Both items are not designed as lethal weapons, yet both can be used as such. I'd also speculate that more people have been killed by table lamps than by tasers. ;)



You're confusing "lethal weapon" with "lethal force". It's perfectly acceptable for the police to use non-lethal force, including the use of weapons in a non-lethal way, to subdue even unarmed people who are resisting arrest.
How many of these cases did the people who got tazed knew they were getting arrested? Only the Andrew Meyer case, and even that was questionable. You can only resist arrest if the officer is trying to arrest you.

::shakes head:: Jeez. This is sad.

Also, this gives me a thought... Do you think that this is a new trend, tasering people all the time? Or did this happen before, and there's just a new trend in reporting it?

You Galsy make me wanna Dance.
Always lookin for somethin Negative about Manly virtue.
We've done away with Men spouses having a right to Beat their
wives.A viable practice up until the 50's.On into the early 60's.
That's what The feminist Movemant is all about.
Trying like the dickens { more like The Steinems } to Emasculate
men and neuter the ability of young males to be a head of household,the
breadwinner and Patriarch of a Nuclear Family.
I'd say Y'all have purdy mush succeeded.
Too well for My likin.
Or for the course of Social stability.

You Galsy make me wanna Dance.
Always lookin for somethin Negative about Manly virtue.
We've done away with Men spouses having a right to Beat their
wives.A viable practice up until the 50's.On into the early 60's.
That's what The feminist Movemant is all about.
Trying like the dickens { more like The Steinems } to Emasulate
men and neuter the ability of young males to be a head of household,the
breadwinner and Patriarch of a Nuclear Family.
I'd say Y'all have purdy mush succeeded.
Too well for My likin.
Or for the course of Social stability.
So you think men should be allowed to beat their wives?

So you think men should be allowed to beat their wives?

It's done to far worse proportions throughout the Middle East.
If it means a more uniform standard of Society,like in the 40's
than ...yes,by all means.
Just like corporeal punishment { Spanking,paddling and smackin
kids in grade school like the Nuns used to do } was almost a
Heaven -sent dictate that uniformely produced Kids that respected
their elders,authority and Mores within Society.
What we got now,is a nutter Dungeon & Dragons Columbine waiting
with bated breath,around virtually every big city suburb.

t

His argument was that it was nothing more than a tragic accident; It was not negligebt or even irresponsible.

That's a misrepresentation. I said they should be civilly negligent, not criminally negligent.

That's a misrepresentation. I said they should be civilly negligent, not criminally negligent.Yeah? Maybe you're right about the degree to which you were wrong. Show the post where you accepted the word "negligent" in any application.

(Or: Perhaps you ought to work at the Waffle House.)

I am. The cop drastically over reacted.

And the driver?


Bullshit! The cop was drawing the weapon before he'd ever completed the order!
(Remember, this driver had complied with all the orders up until that point. Go back and look at the tape to see the relationship between the order and the taser-draw.)

I did.

At 2:29 the cop orders the driver to "Turn around, and put your hands behind your back", and the cop draws his taser.

At 2:32 the cop again orders the driver to "Turn around and put your hands behind your back, NOW", while pointing the taser at the driver.

At 2:35 The cop repeats twice, "Turn around, turn around!" in an increasingly loud voice. He now has the drivers attention, but inexplicably the driver begins to turn and walk away from the officer towards his car.

At 2:37 the driver says to the cop "What the heck's wrong with you" as he continues to ignore the cop's orders and move towards his car.

At 2:38 the cop fires his taser.

Shiloh, there's no question that the cop could have handled the situation better, but the driver's behavior was a major contributor to the outcome of this incident, IMO.


Yes. It would mean that we live in a society where the armed do not attack people without a real need. That'd be an improvement.

It would also be nice if we lived in a society where nobody ever broke the law, and everyone complied peacefully with the orders of a policeman.

I'm facing the real risks. If you can't do so, then never mind.

Ok, but doesn't that mean that anytime a cop arrests anyone who's resisting in any way they're using "potentially lethal" force?


Wrong. I am being deliberately honest about the risks these actions pose to the citizenary of this country. You want to minimize it. How many have to die before you'll give a damn? 5, 10, how many? 100?

137. :rolleyes:


No, because I am aware of the risks and responsibilities of discharging a potentially lethal weapon.

Of course, and unless someone agrees with your criteria for determining what "potentially lethal" means (a criteria you don't explain BTW), they must want people to die. Great argument.

IMO, your labeling of a taser as "potentially lethal", while technically accurate, grossly overstates the potential dangers of the devices. Any weapon that police carry can be lethal in some circumstances, and to restrict cops to using these tools only when presented with a life-threatening situation, would seriously and unnecessarily endanger the police, and the citizens you so desperately want to protect.

Taser guns are good.My Proof.
Ugly little Bad Boy Phil Spector was Tasered in the wee hours on
Feb.3rd 2003,after Police answered a 911 call in regards a shooting.
When Police arrived at Spector's Castle,he was standing over the
slain body of 6 foot tall Lana Clarkson { struggling B actress }
with hands jammed in his pockets,refusing to let investigators see
his hands,and putting up a struggle.As a result,a taser stun gun was
used to subdue the little frazzled creepzoid.
There.... Again we have the Foolster used to settle the Taser gun
debate.
Now,aren't y'all juts a wee bit glad I solved this conundrum,as well.
Taser guns can and are being put to good use.
I just proves it.

Yeah? Maybe you're right about the degree to which you were wrong. Show the post where you accepted the word "negligent" in any application.

(Or: Perhaps you ought to work at the Waffle House.)

You look it up. I don't feel like wasting my time with petty replies.

And the driver?The driver didn't assault anyone. His conduct is not the matter being reviewed.

At 2:29 the cop orders the driver to "Turn around, and put your hands behind your back", and the cop draws his taser.

At 2:32 the cop again orders the driver to "Turn around and put your hands behind your back, NOW", while pointing the taser at the driver.

