Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

VIDEO: Driver Tased For Asking Why He Was Stopped

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausable_Bill
 


That is the law, you only have to be read your rights if you are going to be interrogated or questioned.

Miranda Rights

police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given. Furthermore, if public safety (see New York v. Quarles) warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant.

Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant.


I know it's wiki but it explains it a little more.




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


No, he is a pain in the arse, because he acted as if he is above the law and doesnt have to listen to the instructions of the cop.

The cop did not instruct him to do anything out of the ordinary....nor anything that he would have asked of anyone else to do.

Plus the guy had his hands in his pocket....which is a threat...as the cop as NO clue if the dude has a weapon or not.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


You can ask questions of someone w/out reading them the miranda.

It is after you arrest them.....then their rights are read, etc.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Para, I'm sorry this cop put himself at risk the minute he stood at the drivers window, if the occupants were up to no good they would have shot him were he stood, that did not happen.

Quite the contrary, the driver stayed in his car intially and quite rightfully asked the policeman what he had done wrong. All the cop had to say was watch your speed and record his license details, thats it end of story.

Now this cop will be facing a law suit, which means money paid out and all for the stupid reaction of this policeman in what was a none violent situation. And worse than that you now have two law abbiding citizens who hate cops, all for the actions of this one fool.

I have worked with the police, customs officials etc. and one thing you learn is how to spot a perp from a mile off so you are prepared. I'm sure the police have been told to use less lethal means but people are dying from taser hits and it certainly would not do a pregnant women any good or some one with a heart condition.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausable_Bill
 


If one is arrested, their rights HAVE to be read.

If one is NOT arrested, they can still be questioned....and they can plead the 5th if they want.

And if one is arrested, just becaue they arent going to be asked questions, doesnt mean their rights are not to be read.

The key is: "I am placing you under arrest. You have the right to remain silent......"

So, he needs a new lawyer!



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
It's pointless to talk to the bootlickers, they will always back the authority figure no matter what the situation or how outrageous the abuse of power


They are the people that gave Hitler and Stalin the power to commit the atrocities they did.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Zeta your missing the point, all the cop had to do is give him a verbal and take his details, he made a balls of it when he did not have to, speeding is a petty crime and I'm sure the US has heaps of serious crime to deal with.

Get it into your head the cop could of dealt with the situation differently but he chose not to, the drivers reactions after getting out of the car were totally the officers fault and it was the cop who brought this situation upon himself not the other way round, he was in control and he let the situation get out of control.

Mind you why am I even replying, some of you think its ok to shoot gas and burn your own women and kids so I should not be suprised at some of your attitudes.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 





Mind you why am I even replying, some of you think its ok to shoot gas and burn your own women and kids so I should not be suprised at some of your attitudes.


WTF are you talking about? Nobody here is advocating that!!



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
if the occupants were up to no good they would have shot him were he stood,

---- Not always the case, most perps don't show hostility
toward cops until they feel they are being arrested. Just standing
at the window issuing a citation did not constitute that arrest
fear. That occured AFTER the officer got him outside and asked
him to raise his hands. -------


Quite the contrary, the driver stayed in his car intially and quite rightfully asked the policeman what he had done wrong. All the cop had to say was watch your speed and record his license details, thats it end of story.

---- NO, that's not the end of story. A cop has the right to detain
anyone he feels a threat to the public safety. If you have an irrate
driver, that can lead to road rage.
The video does not show contributing factors. The woman may
have been egging this incident on between the cop and the driver.
It does not show that. But in that case I would have separated the 2
in order to control that external factor. Which leads me to believe
that more events were happening which does not show in the video ------


Now this cop will be facing a law suit, which means money paid out and all for the stupid reaction of this policeman in what was a none violent situation. And worse than that you now have two law abbiding citizens who hate cops, all for the actions of this one fool.

---- Fraternal Order of Police members automatically get represented
by some of the finest lawyers money can buy to protect them in
cases just like this one. And I beg to differ on them being law abiding
citizens. A law abiding citizen would have done what the cop asked
them to do. That is called resisting arrest as an officer does not
have to inform the driver he is under arrest if the conditions warrant
such as in the case of officer safety. -----


I have worked with the police, customs officials etc. and one thing you learn is how to spot a perp from a mile off so you are prepared.

