The Volokh Conspiracy

Wow, not even a close case. The motorist was being insolent and whiny and wasn't promptly following directions, but he was hardly threatening. I saw no sudden movements that would have prompted the officer to go for his taser. Indeed, the officer tasered the guy while his back was turned and he was slowly walking away!

It seems that tasers have become an excuse for lazy cops to immobilize a person before cuffing him.

Oh my! I'm in a state of shock after watching this video. If that isn't a 4th Amendment violation, I don't know what is. A taser is not a toy.

That cop tasered the guy because the cop was pissed off at him, pure and simple.

Should be reasonable use of force within the law to use the taser (dangerous traffic conditions making it better to use taser than wrestle, lawful authority to arrest, clear resistance of arrest, possible involvement of other passenger etc.) but not best practice on policy grounds. As a matter of policy should not face criminal sanction(s) but conduct should be discouraged (possibly through internal procedures). Officers should be encouraged to get better at convincing irrational people to comply without using force (including tasers).

Some things officer could have done differently:
1) Made it clear that signing the ticket doesn't mean that you are acknowledging guilt, and can be disputed in court (and can only be disputed in court, not at side of road)
2) Made it clear that if person didn't sign the ticket, it was an offence and he would HAVE to be arrested
3) Made it clear verbally (not actually done) that he would SHOOT THE TASER unless person stopped moving immediately.

Again, I don't think the officer broke the law by not doing the above things, (or should be held to have broken the law - not sure of relevant local law) but I suspect that he didn't act in the best way possible either.

As predicted, people are defending the actions of this asanine police officer.

AlexAlex thinks that this slow moving individual might have been reaching for a weapon. No reasonable person watching this video would believe that was what this guy was doing.

r78 also thinks that there was reason to be concerned about a weapon.

My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong.

Police officers usually are the good guys. But not this one.

Why did the officer need to ask the guy to sign the ticket in the first place? I honestly don't know. Is that standard procedure? The officer has his license plate and registration. Couldn't they have simply docked him through the mail if he refused to sign?

That raises the question of what was the purpose of asking him to leave the car. My guess is he was going to arrest him since he asked him to approach the car with his hands on the hood. Is refusing to sign the ticket really worth arresting the guy and dealing with all that hassle?

This was classic police sadism, enforcing the unwritten commandment that anyone who disrespects a cop must be extrajudicially punished. (See King, Rodney.) "You should have followed my instructions.", the cop says.

And look how the cop lectures the guy's companion: "ma'am, you do exactly what I say or you are going to jail too", when she rightfully complains that the cop brutalized her friend.

This cop should be tried for assault, convicted, sentenced to several years in prison, so that the next cop will think about it before deciding to use his Taser to get his rocks off.

On one hand, the officer's only other alternative is to rush the guy and tackle him.

Yeah, he was moving at such a fast speed that it was urgent to either tackle him or taser him. Right.

There was, in fact, another alternative. Further negotiation. Or, alternatively, less force than tasering or rushing and tackling him.

Mr. Liberal: "My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong."

Bad guess, Mr. Liberal! Police officers lie, and they are often abusive, and they are sometimes complete and utter ***holes. The officer here looks like a really terrible guy. But our general feelings about police officers are not relevant. It sure looked to me like the man was grabbing a gun, and I'm sure it looked that way to the officer, too; the driver made every mistake in the book to try to raise that suspicion. I was just pointing out my opinion; sorry if that annoyed your liberal views.

I still don't understand why the guy just turned away from the officer and started to walk away while the officer was still yelling at him?

Because the guy is an idiot. Notwithstanding that, just because a citizen is an idiot, that does not give a police officer the right to use more force than necessary to effectuate an arrest.

Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest.

He wasn't resisting arrest, though. He was simply turning around.

When a suspect is ACTUALLY resisting arrest, of course the police may use the force necessary to subdue him or her (but no more than that).

But don't turn this into "resisting arrest". Where's the resistance?

Oh, I should have said, "It sure looked to me like the man might have been grabbing a gun." Obviously we don't know with certainty.

Must have been one of those guns that shoots backwards.

OK, Anderson, you explained part of the 23%

The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.

The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.

No, Tony. All of those things you mention are reasons you think that tasering is a reasonable PUNISHMENT. None of them have anything to do with "bringing the driver under control", because he was not out of control and was not a danger to the public. And police officers are NEVER allowed to PUNISH suspects for disrespecting them.

As I said, worse case scenario, if he won't listen to reason, let him go.

maybe not backwards Dilan, but around the corner!

A lot of genius at play here. Who would've seen the corner shot coming?

I think Anon Y. Mous seems to have the best argument. I'm checking with my brother who is a police officer, but I always thought that refusal to sign a ticket resulted in arrest since the signature is essentially an "own recognizance" pledge that one would have to make in court as well (says the IP professor...).

If so, then the failure by the officer was really not making clear that the driver was under arrest for not signing, and that he was resisting arrest. Even so, when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back and you walk away (however slowly) something is going to happen, and it won't be good for the person walking away.

The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority.

The officer had the right to arrest the driver, but he did not have the right to use anything more than reasonable force. I wonder how many more deaths and other serious medical incidents have to occur from tasers before police realize that they should not be used casually.

He did not control his anger.

Although it is clear that the man was angry, he did not make any sudden movements and instead moved very slowly. Thus, it was unreasonable to view him as a physical threat that would justify the use of a taser.

He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation.

The citizen was unwise in his interactions with this police officer, but that does not give the police officer any right to use more than reasonable force.

He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out.

Actually, in most states, citizens have a right to resist to protect themselves against police who use an unreasonable amount of force to effectuate an arrest. That this police officer was threatening to use an unreasonable amount of force by pointing the taser at the individual long before he took any actions whatsoever that indicated he was not going to cooperate with an arrest is actually the event that triggered the citizens very slow steps away from the police officer.

Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.

Actually, the broader desire to control the citizen (i.e. to stop him from "yapping" or to stop him from being angry) is not a justification for the use of force. Here, the police officer had legitimate reason to use force to effectuate an arrest, but it has to be reasonable force. Using a potentially fatal weapon is not reasonable under these circumstances.

My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong.

As someone who has filed actions against police officers for civil rights violations and improper use of force, I would not describe myself as someone who believes that police officers are never wrong.

"Call me unreasonable, but I did find it suspicious when the guy was fidgeting with his right pocket. So put me in the "I'm not sure" category."

If a cop is so fearful of motorists that he's going to tase them for jingling their keys, perhaps he needs to be reassigned to a job where he doesn't always have to walk up on strangers sitting in their cars (often at night).

I just watched it again and counted 4 or 5 commands that the officer issued for the guy to turn around and put his hands behind his back.

And this is while the cop had the taser drawn and the driver saw the taser drawn.

That is not the time to walk away from the cop and put your hand into your pocket.

Well I've gotten a couple of tickets in my life. (Yeah, just a couple, not a bunch.) I haven't been asked or ordered to sign one. What state was this in? Is the signing required in some states? Are you sure the signing isn't an admission of guilt, and if so then isn't the cop trying to force an admission on the spot and isn't that unreasonable?

