say so" attitude this officer and many others like him display that I have a problem with. I realize that they have a dangerous job and I appreciate what they do, but they have to remember they are servants of the people and should use a little more restraint and common sense. IMO, this officer abused his power. A little more Andy Taylor is in order at times.

As for tasers, I like to see ute fans get tased as much as the next guy , but I think they're too quick to use them some times.

[Venkman]

Question for lawyers: was the officer's search of the vehicle legal? It looked illegal to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

I asked my brother-in-law about this today, as he is a Sheriff's Deputy. He has seen the video on youtube and told me that the officer was a jackass and didn't need to do what he did.

Matt (my BIL) said that the trooper didn't have to tell the guy how fast he was going and that the best thing he could have done was to write on the ticket that the guy refused to sign the ticket and let the guy be on his way. When the judge would see that the guy refused to sign the ticket, the driver would have had the book thrown at him and there would have been absolutely nothing the driver could have said to make it better for himself.

Both parties were dickheads, according to Matt.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I asked my brother-in-law about this today, as he is a Sheriff's Deputy. He has seen the video on youtube and told me that the officer was a jackass and didn't need to do what he did.

Matt (my BIL) said that the trooper didn't have to tell the guy how fast he was going and that the best thing he could have done was to write on the ticket that the guy refused to sign the ticket and let the guy be on his way. When the judge would see that the guy refused to sign the ticket, the driver would have had the book thrown at him and there would have been absolutely nothing the driver could have said to make it better for himself.

Both parties were dickheads, according to Matt.

I like this assessment.

The cop may not have been legally required to tell the guy how fast he was going, but every time I've been pulled over for speeding the cop has told me by how much I exceeded the speed limit. What's the big deal?

Originally Posted by Colly

What is the cop supposed to do if he won't sign the ticket? Let him go on his merry way?

Like Il Pad's BIL said, not requiring the the guy to sign the ticket does not mean you let him go scot-free. The cop has the entire incident on tape... why does the driver signing a piece of paper change that at all?

The guy was a jerk, but the cop had nothing to lose by letting him drive off, except for his pride. Tasering someone in the back is just wrong. If the guy is advancing towards you, maybe the use of a taser is justified, but the cop's safety was not in question.

[woot]

Perhaps some of you lawyers know about this:

Wasn't the taser only legalized because it is preferred in situations when a gun is the alternative? Isn't it then only supposed to be used when a gun would have otherwise been used? I'm constantly reading stories about people being tasered for trivial things. If a cop needs a taser in order to subdue someone, that cop needs to go back to the academy. If a cop uses a taser on an already subdued or compliant person, the cop needs to be fired immediately.