---- LOL, NO they CANNOT spot a perp a mile away. But there are
certain suspicious activities which lead to that -------


I'm sure the police have been told to use less lethal means

---- That depends on the department and it's rules of engagement ----


but people are dying from taser hits and it certainly would not do a pregnant women any good or some one with a heart condition.


---- That is their own fault by putting themselves in jeopardy for
making stupid decisions. Just like if the pregnant woman decides
to do drugs or drink alcohol, are you gonna put Pfizer company
or Jack Daniels in jail?? LOL, I think not. It's their own decision
of whether they want to cooperate or not. If they do not, then
don't come crying due to the circumstances -----



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Green, have you heard of WACO, or maybe Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma bombing etc.

I apreciate that the cops in the US have to face perps with guns but this was not the case, this was a petty matter that was turned into a major one.

And lets take it further, as many Americans do have weapons what if the drivers partner had lost it and shot the cop and then she in turn is shot is that a price worth paying 2 people dead over a petty crime and an event that did not even have to happen.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
This a real life experience in my duties as a cop.

I was on patrol on night and received a call viz radio of an
old woman who had called in of a drug dealer who was
selling drugs in her yard (apartment complex).

I responded in about 3 minutes as I was about 5 blocks away
when I got the call. As I pulled up I scanned the area for
people. It was dark and I couldn't see anybody as the call was
after 10:00 p.m. I approached the door of the old lady and knocked.
She came to the door and informed me that this young 14-15
yr old kid was selling drugs in her yard and wanted him removed.
I asked her what he was wearing and where he went to. She
advised me he had disappeared behind her building. I asked her
to go back inside and wait for my return. I then proceeded
around the side of the building. As I approached half-way along the
wall. I heard a pop to my right behind the other building adjacent
and heard the bullet hit the apartment wall behind me narrowly
missing my head by about a foot. I hit the deck and pulled out my
weapon. The perp had disappeared (ran off) as there was nobody
there when I got there.

Now I said that to say this. How prudent would it have been for
me to yell, you are under arrest for shooting at a police officer
while I was still in the process of being shot at?? The same
goes for this instance on tape. The threat was there when he didn't
remove his hands from his pocket. I NOR this officer had to wait to
inform him he was under arrest. The reaction was instigated due to the
events. While he may have done some procedures wrong. This was
not one of them.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
The driver was not being attentive. When he approached the cops car he was waving pointing at something(?). And appeared to walk further towards to that point of distraction. The officer took notice of this and tolled him to put his hand behind his back (although still it could have been "stay where you are, or stand still") The officer's action was a bit extreme but still within the limits.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausable_Bill
H

He said he had a cousin that was arrested for an assault and didn't have his rights read to him at the time of arrest, nor upon being booked.

His lawyer told him that the police don't have to inform you of your 5th amendment rights unless they are about to question you.

I'm not sure if this is true or not but it don't sound right to me.

Does this sound true to anyone here???

Later, Ausable_Bill


It is exactly right according to several VERY EXPENSIVE attorneys I have spoken to. Most people don't realize this is the case.

[edit on 11/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Zeta your missing the point, all the cop had to do is give him a verbal and take his details, he made a balls of it when he did not have to, speeding is a petty crime and I'm sure the US has heaps of serious crime to deal with.


He did give him a verbal and attempted to get his details, both met to resistance. And the issue isn't the speeding, the cop wasn't thinking "oh man, I'm dealing with a dangerous speeder here." This guy could have had warrants out for his arrest or various items/weapons in his vehicle or person. Speeding is why he was pulled over but not why he was tazed or seen as a threat.



Get it into your head the cop could of dealt with the situation differently but he chose not to, the drivers reactions after getting out of the car were totally the officers fault and it was the cop who brought this situation upon himself not the other way round, he was in control and he let the situation get out of control.


Yes, he could have dealt with it better, no one is saying he handled it perfectly, so I'll agree with you on that. I don't know how you can place all ("totally") of the blame on the police officer. That is to say there was nothing the driver could have done to avoid the situation. He could have not sped (more of a generalization, don't know what he was clocked at), he could have shown his information, he could have signed the ticket, he could have listened to the officer, and he could have obeyed a direct command to turn around and take his hands out of his pockets. The blame is not entirely on the officer.