Just askin'

I consider myself pretty pro-police, and I watched the video assuming that I would find the taser use acceptable.

It was not. Not even close.

Actually, in most states, citizens have a right to resist to protect themselves against police who use an unreasonable amount of force to effectuate an arrest.

So had the police officer drawn his service weapon, the driver could have shot him? I thought the rule was that citizens could resist an unlawful arrest, not a lawful one.

That this police officer was threatening to use an unreasonable amount of force by pointing the taser at the individual long before he took any actions whatsoever that indicated he was not going to cooperate with an arrest is actually the event that triggered the citizens very slow steps away from the police officer.

The officer could reasonably conclude that the driver would not obey his lawful instructions because up to that point, the driver had not obeyed any of the officer's lawful instructions.

I don't much like cops, and I especially don't like traffic cops, but the number one rule is "never argue with a man pointing a gun at you." The idiot got what he deserved. The place to argue is in court, not with a cop.

Be belligerent. Question authority. Refuse to sign tickets. That's cool.

But you put your hand in your pocket.... you get tasered.

I do think it was a close call, though. But you could sense real hostility from the driver. He wasn't merely "questioning authority." He was getting loud. If someone like him got loud like that in the street, I would assume he meant me violence and I would strike before he had a chance.

Now, admittedly, most police officers are way too eager to use tasers. They don't like being questioned, and when questioned, they want to get violent with you. Don't give them a reason. Open your mouth but keep your hands where they can see them!

Then again, most people want to be police officers so they can drive fast and carry a gun. (Just go to any college and talk to some law enforcement majors before telling me I'm wrong.) They look for a reason to taser people.

Don't give them a reason. Putting your hand near your pocket is a reason enough even for this hard core civil libertarian.

I fully support any actions police take to avoid having to interacting with suspects as if they are people. I know when my computer gives me an error screen i kick it a few times, and it costs a lot more to buy a new computer than to get someone pregnant. Plus it feels good to take a few swings!

Why is it not standard procedure to explain that to someone who won't sign?

The driver wasn't letting the officer get a word in edgewise.

Also, it's not deadly force, so the justification for using the fancy device is much lower. It's not a gun.

I'm also rather amazed at the people who think ensuring obedience and awe for those with badges &guns is more important than anything else, a value independent from aiding the police to keep the peace and compliance with ordinances. You actually think this guy was going to flee out into the utah desert, leaving his car with his wife? And that this would actually let him get away with the purported traffic offense?

So had the police officer drawn his service weapon, the driver could have shot him? I thought the rule was that citizens could resist an unlawful arrest, not a lawful one.

There seems to be no right to resist arrest in Utah. In Texas, on the other hand...

The cop, of course, had no way of knowing that the guy was merely "jingling his keys" and ignores the guy's pattern of behavior prior to being tased.

Yeah, and when he asks a driver for his license, he has no way of knowing that the guy was merely "reaching for his wallet."

It's not hard to pull people over for speeding, give them tickets, and then everyone go on their way without someone getting tased. From top to bottom, this cop had egregious communication skills, seemed to have no hesitation in turning his back on the guy for a while (for no good reason that I can discern; if the motorist was going to hurt him, he had plenty of opportunity), never gave the motorist much hint that he was under arrest, pulled a Taser on the motorist for obeying his directions, then after he tased the guy left himself completely vulnerable to the wife (he's supposed to be scared, right?), and then described it to the second officer as "took a ride on the Taser." Bonus points go to the second cop, who asked the motorist whether the Taser hurt.

I'm just saying the Taser-happy cop should be reassigned to some area where his skills might be put to better use. Dealing with motorists is not his forte.

I voted in the "I'm not sure" super-minority, because (surprise, surprise) I'm not sure. Going for the pockets is a bad idea, around any cop.

A few years ago, while I was sitting in my favorite watering hole in St. Paul, MN, a stranger decided to pick a fight with me (probably because I was the lone white guy in the bar.) He was otherwise also acting pretty spooky, and after I had ignored him for a good while, he leaned over and whispered to me, "I'm gonna kill you, you white m.f." So, eventually, after the bartender, who was working alone, tried several unobtrusive methods to remove the patron, the cops were called. One of the cops calmly asked the gentleman to place his hands on the bar, where he could see them. Instead, the guy stuffed them both into his pockets. Bad move on his part.

Now, that situation was different in many material respects, but what I took away from it (besides the lesson to continue to drink where I was well known), was that, in any altercation with the law, whatever else you do, keep your hands in plain sight, and in a non-threatening position. From their perspective, any motion toward your pocket, or their gun, is always potentially deadly.

So, in this instance, warranted? Maybe no. Understandable? Maybe perhaps (maybe perhaps?). And, on the positive side in this altercation -- generally speaking, it's better for a cop who gets a bit nervous to tase someone, than to shoot him.

On the other hand, when we have Supreme Court Justices who are so out of touch with reality that they think that the average Joe knows that when a cop says, "Stay Put," and they stay put, that they're acting voluntarily (thank you Scalia), and voluntarily ceding their 4th Amendment rights, what do you do?

So I, being honest, if spineless, voted "I'm not sure."

I'm also rather amazed at the people who think ensuring obedience and awe for those with badges &guns is more important than anything else

Huh? I'm willing to bet I've done more in my short life to address police misconduct than you have. Your insults miss their mark.

No one is saying that police should be able to taser you "just cuz." The guy in the video reached for his pocket. Should the cop wait to see if a gun is pulled out first? That would be brilliant.

Let's draft a policy that requires a cop to allow a gun to be actually pulled on him before he can use a non-lethal device.

No one got shot. No one suffered any long-term health effects. This is not one of the many bad examples of officers using tasers. (And if you watch the related videos on YouTube, you will see several.)

I have been in many street conflicts. I know when I'm dealing with a hot-head. The motorist was a hot-head. You never know what such people will do. They are unpredictable.

Of course, anyone who doesn't think "Cops are evil and should be murdered" could see that the motorist was a hot-head. Hot-heads do, well, hot-headed things.

So the cop erred on the side of protecting his own life.

Oh, the shame.

Mike&

I think Thoroton is distinguishable. There the Court said:

nor is an arrestee less likely to attempt to lunge for a weapon or to destroy evidence if he is outside of, but still in control of, the vehicle

It seems to me that someone cuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser cannot possibly be "in control" of the vehicle.

I'm not convinced that the motorist reaches into his pocket. Watch 2:34-2:40; he has his thumb hooked into his pocket and we don't see him move it before our view is obscured by the officer, who then tases him. It looks much more like "don't you walk away from me" than "I was afraid for my life." And maybe I'm spoiling a subsequent post from Oren by noting this, but the cop doesn't say anything about the man reaching for his pocket when he explains what happened to the next officer who shows up. It seems like a bogus post facto rationalization.

hope the cop is killed on the job, or at the very least paralyzed.

Regardless of whether the cop was justified (and I thought he was not), what an appalling statement. Not only appalling, but sick and disgusting.

hey mike&, you giant knowledge has swayed me. Let's tase everyone a cop interacts with, because then there wouldn't be any chance for someone to play gunsmoke. I mean, it only takes a second, and what if the cop's reaction time is off that day?