At 2:35 The cop repeats twice, "Turn around, turn around!" in an increasingly loud voice. He now has the drivers attention, but inexplicably the driver begins to turn and walk away from the officer towards his car.

At 2:37 the driver says to the cop "What the heck's wrong with you" as he continues to ignore the cop's orders and move towards his car.

At 2:38 the cop fires his taser.Couple of points to consider from your own timeline:
1. The cop was drawing a weapon before the driver had ever failed to comply with an order.

2. When the driver turns back to look at the officer (between your first and second entries) he is being threatened with, for all he knows (and from his later interview), a deadly weapon. So, damn, why trust this maniac-appearing cop? Why not recoil away from a threat?

Shiloh, there's no question that the cop could have handled the situation better, but the driver's behavior was a major contributor to the outcome of this incident, IMO.In all of these matters, it seems that you and others are willing to accept a massive use of force on the part of police officers in response to minor things on the part of the public. That's what worries me.



t would also be nice if we lived in a society where nobody ever broke the law, and everyone complied peacefully with the orders of a policeman.The people charged with upholding the law, and armed with such force, should be held accountable to a standard at least as high as the one they demand of so-called criminals. In all these videos, they fail, in my assessment.

137. :rolleyes:Amnesty International has documented over 150, I believe.

Of course, and unless someone agrees with your criteria for determining what "potentially lethal" means (a criteria you don't explain BTW), they must want people to die. Great argument.Potenially lethal weapon is what it is. Stop with the word games.

IMO, your labeling of a taser as "potentially lethal", while technically accurate, grossly overstates the potential dangers of the devices. Any weapon that police carry can be lethal in some circumstances, and to restrict cops to using these tools only when presented with a life-threatening situation, would seriously and unnecessarily endanger the police, and the citizens you so desperately want to protect.Wrong and wrong.

You look it up. I don't feel like wasting my time with petty replies.You want me to look up something I say doesn't exist? Your post was a petty reply and a waste of time!

You look it up. I don't feel like wasting my time with petty replies.Alright! I see you're trying to find something! Maybe you can be prodded out of a rut!:lolhit:

You want me to look up something I say doesn't exist? Your post was a petty reply and a waste of time!


It was an accident yes. What do you think should happen from here?

My reply.

Civil liability as well as the officer either being fired or demoted to a position where he isn't making decisions under hazardous circumstances.

http://allforums.net/showthread.php?t=29571&page=16

So, let's see if you can admit when you're wrong.

Or is this the part where you say "You never used the word 'negligent!'"

So, let's see if you can admit when you're wrong.I'm waiting for you to provide the opportunity.

Or is this the part where you say "You never used the word 'negligent!'"Nice to see that you recognize the flaw in your response.

At first I thought that perhaps you were showing real growth here and admitting something. Then I realized it was just an attempt to preempt the obvious response by suggesting that it was somehow a cop out.

Look: you claimed that you said he was civilly "negligent." I said, I don't think so. We both know thay "civil liability" is not the same as neglegence. Go play with someone else, for god's sake!

At first I thought that perhaps you were showing real growth here and admitting something. Then I realized it was just an attempt to preempt the obvious response by suggesting that it was somehow a cop out.

Look: you claimed that you said he was civilly "negligent." I said, I don't think so. We both know thay "civil liability" is not the same as neglegence. Go play with someone else, for god's sake!

Uh huh. Pretty much what I expected from you. So what exactly do you think I meant when I said "civil liability" should result?

And I was obviously paraphrasing my argument, so you really have no business trying to hold me to an exact quote.

Uh huh. Pretty much what I expected from you. So what exactly do you think I meant when I said civil liability should result? Who knows? The point is: you can't show what you claim to have said. Sad that you can't just say, "Well, I didn't say it, but uh, that's what I meant."

By the way, on the environment, healthcare and football, I find you credible and enjoy your posts. On criminal justice matters, or things that require judgement re use of force from the police on the citizenary of this country...not so much. You're fooling somebody. Hell, nobody can do it all, Lep. :cool:

And I was obviously paraphrasing my argument, so you really have no business trying to hold me to an exact quote.Hell, you're the lawyer who likes to be so damn persnickity about words. Reap what you sow.

Hell, you're the lawyer who likes to be so damn persnickity about words. Reap what you sow.


When I directly quote, I use quotation marks. I'm pretty consistent about that.

C'mon, what did you think I meant by "civil liability"? I want to know how you interpreted that exchange as not indicating that I thought civil negligence applied.

C'mon, what did you think I meant by "civil liability"?
I don't know. What I know is that you never claimed he was negligent, in any way, only that is was a tragic accident.

That's a misrepresentation. I said they should be civilly negligent, not criminally negligent.Right. "I said..." Only that's not what I mean, not that I actually said...

Back to the Waffle House!

Right. "I said..." Only that's not what I mean, not that I actually said...

Back to the Waffle House!

Okay, to keep you from steering too far from the point, let's do a little recap here:

You said, in reference to the Noble, OK shooting, and I QUOTE:

[Leper's] argument was that it was nothing more than a tragic accident; It was not negligebt or even irresponsible.

The point in my responses to you is that you misrepresented me with this statement.

Just for your clarity, I've quoted just one of my posts on the pertinent thread where I said that there should be "civil liability" and the officer should be fired or relegated to a harmless position. Still, you seem to be maintaining that your statement as quoted above is not a misrepresentation.

Amazing.

Amazing.What's amazing is that I bother to respond when you start waffling. Shame on me!

C'mon, what did you think I meant by "civil liability"? I want to know how you interpreted that exchange as not indicating that I thought civil negligence applied.I found this, by you:
The simple (and just) solution is to demote him from being in a position to use his gun on behalf of the public and have him be liable for reasonable costs incurred by the family.That sounds like covering the bills. No negligence related punitive damages, etc.

I found this, by you:That sounds like covering the bills. No negligence related punitive damages, etc.