Mind you why am I even replying, some of you think its ok to shoot gas and burn your own women and kids so I should not be suprised at some of your attitudes.


Come on, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, I don't know where that is coming from. We aren't encouraging police officers to taze people. This is a serious matter and we need to be able to discuss it logically. I don't know how you equate the tazing of a shady uncooperative citizen who was a perceived threat to a police officer and burning our women and children. I'm not even sure where you got the example of shooting gas and burning people.

If we are to accurately find examples of police brutality or subjugation of the population through the police force we need to be able to take incidents like these and see that it is an isolated scenario that the citizen personally aggravated (not caused but fueled).



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Zeta, you make me sick.


Originally posted by Zeta115
The driver's wrongdoing:

1) Rule #1, never ever argue with a cop. If you do, you're going to jail
or else you're gonna get the # kicked out of ya before you get there.


He didn't argue. He asked what he had done wrong, and was never told.


Originally posted by Zeta115
2) Be courteous to the officer EVEN if you think he is wrong as that
sort of stuff can be worked out later in court with a lawyer present.

I agree here, but it's irrelevant in this case. He courteously asked what he was being cited for. Apparently, the official infraction was "going a little fast there...".


Originally posted by Zeta115
3) He did not follow the commands of the officer. He DID have the right
not to sign the citation. But he DID NOT have the right to disobey his
verbal commands for movement no matter what he thought he didn't
do.

don't try to imply that the officer didn't intend on tasing him the instant he refused to sign. And your argument that the cop felt threatened is simply asinine. If a cop of all people, feels threatened by an individual who he just ordered to exit the vehicle, the first thing he does is NOT turn around and walk back to stash his clipboard. he didn't feel threatened, the guy just wasn't kissing his ass the way he wanted.


Originally posted by Zeta115
4) The guy was an asshole in my opinion and got what he deserved.

How was he an asshole? The cop was not?


Originally posted by Zeta115
5) As far as the title of this thread, I disagree and it is a little misleading
as I counted at least 4 times the officer stated the reason why he was
being arrested. Just because the driver don't agree with the officer
does not give him the right to disrespect the officer and his commands.
He was told many times, the driver was just being an asshole and
insubordinate.

Uhh, never once on the video is the reason for citation given. How fast was he going over the speed limit? Just fast enough to get tased.


Originally posted by Zeta115
As far as the outcome goes, the passenger may have gotten a ticket
but I don't think it will hold up in court if the passenger's attorney
wants to pursue the procedure errors. However, the resisting arrest
charge will stick due to the video tape actions by the driver.

See, while you attempt to portray a position of authority on this subject, you look like a fool when you make these types of claims, when if you had even read the article, you'd know that a resisting arrest charge was dropped... due to video tape actions by the COP. Cops do these things because they think like you do. I mean, you actually believe that there was an offense committed by the passenger?!

Sure, the driver could have handled this situation better, but to be honest, I believe he would have been tased anyway. The cop was bored and tried to write a B.S. ticket, and got pissed when he was called out on it.

You say he got what he deserved. Well then, let me ask you, what's the cop getting? He's a liability now, and will likely lose his job, and if the driver decides to sue him personally, in addition to the department, he'll lose a lot more than that. I guess the system is broken huh... Poor cop, he's sure getting the shaft.

All I can say is I'm sure glad you're no longer wearing a badge. It used to be that the police were a respected component of our society. But now, as attitudes such as yours have infected the majority of police forces in our country, the people are terrified of anyone with a badge. I'll admit we don't hear about enough of the wonderful things officers do in this country every day, but it's their responsibility to make sure there aren't atrocities like this for us to hear about.

Did you do anything good in your three long years as a LEO? Maybe you ought to tell us about it. I'm still reeling from your perspective on this. A close relative of mine has been an active police officer for 35 years now, and was appalled by what he saw in this video. That fact, when combined with your sentiments on the subject, are quite indicative of the direction law enforcement is going. You gotta 35 year veteran, who thinks a guy getting tased under the circumstances illustrated in the video is appalling, then, you, with all your years of protecting and serving, who thinks the cop didn't use enough force.

