Why "unbelievable"? Surely "outrageous" or "all too believable" or even "criminal" would be better?

Posted by JK at December 8, 2007 08:21 PM

Nothing particularly new- the taser seems to be a weapon of convenience for police officers who do not want to 'get involved' with conventional detainment.

Posted by James at December 8, 2007 09:05 PM

sure I'm going to catch hell for this but.....

not unreasonable at all. not that it matters a whole lot but keep in mind this guy is wrong: there was a 40 mph sign and he blew by it.

the cop driving back to the sign with the guy to show him he's an idiot is not an option and would never happen.

the guy has already refused to show his license and registration and refused to sign the ticket, refused to put his hands behind his back which is resisting whether you like it or not.

Assuming the cop is not going to just let this guy tell him he's not going to get a ticket let him drive off, then he's got to make a decision.

Does he let him get back into the car where he could retrieve a weapon, flee, or run him over? No.
does he physically engage or use his nightstick to get the cuffs on and risk a brawl on the side of a busy highway? No.
Should he pepper spray him and hope he doesn't try to fight or stumble blind into traffic? No.
Should he draw his firearm? quite and escalation when there is another option.

tasing this c**t was the safest for both of them. If he lets him return to the car he's ceded authority and put himself at risk. had the video shown the guy getting back into the car and firing at the cop from it, or speeding off, it would be a new training video on what not to do and the discussion would be about how poorly trained the police are.

sign the stupid t ticket and take it to court and prove you're right. had this ass clown just signed and gone back to snap a picture with his phone, he would have felt the mild sting of realizing he'd acted like a snotty little bitch while being completely wrong rather than the much greater sting of the taser.

Posted by spidly at December 8, 2007 09:12 PM

spidly,

Fuck you.

Posted by Joshua Holmes at December 8, 2007 09:15 PM

I'm not sure about this - we can't hear the conversation they are having prior to the tasering, and we never hear the cop in questions side of the story on the CNN video. But I don't see how its an 'unbelievable abuse of authority'. The guy got arsey and disobeyed orders from a police officer.

Posted by James at December 8, 2007 09:26 PM

James: why does it go without saying that he should obey orders from a police officer, or anyone else for that matter? Is he on a police force, and somehow a subordinate to the said police officer? Or was he a threat to the police officer or anyone else when he was stopped? Did he pull a gun on him? Also, why did the police officer insist on him signing the ticket? Why cannot he just take the license number to court, along with the taped evidence of speeding?

I would like to think that this is an isolated incident, and I will, unless shown evidence to the contrary. But even one such incident is enough to make one think about Perry's point.

Posted by Alisa at December 8, 2007 09:40 PM

The guy got arsey and disobeyed orders from a police officer.

Yeah, so?

Bad idea maybe, but so is accepting drinks from strangers. You gonna make that argument?

Posted by Andy at December 8, 2007 09:43 PM

James, you can't hear any of the conversation? 1st the guy refuses to produce license and registration then finally does it seems. then he refuses to sign the ticket and tells the cop that they're going back to "find this 40 mph sign" then the cop finally tells him to get out of the car.

the guy's being a dick from the get go and cops do not have debates - it's a good way to get everyone more angry. right or wrong you never argue with the cop, you don't tell the cop he has to tell you what you did wrong before you show your license and registration as this punk did - you've just set the tone and put the cop on guard...

I would have had the urge to kick him in the head a couple times after I tased him. amazed that doesn't happen more often.

Posted by spidly at December 8, 2007 09:48 PM

The guy got arsey and disobeyed orders from a police officer.

I agree.
The cops are doing hard work, in difficult conditions, and are often at risk.
One should obey a cop and not argue with him, not beyond a very polite exchange.

Posted by Jacob at December 8, 2007 09:54 PM

if you tell a cop to go fuck himself, it is his job to just stand there are take it (yes, really). Unless you threaten him, and no way no how was that cop being threatened, the cop has no justification for using force like that. If I had been that guy's wife and I'd been armed, I would have shot the fucker for what he did and been quite happy to stand in court later and say I was right.

never give a cop lip? why not? The cop has all he needed already to file any charges, so there was no justification for that power trip. I tend to take a cop's side in most situations but this was pure bullshit.

Posted by Janine at December 8, 2007 09:58 PM

why does it go without saying that he should obey orders from a police officer

Because that's what police officers are for, that's the definition of their job. You can, later, argue in court, or lodge a complaint against the police officers, but you can't argue with him. They are not the instance you argue with.

Posted by Jacob at December 8, 2007 09:59 PM

Some more information on what the authorities thought about it...
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_7592075

Posted by Pa Annoyed at December 8, 2007 10:02 PM

This is a lazy, arrogant, cop who thinks that he should be obeyed instantly simply because he has a badge. He should be criminally prosecuted.

Although the conversation is not clear the driver does seem to be a little less than polite, but who can blame him when the cop doesn't even bother with a "Good afternoon" before barking out his demand for papers. I'm just about able to accept that "failure to obey an officer's instructions" can be an offence but the cop should say "if you don't do this you will be committing an offence.

If the man's pregnant wife had got out of the car and shot the thug-cop dead she would have been acting legitimately.

Posted by ResidentAlien at December 8, 2007 10:06 PM

One should obey a cop and not argue with him, not beyond a very polite exchange.

That is the logic of the police state. If a cop is not following the law 100%, you should NOT obey the cop and you should feel no obligation to kowtow ("be very polite") to someone just because he works for the state. Threatening a cop is both foolish and unreasonable but no one has a right to demand you be "very polite" to them.

I recall driving in a car with a friend in New Jersey many years ago and we were stopped by a policeman for a random sobriety check. My friend (who was driving) ask the policeman to show him in writing the method he used for picking us (such as 'every fifth red car' or whatever).

The cop admitted he did not have a method but insisted he show his licence and registration anyway. My friend informing him in that case the stop was not legitimate (and quoted the specific regulation why that was the case... yes my chum had worked as a reserve policemen himself for many years before joining the air force... Willi if you are reading this, do you remember this incident?) and so he would not comply and he simply drove off without further ado.

And guess what... the cop made no attempt to stop us.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 8, 2007 10:13 PM

I showed this to a mate of mine who's currently in the local plod and he just shook his head in disbelief. I'd be interested to hear what Sunfish thinks as he certainly has a relevant perspective!

Posted by Albion at December 8, 2007 10:29 PM

Police agencies in the US pride themselves on taking great care to weed out recruits who have had any prior negative contact with law enforcement, been within a hundred yards of a smoking reefer, paid for a blow job or bet on sports. Perhaps they should concentrate on pyschologically testing to turn away those who believe that they are superior to civilians and have an untramelled right to order people around and torture (what else is unjustified tasing) those who disobey.

Further to Perry's report of challenging a police officer in NJ. I was waved to a halt by a very young police officer while driving in Puerto Rico. This was to allow the police to deal with a car that was driving the wrong way down the one way street (a common occurence on the island.) I waited while the offending car did a U turn in front of me and pulled over to talk to some other police officers. Since the danger had passed and the officer who had waved me to a halt had moved over to the side of the road and turned away I set off again. The police officer who had stopped me rushed out into the road, banged on the front of my car with his fist and started shouting. I wound down the window and asked him what the problem was. He said that I shouldn't have moved until he told me to (there were now many cars stuck behind me.) I told him not to be so fucking stupid, he didn't like this and starting speaking faster than I could understand (in Spanish.) At that moment an older cop came over and waved me on. I hope that young cop learned something that night.

