Tasers and their justification for use

[Justforfun000]

From another thread:

Kamikaze Sith's Response to me.

Justforfun000 wrote:


Oh Jesus. Now this I just cannot justify at all. I personally despise the use of tasers because I think too many officers get off on being able to cause excrutiating pain to someone just because they don't immediately ask "how high" when they are told to jump and this is what I see in this video here.



Immediately? This guy was told several times with a weapon being pointed at him.

Quote:

The guy was not immediately or completely obeying instructions, true, but I'm sorry, when the person is NOT displaying any violent intentions, OR trying to flee from the officer, I cannot justify them using the taser.



He was putting his hands in his pockets which to a police officer is a huge red flag. IIRC the force used by this UHP trooper was ruled justified by a panel of civilians, however, they made him take classes in tact.

Quote:

I think it's an egregious abuse of power and I think each and every officer should be reprimanded and punished for it. They should NOT be upheld as appropriate uses.
The officer should be beholden to patiently explain exactly WHY the guy has to follow the instructions from the cop and what he can do to challenge it, and what he CANNOT refuse to do. Coaxing the guy into being calm and explaining themselves TACTFULLY as you hinted to is the appropriate way to go. I will never be convinced that tasering in these instances is justifiable or appropriate. It's abuse of power and quite frankly I think it's bordering on deadly assault because there are a little too many people who have died from being tasered. They aren't THAT safe and too many times I see them being used as a toy.


Tasers have been deployed thousands of times with only a few hundred deaths world wide. However, we can argue about the taser, this video, and the use of a force in another thread.

Anyway, the point of that video was to show that resisting and disobeying commands from a police officer will get you arrested, and if you continue to resist it might get you hurt. Don't resist regardless of the validity of those charges...
_________________

I hope I'm copying this correctly so it's understandable...anyway, here's my responses:

Immediately? This guy was told several times with a weapon being pointed at him.

You're right. I went back and looked and realized the guy was walking away and not listening. However I still feel this does not justify taser use. He still should have said very clearly something along the line of "Sir, if you do not comply with my orders to you I will have no choice but to tase you and arrest youl. You may not understand what you're doing is very serious, but I have the right to subdue you for at the very least passively defying a direct police order, and at worst crossing into actively defying me.

This is a serious warning because you have now escalated a minor traffic ticket into a serious one."

I'm sure that those words would have been more then enough to wake to guy up. He simply did NOT understand that what he was doing was even remotely considered inflammatory, defying a police officer up to inducing a taser assault and an arrest.

The other issue here is that the police do not have the right to just escalate these situations into these cluster fucks. The guy did NOT deserve or need to be arrested. This costs taxpayers a great deal of money and waste of serious police resources so the cop is greatly at fault here.

He was putting his hands in his pockets which to a police officer is a huge red flag. IIRC the force used by this UHP trooper was ruled justified by a panel of civilians, however, they made him take classes in tact.

Well I'm very glad they at least made him take classes, but as I said before, this guy did NOT share the same kind of view regarding his actions and how they could be "interpreted". Lets be realistic, the guy was pissed because he felt he was being unfairly charged. If he was correct then he damn well deserves to be. The officer in this case is still the authority figure and can quite reasonably judge a person and their potential threat level. Lets be honest, this was a peaceful guy who showed no threatening signs whatsoever, he at worst felt badly maligned and started being fearful and backing away from the policeman demanding an explanation and trying to figure out what the fuck was wrong with him. He couldn't understand the level of aggression that was all of a sudden being whipped at him, and he was damn right. I wouldn't have understood it either!

The policeman knew damn well this guy wasn't a problem but he lost his temper and then escalated the situation. Put a poor guy through compeltely unecessary pain which I think is a VERY serious crime and I don't think he should have been let off so easy. Plus put the guy through an unecessary arrest wasting time and money that taxpayers like him fund in the first place.

Tasers have been deployed thousands of times with only a few hundred deaths world wide. However, we can argue about the taser, this video, and the use of a force in another thread.

I understand that, but don't you think a few hundred deaths is quite a significant number to dismiss the usage of tasers in very mild circumstances?

