Sensible Erection | Utah cop tasers man for refusing to sign ticket

Wednesday, 21 November 2007

Utah cop tasers man for refusing to sign ticket - anybody on S.E. have a horror story

quote [ It seems like we’re seeing incidents like this with more and more - but this one is particularly troublesome - it looks like the driver is merely trying to explain or point something out to the officer when he turns his back and is hit with the taser. ]

I went thru a stop sign and was pulled over, I turned off the engine, put my hands out the window and two cops with guns pulled out, crept along the side of my car and asked for my drivers license with a gun in my face.

Me and my friends had full lenght beards at the time, we probably scared the cops. I SIGNED the ticket and we were on our way.

Psycho Potato
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iX7K9uSr6H0

[by JOECAM@4:30pmGMT] [+9 WTF]

Comments

-_- said @ 4:36pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:4 Funny]
I flagged a cop down in a parking lot to tell him one of his headlights was burned out.
He dres his gun on me and called for backup.
Made me stand with my hands on the car till the other cops (4 cars) got there.
They were still laughing at him when I left.

Jewbacchus said @ 4:45pm GMT on 21st Nov
whaaaa?

expat said @ 5:15pm GMT on 21st Nov
Why would someone flag down a cop in a parking lot to tell him one of his headlights are out?!?

I guess this was just a joke, but I don't get it.

Eru said @ 5:27pm GMT on 21st Nov
Because it's dangerous and against the law to drive with one headlight out?

valen85 said @ 5:38pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
yeah i mean, we shouldn't be afraid of a cop so much that we'd have to avoid doing this

valen85 said @ 5:38pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:3 Insightful]
they're cops, not those stupid ghosts in pacman

valen85 said @ 5:38pm GMT on 21st Nov
or at least, that's how it should be

superargo said @ 7:34pm GMT on 21st Nov
that would be so awesome if there were power pills for that.

swiggy said @ 8:30pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:5 Funny]
PCP is close.

KropperPrime said @ 4:49pm GMT on 21st Nov
Cops in the U.S. seems badass...

I used to play rpg games with one of the local trooper here and smoke weed with an other.

JOECAM said @ 5:00pm GMT on 21st Nov

I have a few childhood friends who became cops, when they make a small bust, a nickle bag or two they keep 'em and let the perps go, (they don't want to ruin some kids life for small amount) then we smoke it up.

p.s. this was years ago.

maryyugo said @ 6:53pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:2 Funny]
that could be why you like small busts.

sacrelicious said @ 8:26pm GMT on 21st Nov
weed? I think a nickel bag is a misdemeanor in most states. the life-ruining quantities are those considered by the law an implied intent to sell, i.e. half an ounce or more.

soulecho said @ 12:43am GMT on 22nd Nov
In NY state, anything up to 25.5 grams is an appearance ticket (not even a misdemeanor)

KropperPrime said @ 4:30am GMT on 22nd Nov
See these are stupid calculations. (by the cops not by you)

Half and ounce is barely my personal stash.

Storing a pound in a fridge to last a few months is more likely.

-_- said @ 6:04am GMT on 22nd Nov
I got caught with an oz once and the cops had me dump it out in the street and grind it with my boot in the dirty gutter ... but they didn't take me in ... or find the 1/8th I had in a belt pouch ... all in all it could have been worse.

KropperPrime said @ 6:28am GMT on 22nd Nov
Getting busted is stressful like fuck.

Cops caught me smoking in a park and decided to search me, I had stuff on me but managed to juggle it around using both stealth and subterfuge while acting normal.

Still dunno how I managed that one out. But ack! Sweaty armpits.

Adam said @ 7:40pm GMT on 21st Nov
Attacking an unarmed person for failure to immediately comply with an order isn't "badass," it's barbaric.

rektrix23 said @ 4:50pm GMT on 21st Nov
all these taserings make me sick to my stomach...
i'm from Utah, and i can attest to dickheadedness of the UHP, but this is just ridiculous.

KropperPrime said @ 4:50pm GMT on 21st Nov
Bzt!

scojam said @ 4:58pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:2 Underrated]
One of these days they are gonna kill somebody with one of those things. Hey wait. Damn it's already too late. Come on Captain Kirk, tell them to set their tasers on "stun" not kill.

Sooner or later Radio Shop will come out with something like a vest that can re-direct the charge back to the source or that lights up with the charge and says something like "Eat at Joe's". Great ad campaign and a source of supplementary income.

From the cops perspective using the taser is probably a lot more desireable to using a gun. You get the satisfaction of of zapping the sob but have less paper work and of course not as much mess.

I bet those things are great to re-heat coffee and add some toasty to the donuts.

Could be a great battery ad in there some where. Instead of the bunny they use a piggy.

NickelJoe said @ 8:29pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:2]
The idea is for Police to use the tasers instead of the guns when ever it is possible. In reality, the police are using tasers when they could just be talking to people. What we wanted was 'sometimes lethal' instead of 'often lethal' and what we got was 'sometimes lethal' instead of 'never lethal'.

Asscheeks Akimbo said @ 10:39am GMT on 22nd Nov
...... Radio Shop??

expat said @ 5:13pm GMT on 21st Nov
I love America!

manoreason said @ 5:20pm GMT on 21st Nov
The power to tax and tase: of course only the highest minded guardians of humanity are attracted to such jobs. As you can see by the flood of tasering reports we see daily now.

Mr. Langosta said @ 5:21pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:5 Informative]
I got stopped by a lady cop in my automobile. She said get out and spread your legs, and then she tried to cop a feel. That cop she was all dressed in blue. Was she pretty? Boy I'm tellin' you! She stuck my butt with her big black stick. I said, "what's up, now suck my dick". Like a ram getting ready to jam the lamb, she whimpered just a little when she felt my hand on her crotch, so very warm, I could feel her getting wet through her uniform. Proppin' her up on the black and white, unzipped and slipped, "ooh that's tight". I swatted her like no swat team can. Turned a cherry pie right into jam.