DrGrishka: Don't want to get off-topic. But did you read the facts? "Nichols handcuffed petitioner, informed him that he was under arrest, and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car. He then searched petitioner’s vehicle ...."

If you've seen a post-Thornton case excluding evidence obtained in a similar search, I would be interested in reading it. Please e-mail me at the address associated with my moniker. Thanks.

I'm not convinced that the motorist reaches into his pocket. Watch 2:34-2:40;

Unlike the cop on the scence, we are able to watch the video multiple times. We can "stop time" to freeze in on images. We know what to zoom in on. We also don't have to worry about oncoming cars, or the passenger in the motorist's car. We can take our time and decide what should be done.

The cop in the video, unfortunately, did not have that luxury.

Watch the video again, closely this time, watching the man's right pocket. It's one of those big baggy pockets, ones that could hide almost anything

Why, he could have been hiding a terrorist in there!

Unreasonable.

But some axioms:

1. Police work is hazardous.
2. Police routinely deal with bad people who are armed and act unpredictably.
3. Traffic stops present peculiar hazards--situational awareness is required. The cop can be injured by a quick draw driver, passenger, or unseen occupant or can get hit by passing traffic. He is interacting with either (1) a scared law abiding citizen; or (2) hardened criminals who happened to have the bad luck of not wearing seatbelts in a "Click-it or Ticket" state.

4. The Police officer is entitled to take reasonable precautions against these potential threats.

5. The Police officer is entitled (but not required) to arrest someone who won't sign the ticket acknowledgment and promise to appear.

Taking all that into account.

Step 1. Police officer pulls over driver for a traffic ticket. Sitautional awareness check: Officer asks, "Is there anything about this stop out of the ordinary. Did I just stop a heroin loaded SUV for a seat belt violation?"

If the answer is YES, then draw weapon (not taser!), call for back up and exert positve control at gunpoint as discussed below.

We know this officer answered the question, "No." We know that because the officer, in determining the threat level, must size up the driver and the passenger. He must determine if there are any other occupants in the car. Are there visible weapons? Any suspicious bulges? Any visible contraband, Dope? Alcohol, prescription meds? any makeshift weapons (baseball bats)?" Is the person acting "normally?"

The office, in this case, spends about 30 seconds talking with the driver presumably with all of the above potential threats in his mind.

If the officer was concerned, he retreats to his car, calls for back up and either has the persons remain in the car with hands out the windows or has them exit the car and lay face down on the pavement until back up arrives. Orders can be given by loudspeaker and delivered over the top of a drawn weapon to enforce cooperation. The officer is entitled to do this on very little suspicion.

This was not done because we know for a fact the officer percieved no threat.

After speaking with the driver, he nonchalantly turns his back completely to the driver...and the passenger...and their combined arsenal of small arms, flame throwers, throwing stars and bowie knives...and then STROLLS the 15 feet back to his cruiser to get his ticket book, oblivious to any threat.

He returns to the car, and speaks with driver. He then returns to his cruiser again turning his back (almost completely) to the driver who is now out of the car.

Still no weapon. He does not make an effort to keep the passeger in view. I'm not clear on the audio but I don't hear him arrest the driver or tell the driver he will arrest him.

This doesn't look like an officer who really was concerned about being shot, even taking into account a movement that could be considered furtive. There were too many earlier furtive movements ignored by the officer. If he thought the driver wwas going for a weapon then he automatically should assume the passenger would have too. He didn't have a weapon drawn when she got out of the car after the bro' was tazed.

I don't think he felt threatened.

I could be convinced otherwise by a police officer's analysis of this situation.

Jared --

I agree with you ... but I suspect that in this case the cop has been trained (either formally, or informally through the police department culture) to have a mentality and behavior pattern that should be considered criminally insane and irresponsible.

As such, the blame doesn't lie solely with THIS cop in THIS situation. It lies also with the system that has taught this cop to see citizens as threats and to lash out with acts of violence.

But then, if I were running the show, every cop who uses violence would be expected to turn himself in for battery, and leave it up to a jury whether the act was justified in self defense ... on the same basis as any other citizen's use of violence in a threat situation.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the officer has been cleared by the Utah Highway Patrol, although investigations continue.

Another question:

Do we review this from the standard of whether it was objectively reasonable (i.e. reaching into the pocket could be a threatening gesture) or whether the cop subjectively believed he was threatened?

Don't tase me bro.

r78,

Legally, the test is objective reasonableness.

Jared McLaughlin,

You can't charge someone with attempted murder unless he subjectively was trying to kill the guy.

r78: The answer is both, isn't it? In order to justify use of force, the officer's belief that he was facing a like force had to be both actual (subjective) and reasonable (objective).

Thus, the problem with some of the analysis here. "I would have thought he was going for a gun" doesn't quite do it. Did the officer think that when he tased the motorist? If not, then he has a bit of a problem.

All I've been able to read about this is that the actual officer in the actual incident later told his supervisors he didn't know whether the motorist was armed or not. That's not good enough. In particular, if he only thought of that after the incident, then it's really hard to justify his use of force.

(Of course, we know that he wasn't armed, but that's not relevant to any analysis.)

Bill R.

A common practice in Washington is to pace from in front. The officer determined the speed of the violator's vehicle, pulled over to let him pass, then pulled back into traffic and affected the stop.

Can anyone tell if the car is instate or out of state? I've been caught in one of these Utah speed traps. Like this guy, I literally did not see the first speed warning that the officer insisted there. I didn't go back to check it either, because I was in a hurry. I had California drivers license, and was driving a car with NY plates. And yes, I had to sign the ticket promising to pay or appear. I wouldn't be surprised if the first signs are all but invisible here, but that's a separate issue.

Also, the reason I was driving on that trip is because my sister in law, a Utah resident, had already been stopped once. She was clocked going 140 in a 50mph zone. She got off with a warning (after showing her Utah license). My ticket was for going 56 in a 50 mph zone.

I don't have the highest faith in Utah highway patrolman.

One thing that's nice to know is that after last years S.Ct. decision on videotape evidence, all you would have to do is show this tape to the Supremes to get a definitive answer on whether it was reasonable force or not. From the tape, I think there's alot of stupidity on both sides, and with the other person in the car, if they were packing guns, I would have thought that tasing the guy put the officer in more danger instead of less. If the person in the car had access to a gun, the officer in this situation might have ended up dead.

This was clearly unreasonable.

The driver clearly had an unorthodox communication style, and poor judgment, but he presented no physical threat.

If the officer is unable to handle the situation without resorting to this level of violence, then he's unfit for his position. That position imposes a high level of responsibility; it's not just a license to abuse people who don't show you the respect and compliance you think you deserve.

Clearly, this incident was the result of Bush's Gitmo policies. Now, cops in America think they can do whatever they want and disregard constitutional rights just like we are doing to the people in Guantanamo Bay.