I hold the viewpoint that causing that degree of pain to another human being is torture and ONLY justified when being used in place of more serious methods like using a gun.

Using them frivolously, or even in mild, casual circumstances that are 'justified' by policeman protocol is not acceptable to me. I think this point of view is too geared towards police and their pessimistic viewpoint of suspects.

Granted in some cases dealing with known undesirables like prior felons or what have you, there can be actual arguments suggesting a different base approach. But average Joe Schmoe stopped for a simple speeding ticket? No. Just can't agree with it.

Anyway, the point of that video was to show that resisting and disobeying commands from a police officer will get you arrested, and if you continue to resist it might get you hurt. Don't resist regardless of the validity of those charges...

Well this obviously very good advice and I think a lot more public service announcements should be showing such events on TV and making it clear to the average eprson exactly WHAT they are beholden to do when challenged by a policeman. I'll bet you if you polled a great portion of the population, they would have a very different ideas what their rights actually are and what they think they can do in circumstances of conflict with a cop.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You're right. I went back and looked and realized the guy was walking away and not listening. However I still feel this does not justify taser use. He still should have said very clearly something along the line of "Sir, if you do not comply with my orders to you I will have no choice but to tase you and arrest youl. You may not understand what you're doing is very serious, but I have the right to subdue you for at the very least passively defying a direct police order, and at worst crossing into actively defying me.

Well, it might not justify the taser use. However, he was still within department policy. I'll agree with you that taser use needs to be re-defined for use against someone who is actively resisting.

I'm sure that those words would have been more then enough to wake to guy up. He simply did NOT understand that what he was doing was even remotely considered inflammatory, defying a police officer up to inducing a taser assault and an arrest.

The other issue here is that the police do not have the right to just escalate these situations into these cluster fucks. The guy did NOT deserve or need to be arrested. This costs taxpayers a great deal of money and waste of serious police resources so the cop is greatly at fault here.

IIRC UHP has a policy that they will arrest those who refuse to sign a ticket. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgment that you received the ticket. The logic is if you don't sign the ticket then you never got it...so a signature is important.

That being said in my department we just write "Refused to sign" on our tickets. However, this wasn't the Troopers fault for following policy. The State is at fault here.

Well I'm very glad they at least made him take classes, but as I said before, this guy did NOT share the same kind of view regarding his actions and how they could be "interpreted". Lets be realistic, the guy was pissed because he felt he was being unfairly charged. If he was correct then he damn well deserves to be. The officer in this case is still the authority figure and can quite reasonably judge a person and their potential threat level. Lets be honest, this was a peaceful guy who showed no threatening signs whatsoever, he at worst felt badly maligned and started being fearful and backing away from the policeman demanding an explanation and trying to figure out what the fuck was wrong with him. He couldn't understand the level of aggression that was all of a sudden being whipped at him, and he was damn right. I wouldn't have understood it either!

Yes, let's be honest. I wish I could find the video of Trooper Coates and Mr. Blackburn. I'll talk about it here, but in a very short version. Also, keep in mind events that I describe might be a bit different than what the video actually shows. It's been a while. This video though is shown to probably all prospective officers.

-------------------------
In this case Trooper Coates was very tactful, and respectful. The two men were talking and getting along just fine. After establishing a freindly mood with Mr. Blackburn Trooper Coates asked for permission to search Mr. Blackburns vehicle.

Blackburn placed his hands in his pockets, and started acting evasive. Trooper Coates asked Blackburn to take his hands out of his pockets, but Blackburn refused. Coates then placed a hand on Blackburn, and Blackburn resisted by pulling away and then pulled out a small .22 caliber weapon which Coates tried to control, but lost his footing and fell onto the ground.

Blackburn was standing over him saying something like "I'll fucking kill you" and then shot Coates at point blank range in the vest which saved him. Coates managed to trip Blackburn and regain his footing. He used his service weapon, a .357 revolver, and hit Blackburn a couple times in the stomach. Coates then went to radio for help at which point Blackburn fired another shot which hit Coates in the armpit striking his bone, and fragmenting the round. Coates fired again striking Blackburn a couple more times, for a total of five center mass hits.