"Reasonable costs" is an intentionally nebulous term...it's up to the fact finder to determine "costs." Punitive damages or not, liability would almost certainly be based on a negligence claim.

Also, notice in your quote, I'm only talking about what his personal responsibility should be. I didn't include any discussion about the liability of government agencies, which would probably incur the bulk of any liability.

The driver didn't assault anyone. His conduct is not the matter being reviewed.

I'm sure you don't want to examine the conduct of the driver in this incident, but as I thought we both agreed earlier, it's impossible to judge the policeman's actions without also considering the conduct of the driver.


Couple of points to consider from your own timeline:
1. The cop was drawing a weapon before the driver had ever failed to comply with an order.

Ok...so? It seemed pretty apparent to me, and probably the cop, that the driver was ignoring him.


2. When the driver turns back to look at the officer (between your first and second entries) he is being threatened with, for all he knows (and from his later interview), a deadly weapon.

I'm not privy to what the driver may have said in any interviews.


So, damn, why trust this maniac-appearing cop?

Funny. :)


Why not recoil away from a threat?

Recoil? He wasn't tased because he "recoiled". He was tased when he walked towards his car.


In all of these matters, it seems that you and others are willing to accept a massive use of force on the part of police officers in response to minor things on the part of the public. That's what worries me.

What worries me is that you think this was a "massive use of force". How badly injured was the driver? How is it possible that a massive amount of force was used against him and yet he's uninjured? Is it possible that the weapon used against him is generally safe and non-lethal?

Here's an excellent example of police "overreacting" and using a "massive amount of force" on an individual. The incident we're discussing doesn't even come close.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=691618


The people charged with upholding the law, and armed with such force, should be held accountable to a standard at least as high as the one they demand of so-called criminals. In all these videos, they fail, in my assessment.

I guess we disagree.

I'm sure you don't want to examine the conduct of the driver in this incident, but as I thought we both agreed earlier, it's impossible to judge the policeman's actions without also considering the conduct of the driver. Given that the officer had no need to ask the driver to step out of the car in the first place, it seems that everything else that follows is on the cop. None of this was needed.

There was no need for the officer to draw a weapon at all, because there was no need for him to order the driver to "turn around and put your hands behind your back" in the first place!

Given that the officer had no need to ask the driver to step out of the car in the first place, it seems that everything else that follows is on the cop. None of this was needed.

There was no need for the officer to draw a weapon at all, because there was no need for him to order the driver to "turn around and put your hands behind your back" in the first place!

Well, you may be right about that, I wouldn't know because I'm not a lawyer.

At any rate, I thought we were discussing whether or not using a taser was appropriate in order to arrest the driver in the videotaped incident, not whether it was appropriate to arrest him.

That officer completely fucked the traffic stop up, from beginning to end. I'll bet he got his ass chewed quite thoroughly by his captain. The point here, is, officers get lazy, and use the tazer to compensate for good police practices. Had the officer not had a tazer on him, how do you think he would have handled the situation?

Well, you may be right about that, I wouldn't know because I'm not a lawyer.

At any rate, I thought we were discussing whether or not using a taser was appropriate in order to arrest the driver in the videotaped incident, not whether it was appropriate to arrest him.You have brought up the driver's actions, and in some way they may be important to understanding the situation. IMO, all understandings still prove the cop wrong, but...

Consider this. Fact: The officer could have written "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and handed it back to the driver; situation over.

The driver asks the cop to "Show Me" where the speed limit sign is, or some such language, and the cop says, step out of the car. So he does, and he walks back, pointing down the road and contiuing the conversation about the speed limit sign. He KNOWS he has done nothing to be arrested for. Then he is bruskly, out of the blue commanded to "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." And there is a weapon- gun?- pointed at him. All this, right out of the blue. He has done nothing to be arrested for!

What does he think about the policeman in front of him? A freakin' rogue cop? Someone who seems pretty far from reasonable? This is a horror story come to life and my wife and child are in danger? Who knows.

Now there will be those who'll consider this all over the top; but those same people have no problem with the cop imagining the worst! And, the cop has not been directly threatened in any way, though the driver has.

I'd say his talking to the cop like he did and trying to slide back to the car made every reasonable scense. Best option? Maybe not, but understandable given that none of this had to be forwarded by the cop.

I don't know. What I know is that you never claimed he was negligent, in any way, only that is was a tragic accident.

You need to change yer Id name.
I have problems with it.makes no sense.
I can't even make jokes out of.
Really very lame attempt.
What th'ell were you tinkin when you decided on such slovenly
Forum Name.
Maybe you were watchin a Rerun of - High Chaparral- eh ?

You have brought up the driver's actions, and in some way they may be important to understanding the situation. IMO, all understandings still prove the cop wrong, but...

Consider this. Fact: The officer could have written "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and handed it back to the driver; situation over.

The driver asks the cop to "Show Me" where the speed limit sign is, or some such language, and the cop says, step out of the car. So he does, and he walks back, pointing down the road and contiuing the conversation about the speed limit sign. He KNOWS he has done nothing to be arrested for. Then he is bruskly, out of the blue commanded to "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." And there is a weapon- gun?- pointed at him. All this, right out of the blue. He has done nothing to be arrested for!

What does he think about the policeman in front of him? A freakin' rogue cop? Someone who seems pretty far from reasonable? This is a horror story come to life and my wife and child are in danger? Who knows.

Now there will be those who'll consider this all over the top; but those same people have no problem with the cop imagining the worst! And, the cop has not been directly threatened in any way, though the driver has.

I'd say his talking to the cop like he did and trying to slide back to the car made every reasonable sense. Best option? Maybe not, but understandable given that none of this had to be forwarded by the cop.

edit for spelling/format

Oops. I double posted rather than woking with the Edit feature. My bad!

...and I screwed the format, which I was trying to fix. Hell, I'm gonna go get some coffee.

Consider this. Fact: The officer could have written "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and handed it back to the driver; situation over.

