Police taser man for alleged speedingticket....Police video. watch!
liveleak.com — UHP (Utah Highway Patrol) tasers man in front of pregnant wife and baby over an alleged speeding ticket.
tranft- 2172 diggs
- digg it
- Dozirulf, on 11/21/2007, -293/+20LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That idiot deserved to get tasered at LEAST a few more times.- onisamsha, on 11/21/2007, -11/+62And now why could that be? Maybe because you're just a puny example of a human being who wallows around in other's needless misery and pain like a pig in *****?
- Grummond, on 11/21/2007, -10/+71You'll make a fine officer of the law one day, i'm sure.
- slstudios, on 11/21/2007, -6/+24and you are a total tool. "idiocracy" is here.
- Stalks, on 11/21/2007, -8/+26Please, don't feed the troll.
- jaxcs, on 11/21/2007, -9/+16You're an idiot. Clearly this cop is on a power trip. Hope you meet up with him on the road. The guy was tasered in the back for christ sake.
- loginabove, on 11/21/2007, -4/+12i've met worse. You do what a cop says otherwise they'll ***** you up; it's common sense. You can talk all you want to em just do what they say.
Many cops are like many soldiers; small minds that get off on ***** people up and doing damage. You don't tempt em unless you can woop em and get away with it.- nova9, on 11/21/2007, -5/+1Damn right, they can f uck u up good cuz they know which laws are flexible he he.
- loginabove, on 11/21/2007, -4/+12i've met worse. You do what a cop says otherwise they'll ***** you up; it's common sense. You can talk all you want to em just do what they say.
- cawpin, on 11/21/2007, -42/+20The cop didn't do anything wrong. The guy wouldn't sign the ticket, which is required in Utah. The cop then began to place him under arrest for this and the guy resisted, non-violently, but resisted. He was warned to comply or he would be Tasered. He didn't, he was. End of story.
- Tourniquet, on 11/21/2007, -30/+13Don't know why you're getting dugg down...you're right.
- thesio, on 11/21/2007, -6/+37you are not required to sign your name to any document in the US. it is your signature, laws protect your right not to sign. if you dont sign, the officer writes that you did not sign and has a witness sign, usually another cop. way to be a dumbass.
- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -13/+4Right and I'm sure that like in most states if he refuses to sign he will be arrested, signing your ticket is effectively a "promise to appear", saying that you are acknowledging receiving the citation and will deal with it. I don't have much love for cowardly speed trap running highway patrol "revenue" officers but the cop was 100% in the right here
- Niightwitch, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1How the hell do you know that you're "not required to sign any document in the U.S."? Each state has individual laws regarding this, and in Utah you're required to sign or you're arrested. He refused, so he was arrested.
- Xondar, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7I would have refused to sign.
- Yokohamalion, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7A taser is not a tool to arrest people. Its to be used instead of a gun.
- bbqsalad, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Your mother must be so proud! Did she give birth to you in a toilet?
- Shadowsaint, on 11/21/2007, -4/+8Cops are ***** in the head. They have no respect for citizens and think they are above the law. I love to see citizens agree with them, I sure hope you feel the sting of the law enforcement's taser.
I hope YOU get tasered repeatedly when you're driving with your g/f or wife you complete moron. Sign away your rights to the police state you hobo.
This is ***** SICKENING.- mikesbaker, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2get an opinion of your own you idiot
- parkermauney, on 11/22/2007, -4/+5I like turtles. :O
- mikesbaker, on 11/22/2007, -14/+13ok digg tards get a ***** grip on reality - if you quickly approach a cop with his back turned at a traffic stop you are lucky you didn't get shot. I am only here because I had digg withdrawls (I'm leaving digg because of you morons). Get a ***** clue. You don't tell a cop - 'we are going to go look for this 40 mph sign'. This ***** head has no idea how the system works. I guarantee you that there was a 40 mph sign back there. He says ' I'm not signing anything' and then hostilely shoves the polices book back at him (and this was after the cop explains to him that the signature is not an admission of guilt). Then he walks quickly up on the cop with the cops back turned with on hand out and the other looking like he is about to pull a hand gun out of his pocket all while trying to get the cop to not look at him. Ask a cop how dangerous traffic stops are. This video doesn't tell the whole story which is what makes it ***** news (yes digg is a news site). And the final coup de douche - this is an edit where the people who put this crap out take out the parts that would have made you say 'that idiot deserved the truncheon not the taser'. ***** morons - all of you are too big of pussies / not stupid enough to pull this ***** on a cop.
1:57 - they cut out the cop explaining to this douche the way it is when you speed and his rights and what he has to do if he wants to not be arrested
thanks for ruining my favorite website ass holes- uziko, on 11/22/2007, -4/+6Dude, I couldn't have said it better myself. This guy is a complete idiot, by not signing it the cop legally has to arrest him, and by walking up to the policeman like that he's lucky he didn't get a couple of slugs between the eyes. And yes digg is full of idiots.
- Shadowsaint, on 11/22/2007, -2/+5I'd like to slug you
- mikesbaker, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2oh libtard excessive and random violence is ok by you but not cops - please find a very deep hole and jump in it
- Shadowsaint, on 11/22/2007, -2/+5I'd like to slug you
- mikesbaker, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1wow there are actually still reasonable people on digg
- navyseel616616, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1You are absoutly right, finally someone with some common sense
- uziko, on 11/22/2007, -4/+6Dude, I couldn't have said it better myself. This guy is a complete idiot, by not signing it the cop legally has to arrest him, and by walking up to the policeman like that he's lucky he didn't get a couple of slugs between the eyes. And yes digg is full of idiots.
- navyseel616616, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1You are absoutly right, finally someone with some common sense
- voyetra8, on 11/21/2007, -21/+362Unlike most morons that get tasered, I actually think this guy clearly didn't deserve to be nailed.
All of this for not signing a citation? WTF??
And FWIW, I think the search is at 8:30 is not legal.- onisamsha, on 11/21/2007, -11/+115That search is termed, "a post incident, semi-legalish, post-brutality-search-for-some-contraband-to-write-a-bogus-report-to-make-myself-look-like-less-of-a-sadistic-monster" search.
- evo8ftw, on 11/21/2007, -11/+4ditto you nailed it on the head exactly. as soon as he was in custody they have the right to search complete and utter bull *****.
- majikman, on 11/21/2007, -14/+4actually, IIRC, they don't need to place you under arrest. because of the fact that a car is a moving vehicle, they don't need a warrant, only probable cause to search your vehicle.
- evo8ftw, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3wtf are you trying to start a pissing war? if you weren't so ignorant you would realize the arrest was his PC in this situation he had no other PC until that point.
u=fail
- evo8ftw, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3wtf are you trying to start a pissing war? if you weren't so ignorant you would realize the arrest was his PC in this situation he had no other PC until that point.
- MorbenDK, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5You are correct, but the officer didn't have probable cause either.
- evo8ftw, on 11/21/2007, -3/+11yes he did ! Learn the law. As soon as he was arrested the car can legally be impounded at which point the pigs can search it. However this pig is a real ass if he just leaves this guys wife on the side the road if they are on vacation. IMO I can't really say for sure but I don't see how the guy was speeding or how the officer determined he had been. Regardless this officer has issues and obviously can't handle the responsibility of the job. He should personally be handing in his resignation .
- godofgodlygods, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3The officer could have determined that he was speeding because he was at first in front of the guy, and the officer himself could have been speeding. A police officer is allowed to use their own speedometer as evidence of another person's speed. If the gentleman was keeping up with the officer while the officer was in front of him, the officer could have used that as evidence that he was speeding.
It's retarded, but that's how it works. That explains why the officer pulled over a bit, let the guy pass, then flagged him over.
- LeeSoong, on 11/22/2007, -5/+1Dang! And then they Tasered the unborn Fetus, HEADSHOT!
Poor twitching electrified baby and smoking, sparking placenta . . .
- majikman, on 11/21/2007, -14/+4actually, IIRC, they don't need to place you under arrest. because of the fact that a car is a moving vehicle, they don't need a warrant, only probable cause to search your vehicle.
- nova9, on 11/21/2007, -6/+4if he resist arrest, and make some questionable moves that the copy deem "dangerous", he'll taser him. They're just looking for a reason to taser u. I bet most of them doesn't want to be a taser virgin and want "score" someone in their books. hehe
- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -5/+7he gave the guy several chances to comply and he didn't
- XBSHX, on 11/21/2007, -5/+7Tasers are only supposed to be used if you are in danger or threatened. Neither was the case here.
- jcm267, on 11/22/2007, -2/+4Actually there was a threat. The cop did not know if the kid was going to get in his car and start a high speed chase. The options were to wrestle to punk to the ground on a busy highway or immobilize him with a taser right where he was. I think the cop chose the better option.
- atonement, on 11/22/2007, -3/+5If you're ever in a situation like that, when you step out of your car immediately shut and lock your car doors. The police may ask why, just say, "Oh, sorry, just habit," that way they can't legally search your car IF you state that you don't consent to it. This is especially good if you happen to have certain "questionable" artifacts in your car at the time.
- derek20cali, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4Horrible advice, which is the norm for digg.
- evo8ftw, on 11/21/2007, -11/+4ditto you nailed it on the head exactly. as soon as he was in custody they have the right to search complete and utter bull *****.
- stevets, on 11/21/2007, -1/+53Yep, once someone has been arrested law enforcement is allowed to search the "immediate area" where they were arrested i.e. car, apartment, brothel, etc. Now, if the arrest is later determined to be unlawful, then any evidence collected during the subsequent illegal search cannot be used in court.
- wedgemartin, on 11/21/2007, -15/+6"Don't search my brothel, bro"
- desqjockey, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Close, they can search the 'grab area' around you incident to arrest if they have reasonable suspicion to believe there is a weapon there. I see no grounds for it here.