Coates has now been wounded, and is in a state of panic. He is calling on his radio "Ridgeland, Ridgeland 21!" multiple times, but not actually saying anything. He retreates putting Blackburns car between him, and Blackburn and then collapses.

A piece of the bullet that fragmented when it struck Coates pierced his aorta and caused him to bleed to death within minutes. As for Blackburn who was hit five times he's still alive spending life in prison.
---------------------------

The policeman knew damn well this guy wasn't a problem but he lost his temper and then escalated the situation. Put a poor guy through compeltely unecessary pain which I think is a VERY serious crime and I don't think he should have been let off so easy. Plus put the guy through an unecessary arrest wasting time and money that taxpayers like him fund in the first place.

Making the assumption that someone isn't going to be a problem has gotten officers killed. That's why the danger signs include hands in pockets, refusing commands, and attempting to flee.

I understand that, but don't you think a few hundred deaths is quite a significant number to dismiss the usage of tasers in very mild circumstances?

I hold the viewpoint that causing that degree of pain to another human being is torture and ONLY justified when being used in place of more serious methods like using a gun.

A taser would never be used in leiu of a gun. When a deadly force situation presents itself then you use deadly force because tasers aren't 100% effective even if they do hit.

Using them frivolously, or even in mild, casual circumstances that are 'justified' by policeman protocol is not acceptable to me. I think this point of view is too geared towards police and their pessimistic viewpoint of suspects.

Well, I agree that the policy needs to be changed for the use of tasers. As I said before it should be used against those who actively resist.

Granted in some cases dealing with known undesirables like prior felons or what have you, there can be actual arguments suggesting a different base approach. But average Joe Schmoe stopped for a simple speeding ticket? No. Just can't agree with it.

Who is average Joe Schmoe though? Blackburn appeared like an average guy until the Trooper crossed his comfort zone.

Well this obviously very good advice and I think a lot more public service announcements should be showing such events on TV and making it clear to the average eprson exactly WHAT they are beholden to do when challenged by a policeman. I'll bet you if you polled a great portion of the population, they would have a very different ideas what their rights actually are and what they think they can do in circumstances of conflict with a cop.

We're talking about the United States. A lot of people don't even know what the Bill of Rights is, or what it means.

[Justforfun000]

IIRC UHP has a policy that they will arrest those who refuse to sign a ticket. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgment that you received the ticket. The logic is if you don't sign the ticket then you never got it...so a signature is important.

That being said in my department we just write "Refused to sign" on our tickets. However, this wasn't the Troopers fault for following policy. The State is at fault here.

Yeah that's a different law down there. We don't have it. It seems to inflame people particularly so I wonder if they should reconsider it usage. Up here there really is no contest. If the police pull you over in said vehicle with said license plate and you fit the description, you aren't going to have a hope in hell of talking your way out of pretending you weren't there and didn't get the ticket.

Yes, let's be honest. I wish I could find the video of Trooper Coates and Mr. Blackburn. I'll talk about it here, but in a very short version. Also, keep in mind events that I describe might be a bit different than what the video actually shows. It's been a while. This video though is shown to probably all prospective officers.

Ack. Point well taken. I guess the best compromise here is that the TV should be running many public service ads reminding them what their responsibilities are when dealing with the police and helping them understand the risk assessments they have to make. They should definitely be playing the scenario you mentioned so people can totally understand why a policeman might become very "aggressive" all of a sudden.

See the problem here is lack of communication. Both parties feel very much in the right and ultimately we end up with a completely unecessary altercation. Surely they can find a way to bridge this gap better.

Making the assumption that someone isn't going to be a problem has gotten officers killed. That's why the danger signs include hands in pockets, refusing commands, and attempting to flee.

Got it. After that story I can understand. They really should be using these as public service announcements. People realy do need to have information driven into their head like a baseball bat at times.

A taser would never be used in leiu of a gun. When a deadly force situation presents itself then you use deadly force because tasers aren't 100% effective even if they do hit.

Oh I thought in the past officers could still draw their weapon for intimidation even when not close to actually shooting.

Well, I agree that the policy needs to be changed for the use of tasers. As I said before it should be used against those who actively resist.

