Utah HP tasers John Gardner

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tasering someone isn't assualt. Assault is a legal term with a specific meaning. It CAN be assault, depending on the circumstances. Whether or not you would rather be punched in the face than tasered did not make its way into the definition of assault in the Utah Code.

Not signing a ticket IS grounds for arrest. The ticket is a mechanism used by police as a courtesy in lieu of arrest. You don't have to go to jail if you agree to sign the ticket (which states that you will appear for your court appearance, and is not an admission of guilt). If you refuse to sign the ticket, the officer most certainly has the legal authority to arrest you.

The officer gave clear instructions to the man. He pulled out a taser and pointed it at the guy while repeating the simple instructions. The guy proceeded to put his hand in his pocket and walk away from the officer. That is begging for a tasing.

You say the cop could have "de-escalated" the situtation. How? Isn't that subjective? Don't you want the police to be the one to make that determination? The guy put his hand in his pocket (stupid) turned his back to the officer and walked away (also stupid).

As for your claim that the cop was "wrong" and not "emotionally stable" if he thought he was in danger, I would suggest that you don't have a clue what police go through in traffic stops.

"What the police go through" doesn't seem relevant. What order was he issuing just before he tasered the guy? I wasn't disputing that not signing a ticket is grounds for arrest; I didn't know. If it is, then that's fine. It is not all that unusual for someone to prefer arrest over obedience. The cop should have arrested him. Instead, the cop ordered him out of the vehicle and then turned his back. That was a really stupid thing to do, and makes me think that either the cop had no clue what he was doing, or that he was a lot more comfortable with the situation that you'd like to think. Either way, if he had placed the man under arrest and followed proper procedure, I doubt that the taser would have been used. They both made several mistakes, but the cop should know better.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You say the cop could have "de-escalated" the situtation. How? Isn't that subjective? Don't you want the police to be the one to make that determination? The guy put his hand in his pocket (stupid) turned his back to the officer and walked away (also stupid).

As for your claim that the cop was "wrong" and not "emotionally stable" if he thought he was in danger, I would suggest that you don't have a clue what police go through in traffic stops.

When the man refused to sign, he should have simply stated, "Look, I don't want to have to do this, but if you don't sign, I am forced to arrest you. You and I both know that isn't what you want. Why don't you go ahead and sign the ticket to save us both the trouble."

There are other techniques. Trained cops and lawyers skilled in 1983 actions have examined the tape and have concluded the cop violated his training and is to blame for the escalation.

Cops often do dumb things that technically comply but in spirit violate their duties. This one should be hung out to dry.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

"What the police go through" doesn't seem relevant. What order was he issuing just before he tasered the guy? I wasn't disputing that not signing a ticket is grounds for arrest; I didn't know. If it is, then that's fine. It is not all that unusual for someone to prefer arrest over obedience. The cop should have arrested him. Instead, the cop ordered him out of the vehicle and then turned his back. That was a really stupid thing to do, and makes me think that either the cop had no clue what he was doing, or that he was a lot more comfortable with the situation that you'd like to think. Either way, if he had placed the man under arrest and followed proper procedure, I doubt that the taser would have been used. They both made several mistakes, but the cop should know better.

Just prior to tasering the guy, he repeated "put your hands behind your back and turn around." What police go through most certainly is relevant, because it gives a context to every encounter they have, particularly in situations that statistically are extremely dangerous. To say that their experience is irrelevant is as silly as telling an experience miner that he should just go in to the mine anyways, even though he sees lots of warning signs that it isn't safe.

The cop turned his back while the guy was still in the car. He was slow to face the guy as he came out of the car, but seeing the guy rapidly approaching could have also led the officer to feel less safe. The cop WAS trying to arrest the guy. You can tell because he said "put your hands behind your back and turn around." Those are good indicator phrases that you are about to go to jail. The guy refused (i.e., refused arrest) by walking away with his hand in his pocket.

How would you suggest he arrest the guy who is walking back towards his car without using force? Would you have been happier if he had hit the guy with his stick? Or punched him in the head? Or jumped on him? Each of which would have exposed the officer to MORE danger as opposed to less. Your answer of "just arrest the guy" is kind of amusing when that is exactly what he was trying to do.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When the man refused to sign, he should have simply stated, "Look, I don't want to have to do this, but if you don't sign, I am forced to arrest you. You and I both know that isn't what you want. Why don't you go ahead and sign the ticket to save us both the trouble."

There are other techniques. Trained cops and lawyers skilled in 1983 actions have examined the tape and have concluded the cop violated his training and is to blame for the escalation.

Cops often do dumb things that technically comply but in spirit violate their duties. This one should be hung out to dry.

You can hear him in the tape tell the guy that he will be arrested if he doesn't sign the ticket. He then asks the guy to sign again, and the guy says "I am not going to sign it." Then the cop says "get out of the car."

You can criticize the guy for not having more tact, or not being patient, but he was within his rights, gave a proper order, then acted when that order was disobeyed and the guy took a position that could be interpreted as threatening (putting his hand in his pocket).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Just prior to tasering the guy, he repeated "put your hands behind your back and turn around." What police go through most certainly is relevant, because it gives a context to every encounter they have, particularly in situations that statistically are extremely dangerous. To say that their experience is irrelevant is as silly as telling an experience miner that he should just go in to the mine anyways, even though he sees lots of warning signs that it isn't safe.