When they take the car in to the impound lot they can do an "inventory search"; the argument being they need to inventory everything so you cant say they stole something of yours. Not that they are liable for it (not that they are liable, its just BS). This wasnt that either. It was a fishing expedition.
- shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -46/+26I hate whoever writes these headlines.
How about... "Police Taser Man for, beyound doubt, disobeying orders"
I'm inclined to agree it was a tad overboard, (but so sick of taser stories). The kid is an idiot though, it's a bad idea to turn your back on the cop and conceal your hands. An officer is pointing a weapon at you, telling you what to do, it's pretty stupid to disobey.- sockpuppets, on 11/21/2007, -15/+49Police aren't allowed to "order you" to do things. Do you have any idea what your RIGHTS are?
- nigh7dagger, on 11/21/2007, -21/+14Uh, the dumbass was resisting arrest. The officer was completely in the clear. If an officer gives you a ticket you have to sign it; if you sign it, you can still go to court and get it removed from your record or whatever. Then, the idiot decided to resist arrest and was being extremely belligerent. If he wasn't such a ***** he would have seen the taser coming.
- CarlH2007, on 11/21/2007, -5/+21Being arrested for resisting your own arrest seems to be a common theme now.
- nblsavage, on 11/21/2007, -4/+9Can you be charged with not signing a ticket? Sounds like total ***** to me.
- SpykerSpeed, on 11/21/2007, -4/+16The government can't force me to sign any document. Except a ticket, and my tax returns... and probably a bunch of other stuff. Nevermind.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 11/21/2007, -6/+5I could be wrong, but I don't think you are under any obligation to sign any document under duress (which this obviously is).
- strictnein, on 11/21/2007, -3/+8Several states require you to sign tickets. It's the law.
- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4I think in almost all states if you refuse to sign a ticket the officer can arrest you, though I understand frequently they don't because of the paperwork and time could better spent writing more tickets to meet their non-existent quota.
If you don't sign and they don't arrest you then you've just gotten out of the ticket, but it's a pretty big gamble. My brother in law did this a few times when he was on the verge of losing his license for points.
- nova9, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1I agree, is like "Man kills neighbour for a penny", they purpose make the situation look so innocent. A better one is "man kills neighbour because he got born and lived next door" which was the percursor....
- card51short, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4I agree. The cop was just acting in the only manner he could of acted: TO TAZE THE EVIL TERRORIST.
It takes a true professional to then lie about it to his co worker and then both laugh about it afterwards.
What other option did he have then to lie and laugh about it?
That's what cops do these days!
/denial
- nigh7dagger, on 11/21/2007, -21/+14Uh, the dumbass was resisting arrest. The officer was completely in the clear. If an officer gives you a ticket you have to sign it; if you sign it, you can still go to court and get it removed from your record or whatever. Then, the idiot decided to resist arrest and was being extremely belligerent. If he wasn't such a ***** he would have seen the taser coming.
- adderx99, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10lol the cop told the kid to turn his back.
- nova9, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4maybe he tried to taser the kid but missed...
- shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -4/+9Yes they are within their prescribed powers. Do you know what you are talking about? Are you telling me that police don't have the right to order you to pull over? They can't "order" you to show your registration?
Ok, I suppose if you want to split hairs, they can "ask" and you can "refuse", then they can "ask" you to get out of the car, and you can refuse. Then they can force you legally. - xenuxenuts, on 11/21/2007, -7/+11You sound like the kind of person who thinks that governments give you freedoms.
- 1town, on 11/21/2007, -5/+9Yes, He was a douche, yes, he should have been listening when the cop instructed him.
But a taser gun is a potentially lethal weapon, and should not be used unless threatened.- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Less lethal than a 9mm, do you have a better idea?
- 1town, on 11/22/2007, -1/+39mm is less lethal than a nuke, lets shoot people!
- sockpuppets, on 11/21/2007, -15/+49Police aren't allowed to "order you" to do things. Do you have any idea what your RIGHTS are?
- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -34/+21you guys clearly dont realize what courts are for. you dont debate and argue about the ticket right then and there. you take it to court. get off your ***** pedestals once in awhile, pull your heads out of your asses, and think logically. i hope that one day, when you really need the police, you'll hang up the phone and go "wait! they're just a bunch of power hungry pigs! ***** THE POLICEEE YEAAAAAHHH111!!11!!'
though i wont hold my breath.
oh. ps. when a cop tells you something like "put your hands behind your back", you dont walk away from him and say "WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU?"
totally justified, and anyone who has moved out of their mommas basement would agree.- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -24/+11oh, and his wife is clearly of the same mindset. "YOU LEAVE HIM ALONE! DONT YOU TOUCH HIM". i see the douchebag is in good company.
oh god. the longer i watch this, the better it gets. "Office, YOU need to calm yourself down". how the ***** can you people not see this was totally justified?- nblsavage, on 11/21/2007, -8/+6Pussy
- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -3/+14I agree that the guy was out of line by arguing on the side of the road. I don't agree with the use of the taser. For a couple reasons.
1: The guy was on the side of the freeway, precariously close to oncoming traffic. What if the cop had tasered him and he fell onto the roadway and was run over by a passerby?
2: The guy wasn't physically threatening. There was no justifiable reason for the force the cop used. Sure he disobeyed the cops orders, but he wasn't physically violent and could have been detained without the use of the taser and without a physical confrontation. Now had he become physical or had the body language / physical attitude... then I'd be all for the use of the taser.
Clearly the cop just wanted to use it on someone.. you could tell by how he was jovially joking about it when his buddies came up.- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3what was the cop supposed to do? chase him into oncoming traffic?
seriously, what were his other options? shoot him? - synapz, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2WTF do you think cops did before there were tasers you ***** idiot? All I really want to do right now is stab you in the ***** throat.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2#1 Well, he should have obeyed the orders (hands behind back) that were given to him. The danger he was put in was caused by himself. He was a potential threat and the cop had no choice.
#2 It was justifiable because the guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car ffotage, you wouldn't realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car. Would the arrest for not signing have been justifiable? IDK the laws, but it is possible that this was a "must sign" jurisdiction. Besides, always follow commands and live to fight and sue in court. You want to look like the OBVIOUS victim, this guy doesn't.
He was explaining what had happen and was amused, as am I, by how dumb the guy was. - raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2The situation was escalating and the guy (by any measure) was behaving stupidly, how was the cop (who was all alone) supposed to know they guy wasn't going to turn and rush him.
- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3what was the cop supposed to do? chase him into oncoming traffic?
- Gimpishi, on 11/21/2007, -3/+22He asked the officer what speed he was clocked at, otherwise he wouldn't sign the citation. The officer wouldn't tell him, so the officer told him to get out of the car. The guy gets out of the car and is annoyed, which he should really have avoided no doubt. The situation gets ugly because the officer was being an *****. The officer handled it poorly in two ways. 1) He asked the man to step out of the car for no clear reason. (at that point he wasn't arresting him)
2) Used a taser on an unarmed man simply because he didn't 'comply with instructions'
Now granted, if the guy had just turned around he wouldn't have been tasered, but his rights would have still been stepped on. Refusal to sign a traffic sitation is NOT ground for an arrest especially when the potential offender is not told what his undue speed was. And even if he was, refusal to sign doesn't mean anything other than you disagree. Side notes: Women are emotional, and to see a lot of commotion involving her boyfriend she might yell ***** that makes no sense. Also, the officer, at least on video did NOT read the man his rights. The officer may have later, but he should have as read them as he placed the cuffs on him.- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6Sorry, but most states you do get arrested for not signing the ticket. (I've got alot of experience with this one).
- Gimpishi, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Wow really? I did not know that... I wonder how many drivers don't know...
- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -7/+1the audio was inaudible most of the time. how do you know what the cop did or didnt say?
- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6Sorry, but most states you do get arrested for not signing the ticket. (I've got alot of experience with this one).
- Pureeviljester, on 11/21/2007, -6/+4actually you have the right to resist unlawful arrest. and kill an officer if you have to.
but i don't think that's entirely necessary with a speeding ticket- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Give that a try sometime, buddy. Let me know how it goes. The best thing you can do is to tell the officer that you disagree but still follow orders. If the arrest/ticket was not warranted the system SHOULD find you innocent. The cop will RARELY change his mind, it's not worth the trouble.
- Pureeviljester, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1i remember an earlier(months) post on digg when a judge ruled in favor of a guy that knocked out 2 officers when they trespassed on to their property and arrested his wife for not telling them where he was.(he had a warrant out for his arrest)
like i said, not really necessary with a speeding ticket.
- Pureeviljester, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1i remember an earlier(months) post on digg when a judge ruled in favor of a guy that knocked out 2 officers when they trespassed on to their property and arrested his wife for not telling them where he was.(he had a warrant out for his arrest)
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Give that a try sometime, buddy. Let me know how it goes. The best thing you can do is to tell the officer that you disagree but still follow orders. If the arrest/ticket was not warranted the system SHOULD find you innocent. The cop will RARELY change his mind, it's not worth the trouble.
- siszam, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Oink, oink pig.
- NoStoppingUs, on 11/21/2007, -24/+11oh, and his wife is clearly of the same mindset. "YOU LEAVE HIM ALONE! DONT YOU TOUCH HIM". i see the douchebag is in good company.
- BlueScreenOD, on 11/21/2007, -2/+28I can absolutely see where you're coming from. Our government has checks and balances to prevent one branch from acting unjustly. However, that's not the point here. The officer used a potentially lethal device on a man who posed no threat. You can't go around taseing people for misdemeanors. And you know what, If i was under arrest, I would turn around and say something to my wife too. In the heat of the moment, we don't all think perfectly logically; it's no reason to get tased.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -9/+3The officer used a device that is not generally lethal. Name a device that isn't potentially lethal that you can subdue a suspect with. He DID pose a threat, he was not following orders and had his hands in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car. What would you done in this situation? Yell "Please don't pull a gun on me or run to your car"? Smooth moves like that would likely get you killed.