Hopefully they will start looking along those lines. Seeing videos of average people being hit by tasers just engenders a lot of ill will towards police and they don't need that from the general public. It's a thankless job as it is. I personally respect police officers very highly myself and my cousin is a detective in the RCMP here in Canada. I've had very minor disagreements with police in the past, but on a whole they have usually been quite professional and polite. I suppose it's probably understandable for cops south of the border to be sometimes a little less patient. There must be some days some of them just wish they could just shoot everyone they meet.

Who is average Joe Schmoe though? Blackburn appeared like an average guy until the Trooper crossed his comfort zone.

Yeah I see the problem. I could say "Well this guy had a pregnant wife in the car and....", but that doesn't really mean jack shit.

The only way to truly reduce a lot of these incidents is to make the public very aware what to expect in these circumstances. Undoubtedly there are probably 100 people tased to 1 who probably required it to be subdued because it would eventualy be a numbers game when judged by a certain protocol and people that I keep seeing in these videos are stunned by the initial aggression shown by the officer when they pull out the taser, and then even more shocked when they find out that after neing ignonimously shocked to shit, that they are being arrested on top of it.

This is a huge failure to communicate ahead of time what people can expect when dealing with the police. It's a disservice to the officers who have to then deal with a situation that starts to escalate into an unknown situation.

We're talking about the United States. A lot of people don't even know what the Bill of Rights is, or what it means.

I know, and that's what's sad. They all used to from what I recall of your history. Is this possibly the result of Republican rule? Are they just not teaching these concepts anymore in schools?

[General Zod]

Oh I thought in the past officers could still draw their weapon for intimidation even when not close to actually shooting.

You have to keep in mind tasers are a relatively recent invention, so in the past officers didn't really have a lot of choice. The general rule of handling a firearm for anyone is that you do not draw it without being willing to use it. Doing otherwise is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible, especially if your bluff gets called.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

You have to keep in mind tasers are a relatively recent invention, so in the past officers didn't really have a lot of choice. The general rule of handling a firearm for anyone is that you do not draw it without being willing to use it. Doing otherwise is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible, especially if your bluff gets called.

That reminds me..do they still carry batons?

[General Zod]

That reminds me..do they still carry batons?

As far as I know they do. But the baton design has changed over the years from what I can tell.

[Timotheus]

That reminds me..do they still carry batons?

As far as I know they do. But the baton design has changed over the years from what I can tell.

Some do and some don't. It depends on the department. Some have dropped it for the same reason I see the eventual dropping of the taser. The ability to use it and abuse it was just too great to make it worth it.

They just need to treat the taser like a gun. You have to explain every use to the same extreme as a gun.

There was zero reason to taser this guy. The smart move would be to tell him he is going to get into greater trouble. Then if need be let the guy walk away. When you show up at his house the next day with another officer and you now arrest him for resisting arrest he will realize how wrong he was assuming that the officer had cause for the initial arrest or ticket or whatever it was.

This is kind of like high-speed pursuit. Lots of departments dont do them becuase they find that it causes the perp to drive even more dangerously and cause more potential damage and harm. You are better off just putting out an APB and picking the guy up a few days later at his house or favorite bar.

[General Zod]

Some do and some don't. It depends on the department. Some have dropped it for the same reason I see the eventual dropping of the taser. The ability to use it and abuse it was just too great to make it worth it.

I'm of the mind that the taser is an excellent less than lethal weapon for situations where things like mace (ie - indoor environments), would be inappropriate or even dangerous to use. But. . .I do agree that there needs to be significantly tighter regulations in their use.

This is kind of like high-speed pursuit. Lots of departments dont do them becuase they find that it causes the perp to drive even more dangerously and cause more potential damage and harm. You are better off just putting out an APB and picking the guy up a few days later at his house or favorite bar.

Or having a helicopter tail them so officers ahead can intercept and prepare blockades, etc.

[Timotheus]

Some do and some don't. It depends on the department. Some have dropped it for the same reason I see the eventual dropping of the taser. The ability to use it and abuse it was just too great to make it worth it.

I'm of the mind that the taser is an excellent less than lethal weapon for situations where things like mace (ie - indoor environments), would be inappropriate or even dangerous to use. But. . .I do agree that there needs to be significantly tighter regulations in their use.

