Quoted: Hey, I think there's a disconnect between the cops and civvies on this incident. All the cops are like "good taze" and the civvies are like "quick on the trigger." All the trooper had to be was be professional. "Okay, hop out of the car." WTF is that? Even if he wanted to be casual about it all he had to add was FOUR words to that sentence  and all this would be moot: "Okay, hop out of the car you are under arrest." Instead you get a confused civvie thinking the cop has invited him to show him the sign that they were just talking about seconds before.. Cop should have told him what the consequences of not signing the ticket is and used professional language: "Sir, please step out of the vehicle.  You are under arrest." Instead of sighing and harrumphing. I'm glad the investigation said: UHP investigators feel the officer who dealt with Jared Massey in this incident did not communicate well enough with Massey when he giving him the speeding ticket. Kevin "Damn straight."

Are you fucking stupid or did you forget the smiley face?  That is the last thing an officer should say.

Brian

Quoted: You defend the trooper all you want, I bet $100 bucks Dozens of the people he has written up, think he was a JERK to them and a Prick for no reason, a sign nobody wants to see, he is a problem employee.

How was the officer a jerk and a prick?  What did he say or do?

Stop the speeder?  (68 in a 40mph construction zone)

Ask the driver 3 times for license and registration?

Write up the ticket?

Tell the driver to sign the ticket?

Tell the driver to get out of the car?

Give the driver the command to turn around (4 times), and put his hands on his head (twice)?

Quoted: I agree the cop's manner might have been a bit better, but anytime an LEO has to tell you THREE TIMES to put your hands behind your back, and you continue to ignore him, for the sake of law and order, you need to go down. That's the bottom line.

Actually, 4 times not 3. And he was walking away from the officer back to his car.

Quoted: The "You are under arrest" only occurs after the suspect is actually detained and under control of the officer.  Officers that announce a suspect is under arrest before the suspect is actually detained, usually find the suspect running or driving away. The officer did nothing wrong.

You can explain that until your blue in the face, but it won't do any good.  Some people just don't have a clue...

Officer gave commands, subject did not obey... Use of force justified...  Good  taze.

Quoted: That guy needs some training in communication.

What part of "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" needs to be communicated differently?

A LEO was cleared of wrong doing...by other LEOs? Gosh, that is unheard of.

Quoted: A LEO was cleared of wrong doing...by other LEOs? Gosh, that is unheard of.

Are you going to have a group of homeless drunks review a by-pass surgeon's actions during the performance of his job?  Not every blowhard arfcom keyboard commando or person that has access to Youtube is qualified to review a use of force incident.

Brian

I showed the video to a few guys at work. They all thought it was 100% justified and couldnt believe it was even controversial.

Quoted: Just like we said. It is so boring being right all the time.

It's tuff but someone has to do it.

Quoted: The "You are under arrest" only occurs after the suspect is actually detained and under control of the officer.  Officers that announce a suspect is under arrest before the suspect is actually detained, usually find the suspect running or driving away. The officer did nothing wrong.

Oooops, there's that logic thing again.

Not only is the driver a moron, he's a liar to boot.

Massey was unavailable for comment tonight but has previously said, "He just wouldn't explain why he pulled me over, and then he asked me to get out of the car. I thought he was gonna let me show him the sign."

Hey,

They dropped the resisting arrest charges on him.  Just doing the speeding now.

All the cops can say "Good Tase" and all of that.

All the civvies can say "Big Ego JBT" and all of that.

We'll see if it goes to civil court, or if they'll settle out of court.

I still think the cop was unprofessional.  One of the tools in his repertoire is "Verbal Judo".  If so, this guy was a freakin' white belt.

Supposedly he has 14 years on the force and this is the best he can do?

Didn't take control, was vague on what exactly was going on.  Poor civvie just blundered into it.

ZAP.  Almost falling into traffic.

Cop makes shit up to his buddy after about him "jumping around" and self congratulating masturbatory "he took a ride on the taser."

Blah blah blah.

Other than the cops on this site, most people on other forums (civilians) are pretty outraged about this.

*shrug*

Kevin "He was digging in his pocket!"

Quoted: The ARFCOM peanut gallery wrong once again? Color me surprised.