Informative part before throwing my 2 cents in

I saw another clip, an interview with the taseree and a PR flack for the Police Dept. Which answered a question some people have been asking. The policy of the state if someone refuses to sign a ticket the office has the choice of writing refused to sign on the ticket, or arresting the person.

The question is reasonable or not. I voted not reasonable, the guy was clearly not a threat to the officer, a pain in the ass, sure. But as others have pointed out at no point did the officer properly inform the guy of what was happening. On top of that he gives his justification for tasering the guy repeatedly in the clip he says he tasered him for not following directions. I don't think he should be fired, he should be suspended without pay for a period of time and forced to retake police communication classes.

It doesn't look like the tasering crossed the line to illegal just wrong and unethical.

reasonable. The driver was uncooperative and there was someone else in the car. The cop knew this. Once the driver began to argue and got out of the car and began to walk away, the officer began to lose control of the situation. The cop has no idea what the other occupant of the truck is going to do. The best thing to do in a traffic stop is to be polite and sign the ticket and be on your way.

Just a note -- another forum I'm on had a cop show up and defend the incident. During this, he noted that he -- and his fellow officers -- frequently use tasers for "pain compliance".

Utilization of tasers for pain compliance leads directly to abuse. There's no avoiding it. I was appalled that it was apparently an official and accepted policy for whatever police force he worked for.

I think a lot of people are missing the important point.

Cops are dangerous to your health. Do piss them off. You will not win. They've got more guns and they've got a lot of the law tilted in their direction, both statutorily and by sympathy from jurors, prosecutors, public opinion, etc. This is not a just situation, but there you have it.

Second, this guy is lucky that there is taser technology. And video tapes in cars. Just a decade ago this guy would have some very large bruises and possbly some broken bones. But now he just pees in his pants and looks like an idiot to his family.

A coworker joined the local reserve police. In one of his oral exams he was asked what to do if they don't sign the ticket and close the window. The desired answer, according to this guy -- but not necessarily the law -- was to break the window and drag the person out of the car through the broken window. The emphasis was to not unbuckle the seat belt and to cause as much pain as possible in the process. I don't doubt this story one bit.

Slightly off topic, but if you think about it, a taser is more or less the functional equivalent of a really long cattle prod.

Most people would probably agree that a police officer using a cattle prod under just about any circumstances would normally constitute abuse and possibly torture.

So what is it about the taser which makes it more morally acceptable than a cattle prod?

I don't have an answer--this is very perplexing to me. Is it just that the taser has better marketing? Or is it because people see the taser as replacing a lethal firearm, whereas a cattle prod is seen as a more brutal form of billy club?

Help me out here.

The cop may be a bully, but the driver seems to blame as well. Even after being tasered, he got up and followed the cop around. And he kept arguing about the ticket completely oblivious to why he was getting arrested. Still, you have to think a good cop would have handled things much better.

My wife and I have watched the full video, and agree that the officer decided to use the taser on the driver BEFORE he told the driver to exit the vehicle. Then he just waited for a plausible excuse to fire it, knowing the idiot would give him one.

On 2nd glance, the sign appears to say "Caution Ahead," but that doesn't change my argument, it only confirms it.

According to laws in California (where I live), you HAVE to sign the ticket. This is taught in Traffic School (of which I, unfortunately, have experience), and if memory serves, is a question on the license exam. A local summary of the laws says:

By signing the ticket, you are acknowledging its receipt and promising to go to court and handle the matter. In essence, by signing the ticket, you just "bailed yourself out." If you refuse to sign the ticket, in effect, you are not promising to appear in court. If you do not promise to appear in court, then the Officer is obliged to taken you there immediately.

The operative California law is:

Mandatory Appearance
40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the following cases:
(a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
(b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise to appear in court.
(c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate.
(d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section 23152.

If I searched (and understood) correctly, the similar, and operative, Utah laws appear to be:

41-6a-209. Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.
(1) A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a:
(a) peace officer;
(b) firefighter;
(c) flagger at a highway construction or maintenance site using devices and procedures conforming to the standards adopted under Section 41-6a-301; or
(d) uniformed adult school crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
(2) (a) If a person commits a speeding violation in a highway construction or maintenance site where workers are present, the court shall impose a fine for the offense that is at least double the fine in the uniform recommended fine schedule established under Section 76-3-301.5.
(b) The highway construction or maintenance site under Subsection (2)(a) shall be clearly marked and have signs posted that warn of the doubled fine.

77-7-18. Citation on misdemeanor or infraction charge.

A peace officer, in lieu of taking a person into custody, any public official of any county or municipality charged with the enforcement of the law, a port-of-entry agent as defined in Section 72-1-102, and a volunteer authorized to issue a citation under Section 41-6a-213 may issue and deliver a citation requiring any person subject to arrest or prosecution on a misdemeanor or infraction charge to appear at the court of the magistrate before whom the person should be taken pursuant to law if the person had been arrested.

77-7-19. Appearance required by citation -- Arrest for failure to appear -- Transfer of cases -- Motor vehicle violations -- Disposition of fines and costs.

(1) Persons receiving misdemeanor citations shall appear before the magistrate designated in the citation on or before the time and date specified in the citation unless the uniform bail schedule adopted by the Judicial Council or Subsection 77-7-21(1) permits forfeiture of bail for the offense charged.
(2) A citation may not require a person to appear sooner than five days or later than 14 days following its issuance.
(3) A person who receives a citation and who fails to comply with Section 77-7-21 on or before the time and date and at the court specified is subject to arrest. The magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest.
(4) Except where otherwise provided by law, a citation or information issued for violations of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, shall state that the person receiving the citation or information shall appear before the magistrate who has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
(5) Any justice court judge may, upon the motion of either the defense attorney or prosecuting attorney, based on a lack of territorial jurisdiction or the disqualification of the judge, transfer cases to a justice court with territorial jurisdiction or the district court within the county.
(6) (a) Clerks and other administrative personnel serving the courts shall ensure that all citations for violation of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, are filed in a court with jurisdiction and venue and shall refuse to receive citations that should be filed in another court.
(b) Fines, fees, costs, and forfeitures imposed or collected for violations of Title 41, Motor Vehicles, which are filed contrary to this section shall be paid to the entitled municipality or county by the state, county, or municipal treasurer who has received the fines, fees, costs, or forfeitures from the court which collected them.
(c) The accounting and remitting of sums due shall be at the close of the fiscal year of the municipality or county which has received fines, fees, costs, or forfeitures as a result of any improperly filed citations.

77-7-24. Notice to appear in court -- Contents -- Promise to comply -- Signing -- Release from custody -- Official misconduct.

(1) If a person who is arrested for a violation of Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, that is punishable as a misdemeanor is immediately taken before a magistrate as provided under Section 77-7-23, the peace officer shall prepare, in triplicate or more copies, a written notice to appear in court containing:
(a) the name and address of the person;
(b) the number, if any, of the person's driver license;
(c) the license plate number of the person's vehicle;
(d) the offense charged; and
(e) the time and place the person shall appear in court.
(2) The time specified in the notice to appear must be at least five days after the arrest of the person unless the person demands an earlier hearing.
(3) The place specified in the notice to appear shall be made before a magistrate of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the alleged violation occurred.
(4) (a) In order to secure release as provided in this section, the arrested person shall promise to appear in court by signing at least one copy of the written notice prepared by the arresting officer.
(b) The arresting peace officer shall immediately:
(i) deliver a copy of the notice to the person promising to appear; and
(ii) release the person arrested from custody.
(5) A peace officer violating any of the provisions of this section shall be:
(a) guilty of misconduct in office; and
(b) subject to removal from office.