This is kind of like high-speed pursuit. Lots of departments dont do them becuase they find that it causes the perp to drive even more dangerously and cause more potential damage and harm. You are better off just putting out an APB and picking the guy up a few days later at his house or favorite bar.

Or having a helicopter tail them so officers ahead can intercept and prepare blockades, etc.

One example that come to mind was an officer that came upon a typical highschooler fight. Two teenage boys slugging it out surrounded by a few dozen classmates all yelling and cheering. The officer decided that instead of pushing his way through he set his taser on stun setting and just zapped his way through the students.

Was this appropriate? I think the better question was if it was two adult men fighting surrounded by an adult crowd would the officer have used his taser in this way? I doubt it.

[General Zod]

One example that come to mind was an officer that came upon a typical highschooler fight. Two teenage boys slugging it out surrounded by a few dozen classmates all yelling and cheering. The officer decided that instead of pushing his way through he set his taser on stun setting and just zapped his way through the students.

Was this appropriate? I think the better question was if it was two adult men fighting surrounded by an adult crowd would the officer have used his taser in this way? I doubt it.

Did that officer lose his badge? Because frankly that comes off as grossly inappropriate and irresponsible. Ignoring the fact that tasers have a limited charge making them poor crowd control weapons, just zapping people in your way when you're outnumbered is a fantastic way of getting an instant riot.

[Timotheus]

One example that come to mind was an officer that came upon a typical highschooler fight. Two teenage boys slugging it out surrounded by a few dozen classmates all yelling and cheering. The officer decided that instead of pushing his way through he set his taser on stun setting and just zapped his way through the students.

Was this appropriate? I think the better question was if it was two adult men fighting surrounded by an adult crowd would the officer have used his taser in this way? I doubt it.

Did that officer lose his badge? Because frankly that comes off as grossly inappropriate and irresponsible. Ignoring the fact that tasers have a limited charge making them poor crowd control weapons, just zapping people in your way when you're outnumbered is a fantastic way of getting an instant riot.

I have no idea if he lost his badge or not. Do a search for taser use and you can find plenty of articles about officers abusing people with tasers. Unfortunately in todays age of lazy journalism you never find followup articles about what ever became of the situation and if the officers in question are exxonerated, fired, or charged for their actions.

[Justforfun000]

I have no idea if he lost his badge or not. Do a search for taser use and you can find plenty of articles about officers abusing people with tasers. Unfortunately in todays age of lazy journalism you never find followup articles about what ever became of the situation and if the officers in question are exxonerated, fired, or charged for their actions.

If an officer tased me to get me out of the way on their way to an altercation, I'd sure the bastard so fast his badge would spin. I can't believe someone would have the nerve to do THAT.

[Death from the Sea]

This is kind of like high-speed pursuit. Lots of departments dont do them becuase they find that it causes the perp to drive even more dangerously and cause more potential damage and harm. You are better off just putting out an APB and picking the guy up a few days later at his house or favorite bar.

Or having a helicopter tail them so officers ahead can intercept and prepare blockades, etc.

ok, yes many traffic pursuits are given up, but mostly because the crime committed, such as speeding or running a stop sign, are not worth the risk of a high speed pursuit. If the crime is a more dangerous or something serious then the pursuit is not likely to be called off. And just because you got the guys plate doesn't mean you can prove he was driving the car at the time, so the "APB" doesn't guarantee anything.
As for helicopters, not many agencies have access to them, here we have to call for Houston's helicopter and that takes time.

As for taser use, I do agree it should be highly regulated and monitored.

The video of that highway patrol officer tasering the speeder is pushing the limit of what I would call acceptable, I would rather see an officer attempt to use his hands before tasering a passively resisting person. BUT the fact that the highway patrol officers are out there ALONE makes going to hands that much more dangerous and difficult. That increased danger level is why I would say the HP officer is not in the wrong.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That reminds me..do they still carry batons?

As far as I know they do. But the baton design has changed over the years from what I can tell.

Some do and some don't. It depends on the department. Some have dropped it for the same reason I see the eventual dropping of the taser. The ability to use it and abuse it was just too great to make it worth it.

