Lots of good discussion both sides.

Saw the follow up interview. Interesting that the officer in question did not have the gonads to be present (with the rep, of course).

I think this speaks volumes.

Also (though, again, I can't specifically fault the officer) there ARE fake cops out there. They even dress up their cars to resemble police cruisers and wear authentic uniforms and badges.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was crossing the guy's mind when the cop drew the tazer (which the guy said he thought was a gun). That would have been a decent defense if his wife had got out and shot the cop, imo. (maybe not, not a lawyer).

This is why, imo, it's a good idea to drive to some place with other people like a gas station or store before you pull over. I doubt if this cop (who was clearly 'on the edge') would have allowed that even though it's -supposedly- within our rights to do so. He'd have been up there shooting out the tires and stuff, heh.

Well, at least these things are being put out there. It can't make the officer's jobs any easier. If I was this guys fellow cops I'd be pissed at him for this reason alone.



[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]

I would add that every judge and D.A. should have one used on them also
so there's no doubt about Taser's effects. They should also have to spend a week in jail incognito to see what that is like, and just what and where they are sending people to.

I hope Jared wins his lawsuit big time / that cop should serve jail time in prison for a couple years for his inability to do his job. I wonder how many other people he had pulled this crap with. He should be lucky that he hasn't been shot dead on the side of the road by an citizen who actually stands up for his/her rights.

I also want to add that the officer did go through the vehicle with no official cause given...

If my wife was pulled over and tazed to the ground, you bet a different ending would have played out in that video if i were in the passenger seat.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Here Now]

This officer reminded me of cartman from south park. "Respect my authority" he would say and in the meantime would bash them with his nightstick or spray them with his bear mace. Sick and sad anology but it seems more and more police fit this profile.

BTW I feal the officer was in the wrong and used excessive force for such a minor infraction.

this doesnt surprise me at all. I too feel the police have gotten out of hand.

In 1996 i was arrested for smoking pot, the police were called in by someone who said there was a gang of kids vandalizing and smoking drugs, me and 2 friends only who were working on a friends car(not a gang at all), when we were surounded by 8 cop cars and about 12 officers all with there guns drawn at us hiding behind there cars. when we were restrained the officer in charge ask what we were doing and what we were smoking we said we were just working on buddies car and we were only smoking cigarets. the officer then said dont lie to me i can smell it(outside in the wind) they then checked us and the car and found a joint in the car that belonged to guy who owned the car. we were respectful to the officers and did not provoke them or refuse to cooperate.

Long story short we all were charged with possesion, my first and only offence then then told me that if i signed a connfession to state that i had purchased the joint off one of my buddies and smoked it with my other buddy that they would make my charges dissapear. sisnce i never been introuble before but my 2 buddies had previous records and they wanted to nail them to the wall with my help. i said no way, told the lawyer what happend we explained it in court and no one belived me in court, instead i was treated like a common criminal that had just killed somone in cold blood.

I used to have allot of respect for the officers that try and uphold the law, but since my arrest i do not feel the same and look at police officers as mulitia type military who can do and say as they see fit and not have to have be respocesible for there actions or what they say.

just 2 weeks ago i was stop for a ride program(road side stops to make sure driver are not drunk) well when they stoped me to see if i had been drinking my record came up and showed the police i had been arrested in 96' for possesion, so what did they do? the pull me out of the car, handcuff me in and put me in the back of the police car while they called dogs in and tore my car appart looking to try and find drugs. I allready whent to court for the offence in 96' was charged and paid my fine.... is my dept to society not been paid for my crime?

This is too much police brutaly and an invasion of civil right, because i was caught once smoking a joint i'm now considered a threat to everyone and i have no rights as a citizen? i allso do not see police talking to people in a civile maner, instead it's allway they trying to be bullies right away like there trying to get people to respond in a negitive way so they can do as they wish to the people.