He could do that, but he gives the driver a legal advantage for acting like an ass. Signing the ticket acts as a PR bond, obligating you to show up for court.

In Texas, if you don't sign the ticket, then there is no penalty for not showing up for court beyond having a warrant issued. If you do sign the ticket, then they can convict you of a new offense called "Failure to Appear," which results in an additional fine.

Of course, if you don't sign the ticket, then they can arrest you. Some departments adopt policies to do exactly as you suggest, but I think it's a bad policy.


He has done nothing to be arrested for!


He was speeding, a petty crime in many states (I'm assuming Utah is included). And then he refused to sign the ticket - which essentially means he refused to show up for court. That means the police SHOULD arrest him.

Thus, the police get the message across - sign your ticket and deal with the consequenses if you speed. Thus, they can protect the public from a "potentially deadly" crime.

IMO, all understandings still prove the cop wrong, but...

Consider this. Fact: The officer could have written "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and handed it back to the driver; situation over"Could have". Is this a judgement call on the part of the officer? Or are you saying he is required by law to do this? Big difference imo. If it's at the officers discretion, then once again, the officer did nothing wrong.




The driver asks the cop to "Show Me" where the speed limit sign is, or some such language, and the cop says, step out of the car. So he does, and he walks back, pointing down the road and contiuing the conversation about the speed limit sign. He KNOWS he has done nothing to be arrested for. Then he is bruskly, out of the blue commanded to "Turn around and put your hands behind your back." And there is a weapon- gun?- pointed at him. All this, right out of the blue. He has done nothing to be arrested for! I guess this is a matter of opinion. I say his beligerence, coupled with his complete refusal to cooperate with the officer's verbal commands is plenty reason to be arrested.




What does he think about the policeman in front of him? A freakin' rogue cop? Someone who seems pretty far from reasonable? This is a horror story come to life and my wife and child are in danger? Who knows.Who cares what he thinks. There are some things that are just common sense. Cooperating with a police officer who is just doing his job is one of them.




Now there will be those who'll consider this all over the top; but those same people have no problem with the cop imagining the worst! And, the cop has not been directly threatened in any way, though the driver has.

I'd say his talking to the cop like he did and trying to slide back to the car made every reasonable sense. Best option? Maybe not, but understandable given that none of this had to be forwarded by the cop.

edit for spelling/formatSorry, but i have to cry bullshit. Nothing the police officer did excuses the driver's attempt to get back into his car for whatever reason he may have had. There's nothing "understandable" about refusing to follow simple orders from a police officer in a situation like in the video.

As to whether this had to take place or not, refer to my original question at the top.

Some departments adopt policies to do exactly as you suggest, but I think it's a bad policy.That's the policy in the juristiction of this event.

That means the police SHOULD arrest him.Should based on what? The isea that this driver needed to be arrested to ensure that he showed up for court? Hell, they've got warrents for Failure to Appear, which would not be erased by a refusal to sign.

Within the juristiction of the event the cop has simply to write Refused to Sign and the episode has ended. No need for all the garbage that ensued. It seems pretty clear to me (and this sentiment was echoed by the State Police sgt. who is investigation the matter) that something else was driving the cop at that point, and it had nothing to do with public safety or the justice system.

Thus, the police get the message across - sign your ticket and deal with the consequenses if you speed. Thus, they can protect the public from a "potentially deadly" crime.The cop's job is not to send a message. The consequence of speeding is not altered by a refusal to sign a ticket. And the "potentially lethal" action in this matter was the cop firing a weapon at a person who posed no threat to him.

I guess this is a matter of opinion. I say his beligerence, coupled with his complete refusal to cooperate with the officer's verbal commands is plenty reason to be arrested.He followed every lawful order he was given up until the point he was threatened with a weapon.

Who cares what he thinks....anyone who hopes to understand the impact of police professionalism on the outcome of a simple traffic stop. There are some things that are just common sense. Cooperating with a police officer who is just doing his job is one of them.He appears to have been doing more than "just his job." That's the point behind trying to understand the impact of the cop's actions on the driver.

Sorry, but i have to cry bullshit. Nothing the police officer did excuses the driver's attempt to get back into his car for whatever reason he may have had. There's nothing "understandable" about refusing to follow simple orders from a police officer in a situation like in the video.Easy for you to say. Hope you're never in a situation where you appear to be threatened by a cop for no damn reason at all.

As to whether this had to take place or not, refer to my original question at the top.No need to. It's obvious to me.

The cop's job is not to send a message. The consequence of speeding is not altered by a refusal to sign a ticket. And the "potentially lethal" action in this matter was the cop firing a weapon at a person who posed no threat to him.I disagree. The "potentially lethal" action in this matter is what the kid got pulled over for in the first place, speeding. This seems to get lost with you. Without the speeding this doesnt happen. The kid was at fault to begin with, and only made it worse with his actions.

"Reasonable costs" is an intentionally nebulous term..."Intentionally nebulous:" Is that lawyer-speak for applying to the Waffle House? That way one can later to claim to have gone from it was all a tragic accident to he should be held civilly negligent?

I disagree. The "potentially lethal" action in this matter is what the kid got pulled over for in the first place, speeding. This seems to get lost with you. Without the speeding this doesnt happen. The kid was at fault to begin with, and only made it worse with his actions.Oh, hell, never mind.

What we're discussing is the cops action re the use of tasers, not defending speeding. If you freaking believe all this was a reasonable outcome of speeding, then all speeding should lead to roadside tasing and arrest.

Btw, we're wandering. This thread was intended to look at yet another misuse of the taser.

If even Cops wood spend this mush time Wonderin if
They Should or Shouldn't Shoot OR Taz.
Maybe they could,if only they shouldn't.
Maybe they shouldn't if only they would.
Maybe they wood,but shouldn't,butt did and now they have the
Captain,back at Headquarter's to face.
Maybe the Captain will Volunteer any Cop to a free Taser demonstration,
care of the Taser-instruction unit.
I take it there IS a Taser Instruction course.
Ya juts can't be a Cop and Eat Donuts all day & night.

