UHP Trooper cleared in Tasing - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - UHP Trooper cleared in Tasing (Page 3 of 6)

Posted: 12/2/2007 2:43:55 PM EDT

[#1]

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.

The officer is walking away from the car as he tells the driver 'OK, hop out of the car'. It's not like the driver had to use ninja-like maneuvers to get behind the officer. Regardless, the driver, while being an ass, at no point did anything a reasonable person would consider 'threatening', so lets drop the 'Officer Safety!' aspect of this.

That officer was in way over his head, and is lucky he was dealing with an absolutely non-threatening (if clueless) citizen, rather than some actual criminal.

Posted: 12/2/2007 2:49:16 PM EDT

[#2]

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.

The officer is walking away from the car as he tells the driver 'OK, hop out of the car'. It's not like the driver had to use ninja-like maneuvers to get behind the officer. Regardless, the driver, while being an ass, at no point did anything a reasonable person would consider 'threatening', so lets drop the 'Officer Safety!' aspect of this.

That officer was in way over his head, and is lucky he was dealing with an absolutely non-threatening (if clueless) citizen, rather than some actual criminal.

I agree with that assessment.

Posted: 12/2/2007 2:53:35 PM EDT

[#3]

And don't make me go back and RTFA, but did the driver get something more than a speeding ticket out of all this? While I don't think the officer did a good job, the driver was being a total dork. Maybe a resisting arrest or something like that?

Posted: 12/2/2007 2:55:57 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
The officer is walking away from the car as he tells the driver 'OK, hop out of the car'. It's not like the driver had to use ninja-like maneuvers to get behind the officer. Regardless, the driver, while being an ass, at no point did anything a reasonable person would consider 'threatening', so lets drop the 'Officer Safety!' aspect of this.

Nonsense.

No doubt, the officer was careless, but his feeling threatened was totally reasonable once the citizen started walking around him with his right hand to his side near his pocket (or in it) while pointing down the road with his left. I can tell you, anyone who has had any sort of training would feel threatened. The officer put himself in a dumb spot. He expected the citizen to be in a certain place, and turned around to see the citizen almost behind him and walking further in that direction. Personally, (if working in uniform) I would have at LEAST slid out like the officer did and put a hand on my holstered service weapon.

I'm also a little surprised the officer didn't casually call for backup once he knew there was an arrest in the wind. He ended up in a one-on-one situation (except when the wife started getting involved). That was also not all that smart. Why go head to head instead of listening to the citizens arguments and calling for backup while the citizen explains?

That officer was in way over his head, and is lucky he was dealing with an absolutely non-threatening (if clueless) citizen, rather than some actual criminal.

But you make my point perfectly. Had it been a criminal the officer could damn near have been in serious trouble. You've just shown that the officer was reasonable when he acted as if he was threatened.

I mean really, if you are going to argue a point, have the courtesy to at least make an EFFORT at logical and consistent argument.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:01:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
But you make my point perfectly. Had it been a criminal the officer could damn near have been in serious trouble. You've just shown that the officer was reasonable when he acted as if he was threatened.

I mean really, if you are going to argue a point, have the courtesy to at least make an EFFORT at logical and consistent argument.

Since you would rather run your mouth than watch the video, here is the sequence of events:

1) Officer, as he is walking away, tells the driver to 'Hop out of the car'.

2) Driver exits his vehicle, officer still has his back to him as he is walking back to his car.

And thats it. If the officer was dealing with an actual criminal, then he would have been in some deep shit right there, not later on when he was actually facing the driver, hand on his gun or taser or whatnot. The 'threat' had passed, with Officer Fife seemingly knowing or caring about it.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:01:25 PM EDT

[#6]

Simple solution, let the guy that got tased work the fucker over for about 10 minutes with a Taser.

Alls even then and the trooper doesn't have to lose his job.

Wonder if the trooper would take the taser for his 14 years on the force.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:01:50 PM EDT

[#7]

Personally I think both the cop and the citizen were wrong. There's no reason for the citizen not to stand there and talk to the cop like an intelligent human, and there was no real reason for the cop to tase the guy other than he was acting like an ass.