I think the police should have to be more respossilbe for there actions.
and be trained on civil interactions, to take a risk of tasering somone and risk killing them say allot about the police officer in the video, he obviously doesnt have any concern that he may kill this person and for what... because he was to stupid to call for back up? what happend to equal force? i didnt see the driver with a weapon even if he did have his hands in his pocket.

when i was arrested in 96' i too had my hands in my pocket, it's habit and citizens have know idea that it's considered a threat by a police officer.
Alsso this police officer is trained to take a man down with his bare hands and yet he opted for the taser instead and put an inocent citizen in great danger.

My 2 cents: I think this officer whent overboard and needs to be punnished for this blaten disregard for human life!

The pig had NO right to Taze the man ..he could have walked over LIKE A MAN and put a hand on his shoulder and turned him around and insisted that he remain still; you do NOT Taze a man simply because he turns his back.

However, I must agree that the guy did himself no favors and acted irresponsible. He had a LEGAL obligation to follow the officers LEGAL orders..and the legal order was to stop and place his hands behind his back. this is a CUSTODIAL ORDER, and one of only TWO types of orders that citizens are legally required to obey. All other ' orders ' are bluff and lies and nonsense.

Custodial orders pertain to custody and officer safety. If a cop says ' put your hands up ' , or ' put your hands behind your back ', you MUST obey, as the cop is obviously arresting you. If you do not comply with an order pertaining to custody, you are wrong. Argue whether or not the custoidy is legal in court, not on the side of the road with some dumb cop that obviously is itching to use force against you. Most are. They love those toys..know why? because they provide the same level of adrenalin as a gunshot, but cause much less hassles and paperwork and cause much less scrutiny from above. This cop will no doubt get honored for his great work by his dept. and a civil suit is the only way to get justice, and I hope they win.

The other legal order cops can give is an order pertaining to SAFETY, such as in traffic situations, establishing perimeters for searches, etc. If a cop says ' get out of here ', and you linger, and there is an unsafe condition going on..you are wrong. Obey cop's when they order you to assume any physical stance or position or put your hands where they say. Obey cop's when they direct you toward or away from an area while they have good reason to do so. Any other orders may be ignored..and are illegal. If a cop tells you to empty your pockets prior to arrest, it is an illegal order. He wants you to assume that he has the authority to order that, but he does not. He does NOT have the authority to order us to open our trunks, or hand over our car keys upon demand,etc.

Only AFTER a legal arrest can the cop's take steps to search a persons pockets and veehicle, unless probable cause exists other wise. People should NEVER EVER give consent for a search..ever!! this is like taking the Constitution and ripping out the 4th amendment and wiping your posterior with it and throwing it away. Cop's who ASK us to give up our precious Rights are enemies of the people and disrespect the Constitution. MOST cop's do this routinely, day in and day out. It is an effective ' fishing ' method for arrests..easy arrests where the people plead guilty and spare him from perjuring himself. Arrests where the isiots that get intimidated give CONSENT for a search.

The LIES and BLUFFS are legion and well known: " If you don't let us do a quick search right here and now, I wil make you sit here and wait for a dog and if the dog comes he will find what you have and then I will have no mercy and you WILL go to jail, where the worst sort of father raper's are waiting with baited breath for your arrival. " Most people, especially the young, will be so intimidated ansd scared and confused that they cave in and allow the search..even knowing that there is a half smoked J in the ashtray..praying that the cooperation will earn a pass.which it will NOT!! The cop uses intimidation and lioes as a means of avoiding the legal requirements of probable cause: It makes it SO easy to bust people when all you have to do is stop a hundred cars and ask for searches and get 99 to say OK..and then bust 25 of those for some petty crap..thats pretty easy pickings for a cop!!

But in 20 out of the 25 cases, there would be no arrest and no charges at all had the citizen stood firm and looked the porker in his fat, red, evil eyes and said " NO..hell NO!! No searches without a warrant!! Am I free to leave, Officer? No searches without a warrant. Am I free to leave?..on and on.