Baxter_UK said @ 10:12pm GMT on 21st Nov
And, uh, what state was in?

Baxter_UK said @ 10:12pm GMT on 21st Nov
THIS IN.

nowhere2hyde said @ 11:54am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Funny]
the state of bad rap lyrics

Todomanna said @ 1:23am GMT on 22nd Nov
I think I read a porn comic with almost that exact story...

Kudos!

Ronin.ca said @ 8:38am GMT on 22nd Nov
+1 Chili Peppers

swiggy said @ 5:24pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:2 Insightful]
At this rate I'm starting to think selective reporting is going on. The whole "don't tase me bro" thing was in the national eye for so long, every time anyone gets tased anywhere under any circumstances, someone's mental highlighter scratches a bright yellow line acorss it and calls the news.

It's 2007's shark attack and white girl kidnapping.

scarshapedstar said @ 7:57pm GMT on 21st Nov
Uh... did you even watch the video? What the hell was he tased for?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

swiggy said @ 8:36pm GMT on 21st Nov
I meant that the fact that we're hearing about it at all is do to selective reporting. I'm sure there's a bigger story here, one of rising patterns of police using unnescessarily excessive force on people who aren't really doing anything wrong, but we never hear about any other types opf excessive force.

How many people do you think are getting pepper sprayed, or smacked in the head with a baton, or plain old beaten? surely a pretty fair number of people, but we only hear about the tasering.

swiggy said @ 8:36pm GMT on 21st Nov
Due.

Xiph0 said @ 12:54am GMT on 22nd Nov
I don't care if it's selective reporting. It's still fucked up.

You don't use that much force on someone who poses no threat. Ever.

KingCrab said @ 6:21am GMT on 22nd Nov
Exactly. It's important that these stroies get out right now.

Naruki said @ 1:49am GMT on 22nd Nov
Did you hear about the guy who got shot, by a real gun, to DEATH?

By the police.

For pulling out a loaded... wallet.

Yeah, those days are history, now that being stunned to death for speaking is being "over reported".

swiggy, are you entirely cognizant?

Moleculor said @ 2:23am GMT on 22nd Nov
Are you dense? Seriously, we're talking about ASSAULT on people. Unarmed civilians being assaulted by the very people supposedly there to protect them.

RoboRonnie said @ 5:51am GMT on 22nd Nov
And the bully hothead cops are ruining a less deadly form of firearm, AND making what is probably (I hope) a majority of non-jerk cops look bad.

swiggy said @ 11:22am GMT on 23rd Nov
You're absolutely right, we ARE talking about asshole cops with far too much power tasing the shit out of people for very little to no reason.

But we're still only hearing about the tasings going on, because people are starting to notice tasing a little more since the Kerry debate. I'm sure people are getting beaten, and pepper sprayed, and batoned just as much as they're getting tased, is not more.

My point was (and has always been) this: Think of all the other ways that cops can subdue someone. We're only hearing about the tasing. How much AREN'T we hearing about?

endopol said @ 8:22pm GMT on 21st Nov
It's excessive force, in any case, and it seems to be happening too often. It's impossible to identify any trend without some manner of selectivity, and at any rate this deserves further scrutiny. But speculate all you like.

RhesusMonkey said @ 1:19pm GMT on 22nd Nov
I agree with your assessment, but in all cases the reason it is mentioned is because there needs to be national (or international) awareness of the level of incidence that this is occurring. I think you are right that there is probably a lot more going on that isn't talked about, but that may be because of the heightened sense of awareness of taser misuse that the media is overtly focused on these incidents alone. If there was a rash of police beatings, pepper spraying, etc, you would be sure that it also would be covered, and often it is, you just lose that aspect in the fog of a greater discussion point, vis-a-vis, pepper spray and tear gas tend to be crowd-control methods, versus tasers which are clearly a one-to-one affair (or many-to-one in some cases, with the tasers in possession of the "many"). So you certainly hear about police firing on crowds at APEC meetings, etc, but (usually) no one dies from that, and people refer to it as an "over-reaction" rather than "brutality"

yeller said @ 5:37pm GMT on 21st Nov

yeller said @ 5:40pm GMT on 21st Nov
Video from the event listed here...

http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/67850

the poor bastard died as a result of this encounter with the RCMP.

FUCKIN' SAD.

sternyz said @ 5:46pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:1 Interesting]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4960858161227618824&q=taser+zach&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

this is me getting tasered in a department training a couple years back. trust me- you don't want the business end of a taser...

Baxter_UK said @ 10:30pm GMT on 21st Nov
And that was just a couple of seconds. Imagine having it done continuously, with a few police officers kneeling on your face.

ChewyStick said @ 5:57pm GMT on 21st Nov
I'm in no way defending the cop's actions, but I see plenty of stupid on both sides.

nixgod said @ 6:13pm GMT on 21st Nov
Cops are supposed to be trained the handle stupid in a safe & professional manner. They are supposed to be trained the diffuse the situation, not heighten the intensity.

ChewyStick said @ 4:36am GMT on 22nd Nov
True and in my opinion the cop escalated things way faster than they should have been; however, walking away from a cop who has a taser pointed at you with your hand in your pocket does nothing to help the situation.

scarshapedstar said @ 7:56pm GMT on 21st Nov
For god's sake, it didn't use to be this way. (At least not for us white folks.) Nobody ever told me growing up that the cops would torture me if I didn't roll in the dirt like a dog. Hell, they'll tase you no matter what you do. Sadists from the dregs of society are like that.

Naruki said @ 1:55am GMT on 22nd Nov
Maybe it's like a sine wave, and you grew up in the near zero part.

Cops at the turn of the last century were infamous. They were so bad even maryyugo would have thought twice before kissing their ass and trying to rationalize their behavior.