I've got a newsflash for cops and prospective cops, there are a LOT of asses on the streets, most are law abiding and just stressed or full of themselves and mean you no harm. If you go around tasing everyone who acts like an asshole you're going to have an awful lot of people pissed off at you and a whole of bad pub. Best find a different way to deal with with these people. Keep tasing them and eventually Daddy will take away your favorite new toy.

I know better than to tell people to stop acting like asses, I've seen and dealt with too many of them to think it's a fad that's going to go away anytime soon.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:05:04 PM EDT

[#8]

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.

The officer is walking away from the car as he tells the driver 'OK, hop out of the car'. It's not like the driver had to use ninja-like maneuvers to get behind the officer. Regardless, the driver, while being an ass, at no point did anything a reasonable person would consider 'threatening', so lets drop the 'Officer Safety!' aspect of this.

That officer was in way over his head, and is lucky he was dealing with an absolutely non-threatening (if clueless) citizen, rather than some actual criminal.

I agree with that assessment.

What is sad is the general idea that officers have to treat everyone they pull over as potentially violent criminals.

As was pointed out before, the SUV driver was an argumentative and clueless dork, but a non-violent/non-threatening one.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:05:36 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
And don't make me go back and RTFA, but did the driver get something more than a speeding ticket out of all this? While I don't think the officer did a good job, the driver was being a total dork. Maybe a resisting arrest or something like that?

I'm not sure, but I think he was charged with resisting, and it was dropped. Check those facts.

A resisting arrest charge here? No. I think that's out of line. But it's probably cultural. Ass-covering. Use a taser, charge resisting.

All in all this entire event would make a GREAT case study for what not to do as an officer.

Contrast this with the tragic story of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. (Link fixed). This is how bad it CAN go with a suspect who is being pulled over for speeding, is combative, isn't obeying commands and goes back to their vehicle. Summary: It can go bad FAST.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:05:49 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

I've got a newsflash for cops and prospective cops, there are a LOT of asses on the streets, most are law abiding and just stressed or full of themselves and mean you no harm. If you go around tasing everyone who acts like an asshole you're going to have an awful lot of people pissed off at you and a whole of bad pub. Best find a different way to deal with with these people.

Yeah, maybe offer them a nice warm cookie and a glass of milk?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:08:04 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
there was no real reason for the cop to tase the guy other than he was acting like an ass.

I would say refusing to put his hands behind his back and walking abck to his vehicle were enough warrant the use of the Taser. It appears that UHP agrees with my assesment.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:09:43 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I've got a newsflash for cops and prospective cops, there are a LOT of asses on the streets, most are law abiding and just stressed or full of themselves and mean you no harm. If you go around tasing everyone who acts like an asshole you're going to have an awful lot of people pissed off at you and a whole of bad pub. Best find a different way to deal with with these people.

Yeah, maybe offer them a nice warm cookie and a glass of milk?

Where's Striker and the Modified Use of Force Model?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:12:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
...Contrast this with the tragic story of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. This is how bad it CAN go with a suspect who is being pulled over for speeding, is combative, isn't obeying commands and goes back to their vehicle. Summary: It can go bad FAST.

(The video link is broken, but I've seen it before, and I don't really want to see that again.

)

No doubt things can quickly go bad. How long does it take a 'bad' driver to draw a pistol? A second?

But the point is, if Officer McTaserpants was really so concerned about his safety, walking away from a 'suspect' that he just ordered out of the car doesn't strike me as the 'by the book' way of protecting ones' self.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:12:45 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But you make my point perfectly. Had it been a criminal the officer could damn near have been in serious trouble. You've just shown that the officer was reasonable when he acted as if he was threatened.

I mean really, if you are going to argue a point, have the courtesy to at least make an EFFORT at logical and consistent argument.