The cop turned his back while the guy was still in the car. He was slow to face the guy as he came out of the car, but seeing the guy rapidly approaching could have also led the officer to feel less safe. The cop WAS trying to arrest the guy. You can tell because he said "put your hands behind your back and turn around." Those are good indicator phrases that you are about to go to jail. The guy refused (i.e., refused arrest) by walking away with his hand in his pocket.

How would you suggest he arrest the guy who is walking back towards his car without using force? Would you have been happier if he had hit the guy with his stick? Or punched him in the head? Or jumped on him? Each of which would have exposed the officer to MORE danger as opposed to less. Your answer of "just arrest the guy" is kind of amusing when that is exactly what he was trying to do.

And this is one of my beefs.

You want to protect the cop first and the citizen second. I recognize procedure is all about shooting the citizen with no harm to the cop, but I simply disagree the cop didn't escalate the situation. He did and he should lose his job. BTW, this tape would make a great law school problem, wouldn't it?

You could use it for criminal law and for civil rights violations.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You can hear him in the tape tell the guy that he will be arrested if he doesn't sign the ticket. He then asks the guy to sign again, and the guy says "I am not going to sign it." Then the cop says "get out of the car."

You can criticize the guy for not having more tact, or not being patient, but he was within his rights, gave a proper order, then acted when that order was disobeyed and the guy took a position that could be interpreted as threatening (putting his hand in his pocket).

I'm not disputing that. I acknowledged that the man should have been arrested. Correct me if I'm wrong, but procedure for arresting someone does not involve ordering someone out of their care and then immediately turning your back on them. What was the order given just prior to the tasing? What exactly did the man do that made tasing a good option? Was he told to put his hands on his head or get on his knees or anything?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You can hear him in the tape tell the guy that he will be arrested if he doesn't sign the ticket. He then asks the guy to sign again, and the guy says "I am not going to sign it." Then the cop says "get out of the car."

You can criticize the guy for not having more tact, or not being patient, but he was within his rights, gave a proper order, then acted when that order was disobeyed and the guy took a position that could be interpreted as threatening (putting his hand in his pocket).

I do criticize for not having tact and not being patient. People get upset when they are ticketed. I've had cops say, "Hey man, it's just a ticket, it's not the end of the world, and make it lesser."

This cop was a complete asshole to another asshole. When an asshole with a badge meets a citizen asshole, bad things happen.

And it is not sufficient that a cop "was within in his rights." He needs to be much better than that. This was a routine traffic ticket. Giving the cop with an asshole attitude is not sufficient for me. I hold cops up to higher standards than that. And so should society.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Just prior to tasering the guy, he repeated "put your hands behind your back and turn around." What police go through most certainly is relevant, because it gives a context to every encounter they have, particularly in situations that statistically are extremely dangerous. To say that their experience is irrelevant is as silly as telling an experience miner that he should just go in to the mine anyways, even though he sees lots of warning signs that it isn't safe.

The cop turned his back while the guy was still in the car. He was slow to face the guy as he came out of the car, but seeing the guy rapidly approaching could have also led the officer to feel less safe. The cop WAS trying to arrest the guy. You can tell because he said "put your hands behind your back and turn around." Those are good indicator phrases that you are about to go to jail. The guy refused (i.e., refused arrest) by walking away with his hand in his pocket.

How would you suggest he arrest the guy who is walking back towards his car without using force? Would you have been happier if he had hit the guy with his stick? Or punched him in the head? Or jumped on him? Each of which would have exposed the officer to MORE danger as opposed to less. Your answer of "just arrest the guy" is kind of amusing when that is exactly what he was trying to do.

Meh I responded to the wrong thing. Anyway: The guy orders him out of his car, and then turns his back on him. When the guy, thinking he was supposed to be looking at a street sign, starts walking toward him, the cop freaks out and decides that he's in danger. He wasn't, and the reason he thought so is because he turned his back on the guy. If the cop had decided to arrest him, then he should have arrested him quickly. If he hadn't decided to arrest him, then he shouldn't have ordered the guy out of his car.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I'm not disputing that. I acknowledged that the man should have been arrested. Correct me if I'm wrong, but procedure for arresting someone does not involve ordering someone out of their care and then immediately turning your back on them. What was the order given just prior to the tasing? What exactly did the man do that made tasing a good option? Was he told to put his hands on his head or get on his knees or anything?

I already answered this. And you can watch the video too. Immediately prior to tasering the guy, he repeated "put your hands behind your back and turn around." Pretty clear. Instead, the guy chose to put his hands in his pocket and walk away.

As I said, please describe how you arrest someone if they don't do what you ask them to do. Do you just keep asking? Or do you let them get back in the car (which would be very dangerous), or do you just let them go, or do you use force?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I already answered this. And you can watch the video too. Immediately prior to tasering the guy, he repeated "put your hands behind your back and turn around." Pretty clear. Instead, the guy chose to put his hands in his pocket and walk away.

As I said, please describe how you arrest someone if they don't do what you ask them to do. Do you just keep asking? Or do you let them get back in the car (which would be very dangerous), or do you just let them go, or do you use force?

Come on, you sound like a Bush homer right now. It wasn't that dangerous and the situation escalated due to the dickheadness of the two participants.