Got to keep their reputation alive.

Quoted: Hey, They dropped the resisting arrest charges on him.  Just doing the speeding now. All the cops can say "Good Tase" and all of that. All the civvies can say "Big Ego JBT" and all of that. We'll see if it goes to civil court, or if they'll settle out of court. I still think the cop was unprofessional.  One of the tools in his repertoire is "Verbal Judo".  If so, this guy was a freakin' white belt. Supposedly he has 14 years on the force and this is the best he can do? Didn't take control, was vague on what exactly was going on.  Poor civvie just blundered into it. ZAP.  Almost falling into traffic. Cop makes shit up to his buddy after about him "jumping around" and self congratulating masturbatory "he took a ride on the taser." Blah blah blah. Other than the cops on this site, most people on other forums (civilians) are pretty outraged about this. *shrug* Kevin "He was digging in his pocket!"

In this thread and the other ones a large number of civies said good tase. I also believe there were one or two LEO's who said bad tase.

This case would last about two minutes in a jury trial with no $$.

Remember Web and Carrion, less than four hours not guilty.

Quoted: Remember Web and Carrion, less than four hours not guilty.

That's why I'm not taking the bet in the other thread...

Quoted: Quoted: But still on Leave for threats against his life. Its a sad world when cowards resort to death threats over an incident that left nobody permanently injured. Dan KSL story That's a bunch of crap. True, it's a cowardly act to make an anonymous threat, but that POS trooper deserves a good ass-kicking by a free citizen. I volunteer 3 minutes of my own time and a baseball bat in a locked room with that little-man, pansy, government employee..... And the driver in that stop deserves more than a bitch-slap for not taking the easy way out and  adding to the mix....dumbass.... Just my opinion....

Yeah, I bet you are so bad

Quoted: Quoted: The ARFCOM peanut gallery wrong once again? Color me surprised. Got to keep their reputation alive.

Funny how history keeps repeating itself...  You would think that the peanut gallery would learn from the first few times to pay attention to the folks that know

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ARFCOM peanut gallery wrong once again? Color me surprised. Got to keep their reputation alive. Funny how history keeps repeating itself...  You would think that the peanut gallery would learn from the first few times to pay attention to the folks that know

What's that old saying?  "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time"?

Quoted: Quoted: That guy needs some training in communication. What part of "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" needs to be communicated differently?

Probably not a good idea to waltz into a LEO love fest but ...

Would it have toooo much for the officer to explain or at least mention the state law concerning the  consequences of not signing the ticket? I doubt the he is required to but maybe that would of appeased the kangaroo court/board a little more.

All this whining and crying over the use of the Taser these days.  What the good public seldom realizes is that the Taser is being used in place of hands on physical  alternatives  (hands, baton).  In truth, the vast majority of Taser usage against individuals actively resisting an officer could just as easily be handled with the use of the baton.  And I'll say this, the Taser is a much better tool.  The baton can and will cause injury.  Elbows and knees are the primary target area.  WTF do people want to go back to the days of officers have gun and baton on belt and that is all?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That guy needs some training in communication. What part of "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" needs to be communicated differently? Probably not a good idea to waltz into a LEO love fest but ... Would it have toooo much for the officer to explain or at least mention the state law concerning the  consequences of not signing the ticket? I doubt the he is required to but maybe that would of appeased the kangaroo court/board a little more.

It's not as much a love fest as it is an I told you so fest.  And there were a number of LEOs that posted in the original thread that it wouldn't have killed the trooper to explain the situation a little better, me included.  The difference between LEOs and nonLEOs in this case, is that we have all run into drivers like this one.  We recognize the attitude.  No amount of explaining consequences would have convinced him to sign the tag and fight it out in court.

Now, me personally?  I would have gone through the motions of the explanation anyway.  But it wouldn't have made much difference and the outcome would likely have been the same.  And if that video would have made it into a GD thread, the keyboard commandos would be commenting on my tone of voice, or my obvious indifference to the drivers claims of innocence, or some other such nonsense.  When it comes to Taser use, unless the guy is charging with a fixed bayonet, according to GD doctrine, we're supposed to man up and show off our ninja fighting skills.