Since you would rather run your mouth than watch the video, here is the sequence of events:

1) Officer, as he is walking away, tells the driver to 'Hop out of the car'.

2) Driver exits his vehicle, officer still has his back to him as he is walking back to his car.

And thats it. If the officer was dealing with an actual criminal, then he would have been in some deep shit right there, not later on when he was actually facing the driver, hand on his gun or taser or whatnot. The 'threat' had passed, with Officer Fife seemingly knowing or caring about it.

Sorry, I just don't agree. Did the officer put himself in a threatened spot. Absolutely. Did that threat last a mere fraction of a second? Not in the least. Who knows what a violent offender is up to? Trying to use the cruiser for cover? Trying to distract the officer by pointing down the road once the officer is flanked to press an advantage? You are making the mistake of looking at the citizen in hindsight. Sure, he was just joe-sixpack. How the hell is the officer supposed to know this?

I have, without a doubt, been in any number of situations where the situation looked calm and simple and escalated so fast I could barely keep it in hand. In this case I think the officer opened himself up. Despite this, there is simply NO EXCUSE for ignoring officer commands in that situation.

Was the officer abrupt and coarse? Sure. I wouldn't have handled it like he did. But then I'm not working in Utah. And I am CERTAIN I would have prepared to use force when alone on a highway when an argumentative suspect seemed to be working his way behind me and then ignored my commands and tried to get back to his vehicle.

We never deployed with tasers (they weren't really around "back then") so all I would have had to deal with the situation would have been a firearm. (Then again, my role wasn't conventional law enforcement and we didn't do a lot of traffic stops).

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:15:51 PM EDT

[#15]

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.

The officer is walking away from the car as he tells the driver 'OK, hop out of the car'. It's not like the driver had to use ninja-like maneuvers to get behind the officer. Regardless, the driver, while being an ass, at no point did anything a reasonable person would consider 'threatening', so lets drop the 'Officer Safety!' aspect of this.

That officer was in way over his head, and is lucky he was dealing with an absolutely non-threatening (if clueless) citizen, rather than some actual criminal.

I agree with that assessment.

What is sad is the general idea that officers have to treat everyone they pull over as potentially violent criminals.

As was pointed out before, the SUV driver was an argumentative and clueless dork, but a non-violent/non-threatening one.

After he refused 4 simple commands to submit to arrest, he was threatening. Good tase.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:16:02 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...Contrast this with the tragic story of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. This is how bad it CAN go with a suspect who is being pulled over for speeding, is combative, isn't obeying commands and goes back to their vehicle. Summary: It can go bad FAST.

(The video link is broken, but I've seen it before, and I don't really want to see that again.

)

No doubt things can quickly go bad. How long does it take a 'bad' driver to draw a pistol? A second?

But the point is, if Officer McTaserpants was really so concerned about his safety, walking away from a 'suspect' that he just ordered out of the car doesn't strike me as the 'by the book' way of protecting ones' self.

Here I agree with you. Total WHITE level of awareness. But, once there, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. If he makes that mistake he's supposed to ignore it once he realizes it?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:17:43 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

Is that your personal or professional opinion? What do you base you opinion on?

His opinion.. and it's the same as mine..

That cop is a fuck up and he needs to be let go.. doing a whitewash over this deed will just put him back on the street..

A testosterone squinter like that is going to kill someone one of these days... and that's not a good thing..

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:24:56 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What is sad is the general idea that officers have to treat everyone they pull over as potentially violent criminals.

As was pointed out before, the SUV driver was an argumentative and clueless dork, but a non-violent/non-threatening one.

After he refused 4 simple commands to submit to arrest, he was threatening. Good tase.

Not disputing that the driver should have obeyed the first command. In fact, when my Father-In-Law hit the ceiling over this video I was the one to explain to him that the officer was in a position to legally effect an arrest.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:33:26 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:36:38 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

I'm afraid you're showing your lack of familiarity with the law here. A "search incident to arrest" is totally legitimate without warrant or consent. The officer was well within his bounds, and was pretty courteous, only searching the driver's side and not harassing the wife at all.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:39:31 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
[

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer.