So, did I deserve a tasing?

Posted by ResidentAlien at December 8, 2007 10:36 PM

The logic of a police state Perry? I fear your getting a little overwrought. Like I said at the top, I'm unsure about this incident, as I cannot accurately understand the conversation prior to tasering, and we do not have the cops side of the story on CNN. It seems a little harsh to me to taser him, but like I said before, if he was speeding, refused to sign the ticket, and then resisted arrest I don't see what he's got to grumble about.

If it's legal to refuse to sign speeding tickets given out by statetroopers in Utah, then I'll take it all back, and agree the cop was in the wrong.

Posted by James at December 8, 2007 10:54 PM

Wow. That's one bone-idle copper. What I'd like to hear from those who support his actions, is what would be appropriate in the absence of a taser. Would it be OK to maybe shoot the driver in the leg? Or may one hard blow to the side of his knees with a baton? I guess putting him in an armlock would expose the office to unecessary risk.

I love the way he tells the woman to get back in the car and shut the door, as if it's a crime to stand on the side of the road watching the police do their work.

It's some comfort the UK police aren't able to do this kind of thing yet.

Posted by J at December 8, 2007 11:09 PM

The logic of a police state Perry? I fear your getting a little overwrought

Far from it. The notion you MUST be polite to a cop because he is a cop and obey what he says no matter what (which was what the comment I was replying to suggested) is indeed the logic of a police state.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 8, 2007 11:14 PM

If it's legal to refuse to sign speeding tickets given out by statetroopers in Utah, then I'll take it all back, and agree the cop was in the wrong.

Ok, so if it is not legal to refuse to sign, administering summary violence is justified then, is that what you are saying?

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 8, 2007 11:17 PM

Besides, the quesition is not if this is legal, but if this is right - not the same thing, obviously.

Jacob:

Because that's what police officers are for, that's the definition of their job.

No it is not, it is "to protect and serve".

You can, later, argue in court, or lodge a complaint against the police officers, but you can't argue with him. They are not the instance you argue with.

On a pragmatic level you are right, of course, and that driver was not the sharpest pencil in the...whatever. On a principled level, you are dead wrong. I should be able to argue with anyone I damn please, Jacob, you, police, even god himself. The fact that it is not always the smart thing to do is beside the point. It is not the policeman's job to argue with people. He should have let the guy go, and taken what evidence he had to court, that's all. But instead he decided to have a power trip.

Posted by Alisa at December 8, 2007 11:29 PM

I suppose I ought to choose a new name, to differentiate me from supporters of police states, but never mind...

I find it slightly harder to imagine our plod drawing a taser on someone for such trivialities, especially when, from what I know, they only really draw on their CS spray when faced with violent situations. That's not to say that anything to the contrary has never happened- I just have not heard of anything as yet. It goes without saying, though, that the thought of routinely arming plod with tasers is gravely uncomfortable.

I have to wonder if the styles of policing in the US would make this more likely to have happened in Utah than, say, New York? I can imagine a New York police officer has a much broader tolerance of 'shit' than someone from the back of beyond.

Posted by James (#1) at December 8, 2007 11:38 PM

I apologise for misintepreting your comment regarding a police state; I agree, an individual should be under no obligation to be polite to cops.

If it's illegal to refuse to sign, then the cop should use whatever method he judges best to arrest the individual in question. Like I said in my previous two posts, tasering in this instance seems harsh, but it's not clear to me that the cop in question had many other options. Draw his gun? Maybe, but then what if the guy had continued to walk away? Is he just going to ignore him and let him drive off, or retrieve a weapon from his car, because he obviously can't shoot him for a mere trafiic violation. Wrestle him to the ground? Maybe, but then he risks injury and he may end up doing the perp more damage than if he was just tasered - leaving aside the fact that they're both feet from a busy road. Some form of violence has to be administered if this guy really was acting illegally - see spidly's first post.

Posted by James at December 8, 2007 11:39 PM

*Misinterpreting

Posted by James at December 8, 2007 11:41 PM

Also, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with forcing somebody to sign something against their will? What is it worth? It's simply signed under duress, which I'm sure is worthless where the law is concerned.

Posted by James (#1) at December 8, 2007 11:42 PM

Some form of violence has to be administered if this guy really was acting illegally

WHAT??? For a simple traffic violation? The guy did not sign the ticket. Fine, so if that is indeed illegal then add that to the charges that will arrive with a court summons a few days later in his postbox . He was not drunk or engaged in 'furious driving' and so posed no clear threat to other drivers. No force was justified whatsoever. None.

I got the distinct impression he was tasered for being disrespectful.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 8, 2007 11:48 PM

Also, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with forcing somebody to sign something against their will? What is it worth? It's simply signed under duress, which I'm sure is worthless where the law is concerned.

Exactly.
Posted by Alisa at December 8, 2007 11:57 PM

I got the distinct impression he was tasered for being disrespectful.

And is there a problem with that? In most US states, driving is legally a privilege, not a right. Common respect while exercising a privilege is simply common sense.

And let's not all second guess in comfort what a man doing a very trying job did in the heat of the moment. He was the one in the arena, making the decision. Remember, some of the 9/11 hijackers were pulled over for routine traffic violations. If someone was being non-cooperative, I applaud the instinct to taser the bum, rather than shoot him. If this officer is a consistent problem child, his superiors will deal with it. Don't need CNN keeping us safe.

Personally, I try to be respectful to everyone. And especially if he is carrying a gun

Posted by Alice at December 9, 2007 12:07 AM

And let's not all second guess in comfort what a man doing a very trying job did in the heat of the moment.

Why not? That is exactly what those video recording are for.

If this officer is a consistent problem child, his superiors will deal with it.

So he gets to taser a few folks every now and again for shits-and-grins then does he? Just so long as he does not make a habit of it, eh? Nice.

Don't need CNN keeping us safe

Yes, we most certainly do.

Personally, I try to be respectful to everyone. And especially if he is carrying a gun

That is quite possibly the worst of all possible reasons to be respectful to someone who works for the state.

Cops have a thankless job and I am all for cops being armed. I am all for EVERYONE being armed. But if a cop carries a gun to compel respect rather than to protect himself and others, then he is not there to 'protect and serve', he is there to oppress and should be viewed accordingly, ie he should be feared, not respected.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 9, 2007 12:14 AM

James #1:

Cops are pretty much the same everywhere. The main difference is that west of the Missipp cops will arrest other cops for DUI, domestic battery what have you. Manhattan cops are just as bad as deep south cops. Post-Guiliani they feel insulated from administrative reproach and civilian oversight is unfortunately toothless.
My brother got tossed in jail for the day on the west side highway b/c the prats in the local station wanted to impress a rookie on her first day. They made up some non-existing traffic ticket which supposedly was outstanding and hauled my brother off to jail. I was in the car and inquired as to the reference number of this ticket and whether or not I could pay for the ticket at the station. Of course, they would not produce either the ticket or the reference number and my brother stayed in jail all day.

I was pointedly told at the station that my brother was in a single cell and having taken the hint, I shut up and waited for his release. He said the cops were joking about it all day and were pretty pleasant and attentive, especially the non-participating brothers in blue.

We reported it to the civilian hotline and completed a legal affidavit for the oversight board but nothing of course came of it.

Dont much like cops.

Posted by bob at December 9, 2007 12:35 AM

I'm torn on this one. The cop obviously wasn't too effective in explaining to the driver in a courteous yet firm manner his obligations under the law.