Oh, and the line about the cop just wanting to get home to his family... that was great. I'll be using that one at parties for years.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
There are plenty of reasons that a cop, who is in control, should do his best to minimize confrontation. He's got the gun and the authority and can decide moment-to-moment how things are going.

For one thing, it quickly escalates, ending up with him feeling he has to taze someone. He puts himself and his career at risk by increasing the chaos to the point where he left the guy lying head first mere feet from oncoming traffic, and he's brandishing his freaking handcuffs at a pregnant and hysterical passenger.

What cop would want that? That's how cops get shot. They must know that otherwise calm compliant people when in their cars are not normal - most are borderline psycho, as we all know.

I'd think these kind of 'trigger happy' cops get weeded out, but maybe he was mostly a good cop but just had an issue that day with the motorist trying to 'be "in charge"' as he put it.

It's best not to antagonize from either side. You both get put at risk and over what a traffic ticket?

However as much as I can't really fault the cop, he should have backed down and explained things instead of egging this guy on.

While the driver was not a criminal, but he apparently was one of those passive-aggressive butt-heads who don't know when to quit. Why? Well any one with any sense would have started complying when they saw the tazer come out, but he didn't.

2 cents.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
If anyone of us "non police" officers did this, it would be consdered a felony.

The ticket that this officer issued most likely would'nt hold up in a trial anyway. He was in front of the 40mph sign and moving. A good lawyer would argue that the sign was odstructed by the cop car and the cop car being in motion would make any speed measuring device inaccurate.

I understand that they shouldn't be judged because of a few bad apples, but they have more then a few. A search on corruption or abuses with in police departments in the United States will yield an overwhelming amount of examples to prove this point.

I can also understand this officer's frustration. His authority is in question. By not having a signiture on the ticket, it is invalid. He couldn't close the deal and add another ticket towards his quota that doesn't exsist. (in Dallas they do have a quota. It is not an official policy, so there is no writtten documentation of it. My source for this is 3 former officers)

If the officer was that nervous in that situation, perhaps he may want to find a different job. The humane society and the SPCA are always looking for people to put animals to "sleep".

I also find it interesting that the first words one hears from a police officer these days are: Let me see your drivers license and registration! Kinda reminds me of my great uncle discribing what it was like living in Nazi Germany. " Everyday you had someone stopping you and asking for your papers".

Now for the torture question. Article 5 of the UN codes of conduct for law enforcement covers this issue quite clearly. Also the Utah constitution Article 1 section 1 and article 1 section 9 deal with this issue.

Also remember that this is Utah. The liquor stores are all run by state employees. They put people in jail who are having strokes. They perform military style raids on rave parties. Police chief's wives sell drugs while performing as strippers and cops beat up 70 year old women when they don't water their lawns. ( All examples given can be confirmed with a simple web search).


[edit on 23-11-2007 by assassini]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by assassini]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I hope this cop loses his job, is charged with criminal misconduct and does time. I hope that his victim wins tons of money in a successful lawsuit. There is NO justification for this kind of police brutality against innocent, unarmed citizens. Cops need to learn that they are not God.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Because some will likely get the wrong impression from my previous post, let me clearly state that I agree 100% with this post.

My final thought on this is as follows:
A justifiable action must remain justifiable, regardless of the outcome. So, Zeta, if the driver had a heart condition and died as a result of the cops actions, would said actions still be justifiable? While you'll surely hold your ground, not even our depreciated justice system would ever be able to call that anything but a wrongful death. Hence, the tasing was NOT justified, let alone inadequate.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Unit451


don't try to imply that the officer didn't intend on tasing him the instant he refused to sign.


Just curious how you developed your sense of long distance mind reading into the past. If you lack this ability then I would say for you not to imply that the officer intended to taze him the instant he refused to sign.

EDIT:
Thought I'd post my overall stance, the cop shouldn't have tazed him, but the driver could have avoided it. I think my problem has to do with the personal responsibility of the driver. While the cop may have been wrong to taze him all of the blame does not fall on him in the sense that we, as citizens, can handle situations like this a bit more maturely. I just get the feeling like people think the driver was completely upstanding and did not do a thing wrong when he could have handled it better. Feel like I'm still not getting my thought across right but I hope that helps.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Parabol]






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join