But she still would have done so.

scarshapedstar said @ 8:09pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:4 Underrated]
Furthermore, would you say the burden is on the citizen to avoid being tasered, or that the burden is on the cop to justify shocking the hell out of people?

King of the Hill said @ 2:12pm GMT on 22nd Nov
I'd say it is equally on both. I think most cops can rationalize/judge what their next action will be based on training, and experience -plus the fact that they exercise that decision making/judgement every working day multiple times.

As a citizen, I think you have to recognize what your actions and words will do to alter the encounter. This driver was resisting, not settling for the officer's version of the infraction. That is his right, but he made some bad choices with the wrong cop, on the wrong day.

I've been pulled over probably 20 times or so in my driving history. I've never had an officer be an asshole to me. They've all been professional, and to the point.

This cop is the exception, and while I'm sure we'll see more of these types of incidents in the news, I don't think it is fair to judge an entire profession by them.

f00m@nB@r said @ 6:32pm GMT on 21st Nov

superargo said @ 7:37pm GMT on 21st Nov
was that the link you meant?

horseinsheep said @ 1:10am GMT on 22nd Nov
I'm getting married on fuck like a pirate day!

What can I add to a tuxedo to make it more piratesque?

Ronin.ca said @ 1:23am GMT on 22nd Nov
Unless your future mate is very very very understanding?

Nothing.

Rammek said @ 4:25am GMT on 22nd Nov
You know there are women out there who have a sense of humour, eh?

KropperPrime said @ 4:31am GMT on 22nd Nov
Explain that to his wife.

Ronin.ca said @ 4:39am GMT on 22nd Nov
Again with the comments about someone who isn't here.

Fuck you.

Ronin.ca said @ 4:40am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:-2]
Gosh, really?

I know that forcing new thoughts into that calcified pea sized thing you call your mind is tough, but here's one for you: I was kidding. Joking around. Having a laugh. Joshing with him...

Rammek said @ 7:59am GMT on 22nd Nov
You haven't shown that you are capable of joking around or kidding. If that was an attempt at it, well, what can I say? You're a novice at best.

Ronin.ca said @ 8:34am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:-1 Flamebait]
Sure I have. I laugh at you all the time.

tamp said @ 10:24am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:-1]
sadistic goose stepper

Ronin.ca said @ 12:18pm GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:-2]
YAY! REVENGE DOWN MODDING BY THE PERSON WHO TOLD ME TO SODOMIZE MY DEAD MOTHER!

feeling constipated said @ 2:08am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Funny]

f00m@nB@r said @ 3:16pm GMT on 22nd Nov

Narrenschiff said @ 6:45pm GMT on 21st Nov
That's fucking civil protection without the combine suits.

endopol said @ 8:29pm GMT on 21st Nov
CPs give two warnings.

Narrenschiff said @ 11:04pm GMT on 21st Nov
Do they? Cause they mostly shoot at me. While I run about in my HEV suit. Then I kill them.

Moleculor said @ 2:34am GMT on 22nd Nov
Don't worry... Those are coming.

RoboRonnie said @ 5:57am GMT on 22nd Nov
+1 made me crap myself in terror

maryyugo said @ 6:59pm GMT on 21st Nov
i won't have time to view this video till another day but in most states, by law, if you refuse to sign a ticket, you will be arrested and booked, asked to post moderate bail, and then released.

signing the ticket simply means acknowledging you were there and received a copy so they don't have to argue with some shyster lawyer who claims you weren't there or it wasn't you driving the car or the cop never stopped you and made it all up. it is **not** an admission of guilt or anything other than being there. signing a traffic ticket isn't an option.

now that video is used so much, i suppose getting the guy to pose for the camera would do the same thing but the law hasn't caught up (as usual) with the technology.

leswilkerson said @ 7:13pm GMT on 21st Nov
You may coulda' watched said vid in the time it took to write that comment.

...just sayin'.

scarshapedstar said @ 7:54pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Maybe you ought to watch the friggin' video first before you say "sure, the cop had to torture the guy."

ring riot said @ 2:02am GMT on 22nd Nov
mary - even you couldn't possibly defend this cop.

xyzlurker said @ 1:00pm GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
As far as I can tell, the officer acted correctly. The officer is allowed to use force if you resist arrest - once an officer is required to arrest you (as he is when you don’t sign a ticket) he is required to use force to arrest if you resist - in this case if he started wrestling in order to arrest, it might have put him at ristk (he couldn’t have known that the wife wouldn’t get violently involved). Note to all people - if you want to contest an arrest/ticket YOU MUST do it in court - it is impossible to do so outside court, and so courts do not allow you to resist arrest/argue because you think that the officer is wrong - you MUST do it in court.

Also in relation to the officer’s conduct in general it is fully in line with the training provided to them - there are trained to be assertive and use ‘loud voices’ to attempt to ward of potential violent situations. That is why he raises his voice before firing, and why he raises his voice to the lady.

Anti-fuites said @ 3:10pm GMT on 22nd Nov
Perhaps, just maybe, the cop could have answered the driver's questions about why he was pulled over before pulling out his taser gun? That would seem like a much more reasonable course of action and probably means a lot less paper work for him after the fact.

wieder said @ 10:15am GMT on 23rd Nov
He did... he told him multiple times it was for speeding.

xyzlurker said @ 1:01pm GMT on 22nd Nov
Note also in relation to Trevor’s comment tasers are not merely an alternative to deadly force (in fact I don’t think their ever supposed to be used that way - you are supposed to go to your gun if the other guy has a gun for instance). Tasers have been used primarily to make it easier for officers to physically control people who are resisting arrest - the only alternative is to hit them with batons/physically wrestle. In the case of a potential 2 on 1 situation (again, I think the officer is required to be cautious here) I think he is correct to have used a taser instead of trying some kind of wrestle.