Get the picture? If you refuse consent and keep looking at your watch and taking notes of all the info and asking to leave..the cop is going to know that he has run up against some smart ass that will probably make life difficult for him if he violates any rights..so he backs off and either writes a ticket or doesn't..but in most cases where a citizen takes a firm stand, the cop WILL back down. They KNOW how bad it looks in court with attorneys asking them hard questions..they KNOW that if they cross the line any evidence will be thrown out anyway, which is a black mark on the system, a waste of resources, and pisses off the DA every time.

Always refuse consent..obey all LEGAL orders, which are ONLY those which pertain to safety and custody , and NEVER give in to anything the cops say: When cop's talk, they have shown that they are operating from a position of weakness: When they ACT, they are operating from a position of strength. Unless and until they ACT, all the rest is bluff and lies and nonsense and can be ignored. If some flat foot asks you " Where are you headed today ?" , it is NOT because he cares about you and your trip: he is conditioning you to answer questions and follow his lead.

If you IGNORE all personal questions and bring him to bear on the issue at hand, YOU have taken over the position of strrength, see? Just say" What do you want?", and let him tell you. Do the legally required minimum and never answer any questions. If he asks you why you are not answering him, just say " There is no law that requires me to answer any personal questions, my attorney told me so". That lets him know that: You have an attorney, and also that you are aware of your rights. A cop is MUCH less likely to hassle you after that. they have so many easy pickings out there that they can afford to let the wise guys alone.

This cop in Utah was not man enough to make an arrest without disabling the man..and this is a trend: Cops today want to totally dominate the scene and the people. Cop's today are AFRAID of physical contact...it used to be that cops actually enjoyed a fight now and then to get the blood stirred up and prove to themselves that they were really able to handle themselves..today we have a bunch of military minded cops who see KILL or DON'T KILL as the only options any more..God help us when the Vet's coming back from Iraq get jobs as cops and treat us like they do the Iraquis..then we will see some really sick stuff on TV!!

Instead of following the officer's instructions, the driver, to me, seemed to be heading back to his vehicle. Who's knows if the driver had some type of weapon or something in his vehicle.

At the beginning of the video the driver ADMITS that he was going a little, so I don't see why he starts arguing about the ticket later. He, like most people, don't realize that signing a traffic ticket is in no way an admission in guilt and that the driver will have the opportunity to plead his case in front of a judge if he chooses to do so.

As for the officer not warning the driver that he was going to tase him.. it's not like he pulled out the taser and just shot him. He told the driver to turn around and the driver did not comply, in fact he began to walk back to his car. I think a cop pulling out a taser on me is enough of a warning that he/she intends to use it if I don't comply with what he tells me to do What's the officer supposed to do? Keep yelling stop until the guy gets in his vehicle, closes the door and drives away, or worse yet, retrieves the firearm he keeps in his vehicle for "protection" and fires a couple of rounds into the officer's chest.

If anything, I would have grabbed the passenger and cuffed her when she hysterically jumped out of the vehicle like that.

The officer was working alone like in many areas around the country, where officers work alone due to manpower/funding issues. I believe that fact puts officers on edge moreso than normally, I know it would me. People need to realize that anytime an officer loses control of a situation, they also put themselves in a position to possibly lose their life.

Bottomline, the situation of course could have been handled better by both sides. The driver should have just taken his ticket and let that be that. If he wanted to see the speed limit sign he could have taken the next turnaround and gone back to see if he could spot it. If he wanted to argue the ticket, he could have done so in front of a judge (I've had about 4 speeding tickets dismissed in this way myself, so it does work). If the driver didn't want a ticket then he shouldn't have been speeding and don't say that he wasn't because he admits doing so at the beginning of the video clip. As for the officer, I think if he would have better explained that signing the ticket wasn't an admission of guilt but rather an admission of receiving the ticket then perhaps the driver would not have been so upset about the situation. Also, even though the driver was a bit far away from the officer, in hind-sight, I believe mace may have been a better alternative.

I've gotten plenty of tickets and unless you're an idiot, you just do what the officer says, take your ticket and be on your way. But there seems to be this segment of the population that believes that they can do no wrong and can argue their way out of anything. What? Did the driver think that if he protested long enough the officer was going to just say whatever and leave?