I've never heard of a department that has dropped the use of a baton? Are they trying to bring the police down to equal footing with people that want to physically fight them, but don't take it to the level of deadly force? That sounds absolutely retarded.

Also, the taser won't be dropped. The regulations governing its use will eventually be changed to someone who is actively resisting.

They just need to treat the taser like a gun. You have to explain every use to the same extreme as a gun.

I'm not following you? A taser isn't a gun. Are you saying that the training for use should be as in depth?

There was zero reason to taser this guy. The smart move would be to tell him he is going to get into greater trouble. Then if need be let the guy walk away. When you show up at his house the next day with another officer and you now arrest him for resisting arrest he will realize how wrong he was assuming that the officer had cause for the initial arrest or ticket or whatever it was.

Actually, the UHP Trooper had a good reason to taser him.

Let the guy walk away? What? Letting someone walk away who is not complying and is under arrest is probably the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard. There are so many things that could go wrong with that...did you even read my short description of what happened with Trooper Coates and Blackburn.

This is kind of like high-speed pursuit. Lots of departments dont do them becuase they find that it causes the perp to drive even more dangerously and cause more potential damage and harm. You are better off just putting out an APB and picking the guy up a few days later at his house or favorite bar.

Actually, it's nothing like high speed pursuits. The reason why high speed pursuits are called off is because the risk to innocent bystanders is too great for the reason the person fleeing is wanted.

Frankly, if someone who is fleeing from us dies because they crashed their car you won't see me shed a single tear.

[Justforfun000]

Let the guy walk away? What? Letting someone walk away who is not complying and is under arrest is probably the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard. There are so many things that could go wrong with that...did you even read my short description of what happened with Trooper Coates and Blackburn.

I'm kind of in the middle here...I agree he cannot just let him leave, but he still should have talked him down a lot more effectively. I'm sure that's what the committee concluded and why he was sent for lessons in tact. He had many options still open that could have prevented the escalation and I'm sure you agree that it's not ideal at all to end up using the taser and then having to arrest the person.

Now if after the officer clearly stated how serious this was becoming along with the verbal explanation that he WILL have the right and indeed the necessity of tasering the guy if he does not start cooperating immediately, and the guy isn't changing his tune? Fine. Tase him. At that point you've truly squandered the respectful conversation, the explanation and the prior warning of taser use. THEN I would have no sympathy and I doubt many watching the video would either. There just has to be enough of an effort to ensure the suspect understands where he is at and what his rights and responsibilities are. I'm seeing far too many cases where people are clueless and that's not a good thing. People should be very familiar with the most common procedures deaing with police officers. It's just good sense and would go a long way to preventing these situations in the first place.

Ps: The police should also explain immediately what the signing of the ticket means and what it DOESN'T mean. It's another cluster fuck that keeps happening because people keep thinking they are signing themselves into an admission of guilt.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm kind of in the middle here...I agree he cannot just let him leave, but he still should have talked him down a lot more effectively. I'm sure that's what the committee concluded and why he was sent for lessons in tact. He had many options still open that could have prevented the escalation and I'm sure you agree that it's not ideal at all to end up using the taser and then having to arrest the person.

Yeah, I completely agree.

Now if after the officer clearly stated how serious this was becoming along with the verbal explanation that he WILL have the right and indeed the necessity of tasering the guy if he does not start cooperating immediately, and the guy isn't changing his tune? Fine. Tase him. At that point you've truly squandered the respectful conversation, the explanation and the prior warning of taser use.

I don't agree with this. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with reasonable intelligence that if a police officer is pointing a weapon at you, and you refuse to comply with those instructions then there's a good chance that weapon will be used.

THEN I would have no sympathy and I doubt many watching the video would either. There just has to be enough of an effort to ensure the suspect understands where he is at and what his rights and responsibilities are. I'm seeing far too many cases where people are clueless and that's not a good thing. People should be very familiar with the most common procedures deaing with police officers. It's just good sense and would go a long way to preventing these situations in the first place.