Man, GD is on a roll tonight.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:41:07 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I've got a newsflash for cops and prospective cops, there are a LOT of asses on the streets, most are law abiding and just stressed or full of themselves and mean you no harm. If you go around tasing everyone who acts like an asshole you're going to have an awful lot of people pissed off at you and a whole of bad pub. Best find a different way to deal with with these people.

Yeah, maybe offer them a nice warm cookie and a glass of milk?

Why not? Or maybe how's about just giving them a few minutes to get control of themselves and realize they're going to deal with the cop like an intelligent human or go to jail? Is there something so urgent that a cop can't give someone 3 to 5 minutes to come to an understanding of the situation? He got a quota to meet? Maybe a fire to go to? Maybe he just thinks he's so important he doesn't need to wait for someone to come to grips with the situation. We all aren't as fast on our feet as the cops are, but what we are is a VERY large voting block. Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

Hey O_P, I've got an idea? Maybe new car manufacturers can install a taser under the seat of every new car with a control mounted in every cop car. That way the cops can tase people without ever having to get out of their cars. Now there's a time saver! Officer safety like a motherfucker!

Remember, there are one whole hell of a lot more citizens then there are cops. Piss us off too bad and the cops will find their favorite toys taken away and their less responsible members delivering pizza for a living. Is there some part of that cops (and ex cops) just can't seem to understand?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:43:50 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

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.

LEO: Chessh97 go jump off that bridge
Chesh97: no that would kill me
LEO: if you don't obey I will shoot you.
Chesh97: this is crazy i won't do it
LEO: Bang Bang

Use of force justified.. by your standards.. good shootin..

If you want to blindly follow go ahead.. I think i will apply a little common sense.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:46:13 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

The officer was placing the person under arrest, failure to comply the officer can use the force necssary to effect the arrest.

The Trooper in this case had every right as determined by the SCOTUS to search the passenger area of the vehicle.

You can option to refuse a search but then you face the consequences of your actions.

The place to argue this is a courtroom not the side of the road.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:47:42 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

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.

LEO: Chessh97 go jump off that bridge
Chesh97: no that would kill me
LEO: if you don't obey I will shoot you.
Chesh97: this is crazy i won't do it
LEO: Bang Bang

Use of force justified.. by your standards.. good shootin..

If you want to blindly follow go ahead.. I think i will apply a little common sense.

If you wanted to apply copmmon sense you would not have come up with such an idiotic bit of hyperbole.

Somehow I think common sense is not to common in your area.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:48:09 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer.

Man, GD is on a roll tonight.

As always.

It does provide cheap entertainment.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:49:03 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

The officer was placing the person under arrest, failure to comply the officer can use the force necssary to effect the arrest.

The Trooper in this case had every right as determined by the SCOTUS to search the passenger area of the vehicle.

You can option to refuse a search but then you face the consequences of your actions.

The place to argue this is a courtroom not the side of the road.

I understand that.. My point still stands, I wasn't talking about this situation in terms of illegal search but in general.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:49:43 PM EDT

[#28]

Generally speaking, when only two assholes butt heads the asshole with the government behind him will come out the victor. Something to remember out there on the side of the road.

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:55:11 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

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.

LEO: Chessh97 go jump off that bridge
Chesh97: no that would kill me
LEO: if you don't obey I will shoot you.
Chesh97: this is crazy i won't do it
LEO: Bang Bang

Use of force justified.. by your standards.. good shootin..

If you want to blindly follow go ahead.. I think i will apply a little common sense.

If you wanted to apply copmmon sense you would not have come up with such an idiotic bit of hyperbole.

Somehow I think common sense is not to common in your area.

You mean common sense enough to realize that wasn't a real life situation, but an example to drive home a point?

Posted: 12/2/2007 3:57:46 PM EDT

[#30]

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

+1

I'm still amazed the officer would be so hard up for arresting a family man for refusing to sign. Worse case all he had to do was put "refused to sign" on the ticket. He had all the drivers infomation.