- jjmckay, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2True. Dugg. However I feel it is noteworthy to say that the officer's behavior too that helped fuel the situation. Is a signature legally required? Wasn't he over reacting as well? The situation was fueled by negativity on both sides, it seemed to me.
- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -6/+4I wouldn't say the guy posed no threat, he was spazzing out and refusing the cops instructions and the whole situation was escalating quickly.
- XBSHX, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5He posed no threat, he was walking back to his car. The cop had no reason to try to arrest him in the first place, he simply refused to sign something. You can't be arrested for that.
- jjmckay, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2You can be arrested for anything in the US. The courts may throw the case out, but surely you can be arrested at a whim by a police officer.
- raitchison, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2In most states if you refuse to sign your ticket the officer can arrest you.
- XBSHX, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5He posed no threat, he was walking back to his car. The cop had no reason to try to arrest him in the first place, he simply refused to sign something. You can't be arrested for that.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -9/+3The officer used a device that is not generally lethal. Name a device that isn't potentially lethal that you can subdue a suspect with. He DID pose a threat, he was not following orders and had his hands in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car. What would you done in this situation? Yell "Please don't pull a gun on me or run to your car"? Smooth moves like that would likely get you killed.
- notque, on 11/21/2007, -2/+59http://www.kutv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_ ...
Man plans to sue. Good for him.- youMISERABLEpos, on 11/21/2007, -3/+31This is the type of cop that other cops got SHOT over.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -12/+2What do you mean? He was being threatened and he responded appropriately. What would you have done? The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car.
Do I sense an "F da police!" attitude?
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -12/+2What do you mean? He was being threatened and he responded appropriately. What would you have done? The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car.
- desqjockey, on 11/21/2007, -1/+14Great, thats the only thing that will ever deter cops is dragging them and the whole department through court over and over until it stops.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -6/+1Till "it" stops? OHH, you mean until the cops eventually have to choose between protecting themselves or avoiding litigation. What a great situation to put them in and a GREAT way to thank the men and women who try to keep the streets safe, on your behalf. I would never be a cop, for this reason and the fact that they get payed so little. I make more and have zero college credits, not to mention that I don't really risk my life.
- raitchison, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4Another douchebag cashing on on his own mistakes.
- Bcodms, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I hope the driver wins the suit.
- youMISERABLEpos, on 11/21/2007, -3/+31This is the type of cop that other cops got SHOT over.
- wicketr, on 11/21/2007, -15/+8He wasn't tased for speeding. He wasn't tased for refusing to sign a ticket. He was tased because he refused to turn around and get handcuffed even with the understanding that if he didn't he'd be tased. The title is just a taaaaaaaad bit misleading.
Secondly, the guy must not understand the point of the court system, because that's where you challenge your ticket/arrest or whatever. You don't challenge a cop on the side of the road. That NEVER works in your favor. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt. Why do people not understand this?- ricree, on 11/21/2007, -2/+11Tasers are supposed to be used as a nonlethal alternative to firearms, and if used in this fashion they are a good thing. The problem is that we get these cops who see tasers as a shiny new toy that they can use to force compliance on everyone who shows even a hint of disagreement. If we are to continue to use tasers in this country, then there needs to be some sort of universal guideline that cops are actually held to. From the video, the guy clearly was no danger to the police officer, and the it should never have gotten to the point where the guy was tased.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1This post is the problem with people who don't know how to think defensively, you don't even know how to determine if someone is a threat but you continue to say that this man posed no threat. The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car.
HE POSED THREAT!
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1This post is the problem with people who don't know how to think defensively, you don't even know how to determine if someone is a threat but you continue to say that this man posed no threat. The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car.
- vvaduva, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4The constitution of this country gives citizens the right to defend themselves from police abusing power in this manner. There is nothing in the law saying you have to do what a cop says. There are unspoken consequences maybe, yes, but no law requires you to turn around and put your hands on a car just because some ***** cop demands you do so because "he aint gonna play that game" or because he is having a bad day.
- czarr, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Actually you do have to listen to what the cop says and its for their saftey. I've seen first hand that when you refuse to get out of the vehicle for instance the cop will open your door and throw you out. What do you mean theres nothing in the law that says you have to listen to an officer? How would anything get done if they had to stand there and argue with people to get out of their car? I don't think that, that guy should've been tasered but hes a moron for ignoring the cops direct orders. What did he expect the cop to do "stop, and turn around....i said stop! stop i say! oh phooey...i'll get you next time!!!".
"defending" your self from an officer is also known as assault and will get you a gun to your head, harsh treatment and jail time. They can't even arrest you for refusing to sign, he was just being detained bc he was giving the cop a hard time. - desqjockey, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2You have to listen to their lawful instructions. If he was really going to arrest him the man had to comply. Not "comply or be tased", btw. To me it did not look like the cop was really in the process of arresting him, he just didnt like the guy not following everything he said.
You do not have to listen to their whims, for example when they come and try and take your camera for filming them. Make them arrest you- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2I understand your point and that was my initial feeling also. However, the cop was in the PROCESS of arresting the guy. Hint: it starts with getting the suspect out of the car. The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car. This guy definitely followed your advice and made them arrest him, I hope he loses in court.
- czarr, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Actually you do have to listen to what the cop says and its for their saftey. I've seen first hand that when you refuse to get out of the vehicle for instance the cop will open your door and throw you out. What do you mean theres nothing in the law that says you have to listen to an officer? How would anything get done if they had to stand there and argue with people to get out of their car? I don't think that, that guy should've been tasered but hes a moron for ignoring the cops direct orders. What did he expect the cop to do "stop, and turn around....i said stop! stop i say! oh phooey...i'll get you next time!!!".
- barius, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4Since when was it illegal to refuse to sign a citation?
- desqjockey, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Its not illegal,but the point is that the cops have the power to arrest you for speeding. They dont usually, it would be a pain, but they make you sign instead of getting arrested.
- ricree, on 11/21/2007, -2/+11Tasers are supposed to be used as a nonlethal alternative to firearms, and if used in this fashion they are a good thing. The problem is that we get these cops who see tasers as a shiny new toy that they can use to force compliance on everyone who shows even a hint of disagreement. If we are to continue to use tasers in this country, then there needs to be some sort of universal guideline that cops are actually held to. From the video, the guy clearly was no danger to the police officer, and the it should never have gotten to the point where the guy was tased.
- DewKnight, on 11/21/2007, -5/+10Moron shouldn't have gotten out of the car, shouldn't have refused to sign it. Should have demanded to know what the ticket was for, but not to look for that speed limit sign. Never fight a ticket with the cop, fight it in court. He should have taken the ticket, then gone back himself to take pictures of speed limit signs.
But I still don't think he should have been tasered. He wasnot a danger to the officer.- Memnochxx, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7He was told to get out of the car.
- tofuoni, on 11/22/2007, -8/+4"All of this for not signing a citation?"
What I love about taser videos is that - absolutely without exception - morons like you pick some random thing from the video, call it X, and then claim "he got tased for X??"
That always cracks me up. I'm not even going to argue with you. I'm not even going to point out all the douchebaggery that this guy committed - because I know you'll just ignore me. I just wanted to say that I think it's funny. "omfg he was tased for refusing to sign" as if that's actually what happened. As if the cop said, "you have to sign this ticket" and the guy said "no" and then ZAP!
It really amuses me that to know that your attention span and general cognitive powers are so poor that you really think that's what happened. - GeorgeClayton, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1What scares me is that he was tasered so close to traffic; that could have been fatal.
While some states seem to require people to sign speeding tickets, there has to be some sort of illegality for forcing someone to sign a contract (even a bank-check is a form of contract) of any sort.- Niightwitch, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1It wasn't a "contract", it was a summons to appear in court and him signing it means he's acknowledged receiving the summons.
- fixedcoma, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2the police cruiser obviously blocked the view of the guy seeing the 40 mph sign, the video even shows the cruiser in front of the 40 mph sign! I would like to say entrapment! and unlawful order of an officer of the law!
- onisamsha, on 11/21/2007, -11/+115That search is termed, "a post incident, semi-legalish, post-brutality-search-for-some-contraband-to-write-a-bogus-report-to-make-myself-look-like-less-of-a-sadistic-monster" search.
- voyetra8, on 11/21/2007, -8/+305Oh, and be sure to watch his explanation to the other cop at the end: "He was jumping around, back here and over to here, so I said 'nah, I ain't playing this game.'"
Then compare it to what the video camera caught.- milkbone98, on 11/21/2007, -11/+121What else would you expect from a professional liar?
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -16/+4Ah, yes! "***** THA POLICE!™" You did a great job of reducing a man, or group of people, who may have already saved many lives to "professional liars". You even got dugg up for it! Bunch of losers. The guy wasn't complying and had his hand in or around his pockets and midsection and started to walk back to the vehicle. If you watch police car footage, you would realize that this is often the step right before the suspect pulls a gun from his mid-section/car.The cop acted appropriately and I hope that they aren't there for you when you need them.
- wedgemartin, on 11/21/2007, -8/+51Yeah. I think 'Nah, I ain't playing this game' says it all. We seriously need to beef up the screening on police officers in this country. Start with an IQ test, some sort of professional psychiatric evaluation, an ethics test, and find out how many times they got the ***** beat out of them in high school.
- spyrochaete, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10Just for fun I researched this topic a few days ago. Toronto police have pretty stringent requirements, it seems. Here's info on the selection process for applicants:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/selectionpr ... - MikeDawg, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7Obviously you don't understand how intense the training and background checks *can* be for cops. Knowing people that have recently applied to the LVMPD (Las Vegas), it is quite the process.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 11/21/2007, -3/+13Judging by the number of articles about abusive cops in the media, the existing process is not good enough.