But in refusing to obey the officer and essentially walking away, you have a problem. Some here say, so what, it was just a speeding ticket. Okay, but what happens if we all start walking away from police in such situations? The law unravels and to some extent, so does society.

If we want to challenge the law we do it at the ballot box or in court. We don't do it on isolated highways because we feel like it.

Posted by chip at December 9, 2007 03:20 AM

Even if you accept the idea of it being right for him to use his taser on this guy, there is still the distinct possibility that this officer was acting in violation of state law and/or his department's policies on the use of force. Seeing as how he had not begun to affect an arrest, and being an ass about not producing your license and registration is not a criminal act that warrants immediate use of force to stop, I'd guess that this cop could be disciplined, fired and/or brought before a criminal court for his actions. In theory, anyway.

Posted by MikeT at December 9, 2007 03:30 AM

The law unravels and to some extent, so does society.

I don't buy that, not one bit. You send him a damn ticket and a summons in the post. The actions of this cop are how gunfights start for no good reason. Like several people have said, if that was, say, my wife who had just got tasered under those circumstances and I had been in the car and armed, I would probably have shot the bastard. Would I have been justified? Not 100% sure. But that is quite possibly what I would have done given his actions.

The policeman chose to escalate the situation when NO ONE was actually at risk. He could have let him drive off (and we have no indication that is actually what he was about to do) and still enforced the law by just issuing a summons.

Sorry but I strongly suspect this guy tasered him for being disrespectful. Unacceptable.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 9, 2007 03:31 AM

Janine,
when the guy begins to return to the car after refusing to put his hands behind his back, he is threatening. I didn't hear anyone being a dick other than the driver and he was just taking the abuse of this a-hole. just calmly doing what he's supposed to do. listen to him when he walks up to the car. he's being perfectly nice and sounds like he doesn't really want to be pulling the guy over "how you doing, going kind of fast, can I see your license and registration" and the driver immediately becomes a douche. Then the cop becomes monotone and is not on a power trip. sure he already has all he needs to file charges but it is also the cop's responsibility to take him into custody.

fear of someone like you getting out of the vehicle is exactly why he was being such a big meanie.

Perry, he didn't get tased for being disrespectful, he got tased for ignoring the cop and trying to return to his car. You do not let a driver return to the car under any circumstances and people having a hissy fit over a splooge stain like this driver getting put down just makes it all the harder for cops to what they need to do.
video-cop killed-why you dont let driver return to vehicle

why you don't let other people get out of the car

non-felony traffic stops are relatively dangerous (better than 10% of deaths) so police do not screw around with non-compliant putzes.

If anyone can simply walk away from an officer because they don't think they did anything wrong, the cops could not do their job. tasers are safefor the arestee and a hell of a lot safer for the cop than wrestling someone down.

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 04:27 AM

The speeding charges against Jared were dropped. This does not say much for the cop pulling him over. If the poor fool cop really did FEEL threatened, he is not fit to be a cop.

The whitewash "report" clearing the cop is exactly what one would expect. Many cops see their role as "To serve and protect me, us, the cops".

Posted by terrence at December 9, 2007 04:31 AM

If cops were nice people, they wouldn't be cops.

Posted by DocBud at December 9, 2007 04:39 AM

"And let's not all second guess in comfort what a man doing a very trying job did in the heat of the moment."

Why not? That is exactly what those video recording are for.

That is a negative, Perry. The video recordings are so that others can know what happened, don't have to rely on recollections and incomplete observations. Second guessing is a game for backseat drivers. And you are better than that, Perry.

Look, I am as willing as anyone else to play the armchair quarterback in the strategy game of what Hannibal should have done after he got the elephants over the Alps. That is part of the learning process, and a way of helping ourselves think. But it is silly for anyone to ridicule the split-second choices that an officer had to make on the kind of traffic stop that has too often ended up in life-changing injuries for the officer. Not unless we are prepared to do that job ourselves -- and I for one am not.

So Perry, we are simply going to have to disagree on this one.

Posted by Alice at December 9, 2007 05:28 AM

I would probably have shot the bastard. Would I have been justified? Not 100% sure. But that is quite possibly what I would have done given his actions.

lethal force in response to non-lethal force? wow. if that's the case the cops should shoot speeders if they get uppity on the assumption that the situation is out of control and potentially deadly. actually, judging by your and janine's view on the continuum of force, they should immediately shoot all passengers and then politely ask the driver again.

or maybe in that situation it is your job to say 'honey, STFU and give the man your license."

let him drive away and send him a summons? that's just pushing the problem onto some other cop. at some point someone is going to have to haul him in for non-compliance. well, not if he never refuses to comply in a "threatening manner." the cops should only be allowed to follow people around and say "please.... please.... please.... please....." until a suspect gets annoyed enough to pack it in.

maybe cops should just accept a finger gesture out the window as "i don't want to be stopped" and give up. send the ticket to whatever address comes up on the plate and hope for the best.

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 05:54 AM

smite control? huh.

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 06:11 AM

cant figure out what is smite-worthy about what I'm trying to post dag nab it. even removed the mild expletive from what I quoted from perry's last post...

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 06:26 AM

Forgive me for being a little rumpled here. I haven't had a chance to organize my thoughts.

The whole purpose of a traffic stop is normally to produce a driver for court on an assigned date and time. Historically, that's been done by arresting him, booking him into the jail, and then having him either appear while in custody "without undue delay" (usually meaning the next court day after the arrest) or post a cash bond and sign an agreement to appear at some later date.

The whole point to having a driver sign a citation at the roadside is to bypass the whole process and allow the driver to appear at the later date and time without having to be transported, searched for weapons, fingerprinted, photographed, etc. Statute sets out certain instances where the law prefers such a summons-and-release, or where the law allows it but doesn't identify a statutory preference, etc.

Signing the citation isn't an admission of guilt: otherwise, the courts would hammer us for requiring a signature. The block that says "Without admitting guilt, I agree to appear at the time and place above" means exactly that.

In a few states, refusal to sign really does mean an intended refusal to appear. I do know that a custodial arrest for a minor traffic charge is legal in some states, at least where the driver expresses an intention to fail to appear. I don't know what Utah law is. Hell, I don't know if the violation in question is civil or criminal in Utah.

Anyway, once a custodial arrest happens, resisting is resisting. The order to "turn around and put your hands behind your back" may not always be the beginning of such an arrest, but it usually is.

With regard to the taser usage:

In the US, police decide what level of force to apply based upon a model or continuum. We decide where to enter the continuum (or how much force to start with) based upon the "totality of the circumstances." That means, they look at factors such as size/strength/training of the subject relative to themselves, the numbers of people present, the orientation of any crowds, the number of cops present, the possiblility of the subject or a bystander obtaining a weapon to use on the officer, and any number of other factors. They then employ that force which they reasonably believe will be needed to overcome any resistance.

Legally, the severity of an officer's use of force depends on the possibility of harm resulting from that use of force. That's how we work out where guns, batons, sprays, less-lethal rounds, tasers, and any number of other tools and techniques fit into the continuum. Unfortunately, taser is new enough that there's no real consensus as to where it fits in. It doesn't help that every known "taser death" of which I'm aware involved either an overdose-quantity of stimulants or an underlying cardiac pathology, or both. As a result, we have a century worth of data about guns and batons, three decades about OC spray and the empty-handed techniques (mostly derived from Aikido), and a good picture of all of the above. "Edison's Medicine" is new enough that we just don't know. Correction: everybody knows, and no two people can agree on just what they know.