I interpret this to mean that the driver was "arrested" when stopped, and was offered "release from arrest" by promising to appear and clear the citation. In 33 years of driving in California I've never heard of anyone being allowed to forgo signing the ticket, and knowing that you are required to sign is a prerequisite to obtaining a drivers license.

As to the use of the Taser, the Utah law I could find states:

77-7-7. Force in making arrest.

If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.

The Utah law I found speaks of force or flight. I was unable to find information on Utah law regarding use of a Taser for "pain compliance". It wasn't clear from other materials whether the UHP officer's actions were judged appropriate under the above law, or if Utah allows use for compliance purposes.

Interestingly, California allows use of Tasers for "pain compliance", if the officer is properly trained in the use of the Taser. It is worth noting that use of pain compliance, (such as wrist holds, etc.), is allowed simply for failing to follow the lawful orders of a police officer. In other words, I don't think the law allows you a right to "passive resistance" (e.g., sit on the road and do nothing). In those cases, I believe the officer is allowed to use adequate means to force your compliance.

Just my .02

Yet another case of a whiney gen-y person thinking that they're right, the cop's wrong, so I don't have to do what the cop told me to do.

The underlying "crime" seems to have been speeding, and, as several posters stated, was questionable at that. There is no evidence that he was driving to endanger (which, at least in my state, is 20 mph over the speed limit or >80 mph). Thus, not arrestable.

The police officer, IMHO, tried to turn a non-arrestable offence (and this is giving him the benefit of the doubt that the guy was actually speeding) into an arrestable one. That isn't part of his job description, and the driver has every right to resist. It is not part of your responsibility as a driver to be taken down to the jail and booked whenever a cop decides to harass you - at least not in this country. It's not the job of the police officer to "control" the driver - we are not all subject to the "control" of the police, at least not in a free society.

It is the job of the police to ensure our continued freedom and safety, not to endanger it. The driver was never a credible threat, and, to those who said something about him jiggling something in his pocket - well, if he wanted to shoot the cop, it would have happened well before then. Any fear that the cop had of being shot was created entirely by his own actions in escalating the situation. "Well, once I ordered the guy out of the car, I realised that he was better able to shoot me." Yeah, well, jerk, think of that before you try to arrest citizens who were driving down the road.

The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.

I'm shocked by the notion by many here that the use of force following a traffic stop, without additional unlawful activity, is justified. I'm sorry, its a traffic stop for a minor infraction of the motor vehicle code. The officer's actions are outrageous in this context.

Talking back to an officer, not following directions (in the abstract); these things are not 'unlawful' behavior. Fleeing the scene would be unlawful.

The real trouble is the pervasive abuse of authority by the police in assuming dictatorial powers that they lack in the circumstances. An act which is unduly disrespectful of the citizen and an undue and unprofessional incitement.

'Traffic violators' are not criminals.

This officer is a real life Barney Fife. Get him out of uniform.

I think from the beginning the cop let himself get steamrolled by the driver's incessant yapping. He just didn't seem like he knew how to cut through it and impress his will on the guy short of violence. A couple of minutes of that and suddenly we’ve got De Niro and Bridget Fonda in Jackie Brown.

"Wow, not even a close case. The motorist was being insolent and whiny and wasn't promptly following directions, but he was hardly threatening. I saw no sudden movements that would have prompted the officer to go for his taser. Indeed, the officer tasered the guy while his back was turned and he was slowly walking away! "

except one doesn't necessarily have to be "threatening" to justify taser use.

i get really tired of laymen with NO understanding of use of force spectrums opining first, without understanding when the taser is and isn't (legally and.or by policy) justified.

"What if the suspect here had died, as at least 140 others have died from the use of tasers nationwide since 2001"

false. many have died after being tasered. that =/= dying FROM tasers. many also die in struggles, in fghts, etc. due to heart conditions, polydrug combos, excited delirium etc. and this happened LONG before tasers.

you have no autopsy/medical report evidence to support your claims that tasers caused 140 deaths. you are relying on reports that people died AFTER being tasered and falsely assuming that this equals CAUSATION.

which is kind of ironically terrible analytical reasoning

Whit is correct. Tasers are properly classified as "Less Lethal," rather than Lethal Force, and are actually on the lower rungs of the use-of-force continuum.

I think people get confused on this issue because Tasers are commonly used now in situations where we used lethal force in the past. Guy holding a knife? Before less-lethal tools (like Tasers, Bean-bag rounds, etc) came into widespread use, you often had to shoot guys like that.

These days, you have other officers providing lethal cover (in case knife-guy rushes you), and you attempt to deploy less-lethal. If knife-guy gets Tased and drops the knife, everybody's happy. Lives saved right there.

And the in-custody deaths blamed on Tasers? Mostly in "excited delerium" cases... those are a recognized medical/psychiatric emergency (usually cocaine or meth-fueled) and we've had in-custody deaths with those folks long before the Taser ever hit the market. I've yet to see a "Taser death" that didn't involve a suspect acting crazy, bad heart, drugs-on-board, etc.

The driver's whining once he was taken to the back seat/back door was comical. The cop should have told him that if he has concerns about whether he was properly read his rights, he should take that up with his lawyer—then maybe told him the joke was on him, since forgetting to give Miranda warnings would nearly be a get-out-of-jail-free card (who reminds a cop he has to do it?!).

Off topic, but this statement is just plain wrong. Miranda warnings ONLY required for custodial interogation. They ARE NOT required when someone is arrested, despite what you might see on Law and Order.

I hope the cop is killed on the job, or at the very least paralyzed. What a monster.

You will probably be disappointed. Officers who allow a person they just pulled over to control the situation are far more likely to get shot than the officer in the video. (Sorry, I don't have the cite, as I read the study many years ago, but much of the info came from interviews with people who had shot officers during a traffic stop.)

If I ever want to shoot an officer on camera, I'll do exactly what this guy did. At first I'll act like a harmless spoiled brat. Then I'll give him cause to arrest me, but without scaring him. Once he's back by his car, I'll walk far enough away that he can't rush me, turn around so he can't see the draw, spin and shoot. As long as the officer is a good person, he'll give me the benefit of the doubt until it's too late for him.

Most of the commenters seem to think that the officer should have waited to see what the guy had in his pockets and what he planned on doing once he got whever he was going. If you truly want to understand the situation, get a friend and two squirtguns. Act out the scene. Whoever plays the perp should try to shoot the officer. Whoever plays the officer should behave as recommended by most of the commenters. Play the scene several times, and keep score.