I can think of 20 milllon people who he could've been arresting if he was that bored.

We went through a road block this weekend and after I gave the him my licencse and insurance I asked, "Yall looking for illegals?"

"Have a nice night" was his only reply.

Most will tell you it's not their job to enforce that law, but they'll taze any real citizens for not signing a speeding ticket.

Those orders come down from a much higher level. Your papers please!

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:01:20 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

The officer was placing the person under arrest, failure to comply the officer can use the force necssary to effect the arrest.

The Trooper in this case had every right as determined by the SCOTUS to search the passenger area of the vehicle.

You can option to refuse a search but then you face the consequences of your actions.

The place to argue this is a courtroom not the side of the road.

I understand that.. My point still stands, I wasn't talking about this situation in terms of illegal search but in general.

Who determines the legality of a search on the side of the road?

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:03:14 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

+1

I'm still amazed the officer would be so hard up for arresting a family man for refusing to sign. Worse case all he had to do was put "refused to sign" on the ticket. He had all the drivers infomation.

I can think of 20 milllon people who he could've been arresting if he was that bored.

We went through a road block this weekend and after I gave the him my licencse and insurance I asked, "Yall looking for illegals?"

"Have a nice night" was his only reply.

Most will tell you it's not their job to enforce that law, but they'll taze any real citizens for not signing a speeding ticket.

Those orders come down from a much higher level. Your papers please!

Laws vary by state. Here refusing to sign, you are arrested, transported to the local jail and required to make bail for the charge on the citation.

LEO's unless they are ICE certified are not allowed to make arrests for federal immigration violations.

Nice try. Study more. Next.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:09:40 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
sorry, but the man should be removed from the force.

His communication skills suck and he does not need to be given lessons, he needs to be let go. When your job has such a large effect on lives, fuckups should be taken much more seriously.

looks like the majority, even on here, disagree with you. Training can fix simple faults. Regardless of his poor attitude, the suspect needed to comply.

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer. Yes I agree that most of the time you should but certainly you don't have to. The part I especially liked during the video was the part where the cop said "I have to search your vehicle". Now I ask all you "just comply" guys this. If a cop tries to force his way into your vehicle with no cause to search and you don't comply does that too require a tazer job?

The officer was placing the person under arrest, failure to comply the officer can use the force necssary to effect the arrest.

The Trooper in this case had every right as determined by the SCOTUS to search the passenger area of the vehicle.

You can option to refuse a search but then you face the consequences of your actions.

The place to argue this is a courtroom not the side of the road.

I understand that.. My point still stands, I wasn't talking about this situation in terms of illegal search but in general.

Who determines the legality of a search on the side of the road?

Here in America we are supposed to use the document refered to as the constitution to determine that. It's pretty cut and dry most of the time.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:09:48 PM EDT

[#34]

I see the peanut gallery is trying to rebound from their "he is wrong" defeat. Same tripe from the same people.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:11:44 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Not everyone. I think that cop should of lost his job too. Tazering a suspect because he disagree's with you is not acceptable. The cop escalated that situation with his poor attitude, then when the drive rightfully so questioned it he got the tazer right next to on coming traffic.

+1

I'm still amazed the officer would be so hard up for arresting a family man for refusing to sign. Worse case all he had to do was put "refused to sign" on the ticket. He had all the drivers infomation.

I can think of 20 milllon people who he could've been arresting if he was that bored.

We went through a road block this weekend and after I gave the him my licencse and insurance I asked, "Yall looking for illegals?"

"Have a nice night" was his only reply.

Most will tell you it's not their job to enforce that law, but they'll taze any real citizens for not signing a speeding ticket.

Those orders come down from a much higher level. Your papers please!

Laws vary by state. Here refusing to sign, you are arrested, transported to the local jail and required to make bail for the charge on the citation.

LEO's unless they are ICE certified are not allowed to make arrests for federal immigration violations.