Spidly: Couldn't get either of those videos to load. I'm going to guess one was Darrel Lundsford and the other was a new-ish deputy sheriff in Georgia and a driver who pulled a Garand out of the truck? Either way, that's why, if a passenger tries to get out on my stops, I give one of two options: either stay in the car with the door closed or pick a direction and walk without turning around. Getting out after being told to stay in has been a prelude to an assault all too many times in my own experience. I don't need people just hanging around and flanking me.

Either way, you correctly note that so-called "routine" traffic stops are relatively dangerous. Actually, traffic stops in rural areas are, most years, the single most dangerous thing that cops can do.

If some driver wants to sit there and motherfucker me all day long, I'm paid by the hour and love playing those tapes in court.

Janine:

Unless you threaten him, and no way no how was that cop being threatened, the cop has no justification for using force like that.

The last time I was assaulted at work, it looked an awful lot like this stop. But feel free to show your knowledge, training, or experience, to tell us all how you know what is and isn't a threat.

DocBud:

If cops were nice people, they wouldn't be cops.

I was going to respond to this, but I don't want to get IP banned just yet.

Now, if everyone will excuse me, this mean fascist pig thug is tired from a long day of violating civil rights. I'll be back in the morning.

Posted by Sunfish at December 9, 2007 06:43 AM

sunfish
one video is Dinkheller in GA who's got a crazy guy jumping around demanding to bee shat and whatnot. Dinkheller draws but does not shoot as the guy dances his way back to his truck and retrieves what looks like a kel-tec carbine. Dingheller does not shoot for a while. then ultimately looses a gunbattle.

the other video is trooper steven stone TX, he is distracted by a passenger leaving vehicle then both draw and shoot the officer.

I cannot find the video of the officer who is wrestled to the ground, stabbed, disarmed by the passengers he has repeatedly ordered back into the vehicle, and then shot to death with his own gun. maybe you remember this incident.

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 07:30 AM

sunfish, the one I was thinking of is the Darrell Lunsford video. it does not seem to be anywhere other than a snippet on a training video site here

my thought (which I've tried to post) is that with some people asserting that they have the right to fire on officers for tasing a loved one, police should then be similarly allowed to view uppitiness as a prelude to a gunbattle and execute the passengers. after all the car occupants are allowed to judge it an illegal stop and use deadly force to counter an officer's non-lethal force.

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 07:56 AM

"if a passenger tries to get out on my stops, I give one of two options: either stay in the car with the door closed or pick a direction and walk without turning around. Getting out after being told to stay in has been a prelude to an assault all too many times in my own experience. I don't need people just hanging around and flanking me."

If the passenger has done nothing wrong and it is a public place, what legal right does (or more correctly should) a police officer have to tell them to stay in the car or move away? Sounds like a good way of preventing them from being a witness to anything the cop might get up to.

Posted by DocBud at December 9, 2007 10:52 AM

I'm with Perry on this one. Long ago when this as a free country, (I'm talking UK) we used to have a distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences. So far as I can recall, speeding was not an arrestable offence. It seems to me that giving the state the power to take you into custody for any infringement - however minor - is the beginning of the police state and this farrago is actually some way down the line.

Seems to me though that the cause of this is fear on the part of the cop that he might be shot. We know this can happen - in the UK too - but using such violence for a routine offence, when all the evidence was there for a successful prosecution is inexcusable. It is the first step towards what happened to de Menezes in London.

Posted by ian at December 9, 2007 11:40 AM

Of course, just to throw Avgas upon the BBQ, there's also THIS (Link)one as well ...

Posted by Julian Taylor at December 9, 2007 11:45 AM

The blogger Mad Ogre who lives near the area and is normally pretty pro law & order has posted this on the subject (no permalinks I'm afraid, so I have posted the lot here):

"The video of the Utah State Trooper tazering the guy for allegedly speeding: Lots of emails on this and I do find this to be an outrage. I can see a lot of points of view about an Officer's use of Force... but this crosses the line. I live in the Uintah Basin. I know right were this happened. In fact, I often go shooting about 200 yards away from where this happened. Quite a few of my magazine photos are taken there. This is on highway 40, just west of Vernal about two miles at most outside of town. If you watch the video carefully, you will see that the patrol car gets in front of the 40MPH sign and it would be very easy to not see the temporary sign because of the cruiser. Normally the speed limit is 65 there. The guy wasn't going very fast at all and the guy stopped immediately... that shows compliance. The trooper never answered the man's reasonable questions. When the Trooper said the guy was speeding and the guy didn't think so, the trooper could have said, the sign is right there, and pointed to the 40 MPH sign. Notice that when the officer puts down the clip board - he immediately pulls the Tazer. He doesn't give the proper warnings, and tags the guy so he's laying in the traffic lane - and then leaves him there... even leaves him there in handcuffs. This is in violation of Utah Highway Patrol's guidelines for use of the Tazer, and a blatant safety violation, putting the guy's life in danger. When you handcuff a guy, you do so to protect his safety as well as your own. The trooper didn't do that. The trooper only handcuffed the guy because he was on a power trip. You don't Tazer a guy just because he instantly doesn't fellate you because you think you are a god. This would never have happened if the Trooper had the attitude that he was enforcing the law - the law which is there for the purpose of keeping citizens safe - instead of having the attitude that all must be subject to The Crown and obey instantly. A big part of being an Officer is communication and calming people down so you don't have to use force. It looked to me that this guy failed at every step. This trooper should not have a job. I understand the use of force, and I do understand that the driver was being a stupid punk... but if the Trooper handled this differently, none of this would have happened.... stupid punk or not, the trooper has the responsibility of handling the situation properly. I know the Deputy... he's an alright guy, but obviously didn't see what happened... because it didn't happen the way the trooper reported it to the Deputy. If the Trooper was in the right, why did he have to lie to the Deputy? He lied because he knew he was in the wrong. Simple as that. When I first saw this video 24 hours ago, I reported it to the Vernal City Manager and the local DA. I know a lot of the Troopers and other Law Enforcement Officers out here... I sell them guns and ammo... most of them are good folk. But this Trooper's actions reflect poorly on all of them, and Vernal City as well This situation reminds me of the movie “Anger Management” when Adam Sandler is in the airplane, “Sir, Please calm down!”"

and later on this :

"11-24-07: Later: The Utah State Trooper Tazer Incident: There is more to this story. First off, the normal speed limit is 65MPH. The very short construction zone has no warning signs of a lower speed limit ahead. Instead of a 10MPH drop down before the 40 zone, it just drops all the way down to 40. And the signs in both directions are not at the beginning of the zone... they are right about in the middle. Meaning it's a blatant speed trap and not ticketable. You take this to court, they will have to drop it. The Trooper made so many mistakes in regards to officer safety that it isn't even funny. Yes, the driver was a punk, but the Trooper could have done a whole lot better according to the video. Now, here's the kicker. The video is heavily edited. We don't know what the whole story is. The driver got the video from the UHP and cleaned it up and posted it on YouTube. While the natural reaction is to be pissed... I sure as heck was... it's time to look at it objectively, and understand there is more to the story that we wont know for some time. Also, in the State of Utah, the Trooper could have wrote "Refused to Sign", handed the driver the ticket anyways. If the Driver didn't go to court or pay the fine, bench warrants and suspensions would have followed forcing the driver to step up. Another kicker... it doesn't look like it, but the driver was going 68 when the Trooper locked him in on the radar... that's speeding in or out of the construction zone. The Troopers I've talked to about this incident wouldn't have normally pulled him over for 68, but in a construction zone, yeah. Now, I still don't like the situation at all... I don't believe in speed limits at all when the road goes across the surface of the moon and nothing is out there between towns like out here where I live... but I can calm down about this all now."