In politics, passion is the most precious resource. With so much passion on this issue, perhaps the laws on traffic stops can be changed so that officers may not use force absent overwhelming evidence of its necessity. Once this happens, what salary would be necessary to keep officers on the job?

IMO, and I have considerable experience with excessive force litigation, tasers should be used only when baton strikes or worse are necessary. And I flat out predict that litigation against the manufacturer will result in the things being pulled off the market.

Tasers do a lot less damage than batons, choke holds, or other physical means of enforcement. Even with the best of will on the part of the police, people who are resisting arrest and have to be beaten or choked into submission can suffer permanent damage.

If a suspect refuses the orders of the arresting officer, what is the officer to do? And exactly who will be served by taking away a non-lethal and less injurious means of gaining compliance?

Millions of dollars are spent every year on research, equipment, and training, to enable law enforcement officers to overcome the problem of getting argumentative and / or dangerous people to comply without killing them or others. And just when something promising comes along - something that has been PROVEN to reduce both officer and suspect injuries, some twisted interest group is going to sue it out of existence?

And lawyers wonder why they have a bad reputation.

Jagermeister, great comment. Many people in this thread seem to have the view that the cops are only permitted to use force if they feel threatened. Of course, that's utter nonsense. If a cop is arresting me for even the most petty of crimes, and I decide that I won't submit and instead attempt to flee, the cops are not just going to let me make that call. They will use force - perhaps tackling me and forcing my hands behind my back to cuff me.

Even more silly is the suggestion by some that even if the law permitted the officer to make the arrest, he made a bad decision to do so - that it would be better to just let those who don't want to be arrested to walk away. If all law enforcement officers were to adopt that technique, how do you suppose the criminals would react?

It's hard to tell from the video, but it appears that the arrestee was only hit with the initial shock, stopping him from fleeing. The cop used the taser to take the guy into custody, instead of wrestling him to the ground, using his baton, etc. If so, the whole pain compliance discussion is inapplicable to this situation.

It's really impressive the number of commenters who insist that the guy is resisting arrest, when in reality the cop doesn't say anything about an arrest until the guy's already been tased. Is he supposed to presume that because he's been asked to step out of the car that he's under arrest? I've had a cop ask me to step out of the car before and I've never been arrested.

And the cop also explained to two people, the wife and the second cop, that he tased the guy because he was walking away. The cop shows no evidence of feeling threatened while he's got the taser out, when he fires, or when he's telling people about it later.

Did you people watch the same video I did?

Tasers are used to ensure compliance. Obey the cop's order or get zapped.

This guy didn't, and he got zapped. Reasonable use of force.

Tasers are used to ensure compliance. Obey the cop's order or get zapped.

If the person hasn't committed a crime, why should he have to "obey" the officer?

If an officer asked you to step out of the car in a bogus speed trap and then batoned you do you think you would find that a reasonable use of force no matter what behavior you performed? The taser is not the issue here. The use of force in response to a non criminal infraction level violation is.

All of the officers justifying the use of force by arguing the lowest common denominator of the cop killer should be careful what they wish for. SCOTUS or legistlatures might have to take that to its logical conclusion and implement rules of evidence and force assuming the most corrupt cop as well.

-Gene

For all of you that think it was reasonable, because the driver was resisting arrest. What about the fact that the officer NEVER says the driver is under arrest before tasering him?

The driver had didn't understand what was happening to him, because the cop didn't tell the driver!

Ogged's post above nailed it right on the head. This cop admits in his own words via his ex post facto verbal rationalization on the video that he tased the driver because the driver was walking away. The cop never states that he was in fear of his own safety.

It seems pretty clear that both the driver and the cop displayed about the worst kind of judgment possible in the situation. The cop didn't communicate well at all, and was impatient. The driver was belligerent, didn't cooperate, and turned his back on the cop.

If either of them had actually behaved responsibly, it wouldn't have happened.

At the same time, it is the cop who is responsible for the decision to use force. They are trained, knowledgeable, and in control of the situation. It seems that, in this case, the cop bears most of the responsibility for the tasering, not the driver. So I vote the tasering as unreasonable, even though both guys were idiots.

I agree with Ern.

It doesn't look to me like the driver turned his back on the officer; rather, he was sideways to the officer (a line between his shoulders would point at or close to the officer) and his head faced the officer. That sort of sideways stance is used in fencing and martial arts to reduce the amount of target area presented to the opponent.

The driver was making motions with his hand in/near his pocket which were consistent with an attempt to pull something sharp such as a small knife out of his pocket at the time he was tasered.

I have some experience with epee fencing. It looked to me like the officer was close enough that he would have been in danger had the driver pulled a knife and lunged at the officer in the second or two before the officer used the taser.

Could the officer have done more to de-escalate the situation before that point? Of course. Once it escalated in the way it did, do I think he could have had a reasonable fear of getting stabbed that justified use of the taser? Yes.

The driver should have listened to Chris Rock.

Remember: Be Polite

I think the officer was almost reasonable. He had really bad communication skills, let the situation get out of hand, and had several opportunities to tell the guy he was under arrest and never did so. If he had told the driver he was being arrested and the guy still refused to follow instructions it would have been reasonable.

But the driver started out intentionally making everything as difficult as possible and refused to follow extremely reasonable instructions like giving the officer his license.
This all would have been avoided if he had just been polite.

Voted Unreasonable -Generally I think you need to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, but this looked like the police officer was upset by the challenge to his authority. Much mention has been made about the reaching into his pocket, and again I would have given the officer the benefit of the doubt, but he never brings up the,"reach into his pocket" when discussing with the woman passenger, the suspect, or even his fellow officer. He clearly wasn't feeling threatened prior to the taser draw as he instructed the driver to exit the vehicle and turns his back, but if he felt threatened later in the encounter by actions of the suspect he would have been justified in tasering the suspect. I don't think at anytime the officer felt threatened. I think he responded to the question of his authority and at a minimum needs some qualitative retraining. Entire incident displays very poor communication skills on the part of the officer and ultimately those skills are his best weapon.

For the 'law students' who don't have a clue: A traffic stop is custodial; it IS the arrest. A stopped driver is released by their signing (personal recognisance) the ticket.

The citizen's pocket was bulging (2:30, 2:33-34) in part because of a cellphone they put (2:29) into it as they exited the vehicle.

Ern's premises are spot on. The driver is an idiot. Likewise, the cop should have found a better way to handle it, like perhaps explaining to the man that signing was not an admission of guilt and that if he didn't sign then he would be forced to take him to the judge personally in handcuffs.

But Ern's conclusion is backwards.

As much as I dislike cops and traffic cops especially as I think they serve little purpose in society and generally only serve to collect revunue and cause civil resentment, the facts are that they have legal authority. If you don't like their legal authority, vote. Or sue. Or do something. But the time to dispute a cop's authority is not when he's arresting you. If you do, you risk getting an unsympathetic and socially uncommunicative cop who will hurt you. And you would have little pity from anyone that matters.

The guy was obviously about to get back in his car and drive away.

But that's what the driver would have been allowed to do if he'd just signed the damn ticket! So any argument that justifies the tasering on the ground that it incapacitated the driver and prevented his further violations of traffic law does not make much sense.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the race and class angle. The guy was of the same race as class as most of us commenters, so the officer should have known he wasn't a threat.