Nice try. Study more. Next.

"Study More Next" Thats a good attitude you must be a cop. Sorry that all of us don't know every single law for every single state. Frankly that alone tells you the system is messed up.

That being said here in Atlanta area that guy would of been assaulted, mugged and raped... All by the police. The police cause a good part of our crime here.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:14:15 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Who determines the legality of a search on the side of the road?

In this case, Supreme Court. Search incident to arrest.

United States v. Doward , 41 F.3d 789, 794 (1st Cir. 1994) is a good review of the concept when it comes to vehicles.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:19:21 PM EDT

[#37]

Hey,

One aspect that hasn't really been covered is the civvie's reaction to being "drawn down" upon.

Everyone likes to mention that he refuses to comply and walks away from the officer.

You have to remember, dude is pointing at the sign continuing the conversation that he was having with the officer in the car.

Looks to his left and suddenly he's looking down the barrel of what he thought was a gun.

You have to put yourself in that situation. How many times do you think this civilian has had a gun pointed at him by a cop? How many times do you think he's had guns pointed at him period?

He's totally taken aback and says, "What the heck is wrong with you?"

He then instinctually moves away from the gun.

He isn't going to go into the dangerous freeway.

He isn't going to go towards the officer.

The only avenue of escape is back towards his car. Which he does saying, "What the heck is wrong with you?" again.

So basically you've got the civilian seeing the taser at 2:33 and then being tasered at 2:40. That gives him a whopping 7 seconds to collate all the information that is being thrown at him.

He can't do it and gets zapped.

You'll note he says the exact "What the heck is wrong with you?" twice, like he's brain is locking up since he's thrown for a loop mentally upon seeing the gun.

I feel bad for the guy. I think it's unrealistic for an untrained, unprepared civilian to go from talking about this ticket to obediently following commands staring down the barrel of a gun in seven seconds..

It's too much to ask.

Kevin " “I see this guy pull gun on me,” says Massey. “I thought it was a real gun.”"*

*www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=33fb7027-f63d-4414-9a9f-f815f4d4f302

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:21:58 PM EDT

[#38]

LEO's unless they are ICE certified are not allowed to make arrests for federal immigration violations.

Illegals are breaking the LAW by being here in the first place. And I'm sure they all have legit licence and insurance. Yall are just told to turn a blind eye to them. Easier to get money out of the actual tax payers.

I would've have just signed the ticket. But I would've requested to see the radar first. The officer said "you were going a little fast," but never gave the guy an actually speed. More than likely he made it up. If the officer refused to show proof I would have had my lawyer use that in court. Most know citizen will never take it to court because of the trouble and can fill their quotas easy by pulling over people they think can pay the tickets.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:23:23 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I feel bad for the guy. I think it's unrealistic for an untrained, unprepared civilian to go from talking about this ticket to obediently following commands staring down the barrel of a gun in seven seconds..

It's too much to ask.

Kevin " “I see this guy pull gun on me,” says Massey. “I thought it was a real gun.”"

Sorry. The citizen started off ordering the officer around. He had plenty more than seven seconds to get his act together.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:23:27 PM EDT

[#40]

I've never had a person act like the subject did when faced with a gun.

I've had people freeze up, in which case verbal commands get a little louder and a little slower.

But never walk away.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:25:26 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I've never had a person act like the subject did when faced with a gun.

I've had people freeze up, in which case verbal commands get a little louder and a little slower.

But never walk away.

Of the people I've seen who have ignored verbal commands and backed away at gunpoint, 50% were angling for weapons or escape. My sample size is not huge, but you just can't let even a harmless looking suspect evade verbal commands by returning to a vehicle or walking away.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:26:52 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

LEO's unless they are ICE certified are not allowed to make arrests for federal immigration violations.

Illegals are breaking the LAW by being here in the first place. And I'm sure they all have legit licence and insurance. Yall are just told to turn a blind eye to them. Easier to get money out of the actual tax payers.