Leaving aside the comments about the tactics employed by the officer in question, it does explain a little of why the driver was questioning the speed limit.

Posted by B Ellis at December 9, 2007 12:53 PM

I agree, an individual should be under no obligation to be polite to cops.

You should be polite towards any stranger, that's good upbringing. The cop does something unpleasant to you (gives you a ticket) - but that's his job. It's an unpleasant but necessary job, and that's why you should be doubly polite to him.

If you feel you have been wrongly ticketed, argue your case before those whose job is to hear your argument. Being disrespectful toward a cop is mean and ill mannered, beside being somewhat dangerous. The cop is not the one to vent your anger upon.

Posted by Jacob at December 9, 2007 12:58 PM

You should be polite towards any stranger, that's good upbringing.

Nope, not if the stranger is acting unreasonably.

The cop does something unpleasant to you (gives you a ticket) - but that's his job. It's an unpleasant but necessary job, and that's why you should be doubly polite to him.

Wrong again because the issue here is not that the cop gave him a ticket. Fine, that is his job (though still no reason to be 'doubly' polite). What is not his job is zapping a guy for mouthing off at him and then walking away. Clearly things are different in the USA but I have been stopped several time in the UK for speeding etc. and although I am hardly a pleasure to deal with when confronted by officialdom, the cops I have dealt with have always treated me with polite and professional indifference, which is probably the best for all concerned.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 9, 2007 01:48 PM

I think some people are forgetting that much of modern policing is based on Peelian Principles.

One of those Principles is that police officers are people drawn from society to perform the full time duty of what is incumbent upon us all normally- that is, to uphold the law.

In other words, police officers are simply our peers- nothing more, nothing less. Of course, practically there are differences (at least, in the UK), with officers being allowed the use of firearms against civilians etc., but the Principle remains the same.

So, if we take this situation to its most basic interpretation, what happened? One man said to another man (dressed in a policeman's uniform) that he disagreed with his infantilisation of him and proceeded to walk away. The man dressed in police uniform took umbrage at his peer's disregard for his demands and so decided to assault him.

Police officers are there to uphold the law- not to be the law.

Posted by James at December 9, 2007 02:28 PM

Policemen are people that we delegate to the unpleasant job of keeping order and upholding the law. They work in difficult and frequently dangerous circumstances. They deal, on a daily basis, with the scum of society. They do it for us, they allow us to avoid these unpleasant tasks and live in relative safety.
.
The least we owe then is respect and courtesy, even when they are, sometimes, wrong. Even when one is upset (getting a ticket), one should practice restraint and be curteous toward the cop and obey his requests.

(Same goes for soldiers. I am terribly angered by the leftist scum who sometimes abuse uniformed soldiers out of "ideological" reasons).

Posted by jacob at December 9, 2007 03:07 PM

You should be polite towards any stranger, that's good upbringing.

PdH: Nope, not if the stranger is acting unreasonably.

The cop does something unpleasant to you (gives you a ticket) - but that's his job. It's an unpleasant but necessary job, and that's why you should be doubly polite to him.

PdH: Wrong again

Damn, Perry! This incident really touched a nerve with you, and has quite driven you off your normally sensible game. Is there something in your past you would like to share?

Posted by Alice at December 9, 2007 03:38 PM

If cops were nice people, they wouldn't be cops.

DocBud: you really did not stop and think before you posted this, did you?
Posted by Alisa at December 9, 2007 03:51 PM

Jacob,

Being respectful and courteous is advisable in the interest of maintaining good manners. In a free society, good manners are adopted informally, not legislated; they are a precondition for being respected by others not for avoiding punishment by the state.

It is true that policemen are doing their job. The Mafia’s hit men are doing their job and the local postman is doing his. The mere fact that you are doing your job does not contain any information about whether your job is legal or illegal, useful for society or not, morally acceptably or not… The question in the present case is whether the police officer’s conduct was morally and legally acceptable and this should be unrelated to whether he was doing his job or acting as an unpaid volunteer.

Posted by rantingkraut at December 9, 2007 03:53 PM

First off, that looked like one hell of a head hit when the guy went down. I'm surprised he was conscious afterward.

Secondly, if the trooper was at all concerned about his own personal safety, he should be dismissed or reassigned immediately.

A. After deciding the contact was unsatisfactory, he turned and walked casually back to his car with his back completely to both of the people in the vehicle.

B. The trooper walks in front of the driver after ordering him out of his vehicle, with his back substantially to the person he is arresting and trooper's hands are full. If he seriously thought the guy was potentially an armed threat, this was nuts.

C. He tasers the guy (in a lane of traffic!) and stands there with the spent taser in his gun hand and his back to the driver's partner who exits the other side of the vehicle and approaches the trooper from the cover of the vehicle. He continues holding the taser in his gun hand and apparently completely dismisses her as a threat.

Okay, that last has to be the most dangerous moment of all. He has violently assaulted (at least to her perception) the partner of a pregnant women. She sees the father and guardian of her unborn child down and thrashing, under attack by a hostile and unfamiliar male. Does anybody need to wonder at the stupidity of this? Even if he didn't fear her, he should have. I don't think he is the sort of person who takes women seriously.

He had a cavalier attitude to the arrestees and his own safety and to protecting himself from getting shot, and he tells the driver that "I am placing you under arrest", "because you did not obey my instructions." He then tells the guys wife "I tasered him because he did not follow my instructions." He told many lies to the deputy including "oh, he was completely in charge" and that he (the trooper) was fine with the guy not signing the ticket, and that the guy was "jumping around".

A good friend of mine used me for a character reference when he applied for and was hired by the Madison Police Force (huge pool of applicants for very few jobs). He was our club's safety officer, I was on the executive committee, we were both instructors, and he was my instructor mentor; I shadowed his lessons before teaching my own. To give him a character reference I had to think quite a bit about his character and how he dealt with combative, drunk, belligerent, frightened or otherwise uncooperative people.

Most of the people who knew him said "He has no temper. He never gets upset." But by virtue of working with him to resolve numerous 'situations' at our club, I had a different opinion. He did have a temper and I could tell when someone had set it off. His speech slowed down. He used small words and short sentences. He repeated himself and tested different phrasing in an effort to be understood. He reflexively adopted a discrete defensive stance and became (to my observation) very peripherally attentive to everything around him. The college age drunks wandering through that we often had to deal with typically traveled in multiples.

During one of his lessons that I was shadowing, we had an injury to one of the students. She could have panicked, but he immediately made contact with her (we were all in separate boats) and began giving her quiet, repetitive and calming instructions. He quickly assigned the other students things to do to keep them involved but out of the way, and he assigned me to contact lake safety and keep him informed of their response.

My thoughts while considering what to say about his character can be summed up with "if any cop every enters a dangerous situation where I am present, I want it to be him."

I've been drawn on by a cop with a big nickel plated .45 auto. He had good reason to believe I might be a drug thief because the when the employees responding to the burglar alarm let him into the (drug distribution) building to search it, they forgot to tell him there was a night shift computer operator on the second floor in the office (split alarm system). Fortunately for me, it was an older and seasoned cop. He behaved very cautiously but safely, pointing the gun at my knees while the employee who had let him in came down the hall yelling "He belongs here. He belongs here.".

