Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
#11
11-24-2007, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
as a cop i can say that was a bit rediculous! that cop over-reacted. he should have asked-advised-ordered and then if the guy still would not do as he said, taze him. you do not have to sign a ticket, but you will get arrested if you dont, just so you all know. but.. the cop did need to calm down just a bit before using any level of force!
#12
11-24-2007, 01:33 PM
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
My two cents self-quoted from another forum.
If the guy, excuse me, I mean punk kid, had simply been decent to the cop
he would have probably not received a ticket at all.
The cop's voice at first sounds very relaxed.
Then...
I think the cop could have handled the situation a lot better.
The guy is walking away from the officer when he gets tasered.
That's shooting someone in the back, though not with lethal force, still wrong.
Then the girlfriend's hysterical screaming just reaffirms the reason I got married only once and not again.
Annoying.
The kid acted like a jerk and you don't discuss guilt or innocence with the cop
you save it for court.
But tasering someone in the back is weak sauce.
If the guy, excuse me, I mean punk kid, had simply been decent to the cop
he would have probably not received a ticket at all.
The cop's voice at first sounds very relaxed.
Then...
I think the cop could have handled the situation a lot better.
The guy is walking away from the officer when he gets tasered.
That's shooting someone in the back, though not with lethal force, still wrong.
Then the girlfriend's hysterical screaming just reaffirms the reason I got married only once and not again.
Annoying.
The kid acted like a jerk and you don't discuss guilt or innocence with the cop
you save it for court.
But tasering someone in the back is weak sauce.
The cop always tells you that signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt,
simply your promise or willingness to appear before the court by the date
written or inscribed/printed on the citation.
Just sign the damn thing. The officer will give you a copy for your records.
Now, having said that, Tasering someone is easily avoidable.
Maybe upon refusal simply inform the ticketee that by not signing, they
are in effect refusing to honor r make any claims in dispute.
This will make the ticket and "alleged" crime an assumption on the part
of the courts and state laws that the defendant knowingly will be issued
a bench warrant if he/she does not appear before the magistrate, or
willingly and of their own accord settle the ticket monetarily before said
date.
This will and could result in the following:
Arrest and impounding of vehicle either on an assigned day by the local
jurisdiction, or the next time said defendant is suspected and detained
on a future law violation, either by moving infractions or other.
Loss of driver's license for 6 months for failing to properly admit guilt
or defend ones innocence through the proper channels.
Etc. Etc.
simply your promise or willingness to appear before the court by the date
written or inscribed/printed on the citation.
Just sign the damn thing. The officer will give you a copy for your records.
Now, having said that, Tasering someone is easily avoidable.
Maybe upon refusal simply inform the ticketee that by not signing, they
are in effect refusing to honor r make any claims in dispute.
This will make the ticket and "alleged" crime an assumption on the part
of the courts and state laws that the defendant knowingly will be issued
a bench warrant if he/she does not appear before the magistrate, or
willingly and of their own accord settle the ticket monetarily before said
date.
This will and could result in the following:
Arrest and impounding of vehicle either on an assigned day by the local
jurisdiction, or the next time said defendant is suspected and detained
on a future law violation, either by moving infractions or other.
Loss of driver's license for 6 months for failing to properly admit guilt
or defend ones innocence through the proper channels.
Etc. Etc.
#13
11-24-2007, 02:18 PM
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
ORIGINAL: aaron1085
as a cop i can say that was a bit rediculous! that cop over-reacted. he should have asked-advised-ordered and then if the guy still would not do as he said, taze him. you do not have to sign a ticket, but you will get arrested if you dont, just so you all know. but.. the cop did need to calm down just a bit before using any level of force!
as a cop i can say that was a bit rediculous! that cop over-reacted. he should have asked-advised-ordered and then if the guy still would not do as he said, taze him. you do not have to sign a ticket, but you will get arrested if you dont, just so you all know. but.. the cop did need to calm down just a bit before using any level of force!
#14
11-25-2007, 11:12 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location:
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#15
11-25-2007, 12:32 PM
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
ORIGINAL: DeFunk
Curious to what the specific charge is for not signing a ticket warranting arrest? Not debating it, simply would like to know the name of the charge.