People are clueless because they're idiots. This UHP trooper failed to explain the consequences of not signing the ticket, but once an officer tell you that you're under arrest it is not reasonable to expect them to list the number of things they can do to you if you fail to comply. Though it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the Trooper to tell this man "If you don't put your hands behind your back I will tase you"

Ps: The police should also explain immediately what the signing of the ticket means and what it DOESN'T mean. It's another cluster fuck that keeps happening because people keep thinking they are signing themselves into an admission of guilt.

We do. It even says as much on the ticket in the area that you're signing in bolded lettering.

[Justforfun000]

I don't agree with this. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with reasonable intelligence that if a police officer is pointing a weapon at you, and you refuse to comply with those instructions then there's a good chance that weapon will be used.

Yes but the guy was shocked and backing away, shying away from the weapon and it's threat. He might not even have been consciously realizing what he was doing. It was whipped out so fast!

I also don't recall the officer telling him he was under arrest at that point. Didn't he just tell him to turn and spread em?

In any event it was just far too quick and I think he should have been a lot more talk and a lot less action.

People are clueless because they're idiots. This UHP trooper failed to explain the consequences of not signing the ticket, but once an officer tell you that you're under arrest it is not reasonable to expect them to list the number of things they can do to you if you fail to comply. Though it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the Trooper to tell this man "If you don't put your hands behind your back I will tase you"

Well the tasing is the main pont of contention here with me. Like I said, I consider it a form of torture. Some might pooh-pooh this as exaggeration, but I really don't think it is. That shit obviously fucking HURTS. I've seen too many scream and convulse. It's like watching Voldemort cast a Crucio spell on someone. I just think it's far too serious an action to be taken lightly.

We do. It even says as much on the ticket in the area that you're signing in bolded lettering.

Oh? Well that's good. Obviously this particular officer should have immdiately explained to the guy what signing meant because he did not seem to understand. It'd be much more effective to quickly defuse the guy's fear of signing an admission of guilt by explaining what he was (apparently) unaware of.

Basically it all comes down to this for me. The policeman is the man with the power. He has the legal authority to detain, hurt and incarcerate someone based on his completely subjective judgement. He also knows the law completely and is more then aware of what the suspects rights and options are. The suspect very often is at a huge disadvantage because the grand majority have no fucking CLUE.

This in the first place is a very bad state of affairs. I think law should be a course as equally prominent as English and Math. It would do a WORLD of good to learn and understand the law for many years of study so people are not only aware of consequences, but their rights, the dangers of breaking the law and the long-term effects it has on their future careers, ability to travel, etc.

So in these minor cases that are not involving serious crimes but very minor infractions, every effort should be made by the man with the power and the knowledge to inform the person being challenged where he stands and why he should cooperate. There are times when actions are far more appropriate then words, absolutely, but an assumption of peacefulness and ultimately a compliance on the part of the average man or woman when they are properly interacted with should be a default position before it starts getting physical.

Of course any serious warning signs that threaten the officer change the situation, but if this cop had immediately explained to the man the full consequences of signing the ticket was and more imporantly what it was NOT, then he probably wouldn't have had to order him out of the car in the first place. It almost seems like a form of entrapment to be honest with you.

[Darth Ruinus]

It occurs to me, that this would have been a pretty good Colisseum debate. But no one ever remembers the poor Colisseum.

[General Zod]

Well the tasing is the main pont of contention here with me. Like I said, I consider it a form of torture. Some might pooh-pooh this as exaggeration, but I really don't think it is. That shit obviously fucking HURTS. I've seen too many scream and convulse. It's like watching Voldemort cast a Crucio spell on someone. I just think it's far too serious an action to be taken lightly.

Which do you think hurts worse? Getting zapped by a few volts of electricity, or having someone club you hard enough you crack a bone, shatter teeth or dislocate a joint? There has to be some less than lethal way of restraining someone, and personally, given the choice between getting tased or clubbed with a baton, I'll take the taser.

[Death from the Sea]

Well the tasing is the main pont of contention here with me. Like I said, I consider it a form of torture. Some might pooh-pooh this as exaggeration, but I really don't think it is. That shit obviously fucking HURTS. I've seen too many scream and convulse. It's like watching Voldemort cast a Crucio spell on someone. I just think it's far too serious an action to be taken lightly.