I'm glad it wasn't that Utah Trooper. I'd probably be dead. Nobody is safe with him around. Not the citizens, and certainly not the trooper himself.

Posted by Midwesterner at December 9, 2007 03:58 PM

Perry said:

"Sorry but I strongly suspect this guy tasered him for being disrespectful. Unacceptable."

In 2006, 48 policemen were killed on duty in the US. Often, this happened when an innocuous call suddenly turned violent.

So I think it's an acceptable restriction on my liberty to follow the reasonable directions of an officer, even if that officer was being rude.

If we want to challenge the law we, as a civilized society, have mechanisms for doing that.

Posted by chip at December 9, 2007 05:44 PM

In 2006, 48 policemen were killed on duty in the US. Often, this happened when an innocuous call suddenly turned violent.

There are about 670,000 policemen in the United States. If your numbers are correct, this puts their deathrate at 0.007%. That ignores the risk of injury, of course, which I imagine is considerably higher, so I don't want to make light of the often dangerous work that policemen do. But do think you are overstating your case a bit.

Posted by Joshua at December 9, 2007 06:45 PM

DocBud:
I'm not going to get into moral authority or questions or 'should.' Assertions about moral authority are typically as provable as convincing my ex-wife that shoveling snow, washing dishes, bathing the dog, and doing laundry count as helping around the house.

As for legal authority, there's a US Supreme Court case called Maryland v. Wilson. The case basically amounted to saying that routinely ordering passengers out of the car during traffic stops was not a Constitutional violation. Some of the wording in the decision suggested that telling passengers where to stand or not stand could also be Constitutionally permissible.

The Court cited a case called Michigan v. Long, which stated: “..nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventative measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to re-enter his vehicle. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them.”

Significant words: “investigative stop.” The drivers' detention was based upon reasonable suspicion as defined in Terry v. Ohio, and not probable cause. And you'll point out that Long referred to the driver. And I'll respond that I'm also not preventing the passenger from leaving. I'm only preventing the passenger from flanking me or forcing me to divert my attention from dealing with the driver and not being hit by another car.

See also California v. Brendlin: “It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety.” While the main subject of Brendlin was whether a passenger was “seized” and therefore had standing to contest the stop's validity for the purpose of suppressing drugs as being illegally seized, my point stands. Especially since “Don't stand around here” is a very minimal seizure. Brendlin and Wilson both assumed that the officer would use a show of authority to prevent the passengers from leaving on foot, which I'm not doing. I don't actually force the passenger to stay unless I have some specific reason for doing so: passenger is also a suspect, whom I have a legal basis to hold, or passenger is a child who would be endangered if he were to walk off, or something like that.

They can be a witness from inside the car. They can be a witness from a safe distance away. They can leave a tape recorder running. Hell, they can turn on the CIA spy satellites for all I care.

Perry and others:
As for the reasonableness of the taser, I know at least one agency that uses the PPCT model and classes it as a “soft empty hand” technique. That makes it the legal equivalent (until that's tested in court) of the arm-lock that somebody mentioned above. I have my doubts that it belongs that low on the continuum, but as I mentioned this is a very new area.

What is not his job is zapping a guy for mouthing off at him and walking away.

That video was heavily edited. If lipping and walking was all that happened then I'd be inclined to agree. However, I'm not going to go there until somebody produces the unedited version.

Jacob:
I'm with you 95%. I'd say 'obey' when the request is actually supported by law. And frankly, I'd settle for receiving the level of civility which I extend to others: that alone would be a significant improvement

Comments about sending the citation to the vehicle's owner if the trooper couldn't identify the driver: no good. At least in this state, speeding is a violation committed by the driver and cannot be prosecuted if the driver is unknown. There are speed cameras (called 'photo radar') in some areas that seem to be an exception, but legally a cite issued on the basis of a camera can't have points associated, which I think are a better deterrent than any fine (To say nothing of the whole “video surveillance in public” issue.)

Posted by Sunfish at December 9, 2007 07:18 PM

Sunfish:That video was heavily edited. If lipping and walking was all that happened then I'd be inclined to agree. However, I'm not going to go there until somebody produces the unedited version.

Fair enough.

chip: So I think it's an acceptable restriction on my liberty to follow the reasonable directions of an officer, even if that officer was being rude. If we want to challenge the law we, as a civilized society, have mechanisms for doing that.

Nope. A civilised society does not permit armed representatives of the state to use force unless there is a bloody good reason (but if there is a bloody good reason, it should indeed stand with them). Also NO ONE who works for the state (or anyone else) should expect unconditional respect simply because they have a badge and a gun.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 9, 2007 08:45 PM

and in a civilized society every good mamma would see the tape of her son being such a punk and would tell him
"you're just lucky it was an officer with taser and not me young man, if I ever catch you......"

Posted by spidly at December 9, 2007 10:29 PM

So you were taught you to be obsequious to people in authority because they are in authority and that is its own justification eh?

If you have an argument to make, kindly make it.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 9, 2007 11:04 PM

I'd say 'obey' when the request is actually supported by law.

I'd say, you better obey. You can't and shouldn't argue with the cop, or, worse, disobey him. You can politely indicate where you think he acts illegal, but if he insists you obey, and argue later with his chief, or with the judge, or sue for damages.
If a cop says: "stop" or "freeze" - you stop first, and argue, politely, later.

As I said, we hired the cops to stop people. It's part of their job description, agreed upon by us. That's why we must obey them. If a cop acts illegally (in our opinion) we can later complain and have him disciplined. The remedy is not to disobey him or curse him.

Posted by Jacob at December 9, 2007 11:10 PM

Alisa, I always think about what I say/write. While I accept that some nice people become cops, and fewer still remain nice after a few years in the force, I do not believe this is generally true, and my experience and those of my family (and noone in my family has had more than a speeding fine) tend to support this view.

According to Jacob "Policemen are people that we delegate to the unpleasant job of keeping order and upholding the law." This is not the case, noone is forced to join up, society makes available money to people who wish to volunteer to carry out certain tasks. It is a simple business arrangement between two consenting parties. The problem as I see it, is that the sort of person who is inclined to volunteer for the police, is the sort of person who easily moves from upholding the law to believing that they are the law. The sort of person who believes that they have a right to infringe the freedom of others for their safety irrespective of whether or not there actually is a threat. Police forces around the world tend to become self-serving institutions for whom the greatest loyalty owed by their members is to other members.

Posted by DocBud at December 9, 2007 11:30 PM

Well, DocBud, I am not going to argue with you over generalizations on an issue I know little about. But I will continue to treat individual people as just that - individuals, be they cops, speeding drivers, or blog commenters. I hope you have not lost the ability to do the same.

Posted by Alisa at December 9, 2007 11:58 PM

BTW, just to make things clear: I do appreciate the hard and dangerous work policemen are doing, and I have the same amount of respect for it as for any other profession with the same level of difficulty and danger. It still does not mean that I have to obey a policeman just because he is a policeman. I will obey him if his instructions seem to make sense and reasonable, or, failing that, because I might get into too much trouble if I don't. Just like I would follow anyone else's instructions if they made sense to me, or give my wallet to a mugger that pointed a gun at me. It has nothing to do with respect or authority.

Posted by Alisa at December 10, 2007 12:17 AM

Must say, I'll have to land on "S'fishs" side on this one-(note to self-NEVER ask a Copper "does this mean I'm under arrest?" because the answer is always "YES".)
Sorry if I contribute nothing to the conversation, kick me out if you wish.