ORIGINAL: aaron1085
as a cop i can say that was a bit rediculous! that cop over-reacted. he should have asked-advised-ordered and then if the guy still would not do as he said, taze him. you do not have to sign a ticket, but you will get arrested if you dont, just so you all know. but.. the cop did need to calm down just a bit before using any level of force!
as a cop i can say that was a bit rediculous! that cop over-reacted. he should have asked-advised-ordered and then if the guy still would not do as he said, taze him. you do not have to sign a ticket, but you will get arrested if you dont, just so you all know. but.. the cop did need to calm down just a bit before using any level of force!
#16
11-25-2007, 12:34 PM
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
ORIGINAL: DThompson
We dont even have to sign tickets in illinois, or atleast around here. To sign it is basically saying that yes you were pulled over and yes the cop told you why. It says at the bottom that you ARE NOT admitting fault for signing this.
We dont even have to sign tickets in illinois, or atleast around here. To sign it is basically saying that yes you were pulled over and yes the cop told you why. It says at the bottom that you ARE NOT admitting fault for signing this.
#17
11-25-2007, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#18
11-25-2007, 01:30 PM
Retired Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fort Awesome
Posts: 7,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#19
11-25-2007, 08:02 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
Yes, the guy was being a *****... But the cop never gave him a chance.
Kind of makes me suspect the officer was just "itching for a fight"
EDIT: Once the cop pulled the tazer the guy should have gotten a clue and immediately complied with the cop's instructions even if they made no sense whatsoever.
However;the cop acted WAAY out of line as well:
The cop should have advised him that not signing the ticket would result in his arrest. And asked him/ordered him to sign the ticket. Giving hime one more chance to sign it once he was advised (and therefore aware of the consequences of not signing )
He should have also informed him immediately that he was being placed under arrest and that he needed to place his hands behind his back etc...
It is concievable that the guy didn't realize he was being placed under arrest when asked to step out of the car.
Also, the officer never read him his rights.
Not that it would have made any difference there on the roadside, but a litigious lawyer could have a field day with this officer's sorry excuse for police procedure, and have a great chance at winning an obcene ammount on behalf of his client. (although I am vehemently opposed to frivolous lawsuits)
Kind of makes me suspect the officer was just "itching for a fight"
EDIT: Once the cop pulled the tazer the guy should have gotten a clue and immediately complied with the cop's instructions even if they made no sense whatsoever.
However;the cop acted WAAY out of line as well:
The cop should have advised him that not signing the ticket would result in his arrest. And asked him/ordered him to sign the ticket. Giving hime one more chance to sign it once he was advised (and therefore aware of the consequences of not signing )
He should have also informed him immediately that he was being placed under arrest and that he needed to place his hands behind his back etc...
It is concievable that the guy didn't realize he was being placed under arrest when asked to step out of the car.
Also, the officer never read him his rights.
Not that it would have made any difference there on the roadside, but a litigious lawyer could have a field day with this officer's sorry excuse for police procedure, and have a great chance at winning an obcene ammount on behalf of his client. (although I am vehemently opposed to frivolous lawsuits)
#20
11-25-2007, 09:01 PM
RE: Don't Taze Me Bro .. PART II
Guns are synonymous with cops.
From what I could hear (and the passing traffic was loud many of which look like they are going beyond 40 MPH by the cop no less though thats another thread), it did not sound as though the driver was giving any type of attitude but rather simply trying to plead his case/situation, it's natural, especially when you know you're right (which I have to say, the fact that it appeared the cop had JUST gotten in front of the 40 MPH sign of which -could- be obstructing the visibility of it before the SUV passed him - firstmistake of the officer as he did not adhere to allowing a reasonable amount of distance without adveresly affecting traffic to slow down AFTER the posted speed limit sign and second by obstructing the view of the sign).
The driver also probably hadn't gotten to the point to read where it states on the ticket that it is not an admission of fault. Instead, he probably thought it meant just the opposite. Third mistake of the officer was not to INFORM the driver that by signing it he was not signing an admission of fault, fourth was not citing the reason for the charge (ie. charge of speeding) which he is obligated to do. The officer then tells the driver to "sigh..alright step out of the vehicle" while the driver was trying to plead his case (again its natural.. for those that care about our rights that is -- remember, these officers are paid with our involuntary tax money they ARE there to "to SERVE and to protect" I imagine this will hurt some officers pride). Fifth, the officer draws his Tazer -while- notifying the driver he was under arrest, NOT after the driver was resistant to such notification. Now, refer back to guns being synonymous with police officers. Because the officer was so off the wall, I too would have taken a step back or flinched (and to say you wouldn't - you are odd). Officers are supposed to notify, advise and then demand as part of arresting procedure. This officer notified with a Tazer (which the guy probably thought was a gun since they make them look very much like a gun anymore) drawn.