Overall I have to say that this is textbook correct policing - if the were required to adopt different rules in similar situations regarding anything (e.g. police lower their voice, not use a taser, attempt to negotiate/explain to someone why an arrestee should not resist arrest whilst they are resisting arrest etc.) it could lead to greater than nescessary force having to be used, or to a greater than nescessary risk to a officer’s physical safety. Citizens can I think be assumed to know that charges are contested at court, not with an officer, and that once an arrest is made by the officer, if commands are not followed by the officer, he WILL use force.

I advise people to watch the video again, and consider what they would have done as the police officer to fully execute their duty to arrest the offender without (a) doing the court’s job on the street and (b) putting themselves in any greater danger than nescessary.

Oh and bye the way, don’t get misled by the claim that there is a requirement to provide miranda whilst arrest someone who has declined to be arrested. The law does not require miranda to be shouted at people resisting arrest - they can be properly informed of their rights some time after arrest is made.

mouse said @ 7:55pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:1 WTF]
Not really a horror story, just annoying:

I was pulled over for expired registration on my car. The cop asked if I knew there was a warrant out for my arrest. "wha...??" I said. They took me to the police station to be photographed and finger printed. They kept asking how tall I was. "I'm 6'2" I kept saying. The finger printing machine, an old OS/2 Warp system, was acting up. The arresting officer let me troubleshoot and fix the problem for him. He laughed and told his captain his suspect had fixed the fingerprinting machine. The captain had come to look at me and ask my height as well. I asked if the physical description of the suspect was 6'2", blond hair and blue eyes like me. The cop looked at the ground and said, "yep."

They took me to county jail, where I was photographed and fingerprinted again. The next day they let me go and gave me a court date. When I got to court, the judge was disappointed to hear me plead "not guilty," ..until he read the physical description of the suspect as reported by the original arresting officer. "5'10", asian male, black hair, brown eyes." The case was "dismissed" but it's still on my record. I filed identity theft paperwork to get the records completely erased, but all they did was add the words "expunged, not same person" to the end of the file.

It all worked out in the end I guess, I wasn't ever abused or tasered or anything. Just a huge waste of time.

Naruki said @ 1:50am GMT on 22nd Nov
How tall are you?

Moleculor said @ 2:35am GMT on 22nd Nov
How tall are you?

taeyn said @ 4:45am GMT on 22nd Nov
How tall are you?

Anti-fuites said @ 3:02pm GMT on 22nd Nov
Shit, ambush

-_- said @ 6:01am GMT on 22nd Nov
So you're Asian huh?

maryyugo said @ 4:02pm GMT on 22nd Nov
the law often has this annoying and persistent lack of self correction. it's pretty sickening. you weren't quite clear on what caused the mistaken identification... how did they decide there was a warrant? on the driver's license number alone? you might have had a lawsuit there if you wanted to bother.

Rafale0n said @ 8:18pm GMT on 21st Nov

ian2612 said @ 8:23pm GMT on 21st Nov
Call me old fashion, when police officer tells me to do something, I do it. And at no time would I ever turn and walk away from a police officer until I was instructed to do so. It is respect for the office they hold, even if I might not respect the man behind the badge. That is what lawyers are for.

scarshapedstar said @ 8:37pm GMT on 21st Nov [Score:3 Insightful]
All the cop said was "turn around". And that he did.

And respect? Really? Shouldn't the cops have a little respect for citizens of the United States of America? We The People, and all that?

No? Guess not. Back to goosestepping, then. God, I love Freedom!

draek72 said @ 11:36pm GMT on 21st Nov
Sorry but "turn around and put your hands behind your back" is not the same thing as "turn around and walk away from me".

scarshapedstar said @ 8:52am GMT on 22nd Nov
Did you watch the video? All he said was "turn around." He didn't say "turn around and put your hands behind your back." And so the guy turned around.

And then the cop tased him.

scarshapedstar said @ 10:37am GMT on 22nd Nov
Actually, he did say that. Oops.

pserafinhk said @ 8:59pm GMT on 21st Nov
Yeah, cause all the cool kids are stickin' it to the man these days, just asking to get tortured!

Did we watch the same video? At no point was the cop in any physical danger.

maryyugo said @ 9:31am GMT on 23rd Nov
now that depends on what the "victim" had on his person doesn't it? and the cop at that point had no way to know. so you'd stake your life on that this person who disobeyed a direct order and was walking towards his car was harmless? sure you would.

Tang said @ 8:59pm GMT on 21st Nov
has anyone gone across the border on a bus latley?
when i went i did a long ass trip from winnipeg to connecticut ... 2 days on ghetto hound, ass was sore... but i wanted to see the sights along the way i guess
the border was gay... but it's there job keeping amerimaka safe from the tourists

anyways i get to buffalo and 2 border cops come on, hand on their gun, one stays on the front of the bus, and the other one walks down the isle asking everyone their citizenship and id

i've never crossed the border before, this was 3 weeks ago i guess
but i was sitting next to a really cute milf and her daughter :-P
she said she crosses the border all the time and this has never happened
same with everyone else i asked...

when i was coming back same thing happened but also happened in rochester
so on the way back i got hit up for id 2 times

it kinda felt like they were asking "papers please"

just the way they did it
made you say wtf? everytime it was done the same way, 2 cops hand on their gun. just creepy... this is fucking canada to the states

i asked the last cop why they were doing this, all he said was oh we have been doing this for years, and everyone else said bullshizzle... cause like 95% of the bus was full of black people <3 nice black people tho

loomspace said @ 7:53am GMT on 22nd Nov
The hands on the guns may be because of the close quarters, having their guns grabbed is on the 'Major Oopsies' list cops are issued along with their firearms. That said, border patrol agents are often quite jerky for no apparent reason.

ring riot said @ 2:00am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Funny]
Anyone who watches this (entire) video and sides with the cop needs to hit themselves over the head with a brick.

Cash said @ 3:04am GMT on 22nd Nov
I watched the video several times. I understand that being a cop is difficult and I very often side with the cops in these situations.

What did the driver do?