Posted by Ken at December 10, 2007 03:13 AM

Interesting. According to a third year law student over on Volokh, by Utah statute, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant "for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer . . . . "

So an arrest can be lawful, but the law student goes on to cite the rules for an arrest:

UT ST 77-7-19

(1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when:

(a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape;

(b) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or

(c) the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape.

And the law student adds the following comment on case law (precedent).

[Case law is somewhat limited. "engaged in . . . an offense" appears to refer to, e.g. being inside of a building illegally and arrested for burglary, being drunk and arrested for public drunkeness]

It seems to me that 'a' is clearly not the case by the officer's own words and actions. 'b' is out unless you believe that the driver was required to physically give him self up to an officer that has not expressed any intent to arrest him and that this refusal to turn around and offer his hands behind his back justified arresting him without telling him. That's kind of circular by my thinking. As in 'arrest him by surprise for not complying with an arrest he didn't know about because it was a surprise arrest' Hhmmm ...

So that leaves 'c'. Clearly the driver pulled over, stopped his car and exited the vehicle when told to do so. So a predetermination of intent to escape is absurd. We must rule out that the traffic violation is the offense for which the element of surprise is justified. The officer must conclude that a surprise arrest is justified because the driver is attempting to escape. Which brings us back to the circular reasoning. The driver didn't know he was under arrest, therefore he could not know he was committing "an escape".

Furthermore, I don't have the statute and don't want to read the 300+ comments over there again, buy it sounded pretty clear that Utah law permits the officer to write "refused to sign" on the ticket. Remember, the officer had the guy's driver's license and vehicle registration and could state under oath that the driver and his license matched.

It's pretty clear to me at this point that the officer committed an act of fairly substantial violence without justification. He put the guy down hard on hard pavement risking a potentially serious head injury. He did it in a lane of traffic. And he left the guy there for over two minutes. In a construction zone with 2-way traffic and quite a bit of it.

I find it very difficult to defend the legality of this trooper's actions, much less the reasonableness of them. The situation suggests rather strongly to me that it was an officer administering punishment for something (not signing) that is not even illegal. But I imagine the officer will get to defend himself in court. As will his superiors.

Posted by Midwesterner at December 10, 2007 03:43 AM

Ken said:

(note to self-NEVER ask a Copper "does this mean I'm under arrest?" because the answer is always "YES".)

Are you in the UK or the US? Under US law, being temporarily unfree to leave doesn't automagically create an arrest. Police in the US have the legal authority (recognized in the 1968 USSC case Terry v. Ohio and codified by statute in most or all states) to temporarily detain someone on reasonable suspicion, prevent that person from leaving, and in limited cases conduct a limited search for weapons.

So, in the US the answer isn't necessarily 'yes.' If you're not handcuffed, I can virtually guarantee that it's not an arrest. If you are, it's worth asking just to clarify your position.

In the UK, no idea. UK criminal law and criminal procedure is utterly foreign to me[1]. Nothing written in English should be that hard for me to understand.

Midwesterner:

Interesting. According to a third year law student over on Volokh, by Utah statute, a peace officer may arrest without a warrant "for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer . . . . "

Is speeding a criminal or civil violation in Utah? In Colorado, it's a (usually) civil infraction under state law (and therefore not arrestable) UNLESS it occurs in a home-rule city or county which has adopted the model traffic code into its own municipal or county ordinances. So speeding is TECHNICALLY arrestable when I stop someone for it, but I've never actually done that.

In Colorado, when someone refuses to sign a summons, what I do next depends on what I'm actually charging. If it's assault or something like that, he might realistically end up jailed. If it's a minor traffic charge, he'll get told "You've been served and the court date is on the front. Miss the court date, the judge puts out a warrant, and we'll talk again."

b' is out unless you believe that the driver was required to physically give him self up to an officer that has not expressed any intent to arrest him and that this refusal to turn around and offer his hands behind his back justified arresting him without telling him.

I think that telling him to put his hands behind his back (the beginning of handcuffing[2]) may have been intended as the beginning of the arrest. Handcuffing is always part of an arrest, but very rarely part of a detention under Terry.

The reason I've been so cagey about the video is because of two things:

1) There are fifty-odd ways of doing things, thanks to our federal system. The law may require something in Puerto Rico that the cops have discretion over in Vermont and Illinois and aren't allowed to do at all in Washington DC or Guam. Normally I think that's a good thing, but it makes internet discussions just a little more complex.

2) Note that the video was heavily edited and appeared to have been released by an interested party. Therefore I think it's reasonable to suspect that the edits were at least a little self-serving, and in any case we simply don't know what was left out and whether the omissions were important. Don't know means don't know and I hate to play guessing games.

[1] Non-consensual stop-searches without cause when someone says "terrorism?" Home searches of arrestees (arrested away from home) without warrants? And people give ME a hard time?

[2] For some systems of techniques, anyway. Not the one I use, though.

Posted by Sunfish at December 10, 2007 04:26 AM

perry, you don't have to be a complete douche like the driver to make the point you are not servile - so no, I wasn't taught to be obsequious to authority - just what I made clear. I would hope your mamma would slap you upside the head if you behaved like such a dick to ANYbody. that's what mammas do in a civilized society.

Posted by spidly at December 10, 2007 04:27 AM

DocBud:

The problem as I see it, is that the sort of person who is inclined to volunteer for the police, is the sort of person who easily moves from upholding the law to believing that they are the law.

I'm sorry that your local PD can't afford pre-hire psych testing, then, or that they shot your dog or whatever it is that they did to you.

The sort of person who believes that they have a right to infringe the freedom of others for their safety irrespective of whether or not there actually is a threat.

People getting out of the car and then just hanging around are closely consistent with the beginnings of assaults. I'm not dreaming up any of the times that it actually had happened to me.

Or are you suggesting that I should wait for someone to try to jump me or grab my gun before I act to prevent it?

Posted by Sunfish at December 10, 2007 04:48 AM

I would hope your mamma would slap you upside the head if you behaved like such a dick to ANYbody. that's what mammas do in a civilized society.

Actually my one taught me that when someone acts like a jerk, treat them like a jerk, regardless of their personal sense of majesty. That generally does not involve electrocuting them however unless they are threatening me.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 10, 2007 05:09 AM

"how's it going...going kinda fast...."
Perry, ask your mother to teach you what a jerk is again.

Posted by spidly at December 10, 2007 05:56 AM

horrible sense of majesty in that officer. how dare he ask the driver "how's it goin" like he's so damn high and mighty. He should supplicate before the speeder, and humbly beg to know the condition of his highness... and did you see how he turned his back on the speeder when he walked away and said "I'll be with you in a minute"....he should have kept his head lower and backed away, this is how one treats a living god. he did not refer to the speeder in the 3rd person as is custom.....

jeez, it is plain to see who was being an ass in the exchange.

Posted by spidly at December 10, 2007 06:04 AM

There is no question ... the police officer was correct.

Posted by Mark at December 10, 2007 06:23 AM

for anyone who was taught to escalate a situation by being a jerk to a jerk here's a textbook contemporary conflict resolution

Posted by spidly at December 10, 2007 06:54 AM

Alisa,

But I will continue to treat individual people as just that - individuals, be they cops, speeding drivers, or blog commenters.

So, I assume, you'll act politely towards cops, same as you treat all people.