I won't even go into how the officer didnt place himself nearest his drivers side door. The Miranda warning (or rights as many know it by) did not and does not have to be given until before interrogation of which I didn't hear any such interrogation on the tape. In fact, I dont even remember the officer asking the infamous "do you know how fast you were going?" Any officer that plans to give a ticket shouldnt (from what I can read and understand) such a question as it COULD be considered an onsite interrogation, thus could be tossed out should the officer later decide to cite a driver with a ticket, because such driver was not first read the Miranda warning (rights).
This is from a few hours of reading UHP procedures, perhaps my source is skewed, though its what I could find using Google.
That's my take on it all. I do not think of police officers as dicks or sweetie pies. They are in the CIVIL SERVICE line of work. They ARE here to serve and protect us, as tax paying citizens. Those that believe we should belly up (now I didnt say resist and caused riot) sadden me. I remember reading when North American's used to allow a government to over tax and walk all over them and a group of individuals started, more-less, what is now called the United States of America. I'm so very glad that the masses that seem to exist today did not exist in such large numbers back then, else we just might be called United States of Britain.
Question your rights and never so easily give up your freedom. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to think the government is trying to take away your rights -- its called realism. Department of Homeland Security -- a government inside a government, personally, it scares me, not ju
From what I could hear (and the passing traffic was loud many of which look like they are going beyond 40 MPH by the cop no less though thats another thread), it did not sound as though the driver was giving any type of attitude but rather simply trying to plead his case/situation, it's natural, especially when you know you're right (which I have to say, the fact that it appeared the cop had JUST gotten in front of the 40 MPH sign of which -could- be obstructing the visibility of it before the SUV passed him - firstmistake of the officer as he did not adhere to allowing a reasonable amount of distance without adveresly affecting traffic to slow down AFTER the posted speed limit sign and second by obstructing the view of the sign).
The driver also probably hadn't gotten to the point to read where it states on the ticket that it is not an admission of fault. Instead, he probably thought it meant just the opposite. Third mistake of the officer was not to INFORM the driver that by signing it he was not signing an admission of fault, fourth was not citing the reason for the charge (ie. charge of speeding) which he is obligated to do. The officer then tells the driver to "sigh..alright step out of the vehicle" while the driver was trying to plead his case (again its natural.. for those that care about our rights that is -- remember, these officers are paid with our involuntary tax money they ARE there to "to SERVE and to protect" I imagine this will hurt some officers pride). Fifth, the officer draws his Tazer -while- notifying the driver he was under arrest, NOT after the driver was resistant to such notification. Now, refer back to guns being synonymous with police officers. Because the officer was so off the wall, I too would have taken a step back or flinched (and to say you wouldn't - you are odd). Officers are supposed to notify, advise and then demand as part of arresting procedure. This officer notified with a Tazer (which the guy probably thought was a gun since they make them look very much like a gun anymore) drawn.
I won't even go into how the officer didnt place himself nearest his drivers side door. The Miranda warning (or rights as many know it by) did not and does not have to be given until before interrogation of which I didn't hear any such interrogation on the tape. In fact, I dont even remember the officer asking the infamous "do you know how fast you were going?" Any officer that plans to give a ticket shouldnt (from what I can read and understand) such a question as it COULD be considered an onsite interrogation, thus could be tossed out should the officer later decide to cite a driver with a ticket, because such driver was not first read the Miranda warning (rights).
This is from a few hours of reading UHP procedures, perhaps my source is skewed, though its what I could find using Google.
That's my take on it all. I do not think of police officers as dicks or sweetie pies. They are in the CIVIL SERVICE line of work. They ARE here to serve and protect us, as tax paying citizens. Those that believe we should belly up (now I didnt say resist and caused riot) sadden me. I remember reading when North American's used to allow a government to over tax and walk all over them and a group of individuals started, more-less, what is now called the United States of America. I'm so very glad that the masses that seem to exist today did not exist in such large numbers back then, else we just might be called United States of Britain.
Question your rights and never so easily give up your freedom. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to think the government is trying to take away your rights -- its called realism. Department of Homeland Security -- a government inside a government, personally, it scares me, not ju
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post