He followed every lawful order he was given up until the point he was threatened with a weapon.So you agree he did not follow the officers verbal commads to put his hands behind his back and to step away from his vehicle?




...anyone who hopes to understand the impact of police professionalism on the outcome of a simple traffic stop. He appears to have been doing more than "just his job." That's the point behind trying to understand the impact of the cop's actions on the driver.Once again, I disagree. The officer was just doing his job, nothing more.




Easy for you to say. Hope you're never in a situation where you appear to be threatened by a cop for no damn reason at all.If I am threatened by a cop and its caught on tape, there will be no doubt as to whether i deserved to get tased. I will cooperate fully without acting like an assclown, until i have my day in court. Agruing with someone who is armed doesnt make too much sense to me. Just give me my ticket, and i'll see you in court.





I dont know whether you saw this or not, so i ask again: "Could have". Is this a judgement call on the part of the officer? Or are you saying he is required by law to do this? Big difference imo. If it's at the officers discretion, then once again, the officer did nothing wrong.

This, of course, is in reference to whether the cop should have written "refused to sign" across the top and sent the driver on his way.

What about this? Was this woman a threat?

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6874

So you agree he did not follow the officers verbal commads to put his hands behind his back and to step away from his vehicle?That wasn't command I heard, Yes, I do agree that he disobeyed once he was threatened.

Oh, hell, never mind.

What we're discussing is the cops action re the use of tasers, not defending speeding. If you freaking believe all this was a reasonable outcome of speeding, then all speeding should lead to roadside tasing and arrest.Now you're trying to twist my words. I was simply stating without the illegal actions of the kid in the first place, this doesnt happen. In no way did i say that tasing is a reasonable outcome of speeding. Nor did this kid get tased for speeding.

Now you're trying to twist my words. I was simply stating without the illegal actions of the kid in the first place, this doesnt happen. In no way did i say that tasing is a reasonable outcome of speeding. Nor did this kid get tased for speeding.
Just trying to bring it back to the issue of reasonable police response.

That's the policy in the juristiction of this event.

Then the officer should be punished as far as he didn't conform with department policy.

Should based on what? The isea that this driver needed to be arrested to ensure that he showed up for court? Hell, they've got warrents for Failure to Appear, which would not be erased by a refusal to sign.

Do you even know what the law says about "Failure to Appear"?

Within the juristiction of the event the cop has simply to write Refused to Sign and the episode has ended. No need for all the garbage that ensued.

Then he's essentially rewarding the driver for his lack of cooperation. That's obviously bad policy if you ask me.

The cop's job is not to send a message.

Cop's shouldn't be sending a message by enforcing the law? I disagree.

The consequence of speeding is not altered by a refusal to sign a ticket.

I don't know about Utah or wherever this was, but under Texas law, you're wrong.

And the "potentially lethal" action in this matter was the cop firing a weapon at a person who posed no threat to him.

Speeding is a threat to the public, and the guy's attempt to go to his vehicle, after being told to put his hands behind is back, is an obvious threat to the officer.

I agree that he could have probably handled the situation better, but, once again, that's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight and from your computer chair.

"Intentionally nebulous:" Is that lawyer-speak for applying to the Waffle House? That way one can later to claim to have gone from it was all a tragic accident to he should be held civilly negligent?

Lol, no, that's how I talk when I don't have all of the facts. Unlike you and several others in the thread, I did not feel there was enough information to absolutely condemn the cop.

My position all along was that the cop probably should be demoted or fired, and civil liability should occur on the basis of the cops actions. I've been pretty consistent about that.

Then the officer should be punished as far as he didn't conform with department policy.The policy allows for both options, so the cop is protected if he wants to be a thug. The point is: it did not need to happen.
Do you even know what the law says about "Failure to Appear"?Yes.
Then he's essentially rewarding the driver for his lack of cooperation. That's obviously bad policy if you ask me.The law was about the speed limit, not about being a sweet guy.
Cop's shouldn't be sending a message by enforcing the law? I disagree.The law doesn't require the driver to sign, so what law needs to be enforced?

I don't know about Utah or wherever this was, but under Texas law, you're wrong.The only thing in this sentance that's relevant is the part about you not knowing.

Speeding is a threat to the public, and the guy's attempt to go to his vehicle, after being told to put his hands behind is back, is an obvious threat to the officer.Yes. Nope. It was no threat; it was a reation to a threat.

I agree that he could have probably handled the situation better, but, once again, that's easy to say with 20/20 hindsight and from your computer chair.That's why we have review processes. Leper.

Lol, no, that's how I talk when I don't have all of the facts. Unlike you and several others in the thread, I did not feel there was enough information to absolutely condemn the cop.
I wasn't saying that I had the authority or facts to "absolutely condemn," but rather that a jury should have a chance to decide. Remember that part of it? Now look at who mischaracterizing.

The pot calling the china black.

Bump.What about this? Was this woman a threat?

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=6874

Yes.

Okay....

Now, which law are you looking at?

The law was about the speed limit, not about being a sweet guy.

I'm not talking about being sweet. I'm talking about cooperating with authorities when they tell you to do something.

The law doesn't require the driver to sign, so what law needs to be enforced?.

Signing the ticket insures that a person shows up for court, so that you don't have to arrest and book them.

The only thing in this sentance that's relevant is the part about you not knowing.

We'll see. Tell me what Texas law says about the crime of "Failure to Appear" and then tell me I'm wrong for saying refusing to sign the ticket matters.

As a side matter, I take it that you think signing the ticket has no legal effect whatsoever. If it does, then what effect do you believe it has and what's your basis in the law for believing that?

Yes. Nope. It was no threat; it was a reation to a threat.

?

Saying the threat was a reaction does not change the fact that it was a threat.

That's why we have review processes. Leper.