- nosecohn, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5I have heard that the psych test currently given by many police departments is really just a method of determining how easily the candidate will lie. If he won't, he fails.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -4/+4Hearsay BS. "Hey, I heard that all cops are Nazis and that they eat little children." Good going, cop hater!
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4You know what? Go back and watch that video, and tell me you don't think that cop deserves to end up in jail where he can see what it's like to be on the other end of authority for a change.
Cops like that CREATE "cop haters."
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4You know what? Go back and watch that video, and tell me you don't think that cop deserves to end up in jail where he can see what it's like to be on the other end of authority for a change.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -4/+4Hearsay BS. "Hey, I heard that all cops are Nazis and that they eat little children." Good going, cop hater!
- ChaosMotor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+9More like how many people they beat the ***** out of in HS. There's 3 kinds of cops: 1) Bullies, 2) Kids who used to get picked on, and 3) People who want to help others
- Doriath, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2In that order.
- feoren, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Fire all cops who can't pass a basic "Kitten and hammer" ethics test!
- slstudios, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Well, in the initial aptitude tests, if the candidate scores too high he will be turned down. This policy stands due to the fact that high-scoring candidates statistically will leave this line of work after a year or two, causing the department to lose the time and money invested in the candidate's training. You have to score high enough, but not too high.
- spyrochaete, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10Just for fun I researched this topic a few days ago. Toronto police have pretty stringent requirements, it seems. Here's info on the selection process for applicants:
- SillyDigger, on 11/21/2007, -4/+64He also said that he gave a warning before using the taser, another lie.
- cawpin, on 11/21/2007, -24/+4He did warn him. Telling him to stop is warning. the guy was resisting arrest.
- dontera, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10No. In his chat with Mr. "Good for you" at the end, the officer claims he said "Turn around right now or I taser you." Those exact words never came from his mouth. He states several times "Turn around" while pointing the weapon at the man, but never warns he will use it.
- bigj480, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4You are correct, but the guy would be an idiot to assume that a cop will not use a weapon if it is pointing at him. He saw it and felt the need to prove a point or get "free money" by trying to push his luck. It's certainly his right to do so, but the outcome is not guaranteed and could have cost him his life.
- dontera, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10No. In his chat with Mr. "Good for you" at the end, the officer claims he said "Turn around right now or I taser you." Those exact words never came from his mouth. He states several times "Turn around" while pointing the weapon at the man, but never warns he will use it.
- dpknc84, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Digg added my reply to the wrong comment.
- cawpin, on 11/21/2007, -24/+4He did warn him. Telling him to stop is warning. the guy was resisting arrest.
- sroop, on 11/21/2007, -0/+10I would've sworn I heard this: "Hey man did you use the taser this time? Hive five!"
- rugrat54, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6Taser only if it is a life threatening situation. Im telling you, everyone needs to start carrying tasers around and stop taking this *****. If they know we're armed, legally, they'll stop pulling this crap.
- Shananra, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2Not in this case, being a cop the idea that you're armed will make him pull his weapon out quicker and call for backup.
- airiox, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2I mean seriously, do you understand how ironic it is, her only recourse is to call 911, but who is supposed to come save her? One of his friends...
- milkbone98, on 11/21/2007, -11/+121What else would you expect from a professional liar?
- milkbone98, on 11/21/2007, -13/+277Typical case of yet another cop that got beat up too much in high school. Respect my authoritah!!
- provost, on 11/21/2007, -27/+10whatever.. thats completely retarded. The cop was absolutely correct in what he did. The second you are pulled over you are detained, and if you dont sign the ticket then you have to be arrested. Signing the ticket doesnt mean ***** as far as guilt.. once the ticket is written, its written.. you sign it so you can be released from detainment.
If a cop tells you to stop you DONT TURN AROUND AND WALK AWAY. If you do that you are going to get tasered.. in some areas of the country that can get you shot. The cop did everything right, and the retard who got pulled over did everything wrong.
If you get pulled over and you think you were wrongly pulled over, you go to court and fight it. You cant do ANYTHING once that ticket is written other than sign it or go to jail.- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5> ...in some areas of the country that can get you shot...<
There you go. Use deadly force for someone turning around and walking away. In my country we call that murder. What is your excuse?- provost, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2maybe not being a total idiot and doing research knowing what can happen when you dont sign the ticket and what signing the ticket actually means along with complying with a police officer who doesnt know if he is going to get shot and killed one hour to the next. That sounds like a pretty reasonable excuse.
any of these other big mouths that think they know the law when they clearly dont.. I dare you to not sign a ticket and proclaim that you dont have to... go ahead.. if you are that sure you are right, prove it. - bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I'm not doubting that not signing a ticket won't get you arrested. But using deadly force on a suspect that is obviously not hostile, has listened to your order to turn around, and is completely confused as to why you pull your "weapon" out less than 1 second after ordering him to put his hands behind his back... That is where I draw the line. I completely understand the typical officer's uncertainty as to whether a suspect will become hostile may leave him a bit on edge, not knowing if he will be shot at from one moment to the next. I just know that I would sleep better knowing that this particular officer get training on how to make slightly better judgment calls while under duress. We the people should not live in fear of those that are sworn to protect us.
- milkbone98, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Im not saying that all cops are maladjusted sociopaths. I am saying that a badge doesnt automatically create an inherently superior human being. While there are great heroes out there on police forces, there are also way too many that possess an immature gang mentality. Also, how many incidents happen that are never videotaped or documented whatsoever?
In my state and the bordering ones, a person is not required to sign a ticket. I can imagine being a traveler on an interstate, unaware of that state's requirement, not being informed of it, then getting tasered for it.
- provost, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2maybe not being a total idiot and doing research knowing what can happen when you dont sign the ticket and what signing the ticket actually means along with complying with a police officer who doesnt know if he is going to get shot and killed one hour to the next. That sounds like a pretty reasonable excuse.
- milkbone98, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Im not saying that all cops are maladjusted sociopaths. I am saying that a badge doesnt automatically create an inherently superior human being. While there are great heroes out there on police forces, there are also way too many that possess an immature gang mentality. Also, how many incidents happen that are never videotaped or documented whatsoever?
In my state and the bordering ones, a person is not required to sign a ticket. I can imagine being a traveler on an interstate, unaware of that state's requirement, not being informed of it, then getting tasered for it.
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5> ...in some areas of the country that can get you shot...<
- ntwrkguy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7if only the driver had a PBA card...or uttered the magical words "my brother is on the job"
- chrisostermann, on 11/21/2007, -2/+22Isn't jumping from verbal commands to potentially deadly use of force rather extreme for a man with his wife and kid in the car? What happened to police officers that stand there calmly, intelligently judge the situation and then progress (as they are trained) up the chain of conflict resolution (don't these guys carry batons and pepper spray any more)?
- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -0/+18Precisely my point a few conversations up. The officer responded with more force than was necessary. At no point was this guy physically confrontational.. AFAIC, the officer risked the young man's life when he tasered him extremely close to the highway with oncoming traffic.
- Bcodms, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Preach on brother. Tasers should not be allowed as a matter of procedure in this situation
- ChaosMotor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7Police these days only follow one chain of conflict resolution, and it goes - do exactly as I say, right now, without question, or I will taser you and justify it later.
- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -0/+18Precisely my point a few conversations up. The officer responded with more force than was necessary. At no point was this guy physically confrontational.. AFAIC, the officer risked the young man's life when he tasered him extremely close to the highway with oncoming traffic.
- Jpesci, on 11/22/2007, -3/+4You know, most of the time I tend to agree with most digger's opinions on things. But I don't this time, and here's why. Now to be fair, before I defend the cop here, keep in mind that I'm as annoyed by cops at times as the next guy. But I also understand that cops are constantly putting their lives at risk to protect the rest of us. As much as you hate them, spending even a week without them would probably ruin the life you live now.
Consider then that every traffic stop for a cop is a potential danger. The cop doesn't know what to really expect from who he's pulled over. In this video, it was very clear that this particular person was not being cooperative enough. He was told to do something several times at different times and he failed to comply like he should have. He made the situation harder and more dangerous than it had to be for both of them.
Now I'd admit maybe the tasering was a little harsh; the cop may have been able to accomplish the same thing with a tackle to the ground. But regardless, the cop was protecting himself. How does the cop know this guy wasn't heading back to the car to pull out a weapon? Think in terms of risk management; it was safer for the cop to bring him down at that point in time to prevent anything unexpected from happening by the driver's lack of cooperation. Maybe if you all would consider this situation in these terms it'd be easier to understand. They do what they have to do to keep their job safe and to keep the rest of us safe, too. They're not perfect and they tend to be rude as hell, but we need them.- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3We do NOT need cops like that one. I watched the video three times, and I didn't see anything close to reasonable use of that taser. I honestly thought he was going to taser the pregnant wife as well.
Cops like that endanger not only the general public, but other cops as well. Every time a video like that comes out, it raises the level of hate some people have towards police.
Trading your rights for "safety" is un-American.
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3We do NOT need cops like that one. I watched the video three times, and I didn't see anything close to reasonable use of that taser. I honestly thought he was going to taser the pregnant wife as well.
- provost, on 11/21/2007, -27/+10whatever.. thats completely retarded. The cop was absolutely correct in what he did. The second you are pulled over you are detained, and if you dont sign the ticket then you have to be arrested. Signing the ticket doesnt mean ***** as far as guilt.. once the ticket is written, its written.. you sign it so you can be released from detainment.
- neuralzen, on 11/21/2007, -33/+278That cop belongs in prison. He didn't even read him his rights!
- tinhat, on 11/21/2007, -9/+40Miranda rights do not have to be read at the time of arrest, only before official questioning.
- perilousone, on 11/21/2007, -7/+9What other kind of questioning is there?
- Archon810, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6the unofficial one.
- Pureeviljester, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2official questioning is any question asked after reading his rights. if you are questioned without your rights read and admit to the crime it's not admissible in court. your confession that is.