I'm hoping elmer's tongue was firmly implanted in his cheek. I think commenters fail to appreciate that a white male in his twenties behaving in this manner is itself threatening, particularly because he is from the conservative state of Utah where respect for authority is inculcated with the mother's milk, and every other male is an Eagle Scout. Plenty of middleclass white males in the West have a loaded Glock or S&W under their seats.

The cop definitely could have handled it better, and he needs some coaching from his lieutenant, but it was reasonable force, the guy was resisting arrest. His other options were:


a) to let the guy go and trail him until he got reenforcement, and hope he doesn't freak out and try to rabbit
b) wrestle him down right next to all the traffic whizzing by putting both of them at risk
c) or shoot him



D) Yell Freeze/Stop/Don't move/ or I will taser you. Yell Sir you are under arrest put your hands behind your back or you will be tasered.

To me it looks like the guy is interested in pleading his case (which is dumb and the wrong place to do so) when the taser is pulled. He is scared and confused because the cop never clearly explains what is happening. If the cop had been clear and precise in his words and actions it seems likely the guy would comply.

I clicked unreasonable, but what really pisses me off is that CNN is giving the jackass driver airtime.

Gene writes:

If an officer asked you to step out of the car in a bogus speed trap and then batoned you do you think you would find that a reasonable use of force no matter what behavior you performed? The taser is not the issue here. The use of force in response to a non criminal infraction level violation is.

Bingo.

Humble Law Student writes:

For all of you that think it was reasonable, because the driver was resisting arrest. What about the fact that the officer NEVER says the driver is under arrest before tasering him?

The driver had didn't understand what was happening to him, because the cop didn't tell the driver!

Quite so.

Pluribus writes:

1. Complying with posted speed limits or not complying. Hey, it’s his call.

I don't know where Pluribus lives; I realize that this varies state-to-state, but the most dangerous drivers on the highway are the ones 'complying with the posted speed limits'. The typical traffic speed where I grew up was (baring congestion) ~+10MPH higher w/the left lane typically running +15.

Last, many of us have reached the point in our lives where we realize that traffic laws are primarily used as money traps.

Of course, if the video ended with the officer being shot by the driver, much of the commentary could be eliminated.

I don't know where Pluribus lives; I realize that this varies state-to-state, but the most dangerous drivers on the highway are the ones 'complying with the posted speed limits'.

Wrong. Please don't make things up. The most dangerous drivers are speeders. Drivers who are driving much slower than other traffic on the road are also dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as speeders. Disparities in speed are dangerous, but mainly when they are created by speeders. Driving at or about the posted speed limit is not dangerous, unless you encounter excessive speeders. In my state, a driver is subject to being ticketed only for driving more than 11 MPH over the speed limit. I received a ticket for driving 52 in a 40 MPH zone and spent a Saturday in a safe driving class as a result. I didn't dispute it. This driver admits he was driving 68 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. And then he gets belligerent about it.

I have been stopped a few times in my many years of driving. Can't ever remember a real asshole officer, though I do remember a couple who cut me breaks. When I responded courtesly to the officers' questions, they said--OK, we'ill leave it with a warning this time, and please be more careful when you drive here in the future. Have a good day! After that, I did have a good day, and I did observe the posted speed limits a lot more carefully.

Wrong. Please don't make things up. The most dangerous drivers are speeders. Drivers who are driving much slower than other traffic on the road are also dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as speeders. Disparities in speed are dangerous, but mainly when they are created by speeders.

Sorry but you seem to be confusing a few things. There are almost no speeders on the road. Everyone is going 10-15 MPH over the limit. Yet there are quite a few obstinate people who peg their car at exactly the speed limit and drive in the middle or left-hand side. These guys are dangerous; they are ignoring the natural pace of traffic and overwhelm the speeders by their numbers.

These slow drivers create adverse traffic conditions when the roads are near capacity. These adverse traffic conditions are when almost all of the freeway related accidents happen. Ergo, the slow-drivers cause the accidents not the other way around.

You no doubt having in mind 'fatality' statistics. But fatalities are rare and accidents are common.

Many here err by taking the taser use itself out of context of the entire incident. At the precise moment of firing, it appeared reasonable. But the incident should not have gotten that far.

This one is my day job. I have considerable experience with excessive force litigation. IMO the officer decided to tase the guy BEFORE asking him to step outside his vehicle, and thereafer set the man up to justify it.

Note, that when Mr. Asshole first refused to sign the ticket, the officer immediately told him to exit the vehicle. THAT was where things went wrong. The officer should instead have notified Asshhole that his signature would not be an admission of guilt, and was only a promise to either appear at the hearing and contest the citation, or to pay the fine.

Then, if Asshole had still refused to sign, the officer should have told him that further refusal to sign would be grounds for arrest, and that his arrest, transport to jail and having to bail out would be far, far more inconvenient than signing the citation.

The officer should also have advised the wife right then that, if her husband did not sign the citation, she'd have to follow them to jail to pick her husband up after he bailed out. This might have gotten her to calm her husband down.

And, if Asshole still refused, to sign, the officer should then have told him that he was under arrest and to exit the vehicle immediately. When he complied, the officer should then have notified the jerk that a taser was pointed at him and he'd be shot with it if he did not immediately comply with the officer's orders.

The officer subjected himself to discipline by skipping all the intervening steps. He did so because HE WANTED TO TASE THE JERK before the fool even got out of the car.

The officer subjected himself to termination by lying about his conduct to his superiors afterwards.

" I personally think Mace is more dangerous but then I also taught the use of non-leathal chemical agents and may be a bit biased.
"

most officers don't carry MACE. Mace is a chemical agent. they carry pepper spray. pepper spray is an irritant and is much safer than mace. it's oleoresin capsicum, it's "natural" (so is arsenic but i digress).

Mace is sometimes used when referring to pepper spray, but it aint the same thing.

most military folks are familiar with CN / CS gas. also... not the same thing

Even more silly is the suggestion by some that even if the law permitted the officer to make the arrest, he made a bad decision to do so - that it would be better to just let those who don't want to be arrested to walk away. If all law enforcement officers were to adopt that technique, how do you suppose the criminals would react?

Anon, for your information, MANY police departments have such policies, and the world has not come to an end.

Remember what we are saying when we say the cop can let him walk. The cop has the guy's identification. He will be caught, tried and prosecuted. But a situation where the cops may endanger and/or inflict pain on the suspect and endanger the public is avoided.