Which do you think hurts worse? Getting zapped by a few volts of electricity, or having someone club you hard enough you crack a bone, shatter teeth or dislocate a joint? There has to be some less than lethal way of restraining someone, and personally, given the choice between getting tased or clubbed with a baton, I'll take the taser.

the good thing about the taser is that when the ride is over, so is the pain. The ass beating with the baton is gonna stick with ya for a few days at least.

Tasing a suspect to get control of them is not a form of torture, tasing a suspect just to cause them pain because you can but have no legal reason whast so ever, would be torture.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes but the guy was shocked and backing away, shying away from the weapon and it's threat. He might not even have been consciously realizing what he was doing. It was whipped out so fast!

The trooper moved pretty quickly to a force option, but you have to remember he is out there by himself with a guy who looked a bit larger than him, and his pregnant wife in the car. (Yes, pregant women can still kill you)

I also don't recall the officer telling him he was under arrest at that point. Didn't he just tell him to turn and spread em?

Pretty much, and he should have told him that he was under arrest. However, that's a small nitpick.

In any event it was just far too quick and I think he should have been a lot more talk and a lot less action.

I agree. However, the man still failed to comply.

Well the tasing is the main pont of contention here with me. Like I said, I consider it a form of torture. Some might pooh-pooh this as exaggeration, but I really don't think it is. That shit obviously fucking HURTS. I've seen too many scream and convulse. It's like watching Voldemort cast a Crucio spell on someone. I just think it's far too serious an action to be taken lightly.

People scream because it is a surprise. They convulse because the electricity is stimulating their muscles. It isn't the pain that is causing either of those. However, I won't say it doesn't hurt either.

Oh? Well that's good. Obviously this particular officer should have immdiately explained to the guy what signing meant because he did not seem to understand. It'd be much more effective to quickly defuse the guy's fear of signing an admission of guilt by explaining what he was (apparently) unaware of.

Right, and we've settled this portion of the discussion. You keep going back to it. This is why that UHP trooper was made to take some classes in tact, however, that and the use of force are a seperate issue.

Basically it all comes down to this for me. The policeman is the man with the power. He has the legal authority to detain, hurt and incarcerate someone based on his completely subjective judgement. He also knows the law completely and is more then aware of what the suspects rights and options are. The suspect very often is at a huge disadvantage because the grand majority have no fucking CLUE.

Right, but what does that have to do with you listening to the commands of an officer. Even though the UHP trooper failed to explain the consequences of night signing the ticket that doesn't justify the mans lack of compliance.

This in the first place is a very bad state of affairs. I think law should be a course as equally prominent as English and Math. It would do a WORLD of good to learn and understand the law for many years of study so people are not only aware of consequences, but their rights, the dangers of breaking the law and the long-term effects it has on their future careers, ability to travel, etc.

I agree for just the simple fact that many people would be empowered.

So in these minor cases that are not involving serious crimes but very minor infractions, every effort should be made by the man with the power and the knowledge to inform the person being challenged where he stands and why he should cooperate. There are times when actions are far more appropriate then words, absolutely, but an assumption of peacefulness and ultimately a compliance on the part of the average man or woman when they are properly interacted with should be a default position before it starts getting physical.

I agree the consequences should be explained, however, that's not an excuse for failing to follow instructions.

Of course any serious warning signs that threaten the officer change the situation, but if this cop had immediately explained to the man the full consequences of signing the ticket was and more imporantly what it was NOT, then he probably wouldn't have had to order him out of the car in the first place. It almost seems like a form of entrapment to be honest with you.

Why do you think it's a form of entrapment? That trooper didn't make that man fail to sign, nor did he make that man fail to comply with instructions. He made it clear that he was to put his hands behind his back...

[Kamakazie Sith]

It occurs to me, that this would have been a pretty good Colisseum debate. But no one ever remembers the poor Colisseum.

Is this debate popular enough to be in the Coliseum?

[Justforfun000]

I agree with KS on everything he just said to me. I guess the most important lesson to take home from these incidents is that you don't argue with police if you can help it. You argue in court.

Follow instructions promptly and correctly and you should never have a problem. Well...assuming you're not guilty of anything serious.