I would've have just signed the ticket. But I would've requested to see the radar first. The officer said "you were going a little fast," but never gave the guy an actually speed. More than likely he made it up. If the officer refused to show proof I would have had my lawyer use that in court. Most know citizen will never take it to court because of the trouble and can fill their quotas easy by pulling over people they think can pay the tickets.

You can't possibly be serious. First off, there is a difference between Federal law and State law. Federal officers can enforce Federal laws, but not state laws. Same thing for state officers.

The officer told the subject how fast he was going. It was 68mph. the subject admitted to speeding. The officer is not required to show proof. You can't possibly believe that every officer, or even the majority of officers target people who they think will pay.

There is no way for an officer to know ahead of time what type of person he is dealing with.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:31:02 PM EDT

[#43]

Hey,

To the LEO's responding, I'm sure when you drew your weapon they perp knew why it was being done.

You didn't mislead them or not verbally control them...then suddenly draw your weapon on them out of the blue.

Does that make sense?

That's the whole issue. The cop didn't control the stop. He didn't use his "Verbal Judo". He suddenly [in the mind of the clueless civvie] whip out a gun while the civvie was pointing to the sign.

Civvie's brain locks up and he "flinches" away from the threat.

Kevin "ZAP"

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:31:06 PM EDT

[#44]

Double tap.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:31:27 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've never had a person act like the subject did when faced with a gun.

I've had people freeze up, in which case verbal commands get a little louder and a little slower.

But never walk away.

Of the people I've seen who have ignored verbal commands and backed away at gunpoint, 50% were angling for weapons or escape. My sample size is not huge, but you just can't let even a harmless looking suspect evade verbal commands by returning to a vehicle or walking away.

My sample size isn't that big either. I could almost understand someone backing away in fear. The subject that was pulled over didn't do that. He turned around and walked away. I'm pretty sure he thought the cop wasn't going to do anything. The subject controlled that stop, not the other way around.

The people I've had at gunpoint don't have very many effective means of escape, so walking away doesn't help them too much. My comment above may have been a little skewed

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:34:06 PM EDT

[#46]

You can't possibly be serious. First off, there is a difference between Federal law and State law. Federal officers can enforce Federal laws, but not state laws. Same thing for state officers.

So state officers can't taze illegals for refusing to sign?

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:35:28 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Hey,

To the LEO's responding, I'm sure when you drew your weapon they perp knew why it was being done.

You didn't mislead them or not verbally control them...then suddenly draw your weapon on them out of the blue.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but it's not my experience. Admittedly, my experience was generally with felony-stop like encounters where there was more reason to believe there was a danger, but I wanted that weapon to be such a surprise and have the suspect at such a disadvantage that there was no time at all to do any tactical planning.

That's the whole issue. The cop didn't control the stop.

100% agree.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:35:39 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[

Contrary to what the police on this forum constantly try to force feed people, we DO NOT have to comply with an officer.

Man, GD is on a roll tonight.

As always.

It does provide cheap entertainment.

Somebody shut that guy up, he's going to ruin my arrest stats by revealing our secrets.

Me: "Sir, put your hands behind your back."
ARFcommer: "No, I learned on AR15.com that I do NOT have to comply with you."
Me: "Damn, not again. Alright sir, you win this round, have a nice night."

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:36:51 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Laws vary by state. Here refusing to sign, you are arrested, transported to the local jail and required to make bail for the charge on the citation.

LEO's unless they are ICE certified are not allowed to make arrests for federal immigration violations.

Nice try. Study more. Next.

Some states have immigration laws enacted in the form of human smuggling statutes. Study more.

Posted: 12/2/2007 4:37:55 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Of the people I've seen who have ignored verbal commands and backed away at gunpoint, 50% were angling for weapons or escape. My sample size is not huge, but you just can't let even a harmless looking suspect evade verbal commands by returning to a vehicle or walking away.

Yup. I'd say the percentage is much higher. Something around 90% IMHO.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - UHP Trooper cleared in Tasing (Page 3 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us