This just means that if you are being pulled over by UHP, you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life, and the Utah blue wall will support the trooper.
This leaves you with the options of;
- trying to make a run for it
- shooting first

Quoted: This just means that if you are being pulled over by UHP, you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life, and the Utah blue wall will support the trooper. This leaves you with the options of; - trying to make a run for it - shooting first

Really folks its getting ridiclious

Quoted: The ARFCOM peanut gallery wrong once again? Color me surprised.

We are not wrong. Just on the outside of the
_________________________________________

Quoted: This just means that if you are being pulled over by UHP, you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life, and the Utah blue wall will support the trooper. This leaves you with the options of; - trying to make a run for it - shooting first

You lose either way.  I guess you could just sign the ticket.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That guy needs some training in communication. What part of "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" needs to be communicated differently? Probably not a good idea to waltz into a LEO love fest but ... Would it have toooo much for the officer to explain or at least mention the state law concerning the  consequences of not signing the ticket? I doubt the he is required to but maybe that would of appeased the kangaroo court/board a little more. It's not as much a love fest as it is an I told you so fest.  And there were a number of LEOs that posted in the original thread that it wouldn't have killed the trooper to explain the situation a little better, me included.  The difference between LEOs and nonLEOs in this case, is that we have all run into drivers like this one.  We recognize the attitude.  No amount of explaining consequences would have convinced him to sign the tag and fight it out in court. Now, me personally?  I would have gone through the motions of the explanation anyway.  But it wouldn't have made much difference and the outcome would likely have been the same.  And if that video would have made it into a GD thread, the keyboard commandos would be commenting on my tone of voice, or my obvious indifference to the drivers claims of innocence, or some other such nonsense.  When it comes to Taser use, unless the guy is charging with a fixed bayonet, according to GD doctrine, we're supposed to man up and show off our ninja fighting skills.

I guess they like getting killed or seriousy injured instead of taken into custody with the least harm to them

Quoted: Quoted: This just means that if you are being pulled over by UHP, you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life, and the Utah blue wall will support the trooper. This leaves you with the options of; - trying to make a run for it - shooting first You lose either way.  I guess you could just sign the ticket.

Not as dramatic for the keyboard commando brigade.

I guess I should have read the article a bit more thoroughly:

While UHP may justify the tasing, it does not stand behind the trooper's communication, or lack thereof. The trooper could still be disciplined after all.

Quoted: Quoted: Its a personal opinion from a tax payer.  While I don't hold the officer at fault for the situation, the results could have been a whole lot more peaceful had the officer actually explained the legal situation to driver. To me, an officers job is extremely important.  It requires being both an enforcer and a diplomat.  They should serve with the communities interest in mind, as they should be part of it.  An officer should interact with people, be friendly and should give an effort to resolve situations peacefully (which this officer did not) Well here is the opinion of another tax payer. I do not want the Officer to waste a bunch of time pussy footing around when he could be arresting assholes who are breaking the law and resisting arrest. Here is another one of my tax paying opinions. The situation could have been completely peaceful if the idiot driver would have simply signed the citation. OK one more of my tax paying opinions. Officers should serve with the communities interest in mind.  Not just the idiot driver but all the community.  Driver was speeding.  Write his ass a citation and move one to the next violator. Oh wait, he is refusing to be released.  What's that? He is resisting arrest. OK take him to jail using that degree of force necessary.

Lets see, whats a larger time waster?

the officer explaining the ramifications of not signing the citation for 3 minutes, the guy understanding said ramifications and signing then both people going their separate ways?

or....

calling for backup, placing the man under arrest, transporting the man to jail, processing the arrest, taking the man into a court, having this video reviewed by several higher ups, etc, etc.