Not sure what you mean here. I know why we have review processes - basically to evaluate whether there was wrongdoing.

My point was that you don't account for your 20/20 hindsight in your own little review processes.

Okay....

Now, which law are you looking at?In Harris County, you fail to show and they issue a failure to appear warrent. I'm not looking at a law. I'm relating a reality.

I'm not talking about being sweet. I'm talking about cooperating with authorities when they tell you to do something.He did, in every way, until out of the blue he was threatened with uncalled for violence.

Signing the ticket insures that a person shows up for court, so that you don't have to arrest and book them.Signing a ticket doesn't insure anything, which is why it was not required in the case under discussion.

We'll see. Tell me what Texas law says about the crime of "Failure to Appear" and then tell me I'm wrong for saying refusing to sign the ticket matters.It doesn't matter because they can issue a warrent.

As a side matter, I take it that you think signing the ticket has no legal effect whatsoever. If it does, then what effect do you believe it has and what's your basis in the law for believing that?It is a side matter, and I'm not interested in dncing around the bush with you on this right now. In the case at hand, no signature was requires.

Saying the threat was a reaction does not change the fact that it was a threat.The only threat was from the cop. The only assault was from the cop.

Next you'll be saying that it's okay for an officer to taze anyone for a little bit of back talk.
"Next"?!? Think again, Naps....in a roundabout way, they've already condoned it. Remember this gem???

...that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude...

What Leper's not taking into consideration here is the fact that officers usually start off by addressing you in a discourteous fashion, but I guess the "REAL" lesson here lies in the fact that it's NOT okay for you to reciprocate (under any circumstances, whatsoever, I guess) - and ESPECIALLY not when you're at the "mercy" of someone who supposedly "works for us" in the first place. :rolleyes:

Essentially, many comments have been made regarding the "acceptable" use of a WEAPON to justify physically hurting (best case scenario) people for "talking back" because it neatly falls under the (intentionally nebulous) category of (ironically enough) "obstructing justice" (which is conveniently cited at their discretion, but whatever). IOW, I guess it spells bad cess to simply question a CIVIL SERVANT when they're being rude to you for allegedly (operative word here) perpetrating some real blood-thirsty shit behind the wheel of your vehicle (like, take for example, speeding 10 over or changing lanes without a signal, for that matter).

DEAR OFFICER,

In short, if you wanna ticket me - FINE - then ticket me, but don't you DARE emasculate or belittle my character in the process. If I'm not resisting arrest (which I've NEVER done in my life), and I happen to question you on something, then you need to MAN UP, abide by your ethical oath as an officer of the law, and answer me RESPECTFULLY, because, if anything, that's the RIGHT THING TO DO, period.

Of course, OTOH, maybe you think the "protect and serve" portion of your job description only applies to the taxpayers you have no interaction with (which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest) - but to be perfectly honest here, I could care less what makes you "tick". All I know is this - if you're dick to me to me, then I'm gonna respond in kind, and rightfully so.

On that note, If I didn't respond accordingly, then I'd be trading MY DIGNITY for your position of "power" when you're simply abusing your authority here, and I'm sorry, but that's just not gonna happen.

In summation, I guess just knowing the fact that you're nothing more than a glorified meter maid (i.e. a revenue generator), who most likely attended some sort of low-rent "vocational school" to make your living off MY DIME just really pisses me off.

END LETTER -

Of course, saying shit like that will get me tazed, but the real shocker lies in the fact that certain people here obviously have no problem entrusting a weapon like that to someone who was probably picked on his entire life. Personally, I find the notion HIGHLY disturbing and morally reprehensible, but that's just me....

I say, let 'em get shot. That's what they're paid for.

Wow, Prea!

In Harris County, you fail to show and they issue a failure to appear warrent. I'm not looking at a law. I'm relating a reality. .

Lol, you're telling me I'm wrong about the law. I say "Do you know the law?" You say "Yes." I say "what is it?" And now you say, it doesn't matter, that's not reality!

I'll be frank. It's obvious to me that you don't know much about the relevant law. So I'll stop making you dodge my questions and tell you what the law is:

If you want to charge someone under Texas Penal Code 38.10 with "failure to appear," you're going to have to show that they knew they were obligated to come to court. The way you prove that is with the signature on the ticket, or with a pair of fingerprints at the police station where they are magistrated.

Warrants are sometimes issued for the ticket itself, and sometimes they are issued for the new charge of "failure to appear." But warrants aren't what make charges stick, it's evidence...like the evidence of a signature.

The reason the "failure to appear" charge is every bit as important as a the warrant to law enforcement is so that if someone completely ignores their ticket for a few years (which happens very frequently) you won't be able to prove the traffic ticket cause, unless you were pulled over in a clown suit, the officer won't be able to testify with any recollection of the citation.

Without the signature, a viable strategy becomes ignore your ticket for a year or two, then come to court, plead "not guilty," and then laugh your ass off at trial time when the prosecutor has to dismiss the ticket because the officer can't remember shit, which almost certainly won't be enough to sustain a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Besides that, to issue a warrant for "failure to appear" when the charge is unsupported by probable cause in the form of a signature on the ticket would be unconstitutional. And I just know you wouldn't support the city acting unconstitutionally!

And that's why I believe a cop should arrest some pissy citizen who won't sign his ticket, particularly someone like this guy who just admitted that he was going 18 miles over the speed limit but thinks he knows better than the cop as to what the speed limit is. Moreover, when law enforcement lets people like this cause trouble at the most minor level of the justice system, they're going to feel more at liberty cause trouble when there is a more serious crime at issue.

Now, I would agree that the cop should have said "If you don't sign this ticket, I have to arrest you" or something along those lines in order to let the guy know what he was getting himself into, but I don't disagree with the way he used his taser.

"Next"?!? Think again, Naps....in a roundabout way, they've already condoned it. Remember this gem???

...that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude...


Nice job of editing so that the quote says what you want it to say. You left out that miniscule part about refusing to put his hands behind his back and trying to walk to his car instead.