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Seems to be un-wise advice. A good friend of mine was arrested for something that he did not realize was a crime. When the officer asked him about it (before rights were read), he confessed and said he didn't know it was illegal. After his rights were read, he said he wanted to talk to his lawyer. His lawyer said to not answer questions to law enforcement until he gets there. His best defense was to not admit anything. Somehow, the confession was in the officer's report and was both admissible and incriminating in court.
I'm not looking for sympathy for a friend, I'm just simply saying that what is written in the law books is one thing. It is what really happens that matters. You shouldn't answer any questions with anything except "I will not say anything without my lawyer present" or else you may doom yourself to be added to the county, state, or federal prisons' payroll.
- SpykerSpeed, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7...and if they don't get around to questioning you for several days?
- wicketr, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1That's what attorneys are for.
He tried to go through the legal process of challenging the cop on the side of the road instead of a court room. If you challenge a cop on the side of the road, the cop will always win. Sorry, but unless you feel like having a warrant out for your arrest, you better comply with the cop on the side of the road and then challenge him when it's appropriate. There's a court system for a reason.
- wicketr, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1That's what attorneys are for.
- toonworld, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2tinhat, I would tend to agree with you, however the police officer never said "you're under arrest". By law, the officer has to say those specific words or else his "resisting arrest" ***** won't hold up in court.
- xSmartBombx, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2They don't have to say anything - always remember - you're "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT"
- perilousone, on 11/21/2007, -7/+9What other kind of questioning is there?
- JByrd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7Miranda Warnings are required to be read only if the suspect is going to be interrogated. If there is no interrogation, which arresting officers would normally not do, then Miranda warnings are not necessary. All this to say, cops are *****!
- xkorbin, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1Don't tase me bro!
- tinhat, on 11/21/2007, -9/+40Miranda rights do not have to be read at the time of arrest, only before official questioning.
- onisamsha, on 11/21/2007, -27/+530What a complete sack of *****. If trying to talk your way out of a ***** speeding ticket warranted electrocution, i would've gotten the chair by now. Nobody likes getting a ticket, especially on a cross country trip, as this family was apparently doing judging from the huge amount of ***** you can see piled up through the back window. The cop was completely the aggressor, you can actually see the driver turn away in a submissive manner when the cop draws, obviously freaked out at having a gun shaped device pointed at him. Any reasonable person, in the context of a speeding ticket, would be just as shocked and dumbfounded at how to respond to a gun (of any sort, i dont give a ***** if its 'non-lethal') pointed in your face after stepping out of your car and trying to ask a cop a question. And not only that, but he had about 8 seconds between the first command and the shocks. That's right 8 seconds to comprehend and process what the proper action is to avoid getting ELECTROCUTED, in a situation, that up until that point, had been complete peaceful, and with no explanation at all as to why the cop was doing what he was doing. Does that not sound like some insane bizarro version of America to the rest of you?
This cop fails at using the proper amount of force for the situation. In all liklihood, the cop will get off without any punishment because, it's true, the man was not following a legal order, even if it was issued not 8 seconds before he attacked the man. However, were he a decent HUMAN BEING, he would have quickly seen that a stern voice and an explanation would have accomplished the same thing, saved a man from torture, and not scared a wife into thinking her husband was dead. To any reasonable person viewing this, it should be a matter of right and wrong, not whether the cop was 'legally right' to use force in order to 'control the situation.' I don't care about the BS argument that the cop, "had no way of knowing whether this guy was a threat or not. For all the cop knew he could have pulled a gun or started running at any second." He made no threatening moves whatsoever, he simply failed to listen to the cops ambiguous, threatening, and downright confusing directions. Did he bother to explain that, in the state of Utah, by refusing to sign a ticket you can be arrested? No of course not, he just brutishly ordered him to "Get out of the car," without any heads up that he was about to be arrested. By not informing a peaceful person ahead of time why they are being arrested, the policemen created a situation in which confusion and unfamiliarity with what in the ***** was going on forced the man into resistance by default.
Take this guy's badge, he's a disgrace to law enforcement. If I was the victim's wife, i would have called that cop out for the the sick sadistic sonofabitch he is, straight to his face, then I'd call my lawyer to start proceedings to sue his department for the illegal search he conducted after saying that the vehicle was in her control (because it's obvious he was just looking for contraband to try and cover his ass with some trumped up charges to explain why he needed to use a taser in a situation like this). Electrocution is not the answer when a man has defied you due to confusion for 10 seconds and presents no threat whatsoever. You can't punish a man for what your cowardly ass "thinks" the man could do, and, even worse, endanger his life for no reason. Arguments about the seemingly daily reports of taser stopping hearts aside, had he tased the man at an inopportune time he could have easily fallen directly in front of an on-coming semi. I'd like to see him try to calm down the innocent wife then.
In a just world, this cop would be tased in front of his wife and kids for no reason at all other than another man's petty self-righteous sense of authority. I think that's fair.- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -79/+8Yeah, your making up laws.
Refusing to sign a ticket is a good enough to get arrested. In fact, they are ordered to arrest people who don't sign them. The signature is just a proof of compliance.
Also, cops don't have to tell you why you are under arrest. And they don't have to read you your rights until you've been detained, that is, until you are in handcuffs.
The ticket was wrong, but the arrest was justified. But the cop used excessive force, he should've wrestled the douche first, and if that didn't work, then he could've used the taser. The driver's responsability is to contest the ticket in court, not resist arrest and try to get back in his car.- TinMan, on 11/21/2007, -8/+33*****. You don't have to sign the ticket. They can take your license for it but not arrest you.
He was in handcuffs before he asked to have his rights read. You sir are an idiot.- mcduckov, on 11/21/2007, -16/+7Depends on the state. In NYS all tickets are technically written in lieu of arrest. So basically you can technically be arrested for any driving infraction in NYS. If you're driving across country and you're not familiar with the laws--do what they tell you. If you think you have a case then fight it out in court later--not on the side of the road.
By the way, pay attention to what the lights on the car do before you decide this was just some super-reasonable citizen.
Reasonable and mature people know this. Instead he exited his car, argued some more, and then attempted to leave despite being told he could not leave. That is virtually guaranteed to get you tasered. Should the officer say "oh well, he is really sure he is right so I'll wait here while he goes to check on the signage"? Or maybe wait until he is back in the car and have a high speed chase for the next 100 miles putting dozens or 100s of people at risk?- mcduckov, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2For the people digging me down--DON'T do what this guy did. You WILL not win this confrontation.
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7Sorry, but in many states you DO have to sign the ticket. In Maine it's a criminal offense to fail to sign a ticket.
- jaxcs, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7@ mcduckov. Yeah I know the whites were on but so what, the car wasn't going anywhere. The guy was angry that he got a ticket but he wasn't threatening the officer. Everthing went from zero to 60 as soon as the guy left the car. This is really what is wrong with the taser, it's too easy to use. Since the taser is clasified as non leathal, at the mildest provocation, you shoot. hell, why not. How dare this guy disobey an officer! Maybe the cop got away with this due to technical rules that normal citizens don't comprehend but this taser shooting has a lot more to do with punishing someone and a lot less with apprehending a dangerous criminal.
- mcduckov, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2It would be lovely if police officers were psychic and knew beforehand who is a dangerous criminal and who isn't. They don't and that is why your rights are pretty limited once you are pulled over for a traffic infraction. Your rights are reduced even further when you are told you are being placed under arrest.
I'm sorry people but there is no other way to maintain law and order in a mega-society where no one knows your name or whether you're a psycho or a normal Joe. In fact, arguing with a cop on the side of the road, playing around with your gear shifter, etc are ways to indicate you are NOT just a law-abiding citizen. Maybe you're a disgruntled nut with something to prove.
Again, sign the ticket, fight it in court later if you wish. THAT is what a mature and reasonable person does. Anything else is asking for a problem and you really ought not be shocked when you get it.
- mcduckov, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2It would be lovely if police officers were psychic and knew beforehand who is a dangerous criminal and who isn't. They don't and that is why your rights are pretty limited once you are pulled over for a traffic infraction. Your rights are reduced even further when you are told you are being placed under arrest.
- mcduckov, on 11/21/2007, -16/+7Depends on the state. In NYS all tickets are technically written in lieu of arrest. So basically you can technically be arrested for any driving infraction in NYS. If you're driving across country and you're not familiar with the laws--do what they tell you. If you think you have a case then fight it out in court later--not on the side of the road.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/21/2007, -2/+24And not only do you have the right to refuse to sign, you also have the right to know why you are being arrested. That's actually a law...knowing the reason the cops are putting the cuffs on you. If you don't know your own rights, how the hell can you tell other people what the cops can do?
- ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Please post a link to the law where they have to tell you why you are being arrested WHILE you are being arrested and that a reading of Miranda rights are mandatory. Oh wait, there are none. As far as refusing to sign ticket as a reason to be arrested? Unlikely. It seems like the reason this dude was arrested was because he failed to obey a lawful order.
However, the driver looked fairly belligerent to me. When he came out of the car, he had his hand raised. Thats a bad start. Then, he ignored the officers order to put his hands on the police car. The cop probably wanted to pat him down for weapons. Then he mouths off to the cop and says "whats wrong with you" after the cop points a taser at him and starts to walk back to the car. Then, surprise, he gets tasered.- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1I bet a bunch of people dugg you down after realising there's no such thing.
- Crazyviolinist, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3It's too good for a law--it's set under Supreme Court precedent, called Miranda vs. Arizona, and the 6th Amendment, and subsequent court decisions from the 6th Amendment, saying that you have the right to know what you are being charged with. Another case where ignorance prevails--you wrap yourself in laws, but forget that the Constitution is supreme to any law in the United States.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Ignorance prevails indeed!
You should read the 6th amendment and Miranda vs Arizona. They have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this situation.