1. refuses to sign the ticket.
2. gets out of the car.
3. refuses a command to put his hands behind his back.
4. backs up in shock and fear.

What did the cop do?

1. asks the driver to sign the speeding ticket.
2. asks the driver to get out of the car (to arrest him).
3. asks the driver to put his hands behind his back.
4. pulls the taser and yells at the driver to put his hands behind his back.

(interestingly, the cop did follow procedure)

The problem in the video is that the cop did not *clearly* communicate to the driver that he was arresting him before pulling the taser. The point is that it is not good practice to *instantly* draw a weapon when a command needs to be repeated, doing so escalates the situation.

I think this is the root cause of the incident.

ring riot said @ 4:13am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:-1 WTF]
I have to disagree with you.

1. refuses to sign the ticket.
2. gets out of the car.
3. refuses a command to put his hands behind his back.
4. backs up in shock and fear.

1. Okay, firstly the guy complied fully by giving the cop his license and registration. When the cop came back, he said he was giving the guy a ticket. The guy asks the cop what the ticket's for. The cop doesn't answer him, only says he needs to sign it. The guy said he wouldn't sign the ticket, because the officer hasn't told him what the ticket was for, or why he was pulled over. I've NEVER had a cop not tell me what a ticket was for. The guy asked the cop specifically (while still in his car, with his pregnant wife) to let him know what he did wrong. The cop never answers him.

2. The guy got out of the car because the cop told him to get out of the car.

3. The cop tells the guy to put his hands behind his back. The man says, "what?" The cop then pulls the taser out in a defensive firing position, and yells "put your hands behind your back!" (again, this is just a guy with his pregnant wife, and the cop hasn't told him why he was pulled over, what the ticket was for, or that he was being arrested, let alone what for) The guy, obviously surprised, backs away, and asks, startled, "what the hell is WRONG with you?" -

4. Inside of three seconds of pulling the taser, the cop tasers the guy and jumps on him, cuffing his hands behind his back while the guy screams. His pregnant wife gets out of the car, screaming, and says to the cop repeatedly that the guy did nothing wrong. The cop tells her to get back into the car. The guy, meanwhile, now recovering, is asking the cop, calmly, what he's done wrong and that he doesn't understand what the cop is doing.

That is NOT PROCEDURE.

It's at this point that another cop comes in, and the cop tells the other that "this guy took a ride on the taser", laughing. The wife, meanwhile, is crying in the car. The cop goes up to her and says her to speak to her and the wife tells him he had NO RIGHT to do what he did, and there was no reason her husband should be arrested.

The cop then takes the guy to the cop car and tells him to get in. The guy REPEATEDLY asks the cop, CALMLY, that IF he's being arrested, that he wants his RIGHTS READ TO HIM.

The cop REFUSES TO READ HIM HIS RIGHTS, over and over again, and NEVER DOES, OR does he tell him what he's being arrested for.

The wife drives the car off to the police station.

BEST PART: At the end of the video, when the wife is gone, the cop LIES to the other cop, and says that he warned the guy he would be tased before he pulled his taser, that he was resisting arrest, and that the guy "thought he was in charge".

The guy is now SUING the police department and the cop, and all his charges have been dropped.

The "root cause of the incident" was a bored Utah cop with a taser burning a hole in his pocket.

I'm not sure how anybody could see that video differently.

Cash said @ 7:35am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
[i]1. Okay, firstly the guy complied fully by giving the cop his license and registration. When the cop came back, he said he was giving the guy a ticket. The guy asks the cop what the ticket's for. The cop doesn't answer him, only says he needs to sign it. The guy said he wouldn't sign the ticket, because the officer hasn't told him what the ticket was for, or why he was pulled over. I've NEVER had a cop not tell me what a ticket was for. The guy asked the cop specifically (while still in his car, with his pregnant wife) to let him know what he did wrong. The cop never answers him.[/i]

I disagree. If you watch the video, the cop does tell him the ticket is for speeding.

cop: you're going kinda fast, can I see your license and registration.
...
cop: how fast do you think you were going?
...
cop: there is a sign right there that says
...
driver: if you're giving me a ticket, first of all, you're going to tell me why.
cop: for speeding
driver: and, second of all, we're going to go back and look for that 40mph sign.

2. The guy got out of the car because the cop told him to get out of the car.

I agree.

3. The cop tells the guy to put his hands behind his back. The man says, "what?" The cop then pulls the taser out in a defensive firing position, and yells "put your hands behind your back!" (again, this is just a guy with his pregnant wife, and the cop hasn't told him why he was pulled over, what the ticket was for, or that he was being arrested, let alone what for) The guy, obviously surprised, backs away, and asks, startled, "what the hell is WRONG with you?" -

I disagree again. If you watch the video again and listen at 2:30, the driver does refuse to put his hands behind his back, he doesn't say "what?"

cop: turn around and put your hands behind your back.
driver: no, no I'm not
cop: turn around and put your hands behind your back.

Of course, if you watch very carefully the cop has his hand on the taser right as he is saying "back" and the driver is saying "no." In terms of procedure, the cop did not use the taser before the refusal. However, after the refusal, he had the taser out in record time! The length of time (in seconds) before drawing a taser is not specified in police procedure.

I agree with the rest of your comment.

draek72 said @ 1:23pm GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
He obviously knows what the ticket is for, as he insists they are going to go back and check out the speed limit signs before he signs anything. The audio is really hard to hear with the passing cars though so I can see how you could think that.

And that is a common misconception about reading his rights. You are ONLY required to be read your Miranda rights in a custodial interrogation situation. Period. Full stop. It is perfectly legal for a cop to arrest someone and not read them their rights, as long as they aren't then questioning them about the crime.