if you think spending 3 minutes of explanation is a waste of tax payers money compared to an arrest, you need to get your head examined.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its a personal opinion from a tax payer.  While I don't hold the officer at fault for the situation, the results could have been a whole lot more peaceful had the officer actually explained the legal situation to driver. To me, an officers job is extremely important.  It requires being both an enforcer and a diplomat.  They should serve with the communities interest in mind, as they should be part of it.  An officer should interact with people, be friendly and should give an effort to resolve situations peacefully (which this officer did not) Well here is the opinion of another tax payer. I do not want the Officer to waste a bunch of time pussy footing around when he could be arresting assholes who are breaking the law and resisting arrest. Here is another one of my tax paying opinions. The situation could have been completely peaceful if the idiot driver would have simply signed the citation. OK one more of my tax paying opinions. Officers should serve with the communities interest in mind.  Not just the idiot driver but all the community.  Driver was speeding.  Write his ass a citation and move one to the next violator. Oh wait, he is refusing to be released.  What's that? He is resisting arrest. OK take him to jail using that degree of force necessary.   Lets see, whats a larger time waster? the officer explaining the ramifications of not signing the citation for 3 minutes, the guy understanding said ramifications and signing then both people going their separate ways? or.... calling for backup, placing the man under arrest, transporting the man to jail, processing the arrest, taking the man into a court, having this video reviewed by several higher ups, etc, etc. if you think spending 3 minutes of explanation is a waste of tax payers money compared to an arrest, you need to get your head examined.

It's obvious from the behaviour of the moronic driver that he did not intend to comply regardless.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its a personal opinion from a tax payer.  While I don't hold the officer at fault for the situation, the results could have been a whole lot more peaceful had the officer actually explained the legal situation to driver. To me, an officers job is extremely important.  It requires being both an enforcer and a diplomat.  They should serve with the communities interest in mind, as they should be part of it.  An officer should interact with people, be friendly and should give an effort to resolve situations peacefully (which this officer did not) Well here is the opinion of another tax payer. I do not want the Officer to waste a bunch of time pussy footing around when he could be arresting assholes who are breaking the law and resisting arrest. Here is another one of my tax paying opinions. The situation could have been completely peaceful if the idiot driver would have simply signed the citation. OK one more of my tax paying opinions. Officers should serve with the communities interest in mind.  Not just the idiot driver but all the community.  Driver was speeding.  Write his ass a citation and move one to the next violator. Oh wait, he is refusing to be released.  What's that? He is resisting arrest. OK take him to jail using that degree of force necessary.   Lets see, whats a larger time waster? the officer explaining the ramifications of not signing the citation for 3 minutes, the guy understanding said ramifications and signing then both people going their separate ways? or.... calling for backup, placing the man under arrest, transporting the man to jail, processing the arrest, taking the man into a court, having this video reviewed by several higher ups, etc, etc. if you think spending 3 minutes of explanation is a waste of tax payers money compared to an arrest, you need to get your head examined. It's obvious from the behaviour of the moronic driver that he did not intend to comply regardless.

I hope your not a LEO as its shitty attitudes with a unwillingness to put an effort into a peaceful resolve that create cop bashers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its a personal opinion from a tax payer.  While I don't hold the officer at fault for the situation, the results could have been a whole lot more peaceful had the officer actually explained the legal situation to driver. To me, an officers job is extremely important.  It requires being both an enforcer and a diplomat.  They should serve with the communities interest in mind, as they should be part of it.  An officer should interact with people, be friendly and should give an effort to resolve situations peacefully (which this officer did not) Well here is the opinion of another tax payer. I do not want the Officer to waste a bunch of time pussy footing around when he could be arresting assholes who are breaking the law and resisting arrest. Here is another one of my tax paying opinions. The situation could have been completely peaceful if the idiot driver would have simply signed the citation. OK one more of my tax paying opinions. Officers should serve with the communities interest in mind.  Not just the idiot driver but all the community.  Driver was speeding.  Write his ass a citation and move one to the next violator. Oh wait, he is refusing to be released.  What's that? He is resisting arrest. OK take him to jail using that degree of force necessary.   Lets see, whats a larger time waster? the officer explaining the ramifications of not signing the citation for 3 minutes, the guy understanding said ramifications and signing then both people going their separate ways? or.... calling for backup, placing the man under arrest, transporting the man to jail, processing the arrest, taking the man into a court, having this video reviewed by several higher ups, etc, etc. if you think spending 3 minutes of explanation is a waste of tax payers money compared to an arrest, you need to get your head examined. It's obvious from the behaviour of the moronic driver that he did not intend to comply regardless. I hope your not a LEO as its shitty attitudes with a unwillingness to put an effort into a peaceful resolve that create cop bashers.