The sixth amendment deals with the right to a speedy and public trial.
How can you make ***** up like this and expect people to believe you?
The sixth:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Read, seriously, read:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am ... - ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4The key words which you fail to comprehend are "In all criminal prosecutions". So, when you appear in front of a judge, the state (the prosecutor) must tell you what the charges are. If the constitution meant that the police must tell you what they are charging with, during an arrest, then it would have said "in all arrests". And Miranda is a prophylactic rule of evidence, not a constitutional right. I wish that the arm chair lawyers and judges on the internet would at least consult wikipeida before discussing esoteric areas of constitutional law:
"A Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime." It only has to do with questioning...not arrests.
"A defendant has, under the Sixth Amendment, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. An indictment must allege all of the ingredients of the crime in order." The Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with arrest procedure in this context.
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Miranda is the most MISUNDERSTOOD concept on the planet. TV Cop shows make people thing that you need to be read your rights as soon as the cuffs go on.
You DO NOT have to be read your miranda rights simply because you're under arrest. Period. ONLY if your questioned about the alleged offense AFTER you've been arrested. There are many many supreme court cases documenting this. Learn the laws on your state. - jaxcs, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Do you have the right to know why you are being arrested, while being arrested?
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1There's a difference between a right and a priviledge. A right is something you are free to do. A priviledge is something you are free to receive. You do not have that priviledge. The cop can choose to tell you and he can choose to say nothing. That's his right.
- jaxcs, on 11/22/2007, -1/+0I am asking a very simple question, do AMERICAN citizens, when they are arrested, have the right to know why they are being arrested. Or, can an officer arrest you on the street and tell you nothing until you reach the police station? Maybe because you're Canadian, I'm losing you but Americans generally have a strong sense entitlement, of rights given to them simply as a result of being a citizen of the state. This is the sense of rights that you miss in your comment. Along the same lines, privilege isn't something freely received but a disposition granted to you by the state. Voting, for example, is a right of every citizen but driving is a privilege extended to you should you pass certain criteria. The way you write, it's an elaborate game where the state towers over the people and are helpless before the state.
- Crazyviolinist, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3And unfortunately, we have another person who MISUNDERSTOOD Miranda. You don't have to be read Miranda rights IF you understand your rights when you are placed under arrest or under a custodial situation. Standard operation for police stations across the country. Then again, a lot of officers choose to ignore it.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/21/2007, -3/+0Who said anything about Miranda? I just said that you have a right to know why you're being arrested. Unless you believe that you can be held without knowing the charge. And yes,,,if you have cuffs on, you have a right to know why...
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1What bothers me, is everyone gets so wrapped around the axle about "what the law says" and this case vs. that case... seriously people. Doesn't it make common sense that if someone is taking away your freedom that you should have the right to know why you are no longer free? I know there are probably some damn laws somewhere that justify why police officers don't have to obey the same laws that the citizens do, but where did the common sense go in our society. It seems that everyone is getting so caught up in legal mumbo-jumbo that they can't even put a man away for murder based on a freaking "technicality". Just makes me sick. If anything, the officer should have at least been professional and man enough to let the guy know why he was being arrested. Otherwise, it is just plain scare tactics.
- jaxcs, on 11/22/2007, -0/+0welcome to the new morality where legality equals moral behavior.
- ubuwalker31, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Please post a link to the law where they have to tell you why you are being arrested WHILE you are being arrested and that a reading of Miranda rights are mandatory. Oh wait, there are none. As far as refusing to sign ticket as a reason to be arrested? Unlikely. It seems like the reason this dude was arrested was because he failed to obey a lawful order.
- slstudios, on 11/21/2007, -5/+9another example of public ignorance. look up the law, then repost.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I like how you can't post anything that says otherwise, but OK, why not?
Read this, stupid: http://www.speedingticketcentral.com/speeding-tick ...
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I like how you can't post anything that says otherwise, but OK, why not?
- wedgemartin, on 11/21/2007, -5/+5"In fact, they are ordered to arrest people who don't sign them"
arrest != tasing;- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Resisting arrest = tasing.
- republicker, on 11/21/2007, -5/+15you must be a cop, because everything you said is 100% *****.
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4No actually it's very true. Ignorance of the law is your own damn fault.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. That's the law!
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4No actually it's very true. Ignorance of the law is your own damn fault.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I'm amazed that the "freedom fighting nation" and the people who act like the planet police don't even know the laws that govern them. I'm even more amazed that a Canadian knows them better.
The worst part is that it's all made available to you, in one of the least visited websites in America:
http://www.loc.gov/index.html- jaxcs, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1You know, I would like to get an understanding of the law but that link is useless. You link to the home page of the Library of Congress; I'm better off just googling the info.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1I think that's the saddest thing I've ever read on Digg. The Libraby of Congress is one of the world's greatest concentration of knowledge.
- jaxcs, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1If you tell people that they don't bother getting the info needed to make intelligent comments on an issue and you provide a link to the home page of (let's say) wikipedia, what is the point of providing the link at all? Is that supposed to be a joke? Now you're yanking on me for not knowing about the library of congress? It's a unfounded ridiculous comment. If you know something, and want to share it, share it. Alternatively, if you don't want to share, don't rag on people for not knowing what you know. You might as well tell me to look it up an the internet for all the help you provide.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You're on the internet you ***** dumbass. Learn how to use a search engine.
- jaxcs, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1I know how to use the internet fine your moronic majesty, too bad you don't know how to post. Learn how to post you ***** dumbass or stop playing I know more than you. You're just full of *****.
- jaxcs, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1You know, I would like to get an understanding of the law but that link is useless. You link to the home page of the Library of Congress; I'm better off just googling the info.
- TinMan, on 11/21/2007, -8/+33*****. You don't have to sign the ticket. They can take your license for it but not arrest you.
- shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -27/+9Um, why would you turn your back on an officer pointing a weapon at you and giving you an order? Someone pointing a weapon at you says "Hey, I'm not ***** around".
It was pretty retarded of him. He has an issue, take it up in court. You will never win arguing with a cop. You might get somewhere after the fact, but when it happens, like it or not, you have to do what they say (within bounds of course).
The kids just lucky he didn't get run over while flopping around- spyrochaete, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5You're right about this. It's not a cop's job to be a judge, it's his job to collect evidence and arrest dangerous people. Never ever argue with a cop - your argument falls on deaf ears. Submit to arrest and fight it in court.
- shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3It's the only place you'll ever win anyway. Plus, disobeying adds a bunch of weight to the cops argument. It's one thing to go to court and dispute facts like speed, but when the judge sees resisting arrest and backup being called, rightful so or not, your case is going to take a big hit.
- Chongo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1try walking up to someone in public and point your finger in a gun like motion at them. Most likely they will all reel back or flinch in some way. When a friend points a BB gun at me, evne knowing its a BB gun... my first reaction it to turn my back into it.
- CrazyDave303, on 11/22/2007, -1/+0I don't think he wanted to sign a ticket with out being specified what the citation was really for.
"what speed was I going"
I think that was the issue, more then any thing.
"what are you arresting me for"
Fair enough question. Plus just because it comes out of the cops mouth it's no not law and is publishable at his whim.
- spyrochaete, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5You're right about this. It's not a cop's job to be a judge, it's his job to collect evidence and arrest dangerous people. Never ever argue with a cop - your argument falls on deaf ears. Submit to arrest and fight it in court.
- Pake, on 11/21/2007, -28/+11No, arguing nonstop with the officer, requiring him to ask you to show license and registration, not following orders, turning around, and concealing your hands while walking away is what warranted his ass getting tasered. The amount of force used was fine, as it did no where near the damage wrestling the guy to the ground would have.
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -9/+10Jesus Christ a reasonable opinion....
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Where?
- cawpin, on 11/21/2007, -7/+6Exactly, he had to ask for license and registration AT LEAST 5 times that I could here over the traffic noise. The guy finally complied and then refused to sign the ticket which you are required to do in Utah. Since he refused, the officer is allowed to arrest him for not complying with a lawful order. The guy guy then resisted arrest by not putting his hands behind his back. He was non-violent, but it's still resisting. He then started walking back toward his vehicle which can be considered attempting to flee. The Taser was the quickest, safest and LEAST painful way to stop him. The cop didn't do anything wrong.
- browep, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6not sure if you saw that guy hit the ground but when you get tased your muscles lock up and there's no way to stop your fall. If that guy fell towards the road he easily could have been run over. Go down on pavement and crack your head open. The tasing isnt always what kills. Thats why you see the police videos of them doing the officer training with the tasers and there are two other beefy officers on either side holding their arms while they drop on the mat. A little different than a paved highway with traffic.
- Pake, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Fighting the guy could of put both of them in the middle of traffic. So which one is better? Tasing.
- d03boy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4It never should have gotten to the point of tasing anyway. The idiot cop should have just followed a non-authoritative procedure instead of being a dickface.
- maaddmax, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5Least painful? WTF? Id rather have an officer grab my arms and lock them behind my back then getting tasered and free fall to the concrete, then have the barbs removed later.
- browep, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6not sure if you saw that guy hit the ground but when you get tased your muscles lock up and there's no way to stop your fall. If that guy fell towards the road he easily could have been run over. Go down on pavement and crack your head open. The tasing isnt always what kills. Thats why you see the police videos of them doing the officer training with the tasers and there are two other beefy officers on either side holding their arms while they drop on the mat. A little different than a paved highway with traffic.
- tofuoni, on 11/22/2007, -3/+0I so wish that we could take all the people who digg your comment down, and just put them off by themselves on the Island of Hippie Anarchy Utopia and let them all devolve into a society like the chimpanzees have. You're right - and people digg you down because they can't handle right.
- TexTurboesq, on 11/21/2007, -9/+10Jesus Christ a reasonable opinion....