I didn't watch the end of the video, so I can't comment on the stuff the officer said - if he did say that stuff, he was wrong to do so. But it appeared to me that the driver did think he was in charge from the way he was acting, and telling the police officer what they were going to do.

xyzlurker said @ 2:37pm GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:5 Informative]
The evidence does not support you're assertions. Please check the video again in relation to these points:

1) The guy complies to providing licence + registration, but only after repeated requests - it is clear that the 'arguing' has already begun. Note that police must ask for licence + registration once they have probably cause - they do not need to charge you with anything etc. etc. to get licence and registration probably cause is enough.

Furthermore, the guy is REPEATEDLY told that he is speeding. IN particular, AFTER he is asked to sign the ticket, he is told at, approximately 2-2.30 in, by the officer, in response to asking what the ticket is in relation to "well, speeding". He still specifically refuses to sign the ticket - and earlier in the piece suggested that they would 'drive' back to have a look at the sign indicating again a possible intent to resist.

3) Cops are NOT required to make it stupidly obvious to people that they are being put under arrest. It is valid to say FREEZE! or Put your hands up! or Put your hands behind your back! All these DO constitute a valid arrest - it is the same with civilians - you only need make it obvious to a reasonable person that an arrest is being made, you DO NOT NEED to use the actual words 'I AM ARRESTING YOU' - you need only make it obvious e.g. through actions or words. The guy being arrested does not appear to be retarded. It is plainly obvious that the command of PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK is an attempt to arrest - to require formal words is needlessly strict - it would mean for instance that a potential arrestee who had a weapon who had 'HANDS UP!' screamed at him would not be validly arrested.

As noted above you are patently incorrectly saying that he hasn' t been told what he has done wrong. Once an arrest order is made first physical control must be established THEN you must tell them what you arresting them for. For instance someone in the process of raping someone can be told to stop and arrested without being the common law statute, case law, constitutional authority, badge number etc. etc. explaining why an arrest is valid - you need to physically arrest FIRST then explain teh charges/procedure for contesting/substantive rights etc. TO require it the other way around is silly.

Also teh 'obviously' surprised part is an incorrect interpretation of the video. Please note the way the person was walking away from the officer's car - it looked as if he might be heading back inot the car - it wasn't an "OH MY GOD PLEASE DON'T KILL ME" walk - it was a turned back, i don't accept you're authority type walk - a key indication that arrest is being resisted.

4. I don't see you making a substantive allegation as to wrong doing in the 4th paragraph, though you may have implied that after the arrest the cop has not told the person what he is being arrested for. Please go to that section and following the arrest, you will note that the cop has repeatedly told the arrestee that he was being arrested for not following his commands - implicit in this is that it is his (valid) commands that have not been followed, requiring an arrest.

Moreover, the distress to the arrestee and the woman is highly regrettable. But it is simply not realistic to say that an officer who has fully complied with procedure be required to act as a 'prosecutor' or 'judge' to argue with the arestee to explain why everything is being done the way it is.

You make some further allegations which I break down:
(a) sly comment by cop about 'riding' the taser (says 'it doesn't feel good does it')
(b) The man repeatedly asking for his 'rights' to be read to him whilst resisting going into the police vehicle (as evidence by the conversation - arrestee saying read me my rights, police officer saying get into the vehicle)
(c) the police officer not reading him his rights during the period of taping
(d) alleged lying by saying to other police officer (i)warning as to tasering (ii) resisting of arrest by arrestee (iii) police officer's assertion that arrestee thought 'he was in charge'

I address these in turn:

(a) This is not a violation of anybody's rights. It may well be inappropriate but probably isn't - merely a statement to the arrestee that it doesn't pay to resist arrest whereby force is required to be used. At the VERY most it is the type of drawl comment that people doing their regular job may occasionaly make - in light of the officer's exemplary conduct under duress throughout, it really cannot be held against the officer. Note that 'laughter' is not by the arresting cop, but by the other - and it is not really 'laughter' rather a comment made with a humorous tone.

(b) You NEED not tell the arrestee their rights whilst completing the actual arrest - the arrestee was not getting into the car and the arrest is still being completed - you need only provide the rights once all resistance is completed, and the situation with any other people is resolved. Though there is no evidence at the moment, we can well assume, given the officer's exemplary conduct that rights were read afterwards. In any case it appears that the arrestee already knows his 'rights' as by his repeated assertion that he should be 'read his rights'.

(c) See above - the officer appears experienced and seems unlikely to have destroyed the possibility of a conviction or the possibility of making conviction more complicated by not providing an statement required following arrest.

(d) As to (ii) see comments above - not obeying a direction to put hands behind back, walk towards car is resitance of arrest.
(iii) is clearly made out by the repeated orders made by arrestee e.g. WE ARE GOING BACK TO LOOK AT SIGN, YOU CANNOT ARREST ME WITHOUT READING ME MY RIGHTS (incorrect at law) etc. etc. Please review the video - you will see a tendency to assert his authority over that of the officer.

The only correct point you make is (i) he does not say 'words to the effect of I will taser you', however says to the cop later on that he infact did. This could either be a LIE or a INCORRECT RECOLLECTION. Reviewing the video it is clear that arrestee is aware that he is about to be shot with something - (though he may not have been able to tell if it is a taser or a gun). I think it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that arrestee is aware that officer is about to fire - please watch the video several times beginning where it says 7.28. The arrestee has clearly seen the weapon and is clearly turned his back in a manner that is most correctly characterised as contemptous rather than fearful. This indicates that he has both seen the weapon (constituting a threat of violence to him) and that he is resisting arrest.

I think in light of the fact that the officer clearly brandished the weapon for approximately 10 seconds, drew the attention of the arrestee to it, it is more plausible to say that the officer misremembered the fact that he did not draw the arrestee's attention to the taser by words but by other substantive means. I don' t think we can find a mens rea for lying, more a mistaken statement. Lying is an especially non credulous explanation when you remember that cops know that he video tape on their hood is on - they have far reduced motive to specifically lie at this point.

I have two questions of my own:

(1) Can you point me to the evidence that the guy has actual begun suing the department
(2) and where it says that the department has dropped the charges, and their reasons for doing so?