You forgot to add "I am a taxpayer and pay your salary so you have to do what I say".

Always be sure to put that on your LE rants.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its a personal opinion from a tax payer.  While I don't hold the officer at fault for the situation, the results could have been a whole lot more peaceful had the officer actually explained the legal situation to driver. To me, an officers job is extremely important.  It requires being both an enforcer and a diplomat.  They should serve with the communities interest in mind, as they should be part of it.  An officer should interact with people, be friendly and should give an effort to resolve situations peacefully (which this officer did not) Well here is the opinion of another tax payer. I do not want the Officer to waste a bunch of time pussy footing around when he could be arresting assholes who are breaking the law and resisting arrest. Here is another one of my tax paying opinions. The situation could have been completely peaceful if the idiot driver would have simply signed the citation. OK one more of my tax paying opinions. Officers should serve with the communities interest in mind.  Not just the idiot driver but all the community.  Driver was speeding.  Write his ass a citation and move one to the next violator. Oh wait, he is refusing to be released.  What's that? He is resisting arrest. OK take him to jail using that degree of force necessary.   Lets see, whats a larger time waster? the officer explaining the ramifications of not signing the citation for 3 minutes, the guy understanding said ramifications and signing then both people going their separate ways? or.... calling for backup, placing the man under arrest, transporting the man to jail, processing the arrest, taking the man into a court, having this video reviewed by several higher ups, etc, etc. if you think spending 3 minutes of explanation is a waste of tax payers money compared to an arrest, you need to get your head examined. It's obvious from the behaviour of the moronic driver that he did not intend to comply regardless. I hope your not a LEO as its shitty attitudes with a unwillingness to put an effort into a peaceful resolve that create cop bashers.

No, not an LEO never have been. If people in general would take responsibility for their behaviour instead of reverting to a child-like state when they break the law, we would not need cops to assume the parent role.

Quoted: No, not an LEO never have been. If people in general would take responsibility for their behaviour instead of reverting to a child-like state when they break the law, we would not need cops to assume the parent role.

Your stay in GD will be short one if continue post like a responsible adult.  You've been warned.  One more time and I'm hitting the Report button.



Edited to clarify sarcastic intent....

Quoted: Quoted: No, not an LEO never have been. If people in general would take responsibility for their behaviour instead of reverting to a child-like state when they break the law, we would not need cops to assume the parent role. Your stay in GD will be short one if continue post like a responsible adult.  You've been warned.  One more time and I'm hitting the Report button.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That guy needs some training in communication. What part of "Turn around and put your hands behind your head" needs to be communicated differently? Probably not a good idea to waltz into a LEO love fest but ... Would it have toooo much for the officer to explain or at least mention the state law concerning the  consequences of not signing the ticket? I doubt the he is required to but maybe that would of appeased the kangaroo court/board a little more.

It wouldn't make the Thick Brown Line happy, they would be complaining that the officer wasn't wearing a hat, or something equally relevant. From the audio I heard, the driver wasn't interested in listening to anything the officer had to say. The driver insisted on arguing everything. I really don't think that "sign or be arrested" would have made any difference, as the driver insisted that driving 68 mph in a 40 mph construction zone was okay as long as he claims he missed  the speeding limit sign.

Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides.

Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides.

He is not obligated to read him his rights unless is is about to question him. This is real life, not Hill Street Blues or CSI.

Miranda rights are given to anyone detained by the police informing them of their constitutional rights before being interrogated. It falls under the category of the Bill of Rights.

No. 99-5525. Argued April 19, 2000--Decided June 26, 2000 In the wake of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, in which the Court held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence, id., at 479, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §3501, which in essence makes the admissibility of such statements turn solely on whether they were made voluntarily.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/mirandaRights.cfm

Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides.

Actually he did tell him the speed. 68mph.That was just before the officer went back to his cruiser to write the ticket.  The driver also admitted he was speeding.

Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides.

You don't have to read him his rights unless he is being questioned.

Yes the trooper did tell him what he was clocked at.