- jdavid, on 11/21/2007, -12/+24I do not like cops at all. They seem to think they are above the law and they play with its rules all of the time.
I had a cop illegally search may car, after he, "did not like the way i was making left hand turns!"
he then tried to take my prints, and bring me in. at that point i know my rights, and there was no reason for him to print me. I refused the print, and asked the officer under what statute does he have the right to request my prints, or search my car for a traffic citation at best.
the guy was going to bring me in because i was asking about my rights. if it was not for the female officer who saw this guy getting out of line i could have wound up like this guy or worse.
i ended up having to pay for two tickets, and if i would have brought charges against the cop, i know i would have been pulled over just for that. there are not many in my area that drive a car like mine.
it really pisses me off when the LAW does not follow the LAW.
next time i am going to start recording it on my cell phone. - tcpip4lyfe, on 11/21/2007, -4/+8Probably the most rational comment on this page.
- captainzerocool, on 11/21/2007, -18/+6FYI: ELECTROCUTED means death by electric shock... He isn't dead.
- pileofstraw, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4thanks smartass. now get out of this thread
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I think the use of "Electrocuted" was for dramatics, not literalism. Stop over-analyzing.
- Shadowsaint, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9HOW many times did he have to ask to be read his rights? This cop didn't care bout arresting him. Get over it, the cop is a dick and should be sued and kicked off the force, no questions asked since he refuses to answer questions anyways.
- xSmartBombx, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3Yeah, kick a cop off the force and they'll just get "paid leave" or better yet, like that cop who killed his wife in Illinois, he'll just collect a pension. The jokes on all of us.
- nmvh5, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2Actually, as I've been told be people in law enforcement in utah, you are not required by law to sign the ticket and it is not an arrestable thing. All signing the ticket says is you agree to show up in court for it. If you refuse to sign it, they simply subpoena you to force you to show up.
The cop was totally in the wrong from the very beginning. He should lose his badge and go to jail for what he did. - Barbosa, on 11/22/2007, -3/+5everyone is treated like a Black person if you are an anonymous citizen facing the authorities... welcome to my world
- ocomys, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4that comment owned
- littlegoku, on 11/22/2007, -4/+2you're a freakin clown. that guy deserved to get tasered. he has his hand in his pocket, who the hell knows what he had....don't ever create suspicion.
- jaxcs, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1I think your standard of suspicious behavior is very, very low. Aside from that, does suspicion alone does not warrent getting tased. You can engage in behavior that someone else thinks is suspicious and be perfectly innocent of wrong doing. Haven't you ever been falsely accused of wrong doing?
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -79/+8Yeah, your making up laws.
- m8ymerc1, on 11/21/2007, -10/+162That cop should go to jail for the BS he pulled. He was way out of line!
- milliamp, on 11/21/2007, -3/+11Agreed, he told him to turn around, he TURNS AROUND facing the other direction and the cop shoots him in the back. WTF?
- dxmzan, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Actually, he told him to turn around and place his hands on his head. Which he did not do.
- milliamp, on 11/24/2007, -1/+1He said behind his back, not behind his head.
- dxmzan, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2Actually, he told him to turn around and place his hands on his head. Which he did not do.
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1*SARCASM*
Well, according to section 183574692.215 of the Utah State Legislation regarding Wilma vs. The Universe... The Utah Highway Patrol are allowed to execute deadly force to inflict as much Terrorism as possible on the citizens of the Universe. If a suspect asks even one question, they are required to issue confusing commands to first disorient the assailant, and then shoot the SOB on the spot. They are only allowed to fire once; however, and this cop made the mistake of drawing the incorrect weapon. Deadly force was clearly warranted here. He asked a question.
*END SARCASM*
Seriously, there was like 1/2 a second between when he told him to put his hands behind his back and when he pulled the taser gun. Notice how the taser came out WAY before the cuffs did.
- milliamp, on 11/21/2007, -3/+11Agreed, he told him to turn around, he TURNS AROUND facing the other direction and the cop shoots him in the back. WTF?
- mattewood, on 11/21/2007, -9/+224Seems like tasering people is almost a sport for some cops these days. They're looking for ANY chance to electrocute you.
- Rahodeb, on 11/21/2007, -4/+55It's sick to hear him joking about it with the other cop when he arrives.
"he took a ride on the taser", "oh really, how'd ya like it?"
***** bastards - stoppedcode12, on 11/21/2007, -2/+13Maybe it's just me, but I honestly thought tasers were meant to replace guns in SOME situations (obviously, guns are still appropriate for most threatening situations) to reduce the number of misfire incidents. (ie. shooting down a person who don't posses any real threat to anyone but is too nervous or immature to properly react to a threatening gun) Instead, it seems as though tasers are used as yet another form of control by weapons, and increases the chances of a weapon being used upon a person being confronted by a cop in any situation. Before firing a taser, cops should ask themselves, would I use a gun (and actually fire it) in this situation, if the answer is no, then using a taser is not justified. It's as simple as that.
- ChronicColonic, on 11/21/2007, -0/+9It's a competition they have at the station. The cop with the least tasers buys the next morning's donuts. This officer doesn't have to worry about buying the donuts tomorrow.
- vvaduva, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Yes, these are the kids who used to pull legs off insects while the rest of us would play football in the park...
- ajadoniz, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4tasers should be banned and should only be given to riot police. remember back when they also had the night sticks? the same thing happened as it is now. Gun = used for evasive suspects. Night stick/Taser = anything between cooperative and crazy. the tasers give the officers one more option to abuse their power and we can all agree that we only need them to enforce the law by giving us tickets or subduing crazies with a well placed shot by their glocks. having one more option available to them will only confuse them in situations like these, where there is a non-threatening confrontation resolved with unnecessary force.
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1We don't need riot police.
- Rahodeb, on 11/21/2007, -4/+55It's sick to hear him joking about it with the other cop when he arrives.
- Joshie1, on 11/21/2007, -32/+7I didn't know they used jet engine cars in Utah
- Xondar, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3The traffic was really loud. I would have liked to hear more of what they're saying.
- Grummond, on 11/21/2007, -20/+98So...this kinda thing is "acceptable behaviour" by american police officers, supposed to be serving the public?
And you guys still wonder why the Iraqis are still fighting your presence in their country? After seeing this crap, i wonder how your soldiers there are treating the general public.
"Pain compliance" is a pretty way of saying "using unbearable pain to get someone to comply with orders". Torture is another example of pain compliance.- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -23/+4You are an idiot. I suppose where your from if a cop tried to arrest someone they just ask politely then the suspect says no problem and puts his hands around his back to be cuffed.
- Meogi, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4In a prefferable situation, yes that is what should happen.
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2In a preferable situation there wouldn't be any criminal action to begin with.
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Such as the criminal action on this video? The only criminal action I saw evidence of was being committed by the cop.
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2In a preferable situation there wouldn't be any criminal action to begin with.
- Meogi, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4In a prefferable situation, yes that is what should happen.
- djdole, on 11/21/2007, -10/+2OH OH OH! Another chance to subvert a post into a political flame war!
Troll. - CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1Nice canned foreigner response, keep up the ignorance, you are a credit to your nation.
- Meogi, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Nice, more prejudice attitudes to fuel hatred in this world. His comment doesn't even give a hint to what nationality he is, but you decided he's a foreigner and should be ridiculed.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Well being that he pointed out "American police officers" would indicate he is not American. Sometimes deductive thinking works, try it.
Second, he makes a comment like no other police force is capable of doing this type of injustice to the people they serve. Unless he lives in happy rainbow land, I doubt his every person in his countries law enforcement is squeaky clean handing out flowers and free love. This type of power hungry situation can be found all over the world. So to read his smug remark like all Americans are like this is him being prejudice.
Third, did you not notice the generalized "American" ridicule in his comment? And to equate it to the Iraq situation only shows how ignorant this poster is. If you feel his staggering intellect is worth defending, go right ahead. Hopefully you wont feel regretful later for association.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Well being that he pointed out "American police officers" would indicate he is not American. Sometimes deductive thinking works, try it.
- Meogi, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Nice, more prejudice attitudes to fuel hatred in this world. His comment doesn't even give a hint to what nationality he is, but you decided he's a foreigner and should be ridiculed.
- nosecohn, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11I know people who will never return to the US because they've had terrifying run-ins there with over-aggressive police officers.
- darkecho, on 11/22/2007, -5/+1"After seeing this crap, i wonder how your soldiers there are treating the general public."
You mean like giving them food and water.. right? F You know, the ***** that the media doesn't want you to see as its not "newsworthy".- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2And WHY exactly do they need someone to give them food and water? Oh, right. Their towns got bombed to ***** by the U.S. military.
When the British left Basra, violence dropped by 90%. We're not helping the situation, we ARE the situation.
- felchdonkey, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2And WHY exactly do they need someone to give them food and water? Oh, right. Their towns got bombed to ***** by the U.S. military.
- hulez, on 11/22/2007, -3/+2LOL! Tasers do not cause unbearable pain. I have been tasered, and i must say, it's not as bad as it looks!
ALSO, if i see an electric fence, i grab onto it for fun ^_^ - randomm, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Hey man (or woman) please don't be a racist. There is no reason to generalize all Americans in this fashion. This is no different than somebody saying they hate all Africans when they see one who breaks a law. Please don't let your anger or frustration bring out your ignorance.
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -23/+4You are an idiot. I suppose where your from if a cop tried to arrest someone they just ask politely then the suspect says no problem and puts his hands around his back to be cuffed.
- Schneckehaus, on 11/21/2007, -12/+70Excessive force much?
- paloooz, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Much much?
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -18/+4Actually tasers aren't considered excessive. Beating the ***** out of him with a night stick would have been excessive. Pulling his gun and shooting him in the leg would have been excessive.
With that one taser shot, the cop subdued a dangerous situation while preventing harm to himself the passenger, and yes even the driver who got tasered. - PRlME, on 11/21/2007, -2/+11he shot the guy in the back i dont think he was even facing the cop at that point
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -47/+12They are both complete idiots.