From the video and my analysis, there appears to be no reason to do so. If the Utah police force's analysis of the situation is different from mine, I would like to know.

Furthermore, as to you statement 'root cause of incident' I would disagree. I believe that the cop has been at turns remarkably assertive and authoritative and cool and composed as the situation required. I would say that the root cause was the arrestee's conceit and poor knowledge of the law. Common sense provides that you cannot overturn a ticket by refusing to sign and acknowledgment of having received it, or by arguing with the officer, or by walking away when you are told to go to the police car and put your hands behind your back, or by refusing to get into a police car until you are read you're rights. Any procedural or substantive error can ONLY BE CORRECTED IN COURT. I think most people would understand this.

Finally, in your statement saying how anybody could see this video differently, I hope the above might enlighten you, to at least see plausible arguments as to why someone might do so. This should be the case at least in so far as you have made actual factual errors in the viewing of the video.

In a broad philosophical context, people who see the video 'differently' are bound to have the following views in mind, which through no fault of your own, might not have been a part of your life experience:

(1) Knowing that police do get physically hurt/killed making such 'routine' traffic stops, and that it is useful to take often great precautions to prevent this happenig e.g. using tasers instead of wrestling, physically arresting first and getting them into the car first before explaining the procedure from there on in.
(2) Knowing the proper distribution of executive and judicial functions in the enforcement of law, especially in light of the lack of judicial training provided to the executive - believing that arguing with a police officer without a third party present should not be allowed as a waste of the officer's time (tax payer's money) when there is a superior process of contesting evidence and law already set up.
(3) Not having pre-conceived notions as to whether police officers are good or bad, or in the alternative having a pre-conceived bias towards police officers on the basis of feeling that the vast majority are just trying to do their job and get back to the donuts
(4) Understanding that sometimes, unfortunate things occur to people even though their only 'crime' is to be silly/arrogant. That these things do not show a corrupt system or individual, but are rather indications of the failure of systems to properly address all real life situations.

Finally, let me say that I empathise with the driver and the wife. Morally/ethically speaking arrestee DID NOT DESERVE TO BE TASERED FOR BEING INCORRECT AS TO HIS RIGHTS/BEING ARROGANT. But due to the factual situation at hand, no other result would have been correct or plausible. The officer's hand was forced - he was required to arrest, and due to the actions of the arrestee is seeming to go back towards his car (turing his back, verbal refusal to put hands behind back, walking towards car etc.) use force was required to do so.

Moreover, I understand also that the driver had a feeling of unfairness, and thought that he had not exceeded the speed limit (it appears from the conversation that he had - he had missed a sign on the road further back because he turned in past it - this is usually not a defence). Unfortunately, an exagerated sense of self-entitlement lead to his believing some erroneous tings, and to act upon said erroneous beliefs. The officer was at that stage obligated to do exactly as he did.

Moreover, the distress to the wife is highly regrettable - but again, apparently unavoidable if the police was to do their correct duty. Everything, including the commands to the wife in a loud voice were correct and beneficial in keeping the situation under control.

I'd also like to say that it is important to hold police accountable for actual instances of breach of procedure/substantive law. However, at the same time, lets not start making allegations regarding conduct that is correct and justified. If you look at the officer's demeanour prior to, during, and after the arrest carefully (repeated viewings help in this) I think you will find that he appears to be well versed in his duty, and is capable of controlling his emotions correctly to carry out this duty. I think we should be encouraging more such officers, not less.

ring riot said @ 4:57pm GMT on 22nd Nov
While I do appreciate the time it took you to write your opinion of what happened, I could not disagree more.

The video is there for anyone to see.

wieder said @ 10:26am GMT on 23rd Nov
You really are mentally stunted. xyzlurker couldn't have possibly explained it any better.

ring riot said @ 4:59pm GMT on 22nd Nov
You asked for evidence the man is suing. Here it is:
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=33fb7027-f63d-4414-9a9f-f815f4d4f302

King of the Hill said @ 4:19am GMT on 23rd Nov
The fact that he is suing does not imply that he is in the right.

Ronin.ca said @ 4:20am GMT on 23rd Nov
Imagine for a second that was actually the topic.

wieder said @ 10:34am GMT on 23rd Nov
Notice that all of his charges in fact have not been dropped. In particular the one that got this whole thing started in the first place.

Read more.

jamjam said @ 5:14pm GMT on 22nd Nov
holy shit that was a lot of work for a comment

JOECAM said @ 12:21pm GMT on 23rd Nov
ditto.

loomspace said @ 5:58pm GMT on 22nd Nov
THANK you! This is how it will pan out in court if taken that far. The cop did everything by the book. The driver who was tasered is a mommas boy who has apparently never been told no or had a run in with the law. I hate the average cop more than most, but learned long ago that Johnny Cash was not fooling when he sang "I fought the Law and the Law won". That little douche knew he was speeding and put his wife (and does he say there is a kid in the car as well?) at risk with his behavior.

Life in the real world; keep your mouth shut, take responsibility for your actions, and live to fight another day. Change is effected from within, the only way we are going to get out of the current mess we are in is by learning the game and stealing it right out from under their noses.

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:52am GMT on 23rd Nov
Is that your thesis? Shit man, nice comment. I've read shorter, less well written textbooks,

dave said @ 3:05am GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 WTF]
i got robbed by a riverside county sheriffs deputy in california on my way into an indian casino last year. he said i was playing my radio too loud and proceeded to roust me. unable to find any grounds to arrest me, he then told me i was "under the influence"- a blanket term cops in california use to run in anybody they want, impound your car, and fuck up your entire program for months to come.
"Dude, i don't to that shit. and i've got a flight to the east coast tomorrow. please, don't do this." he seemed to sympathize with my position and after several anxious minutes told me i could go. this would appear to have a happy ending, except when i finally got inside, the $100 bill i had in my pocket was gone. Hey...he was a swell guy, though.

b said @ 4:09am GMT on 22nd Nov
classic bully. do what i say or i'll hurt you.

skoob666 said @ 9:41am GMT on 22nd Nov
Would anyone care to comment on some hypotheticals I have running around in my head?