I think these ticky-tack instances of "excessive force" take away from true cases of cops going too far. The NYPD putting X number of bullets into an unarmed person is one thing and needs to be thoroughly investigated, but this is totally different. How much leeway does an officer have to give a person to argue and complain, how threatened must he/she feel before they can act?

The problem is that we all perceive threat differently. While the driver in the video may not have been perceived as threatening to some, he was by me and obviously the officer.

Damn,

That cop better enjoy what's left of his job while he still has it.

After that big ass lawsuit comes through (as it should in this case), perhaps it'll make young punk cops like this guy think twice before doing this again.

The officer was OBVIOUSLY placing this guy under arrest, yet failed to notify him of his rights even after the "suspect" repeatedly begged the officer to do so. That alone SHOULD be enough to guarantee some money in the "suspect's" favor, not to mention the cop losing his job.

While I have absolutely no problem with cops that actually do their job. There are far too many (like the one in the video) who forget that their job is to protect AND to SERVE.

The "suspect" did absolutely NOTHING outside of his legal rights. Since he very obviously felt that the cop was out of line for the ticket, I see absolutely nothing that he did wrong INCLUDING raising his tone to the officer and disrespecting him. This cop earned the disrespect as soon as he disrespected the "suspect" who had apparently done nothing but speed.

I could understand the officer's demeanor had this guy been driving recklessly or had he failed to pull over. But all this for speeding?

BAH!

The simple fact of the matter is, this guy got popped with the taser because he pissed the cop off. I'm sorry, but that is NOT valid reason for tasing him.

He, in no way, threatened the cop UNTIL after he got hit with the cop's taser and even then it was only the threat of a lawsuit.

The police departments of this country need to do a better job of investigating the people they allow to don that uniform. A police officer is supposed to be a title of respect and dignity, yet, these young guys like this one who are power hungry after putting that uniform on are doing NOTHING but ruining the DECENT peoples' image of them.

I, myself, have had an experience with a cop like this one. I was pulled over for running a stop sign that was 2 miles in the opposite direction from which I was coming. (I was headed TOWARD the stop sign in question)

When I tried to explain this to the officer, he told me to shut my *f-bomb* mouth or he'd take my "sorry ass" to jail. And that was just for me saying, "Sir, I wasn't coming from that direction".

I then tried to explain to him that there were a LOT of cars in town that were just like mine (a Silver Pontiac Grand Prix GT) and I ASKED him if he might have been mistaken.

Again, he told me to shut my *f-bomb* mouth and I was getting the ticket whether I liked it or not.

He presented me with the ticket ($230 for running a stop sign) and ON THE TICKET it said "By signing this citation, you are agreeing with above information". So, naturally, I refused to sign it. He immediately became even more angry with me, I suppose for daring to question his judgement.

He then proceeded to tell me that if I did NOT sign it, I would be removed from my vehicle, it would be impounded (which would cost $500 to get out) and I would be taken to jail.

In order to avoid this, I signed the ticket and, underneath my signature, wrote "I do NOT agree with this citation, I will be certain to appear at my court date."

At this, the cop laughed at me and told me I was a *f-bomb* smart ass and he said, "It's going to be your word against mine, best of luck to ya!". After his nice little remark, he left.

I made my court date a month later and beat the ticket. Unfortunately for him, I actually had the money to hire a REAL lawyer at the time.

Come to find out, this same officer had done the same thing to 3 others that had the same court date as myself.

Not even 2 months later, this same cop was fired for DUI and assault. The paper, naturally, didn't give details of the assault. But, he was on duty at the time.


He was 23 and just another of those young a-hole cops who though that uniform gave him the power of god.



It's a shame when such officers sully the good name of the cops who actually CARE about the people they are supposed to serve and protect.