The driver is an idiot for not signing and an even bigger idiot for not putting his hand behind his back when asked to do so three times by a man who pointed a ***** taser at him, man who has the authority to arrest non-compliant citizens and who is paid to do so. All the driver had to do was to contest the ticket and use the police video (made available to anyone who is in them) and win the case.
And of course, the cop is an idiot because all he had to do was to club that douche in the back of the knees to prevent him from getting back in his car.- Rahodeb, on 11/21/2007, -1/+13...Or talk to him. Ya know, like real people do when there is a disagreement about facts.
- thugok, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Wait, you expect the cop to talk to the guy when he's holding a perfectly good weapon?
- niczar, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3You made me lol!
- bkdragon23, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0Dugg! lol!
- Pake, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3That is what court is for.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2He tried talking, he talked for 5 minutes, he gave him 4 warnings to stop and put his hands behind his back. Mr Giant Douche chose not to listen and tried to get back in his car.
- BRODEL, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2People like you scare the ***** out of me. It's bad enough we have cops that pull ***** like this, but then there's people like you, the dumb ***** who CONDONE IT!
I guess lying to his fellow cop about the warning he (NEVER) gave is ok too because well he's a cop he can do what he wants like refusing to read someone his rights...- ElAssoWipo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Are you insane or do you have Alzheimer?
You just saw the video, you just saw the cop tell that idiot to put his hands behing his back 4 times while pointing a taser at thim and you deny that it just happened?
How do you function in life?
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Are you insane or do you have Alzheimer?
- BRODEL, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2People like you scare the ***** out of me. It's bad enough we have cops that pull ***** like this, but then there's people like you, the dumb ***** who CONDONE IT!
- thugok, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Wait, you expect the cop to talk to the guy when he's holding a perfectly good weapon?
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2I find it strange that everyone opposes the tasering but has no problem with the cop using physical force or his gun.
.- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2That's because he tasered the guy. He didn't use physical force or his gun.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I don't oppose to either. I just like the club because it often leaves permanent dammage and I like when dumbasses get the ***** kicked out of them. It's the only thing they listen to, as demonstrated in this video.
- Rahodeb, on 11/21/2007, -1/+13...Or talk to him. Ya know, like real people do when there is a disagreement about facts.
- drvelocity, on 11/21/2007, -15/+188God this ***** makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
Isn't it funny that, at least in my experience, it's the youngest of us who are most outraged at everything that is happening to our country? People that are supposedly too young to understand what America is about? What being a true citizen and patriot should be about?
I see this and want to puke because it's so clear to me what I used to believe (and was indeed true, to an extent) about the greatness and freedom of America is all but ***** at this point. And yet my parents, and just about everyone I know of their generation, could give a rats ass. They're too busy dealing with their daily lives than to deal with the country going down the toilet (even on a perfunctory level). Of course there are exceptions, but one look at the age distribution of the Ron Paul/Dennis Kusinich support crowd I think backs up my assertion.
If the WWII generation was the "greatest generation", then I hereby award the "worst generation" trophy to the baby boomers for looking the other way while the Bush admin took over.- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -38/+4All I saw was some guy get a speeding ticket, then proceed to argue with the cop (which doesn't work), then get out of his vehicle so that he can physically confront the cop (an even bigger mistake than arguing with him), then refuses to comply with the officer (which a cop can then use force to subdue and arrest you).
- SillyDigger, on 11/21/2007, -2/+21Ummm the officer asked him to step out of the vehicle
- easycheez, on 11/21/2007, -3/+20He was only out of the vehicle after the cop ordered him to do so. He made NO aggressive maneuvers toward the police officer. He wanted an explanation, and to see the radar scan. Without a radar scan, there is no proof that a speeding ticket should be in fact given. This cop is way out of line, power hungry bastard. Reason will always win, aggression will catch up with you in the end.
- MikeDawg, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2In most situations, and under most state laws, the cop is not required to show you the radar/laser gun that he used.
- stevenb, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Truth.
- MikeDawg, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2In most situations, and under most state laws, the cop is not required to show you the radar/laser gun that he used.
- senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -1/+15The cop ordered him out of the car. Probably for the express purpose of finding a reason to taser him.
- SnowPuffKing, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6It sounds like this really does bother you. It all starts at home. When can we expect you to make a presentation to your City Council on the subject? Rally community support and make sure policies are implemented in your City to prevent this. Keep us updated on your progress.
- papusman, on 11/21/2007, -6/+2Hahahaha! Good call. I eagerly await the results of his community effort. I'm sure ALL the angry diggers are currently writing their city council.
- nazadus, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I believe the point went over your head.
If he can't even get their attention, then -- uhmmm-- how can he do anything by himself?- SnowPuffKing, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0I think my passive aggressiveness went over your head. By the way, it's been a week...something tells me he's played Halo for hours and hasn't done a damned thing about this issue that makes him "sick to his stomach". Surprise, surprise.
- PRlME, on 11/21/2007, -13/+1"sick to my stomach. " kinda dramatic there
- jimfeet, on 11/21/2007, -7/+9Sorry to burst your bubble drvelocity...
I'm one of your so-called "worst generation" baby boomers and me and all my personal friends actively protested during the Vietnam War even though many of the same friends served in Nam. We also campaigned against Regan, Bush and his dumb-ass kid as they systematically stripped away our rights. We don't see many young people out protesting as the government authorizes unlimited wiretapping let alone copyright protections that clearly restrict what we are allowed to do with the books, recordings and videos we purchase. We DID do our part and we continue to protest but young people noticeably absent.
And did you vote? If not, STFU. Too many young people have decided the best way to protest is to not vote. Well, they are part of the problem. While I agree the problems in this country often don't seem to be solved by voting, it's really the best tool we have to work with. Maybe if we quit voting based on expensive advertising slogans and instead vote based on an honest and thorough assessment of a candidate's values... Until then, I guess you'll just have to vent on DIGG. That'll make things better.- cablemodemguy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Stalin said: he who votes decides nothing, he who counts the votes decides everything.
- drvelocity, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6No bubbles to burst here I'm afraid. I said there were those like you who admirably go out and do take a stand. And yes, we young ones certainly don't do as much as we should either. But I truly believe at any given point of time it is those aged 30-70 who are really the stewards of our society from a political point of view in that throughout history this is the age group that has always been most involved with politics, owing to their life experience and ability to garner respect in the political sphere. The majority of those in the under 25 group will likely never be informed and motivated to the point of becoming responsible politically, by the very nature of their age and the fact that politics are not interesting to those who haven't lived long enough to develop firm opinions on politics.
Again, speaking in general terms here, the baby boomer generation allowed the republican party to exploit their religious values in basically uprooting everything the USA used to stand for. I really think it's as simple as that. Again, congratulations on not being one of them. - iamr00t, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4Let me guess...as soon as the draft was ended, you stopped protesting.
This is what bothers me about baby boomers. Protesting the vietnam war is their claim to fame, when in reality they weren't even protesting the war, they were protesting the draft. As soon as the draft ended, the large protests stopped, although the war went on. Since then they've had no problem sending US troops (younger, non-baby boomer troops) to many other countries to spread freedom through the barrel of a gun.
Just like with the problems now, if the issues don't have a direct effect on the boomer's' lives, they stick their head in the sand and don't give a *****. They should remember what their parents fought for and ensure WWII wasn't fought in vein.
Wake up boomers, it's pathetic 20-somethings and teenagers are more in tune with constitutional rights than you are!
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3Older people don't get outraged by this crap because it's nothing to be outraged about.
The only reason you're "sick to your stomach" is because you lived a completely sheltered life. You never killed an animal yet you eat meat everyday. You'll never starve, your basic education is paid for, and you count on governments and institutions to do everything for you.
When I grew up, cops didn't have tasers. They had the hose, attack dogs, nightsticks and very hard fists. There were no cameras on the dashboard so they could basically do anything they wanted and nobody could argue against what they said. If the cops said X, X is what happened. I'd get my ass beat in school for talking out of turn. I'd get my ass beat at home for talking out of turn. Blacks had to make the argument that they were people. Think about that. They had to argue with the general population that they were in fact persons.
Read "Why Courage Matters: the Way to a Braver Life" by John McCain (it has nothing to do with politics so don't let your disagreeing with his political views prevent you from reading this gem). And learn why you're a giant pussy.- Xondar, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Yeah, right. You got beat all the time it looks like. And when I was young in the early '80s, I had to walk uphill both ways without shoes in the dead of winter to get to school. Those kids nowadays have no conception of REAL hardship.
- Garbagio, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I get the distinct impression that you masturbate to every one of your own comments.
- Joomal, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1While I do agree with alot of your statements - tell me this. How does a cop making bad judgment equal the bush administration?
I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I think that point is a bit off topic and more on the rant.
- ShugNinx21, on 11/21/2007, -38/+4All I saw was some guy get a speeding ticket, then proceed to argue with the cop (which doesn't work), then get out of his vehicle so that he can physically confront the cop (an even bigger mistake than arguing with him), then refuses to comply with the officer (which a cop can then use force to subdue and arrest you).
- gl77, on 03/31/2008, -77/+4oh great, more taser spam......buried
- jbird71, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11Terribly sorry that a police officer bulldozing an American's constitutional rights is "spam".
- pileofstraw, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6next time you make a cocky comment and get tasered for that, please don't come up here sharing your story (if you're still alive)
- stevets, on 11/21/2007, -6/+92What an *****. After the other cop showed up he tried sounding all cool and didn't even tell his story exactly as it happened. Talk about a crock of *****. I hope this guy loses his job over this one.
- Pake, on 11/21/2007, -12/+3Why not comment on how the guy was acting? Eh? Oh, must be too hard since he was being a complete idiot. All the cop did was taser him, but the