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides. You don't have to read him his rights unless he is being questioned. Yes the trooper did tell him what he was clocked at.

And told him to sign the ticket,

And told him he was under arrest.  When he STILL didn't comply... THAT'S when he got tased.

Bottom line:  If an LEO tells you you're under arrest, don't say something like "No, I'm not..." and then start walking away.  You're either going to get tased, or beaten down.  He's not going to just follow along behind you repeating the same instruction over and over ad infinitum.  He's going to FORCE you to comply.

Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

It is precisely this type of thinking that results in problems between "Us" and "Them".  I see it all the time in General Discussion.  People pop into a thread and post off the wall, inaccurate, or incorrect information about a law enforcement subject.  And they post it like it's gospel and argue with every LEO that comes along and tells them they're wrong.

Please don't post something as fact when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  There are other people reading that will read your misinformation and take it as truth.

Here's a funny example from a city where I used to work.  The kids in town honestly believed that we (LEOs) could not continue to follow them if they made three consecutive left hand turns.  When we did, they would either stop and demand our badge number or drive to the PD and try to file a complaint.  It really was funny in a sad sorta way.

And don't get me wrong, I encourage open discussion.  The only 'mistake' the UHP trooper made was in poor communication.  I don't think it would have mattered if he'd explained things better, but he should have at least gone through the motions.  But not reading rights on demand is not a mistake nor is it required.

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, the driver was being a dick...on the other hand...I counted at least three times where the driver said "Read me my rights" which the officer never did.  Nor did he inform the driver at what speed he was clocked at.  Mistakes were made on both sides. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: It is precisely this type of thinking that results in problems between "Us" and "Them".  I see it all the time in General Discussion.  People pop into a thread and post off the wall, inaccurate, or incorrect information about a law enforcement subject.  And they post it like it's gospel and argue with every LEO that comes along and tells them they're wrong. Please don't post something as fact when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  There are other people reading that will read your misinformation and take it as truth. Here's a funny example from a city where I used to work.  The kids in town honestly believed that we (LEOs) could not continue to follow them if they made three consecutive left hand turns.  When we did, they would either stop and demand our badge number or drive to the PD and try to file a complaint.  It really was funny in a sad sorta way. And don't get me wrong, I encourage open discussion.  The only 'mistake' the UHP trooper made was in poor communication.  I don't think it would have mattered if he'd explained things better, but he should have at least gone through the motions.  But not reading rights on demand is not a mistake nor is it required.

Too funny. We had the same issue in my little berg. They also did not think we could follow them for more than 90 seconds.

You know, I got pulled over today, and for some reason I immediately thought about the whole Utah tasing thing, with it still being fresh in my mind. So I payed attention to how it played out.

I was sight-seeing in a new upscale housing subdivision that is going up near my home, driving by on a sunny Sunday afternoon and gawking at the new and strange method they seem to be using for their post-tension slab foundations....beams above ground rather than below...


when...flashing red and blue in my rear view mirror.

This is how it went:
I pull over, shut the engine off. pull out my wallet, and retrieve my CHL and DL and Insurance card. The officer walks up to my window, says hello, and I greet him as well, and hand him my information. He looks at the CHL, ask me if I am carrying, I respond in the affirmative, and he hands me back my CHL. He asks me if I am working the construction site. I say no, I live in a nearby subdivision and am just sightseeing.
He says there has been a lot of theft on the site and is just checking everyone who comes by during off hours. I say no problem, I understand, we had our copper plumbing stolen when they were building our house.
He runs my DL, comes back to hand it to me, and wishes me a nice day. I say the same, and thank him for looking out for the neighborhood. we both go on our way, me feeling like our local cops are on the ball, and him knowing I am a local resident who appreciates his work.