I'm not a real big fan of people misrepresenting me, such as in this case where you make it appear as if I believe being rude is the equivalent to fighting. If you read the original quote, it's the combination of actions that made it "fighting," the first and least of which was "being rude," which is symptomatic of most fights. I can't help but feel a little disappointed with this post....I don't really enjoy spending my time trying to keep people from misrepresenting me.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that Shiloh's a fan.

Lol, you're telling me... ...taser.Blah, blah, blah, irrelevant blah. You like to look bright, I know, all the while discussing a matter that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the case at hand. Texas law has no relevance at all.

In many states tickets are issued with or without a signature, including Utah.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that Shiloh's a fan.
I'm nat generally a fan of Prae's, which is why the post got a wow.

You know, Leper, you are among the biggests frauds on here. You like to hold people to specific words, but won't allow the same for yourself. You toss all sorts of nonrelated trash in and then skirt away from the issue. You bitch about someone else mischaracterizing another's position and yet feel free to do so yourself.

But what should I expect from an expert in how to understand the law relating to a traffic stop, but who doesn't know that Life without Parole is an option in a Texas Capital case!? Gawd, you're a riot!

You know, Leper, you are among the biggests frauds on here.
Come now, is that really necessary? No need to get into dharmabum style rants here.

Come now, is that really necessary? No need to get into dharmabum style rants here.I accept the correction.

I apologize, Leper, for the statement, and continue to value your inputs on the environment, healthcare and the NFL. Please accept my open apology. I regretted the statement as soon as I hit "Submit Reply."

Ahh, there's the "Delete this post" option for those occasions. I use it occasionally when I realize what I just posted would make me look really stupid.

Ahh, there's the "Delete this post" option for those occasions. I use it occasionally when I realize what I just posted would make me look really stupid.Well, I didn't want to appear to be hiding from my mistake. I shouldn't have gone to that place. Good thing I didn't have a taser in my hand, huh?

Good thing, yes... *nods wisely and scratches beard*

I accept the correction.

I apologize, Leper, for the statement, and continue to value your inputs on the environment, healthcare and the NFL. Please accept my open apology. I regretted the statement as soon as I hit "Submit Reply."

Thanks for the apology.

Just for the record, I make an effort to be cordial, straightforward, honest, accurate, and clear in my posts. I'm not perfect in those efforts however, and am sorry as far as I've deviated from those standards.

Apology accepted, but I've got to take a little break....I'm starting to veer away from my own standards of civility and am sorry to the degree with which I've made unnecessary and/or uncivil remarks to aggravate the situation.

Thanks for the apology.

Just for the record, I make an effort to be cordial, straightforward, honest, accurate, and clear in my posts. I'm not perfect in those efforts however, and am sorry as far as I've deviated from those standards.

Apology accepted, but I've got to take a little break....I'm starting to veer away from my own standards of civility and am sorry to the degree with which I've made unnecessary and/or uncivil remarks to aggravate the situation.No harm. No foul. Peace.

Nice job of editing so that the quote says what you want it to say. You left out that miniscule part about refusing to put his hands behind his back and trying to walk to his car instead.

I'm not a real big fan of people misrepresenting me, such as in this case where you make it appear as if I believe being rude is the equivalent to fighting. If you read the original quote, it's the combination of actions that made it "fighting," the first and least of which was "being rude," which is symptomatic of most fights. I can't help but feel a little disappointed with this post....I don't really enjoy spending my time trying to keep people from misrepresenting me.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that Shiloh's a fan.
I didn't mean to "misrepresent" you, Leper - I honestly thought that you were saying each constituent part was tantamount to "fighting" with an officer. I'm sorry, I've been up since 2:30 this morning (I’m on a horrible fucking medication that won’t let me sleep), and suffice it to say, my eyes are killing me, and my brain isn't working too well right now (and moreover, it hasn’t been all day).

[QUOTE=, my eyes are killing me, and my brain isn't working too well right now (and moreover, it hasn’t been all day).[/QUOTE]

Business as usual, I take it.

:thumbs:

I accept the correction.

I apologize, Leper, for the statement, and continue to value your inputs on the environment, healthcare and the NFL. Please accept my open apology. I regretted the statement as soon as I hit "Submit Reply."

Oh I see.You were feeling a bit of the Lords of Discispline,
possibly breathing down yer cul-de-sac.Like being one step beyond
the WARNING stage into The Ban Zone.
Such a display,of reversal.

Oh I see.You were feeling a bit of the Lords of Discispline,
possibly breathing down yer cul-de-sac.Like being one step beyond
the WARNING stage into The Ban Zone.
Such a display,of reversal.:lolhit:

Believe it or not, I actually feel kind of bad about what I said to Prae. I know how shitty it is to have sleepless nights, a blinding headache, stinging eyes and a muttled brain.

Well, my brain is muttled more than most but that's anudder story.

Anyway, I hope you get some good sleep tonight and wake up feeling fresh and rested.

Unlike this poor goof....



http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6366/headacheex5.jpg

P~E~A~C~E

Believe it or not, I actually feel kind of bad about what I said to Prae.
Don't be! If you can balance "politics" (i.e. effectively convey your own brand of dogmatic arrogance with a pedantic writing style), "news" (or more importantly, your take on it), and insults, then you're gonna love it here. :)
I know how shitty it is to have sleepless nights, a blinding headache, stinging eyes and a muttled brain.
That sucks. These symptoms are quite new to me, actually, for I just started taking this medication to lower my blood pressure, and lo and behold, it actually increases my resting pulse rate, and moreover, it stops me from sleeping. Hell, I'm lucky if I can get three hours a night. :mad: In short, it's a fuckin' DREAM CURE for someone who suffers from hypertension.....:rolleyes:

Come to think of it, I'm gonna rip my doctor's balls off next time I see him. At least, at a very minimum, that'll make me feel better.....
Well, my brain is muttled more than most but that's anudder story.
Oh, c'mon now - there's no reason for you to be that hard on yourself; you're a dyed in the wool democrat - to wit, you don't have a choice in the matter, so obviously, you shouldn't fret over it. :)
Anyway, I hope you get some good sleep tonight and wake up feeling fresh and rested.
Thanks, sugar tits. :) Back at cha!
P~E~A~C~E
Not on my watch.