But cops deserve more consideration. Not because they are some "authority", but because they act on our behalf, in difficult circumstances, to protect us from crime.

Posted by Jacob at December 10, 2007 10:41 AM

You whining bunch of pantywaists. You surprise me, you really do.

Read what Sunfish wrote. I wish I'd written it.

The guy refused to cooperate, initially, then refused to sign the citation, then got out of the car and continued to argue with the officer.

Over a speeding ticket.

Then, when the process of arresting him had commenced (the officer's instruction to 'put your hands behind your back) he walked away from the officer and back towards his car.

At that point, what is the officer supposed to do? Let him go?

He wasn't Tasered/arrested for what he said, or for being arrogant, idiotic or rude to the copper - he was arrested for what he did - refusing to accept the citation, and then walking away from the officer after doing so. As Sunfish wrote, refusing to accept the citation means you get arrested and bailed to appear. Just like in the UK. I have been arrested by the side of the M1 for speeding while driving on a US license - had I argued with the officer, and walked away from him, he would have had every right to restrain me, by force if necessary, to effect the arrest. That's his sworn duty. This is no different.

For all you overwrought libertarians out there claiming the right to open a debating society on the side of the road - read what Sunfish wrote. It's quite true that the officer doesn't have the right to be judge and jury at the roadside - but neither do you. You can cuss at the officer all day, if you like - in fact, I can link you to dashcam video all day long that shows officers standing there at the driver's window and taking abuse that not one of you would tolerate. As long as you cooperate in the legal activity taking place - give him your documents as required, disagree with him if you desire, but accept the citation once he has decided to issue it to you - you'll be on your way.

Many of you are arguing for the absolute right to decide for yourselves whether or not you'll accept being stopped and cited by a LEO. And the right to open what amounts to your own personal law school by the side of the road, in which you get to decide whether the officer is in the right or not. And all this based upon one YouTube video clip, and the story told by the person arrested. We haven't heard word 1 of testimony from the officer, or anyone else, yet.

You've no idea how silly and stupid this makes you, and by extension, the ideas presented on this site, look.

Bravo, Sunfish - good job in the face of all that.

llater,

llamas

Posted by llamas at December 10, 2007 11:21 AM

llamas hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more.

Regardless of whether the guy should have gotten ticketed in the first place, one does NOT turn and walk away from a police officer in that instance. It is all about safety. The proper forum to contest the issue is in court.

Watching even the edited (to what extent we do not know) video, I believe the police officer acted within reason.

To Sunfish I say, thank you for your comments, your service, and your professionalism.

Posted by Tom at December 10, 2007 12:13 PM

You whining bunch of pantywaists. You surprise me, you really do [...] You've no idea how silly and stupid this makes you, and by extension, the ideas presented on this site, look.

To put it bluntly, your are fool. The notion that the response to a wildly disproportionate use for force is, to paraphrase your crapulous remarks, just take it like a man, makes me question not just your opinions but your wits.

We haven't heard word 1 of testimony from the officer, or anyone else, yet.

Wrong again. Suggest you read some of the comments which quote the officer's remarks to the deputy who arrived as backup later and point out how they do not jibe with the events seen on the video. Does that not set the alarm bells ringing yet?

And as you are quoting Sunfish's remarks in what you are presenting as a self-evident case, I will to do the same:

That video was heavily edited. If lipping and walking was all that happened then I'd be inclined to agree. However, I'm not going to go there until somebody produces the unedited version.

So unless it was edited sufficiently to material change the context (which is of course possible), Sunfish would agree the use for force was not appropriate (with the important contingent caveat he stated). On the available evidence to us (the tape as seen now), the cop acted appallingly.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 10, 2007 12:40 PM

Jacob:

So, I assume, you'll act politely towards cops, same as you treat all people.

You don't have to assume, as you yourself just quoted me saying precisely that.

But cops deserve more consideration. Not because they are some "authority", but because they act on our behalf, in difficult circumstances, to protect us from crime.

No they don't, no more than say, firefighters, soldiers, doctors or all kinds of emergency workers. Most of the people in these professions are doing hard and essential work on our behalf, often under dangerous circumstances. This is not meant in any way to demean the cops - on the contrary. People like Sunfish are a great asset to any society, but this is not because he is a cop, but because the kind of person he is. CO is just lucky that he happens to be a cop, and if he had chosen any other career, he would have been just as good. The only thing that makes cops different from the other professions I mentioned is that they are given power by the state to apply violence to their fellow citizens. This is a good power in the hands of the likes of Sunfish, but can be very bad in the hands of someone like that trooper (unless that video is so heavily edited to the point of being useless). And, BTW, just to reiterate, the driver in question was a jerk, but this is precisely when a good cop is tested: dealing with jerks, because dealing with smart and polite people is easy for most of us anyway. "How is it going, going fast" etc. The trooper does start the conversation politely, but this does not reflect on his later behavior. He approaches the driver with the full expectation of cooperation. It's when the latter refuses to cooperate is the real litmus test of the cop.
Posted by Alisa at December 10, 2007 01:01 PM

Perry said :

I think some people are forgetting that much of modern policing is based on Peelian Principles.

Without wishing to stir up a different argument, this is becoming increasingly not the case. As the security theatre at airports demonstrates, the police are increasingly being used (with support from senior officers) as an occupying force controlling, not supporting, the local population.

Posted by ian at December 10, 2007 01:10 PM

Perry de Havilland -

Well, my wits have been questioned before. Big deal. I note that you don't have much substantive to say to rebut my points.

You have decided, based on seeing just a part of only one side of the story, that you completely understand anything and everything that went on here, and you have issued what appears to be your final judgement, including such definitive expressions as 'wildly disproportionate', 'unbelievable abuse' and so forth. Pardon me if I reserve judgement just a little bit, and if I perhaps see where there might be justifications for the events we see, where you have already rushed to judgement.

As you say, the video is heavily edited - and yet you still feel entitled to issue your final judgement on the whole matter? Come, now - who's the fool, here? If a police department were to issue an edited dashcam video of a questionable incident - would you take it at face value? Like hell you would! So why do you take the claims of this person, with his edited tape, at face value?

I suggest that this particular incident (and others in like vein that have been discussed here in the past) feeds the prejudices and the confirmation biases of many of the participants here, and perhaps some of the hosts as well. There is often a strong presumption here that every state act, and every state actor, is, by definition, inefficient, ineffective, malicious, incompetent, or corrupt.

Sometimes - oftentimes - they are. But sometimes - oftentimes - they are not.

Was the guy speeding? I'll wager he was. I'm pretty sure that he admits it, somewhere along the way.

Was the speed-limit signage questionable? Maybe it was. That's what traffic court is for. But traffic court is convened in a building with lawyers and judges and such - not by the side of I-10. If this man was even halfway grown-up - he would know that.

Did he argue unreasonably with the officer? Yes, he did.

Did he refuse to sign/accept the citation? Yes, he did.

Did the officer have the right to arrest him at that that point? Yes, he did.

Did the motorist submit at that point? No, he did not - he walked away.

Did the officer have the right, at that point, to perform the arrest? Yes, he did.

Was the officer brusque? Yes, he was. Do you suppose that this would have come out any differently had he been the soul of politeness? Would it, heckerslike - the motorist would have argued the toss with him, no matter what. It wasn't about the officer's demeanour - it was about the motorist's arrogant assumption that he was in the right and that the officer was in the wrong. A grown-up knows that such a question will not be decided at the side of the road. The mo