Alternatively, this is how it could have gone:
Cop signals with his lights to stop, I pull over but don't shut my engine off or put my truck in park because I am pissed at being harassed when I know I am doing nothing wrong.
I hand him my information, but give him attitude when he greets because I feel he has no right to pull me over. He asks me if I work the construction site, I refuse to answer since it's none of his business. I act very defensive, since by God, I am Joe citizen taxpayer, he works for me. I tell him he has no right to pull me over, I pay his salary.
I generally act like an ass. He runs my DL, wishes me a nice day, and follows me around the subdivision. I get pissed and tell all my friends I was harassed by the local Po-po. I nurture my irrational hatred for law enforcement, feeling I have been the victim of cruel injustice. The policemen goes on his way after I leave the site, and continues to do his job, but with a negative vibe from the local resident whose neighborhood he is trying to secure.


Now, which one is better? I like the path I chose. We all make our choices, and we reap the rewards accordingly.

S.S.D.D.

I have had occasion to deal with many violent individuals, not all of whom appeared violent in the first moments of the encounter.  I would have felt very threatened by the drivers actions here, particularly when leading him back to the car he seemed to be moving to walk behind me.  No doubt at all that was a warning sign.

HOWEVER....

Our peace officer here, in the event that the citizen was getting uppity, should never have put himself in a position to feel threatened.



Here, the officer has asked the citizen to exit the car and is going to put his clipboard down on the car (I assume to free his hands and effect an arrest).

This, in my view, is where he goes wrong.  Well, actually, he went wrong by not working more to defuse the situation with the motorist.  But that, in my view, isn't that significant of an error.  The officer is out to lunch here.  He's had a verbally combative citizen who has been argumentative and agitated and he has put himself in a situation where he could easily be blindsided.  (Later in the full video he tells another officer that the citizen was "Making me real nervous,")  I don't doubt this, but it only occurs to him to be nervous a split second later.  Here:



At this point, the officer looks a bit surprised, the citizen almost seems to be flanking him, or headed for the driver's side of the officer's car.  I don't know, but I suspect that the officer was expecting the citizen to walk straight to the bumper as instructed, instead of heading down the road.  Not sure WHY he expected compliance since the citizen was basically contesting every command that the officer gave from the get-go.  But now, the officer has put himself in a situation where non-compliance seems (and could well be) dangerous behavior from a citizen.



Here's the reaction.  The trooper goes for the taser and starts to slide back and sideways to clear his left flank....



Pivots...



And ends here.

Watching the video I think the trooper's threat perception jumps suddenly.  He doesn't see that the citizen is heading towards the sign, he feels outflanked and vulnerable.  (Or at least he should).

The trooper's failure to control the citizen once out of the car, or at least to keep the citizen in a spot that doesn't invite a sucker-punch (or worse) probably got the taser unholstered faster than it should have been.  Then, the citizen does exactly the wrong thing.  He continues to ignore commands, goes for his pocket and the car.  The shock on the citizen's face is apparent though.  He can't believe it either.

Lessons learned:  Officer- what the hell are you thinking putting yourself in that spot?  You could have prevented the situation by explaining that a signature is not an admission of guilt, explaining that you were going to have to "take you to the station" if the ticket wasn't signed and not putting yourself in a position where you had to unholster the taser to feel safe again.

Citizen:  Dumb ass.  Argue elsewhere.  Or, if you MUST argue or explain, MAKE THE OFFICER FEEL SAFE before you do.  Period.  Hands in pockets?  Walking behind the officer?  Ignoring commands?  Walking away from an officer with a gun or a taser back to your vehicle?  You're an idiot.

The standard here for legal liability is probably was the officer acting reasonably.  I think he was.  I think he boxed himself in carelessly, but in the end, officer feels threatened, deploys non-deadly force.  Effects arrest.  End of story.

Or, if you MUST argue or explain, MAKE THE OFFICER FEEL SAFE before you do.

I sorta thought it was supposed to work the other way around.

Quoted: Or, if you MUST argue or explain, MAKE THE OFFICER FEEL SAFE before you do. I sorta thought it was supposed to work the other way around.

How does that work?  If you actively make the officer feel unsafe (ignore commands, argue, etc) while in the midst of a traffic stop, you are going to make it reasonable for that officer to forcibly detain you.  Duh.  Let's not let clever get in the way of common sense.

I don't know of any states where citizens have a right to refuse legally issued commands from a law enforcement officer.  Even where there is a right to resist it is confined to ILLEGAL arrests.

Wow.  this is going better than expected.  I was envisioning a lock by now.