Hypothetically speaking...

What if the pregnant wife had a concealed weapon in her purse, and upon seeing her husband and father of her unborn child being unjustly tasered, pulled out the hand gun and drew it on the police officer?

Or lets go even futher, possibly evening shooting the police officer?

It's a certainty that it would cause a much bigger shitstorm, but one rarely has such foresight when someone you love is being cooked with 30,000 volts.

After having seen what I've seen from that police video, I would say in both situations, even if it resulted in the death of the cop, would have been justified.

I can rationalize it this way. A taser is not "non lethal", it is 'less than lethal'. Meaning that its use on someone could result in death, but less likely than being shot. Just scroll up to Yeller's post to see a video of a man dying as a result of being tasered. It's purpose and design is to be used in a extreme situation when life or limb is in jeopardy, as a substitute for a firearm to preserve life. I would treat someone pointing a taser at me or my family, the same way as pointing a 9mm. Even though a 9mm and a taser are different things, they SHOULD be treated as the SAME. But common sense isn't so common.

A armed society is a polite society. -Robert A. Heinlein

Naruki said @ 12:09pm GMT on 22nd Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
I won't downmod, because I agree with shooting in self-defense.

But I was really tempted because you quoted that bit of Heinlein foolishness unsarcastically.

An armed society is a scared, paranoid, and extremely dangerous society. That may be confused for polite, but it's not the same thing.

maryyugo said @ 9:42am GMT on 23rd Nov
a taser is almost as non-lethal as physical wrestling and restraining, arguably even less likely to result in serious injury or death than alternative methods.

of course one can't account in advance for people who are have hearts that are impaired electrophysiologically or are in some other way especially sensitive to the effects of the shock. but many of these might just as easily be killed by any feasible method of restraint.

kichijoii said @ 10:42am GMT on 22nd Nov
This originally happened in September and as of November the guy is still on patrol?!

We should do this with our troublesome cops... may not weed out the troublemakers but at least we'd know for sure some sort of punishment was going down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/asia/07cnd-thai.html?em&ex=

Spleen23 said @ 12:17pm GMT on 22nd Nov
Alternatively, how bout a licensing exam given by a board of people who arn't cops in the same local organisation, and then when they fuck up bad enough for the licensing board to decide to take away their license, they don't get to be a cop anymore.

JOECAM said @ 3:56pm GMT on 22nd Nov

Drunk woman get tasered in Police Station - video powered by ToxicJunction.com

b said @ 3:56am GMT on 23rd Nov
that stupid fucking cop is pretty damn lucky she didn't fall back and smash her head open on the corner of that desk. fucking tasers are not goddam cattle prods to force cooperation!

i hate cops. so, so many assholes.

maryyugo said @ 4:10pm GMT on 22nd Nov
maybe we need a good study comparing the lives saved and the decrease in police injury occasioned by the use or threat of tasers with the incidence of deaths (and unnecessary pain) caused by them.

ring riot said @ 3:57am GMT on 23rd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Due to Canada's having three recent deaths from tasers, they're re-educating officers now due to their mis-use. That's the first step.

maryyugo said @ 4:34am GMT on 23rd Nov
ok, i saw the clip. it's entirely arguable either way. i also saw the tasered person interviewed on cnn. he's, at the most charitable, an ignorant twit with an ego problem. unfortunately they couldn't interview the cop so we can't know what his issues are.

the situation was unfortunate. it probably could have been avoided by one more loud yell by the cop. however, from the camera perspective, the cop is alone on a deserted stretch of highway, the wife isn't visible, the driver turns away and the cop probably can't see his left hand, both his hands are low. there is no way to know that the man isn't reaching for a weapon.

the conversation is an obvious misunderstanding. the guy is trying to argue while the cop is trying to get him to comply. the guy is ignorant of how cops and tickets work. he acted like one would have acted eons ago when everyone in a small town knew everyone. ain't that way any more. heavily armed drug dealers move their shit while masquerading as innocent couples and family. if they're stopped, they can kill a cop in an instant and it happens.

as to the "victim", his lack of knowledge and insight caused him some pain and risk. too bad.

Ronin.ca said @ 6:51am GMT on 23rd Nov
In the end who cares about the specifics of this case. The bigger issue seems to be that police are being trained to use and/or are using Tasers in situations that seemingly don't warrant their use.

Further, since this is basically a weaponized medical appliance, I'm wondering what kind of testing Taser did before bringing their product to market.

maryyugo said @ 8:26am GMT on 23rd Nov
this kind probably.

bios303 said @ 9:07am GMT on 23rd Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
OK, I might be alone on this. Though I do agree the taser was a bit much, he was within his rights:

1) You CAN NOT CONTEST a ticket on the scene. SIGNING the ticket is NOT a confession of guilt. It's a PROMISE that you'll appear in court.

2) You contest a ticket IN COURT. Most officers will not be able to follow up and let it slide.

3) If an officer places you under arrest, YOU COMPLY. That's it. You're done. Cooperate. Rule number one -- you do NOT walk away from a cop, back towards the car he asked you to step out of. Yeah, he was a 30 something white guy with a nice car and a wholesome wife. But any type of motherfucker is capable of pulling some stupid cowboy shit.

And in all honesty -- the dude was being a jackass. He passed the 40MPH sign. And his whole excuse was "I didn't see it yet, officer. Let me walk back and verify its existence meh meh meh".

Whatever. I'm not outraged about this at all. Taser his ass again before he becomes another white victim media darling.

wieder said @ 10:33am GMT on 23rd Nov
You're not alone.

Though I would have modded you up if you had dropped the "taser his ass again" line.