Jasn



EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure about the laws where this took place, but here, it is perfectly acceptable to request that the officer go back with you and show you where he/she clocked you. This guy obviously felt that he had not hit the sign yet when the cop clocked him and it seemed that he was claiming he had already slowed before hitting the sign. This officer wouldn't even tell him the speed he was clocked at. Plenty of room for dispute there on the side of the "suspect".

[edit on 24-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

Good post, zephyrs.

Concerning cuffing the hysterical passenger - that might have been a good idea, even if only for her own safety. He didn't know if she was so hysterical that she'd have run into traffic.

Don't the cops go to school for these kinds of things? This guy apparently slept through all the lessons.

Anyway, this all points to two things I said before.

1. If the officer does not routinely choose the low key approach, then every freakin' stop he makes is going to play out like this. Sure he was basically in the right, but who wants that? It makes for a miserable existence, I'd think.

2. If he -really- thought the guy was a menace AND after he decided to arrest him, he should have told the guy to sit in his car (the cop still had his license, remember), then CALLED for back up. Then there'd be someone to stand by the passenger door and the woman would never have gotten out. Also with backup there is a lot less likelyhood of escalation to a tazing.

ISTM, when you are going to arrest someone and cuff them you should do it immediately after you get them out of the car, OR call them to the front of your car, get ready, then say 'lean forward' and then put the cuffs on. You don't -wander around- the scene, turn your back on the guy, and let things -already- get out of control and THEN say turn around in the middle of the emergency pull off.

So this guy needs to be driving a desk, I've concluded (or sent back for intensive retraining). He's a text book on how to do nearly -everything- wrong, fercryinoutloud.


edit: to the poster above. Good points. This vid should be included in training courses about what NOT to do.

When you think about it, cops had been chosen due to their physique, height, gender, and stern attitude (military-like). Later it was learned that even females, properly trained, can be good officers.

Thus the point is, instead of choosing guys for their gung-ho law-and-order attitude, they need to be choosing on the basis of intelligence, ability to defuse, and knowledge of the law and proper procedure and NOT their testosterone level. I mean really. The cops all go to the gym, lift weights and joke with each other about their bench press totals. This is not what we need.

The cops might think the opposite, but maybe they're causing the very situation they're trying to bulk up to handle?

Just a thought...

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]

Hah, while riding I came up with a great, even humorous solution.

What we need is a robotic ride-along lawyer, sorta like the popup guy in Men In Black, or the robot taxi-driver in Total Recall.



This would be our interface with the cops. It would be approved by the legal system and would have sensors and be able to give confirming or disputing information on the cars travel and actions. Their info would be even more accurate than the cop's radar (someone is already inventing a hand-held device like this).

The cop would just go up and give the robot the ticket, and being better informed than the best lawyer, you'd have an instant advocate.

I get the feeling that more than half the stuff the cops do is not within their legal rights, let along doing things like planting evidence, making up charges, lying on the stand, claiming they saw you do something when they didn't.

It would make the cop's job safer too. No more dealing with psychotic soccor moms and crazy old geezers like the guy in that video that tore up his ticket and got threatened with littering,

Of course further in the future when cars (if they still exist) are all driven by computer, there won't be any need for this. The funny thing is, this is how the cops make a lot of their accessory busts by going off of stuff found in a traffic stop. So I wonder how they'd take it if cars did go robotic (and thus couldn't speed or weave or other things)?





[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]

Just some questions...

1. Is there anyone here who would have continued to walk away from the police officer after he had drawn his tazer and told you to turn around or put your hands on the hood?

2. Is there anyone here who would have actually shot the police officer if they were the wife coming from the passenger side? Seriously, I've seen at least 3 people reference this and I can't fathom how using a firearm against the cop is justified after the tazing. I mean, it's one thing to be in the moment (still not excusable), but to see the tazing and think "oh ok, well now I have free reign to do as I please, I can grab my gun and fire on the officer now." And if you would have, then it's all the more reason why the wife approaching from the passenger side was a threat to the officer. Because there are people who would exit the car and use violent force against the cop. I don't see how you can berate this cop for using a tazer and then think it's ok to one up it and use a firearm.