Thanks, sugar tits. :)
Prae is Mel Gibson?

You're right - I totally stole it from him, but you know what??? I like it too much to let him use it exclusively. It's just so........degrading and awesome! I mean, I simply can't help myself....I got drunk last weekend and started calling random chicks, "sugar tits" at a fairly upscale bar downtown - and needless to say, some of the reactions I got were fuckin' priceless.

Gotta go with Prae here...going into a crowded bar, calling random girls "sugar tits" has it's values, its hilarities....and it's painful effects (as my friend found out (no, "my friend" is not a cover-up for my own misfortunes (...ok fine, it is.))).

You're right - I totally stole it from him, but you know what??? I like it too much to let him use it exclusively. It's just so........degrading and awesome! I mean, I simply can't help myself....I got drunk last weekend and started calling random chicks, "sugar tits" at a fairly upscale bar downtown - and needless to say, some of the reactions I got were fuckin' priceless.
kinda like just walking up to them and asking "wanna fuck?". 99% of the time you're gonna get slapped, but that 1% makes it worth it.:woohoo:

You're right - I totally stole it from him, but you know what??? I like it too much to let him use it exclusively. It's just so........degrading and awesome! I mean, I simply can't help myself....I got drunk last weekend and started calling random chicks, "sugar tits" at a fairly upscale bar downtown - and needless to say, some of the reactions I got were fuckin' priceless.

Plagiarism is NOT encouraged herein,however,it is tolerated in
certain Handicapped zones.
You need to apply for those Allforums handicap stickers...BTW.

kinda like just walking up to them and asking "wanna fuck?". 99% of the time you're gonna get slapped, but that 1% makes it worth it.:woohoo:
In high school, I was always fond of the, "you wanna go grab some hot dogs and fuck" question. If they haven't heard the joke before, then their response is usually hilarious (and not to mention, the response itself is two-fold). The clueless girl in question typically shoots back with something like, "Ahhh, NO!!!" To which, you ask another rapid-fire question in return (but it needs to be delivered in a deadpan fashion for effect)......"what's the matter? Don't you don't like hot dogs???"

I used to love doing that kinda shit when I was a kid.

Don't be! If you can balance "politics" (i.e. effectively convey your own brand of dogmatic arrogance with a pedantic writing style), "news" (or more importantly, your take on it), and insults, then you're gonna love it here. :)

That sucks. These symptoms are quite new to me, actually, for I just started taking this medication to lower my blood pressure, and lo and behold, it actually increases my resting pulse rate, and moreover, it stops me from sleeping. Hell, I'm lucky if I can get three hours a night. :mad: In short, it's a fuckin' DREAM CURE for someone who suffers from hypertension.....:rolleyes:

Come to think of it, I'm gonna rip my doctor's balls off next time I see him. At least, at a very minimum, that'll make me feel better.....

Oh, c'mon now - there's no reason for you to be that hard on yourself; you're a dyed in the wool democrat - to wit, you don't have a choice in the matter, so obviously, you shouldn't fret over it. :)

Thanks, sugar tits. :) Back at cha!

Not on my watch.

My balancing act gets a little wobbly from time to time but I'll leave it at that. What I wanna know is, what type of med(s) are you taking for yer high blood pressure?

Oh, and if you rip her doc's balls off, please videotape it and send it to me :)

Also, I am not a Democrat. I think I'm a Scumocrat. Ya, that's it. A Scumocrat.

And I think you needs a new watch!

My balancing act gets a little wobbly from time to time but I'll leave it at that.
Okaaaay.
What I wanna know is, what type of med(s) are you taking for yer high blood pressure?
And you wanna get personal with me, huh???? :eek: :)

Talked to my doctor over the phone (today, ironically enough), and he apologized for the symptoms I'm experiencing, but according to him, it's not due to the so-called "blood pressure" medication I'm on. I recently stopped taking Lexapro (an SSRI) for my anxiety, and come to find out, I didn't wean from it properly (it's supposed to be a gradual process, I guess), so consequently, my resting pulse rate went up. I was only treated with a diuretic for borderline hypertension, which I thought was blood pressure medication, but I wasn't really paying attention the last time we talked because he's Chinese and fairly difficult to understand. Oh well, my bad, I suppose.

Looks like he can keep his balls. For now.
Also, I am not a Democrat. I think I'm a Scumocrat. Ya, that's it. A Scumocrat.
Semantics.
And I think you needs a new watch!
Whatever, hippie. :)

Okaaaay.

And you wanna get personal with me, huh???? :eek: :)

Talked to my doctor over the phone (today, ironically enough), and he apologized for the symptoms I'm experiencing, but according to him, it's not due to the so-called "blood pressure" medication I'm on. I recently stopped taking Lexapro (an SSRI) for my anxiety, and come to find out, I didn't wean from it properly (it's supposed to be a gradual process, I guess), so consequently, my resting pulse rate went up. I was only treated with a diuretic for borderline hypertension, which I thought was blood pressure medication, but I wasn't really paying attention the last time we talked because he's Chinese and fairly difficult to understand. Oh well, my bad, I suppose.

Looks like he can keep his balls. For now.

Semantics.

Whatever, hippie. :)

I'd sure like to respond to you right now but I'm too fukkin mad to do so.

I think I need an SSRI!!!!

Not really, those things are awful but that's anudder topic all together. I hafta go now and d'load (steal) some cool music.

And let my blood pressure get back to normal, if at all possible.

GRRRRRRR!!!!!

The animal lover in me has been tread upon.


Until next time.....>>>>