As I said, this is what is known as good policework. Unsophisticated people think that the job of a cop is to arrest at all costs. It isn't, except when you have a suspect who is a serious danger to the public. (Indeed, there can even be cases with a seriously dangerous suspect where an officer should not try to seize the suspect until backup arrives.)

im also going to clear up soemthing about the arrest situation. in many, if not most jurisdictionsm, it is a CRIME to refuse to sign a ticket.

i don't know Utah law specifically, but i am ASSUMING that it is a crime there.

assume that (or check...).

the cop told the person to sign the ticket. he said he would not.

the cop told him to step from the car. fwiw, when placing somebody under arrest, you should NOT tell them "you're under arrest, step from the car". that's because if you tell them you are arresting them, they are less likely to comply and more likely to drive off, resulting in possible injuries/death. just telling them to exit the car gets them away from their car.

imo, he ShOULD have (i would have) specifically told the person - you are under arrest, turn around and put your hands behind your back. he didn't. he merely said "turn around put your hands behind your back".

this is not (at least in my jurisdiction) a legal problem... its still valid, it's just BETTER to say "you are under arrest, turn around and put your hands behind your back". because as soon as you say that, if the guy runs, it's another crime (escape), and it makes any resistance at that point into resisting arrest vs. obstruction (if the guy doesn't clearly know he's under arrest, and he refuses to comply with a lawful order, then it's obstructing more likely than resisting).

so, again, from a TACTICS and procedure angle, that is the only flaw i see in the officers actions. it's BETTER to say specifically that you are under arrest (imo), but NOT required (in any jurisdiction i have worked) when placing the person under arrest, which i assume he was doing.

in the entire time i worked, i NEVER had somebody refuse to sign a ticket. never. it WAS a crime, but in every case, merely explaining to the person - you are going to jail if you don't sign - worked. but im all persuasive and stuff in my verbal judo :)

this guy was resistant and non-compliant from the beginning, and methinks the cop was not going to play the "sign it or im going to arrest you" thang. he told the guy to sign it, the guy refused. if the guy didn't know that was a crime - tuff. he did not exactly create a situation for himself where he was gonna get 16 warnings.

and again, the LAST thing you want to do is chase some guy on foot on the freeway, leaving your police car and the other vehicle occupants to have access to it, outnumbered, middle of nowhere, etc. etc.

so, i thinkt he cop could have handled it BETTER, but assuming that refusing to sign a ticket is a crime in UTAH, i have zero problem with the arrest.

many, if not most agencies do NOT require an assaultive, threatening suspect to justify the taser. i don't know what this agencies use of force policy is vis a vis tasers, but it is certainly reasonable to taser a person who is resistign arrest by refusing lawful order to submit, and is walking away (as he puts hand in pocket, i might add).

if anybody has ever seen a tape of the kehoe brothers shooting (shot at two cops during a traffic stop) it started out REMARKABLY similar to this stop fwiw.

the guy created his own arrest by refusing to sign the ticket. and then justified his being tasered by not putting his hands behind his back.

i have no idea if the cop would have booked the guy. he might just have cuffed him, written a CRIMINAL cite for refusing to sign, searched the car, and then field released him. regardless, that's how use of force works. the suspect caused the escalation, and he has NOBODY to blame but himself.

After reading a lot of posts here, I have come to the conclusion that somebody driving a car on a public highway has a lot of options, but few duties, He has the option of: 1. Complying with posted speed limits or not complying. Hey, it’s his call. 2. Giving an officer who stops him his driver’s license and car registration, or not giving them. 3. Arguing with the officer about whether he had violated the law. A hearing should be held right there on the highway, right? 4. Demanding that the officer prove that he had violated the law by taking him back to the posted sign. 5. Signing a promise to appear in court or not signing. Again, it’s his call. 6. Putting his hands behind his back when commanded to do so, or putting one of them in his pocket.

This is a straw man. The problem is that people are assuming that the standard for using force against a suspect is "the suspect isn't cooperating" or "the suspect is doing something wrong".

It isn't. Rodney King did many things wrong (speeding, evading the police). That doesn't mean that if the cops just decided to beat on him for disobeying them (a contested issue, but let's assume it for purposes of argument), that would constitute a reasonable use of force.

People seem to think very simplistic about this. Once the suspect does something wrong, all bets are off. That may be true as a matter of REALITY (i.e., it is good advice not to do stupid things in front of cops), it isn't the standard for whether the force is reasonable.

The police officer has NO right to PUNISH the suspect for wrongs 1 through 6, listed above. Only a court can do that. The police officer may only use such force that is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account the danger that the suspect poses to the public.

At bottom, some people think that people who disobey cops "get what they deserve". Guess what, we aren't in the Wild West anymore. ANY cop who is handing out "just desserts" not only needs to be off the force, but thrown in jail.

If you disagree with that principle, I invite you to go live in a 3rd world country where cops still mete out frontier justice. See how you like it.

"The police officer has NO right to PUNISH the suspect for wrongs 1 through 6, listed above. Only a court can do that. The police officer may only use such force that is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account the danger that the suspect poses to the public"

except it's not punitive (taser). the cop had (assuming refusing to sign is a crime) the right to arrest, and he tried to do so, and the guy resisted arrest, refused to comply, and walked away. that justifies (under many uof policies) a tasering

Bottom line: an officer may use necessary force to effect an arrest.

This isn't really the law. The constitutional principle is that an officer may only use as much force as is reasonable under the circumstances. (Some states may have stricter standards in particular situations.)

Note the use of the word "reasonable". Not "necessary".

If you have a bunch of out of control demonstrators in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles on May Day, it may be that if you want to arrest everyone who is violating the law, it is NECESSARY to take out batons and beat people into submission.

However, that will not be found to be a REASONABLE use of force, because of the obvious threats to public safety and the disproportionate nature of the force deployed.

An officer DOES NOT have the right to make the arrest if the only way to do it is through the use of unreasonable force. I know that drives the people who just want to punish this guy for disobeying the cop crazy, but it is the standard contained in the Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable seizures).

Thanks "whit."

We've all be schooled by your analytical reasoning.

I guess that's why Taser (TM) Corporation markets their product as non-lethal alternative to firearms.

BTW - this situation wouldn't have even justified the use of a police baton, let alone a taser.

Note: this blog is often supportive of gun rights including concealed carry laws.

Query: would this driver carrying a firearm - or the passenger - change the dynamics of tasering procedure? Might the presence of a firearm make police MORE hesitant to use a taser, particularly while isolated on a remote highway?

It seems to me that the understandable emotions stirred up by tasering by police might well prompt emotional reaction by others, either the target of the tasering or third parties.

[Woman standing, legs apart, arms outstretched and locked, gun in hand: "Put the taser down officer. Put! the! taser! down!!!"]

(I'm not saying such action would not be wrong but rather that such action would be foreseeable and an additional reason why procedural rules allowing 'trigger happy' tasering might backfire and make incidents more dangerous not less.)

the issue is not "arrest at all costs". the issue is we don't create perverse incentives by REWARDING people who break the law.

Those perverse incentives are unavoidable. FYI, the rules against deadly force create them. The rule against unreasonable seizures create them. The rules against police chases (which are not constitutionally required, but which are recognized in many jurisdictions) create them.

In fact, the only way to avoid them IS to say that there are no limits on the force used by an officer until the person is secured in custody.

Sometimes, I am sorry to say, there are more important things in life than making sure that every person who goes 60 in a 40 zone and doesn't sign the ticket after providing license and registration gets immediately arrested. Apparently to some here, that is the most important value and trumps any sense of public safety or policies against police brutality.

except it's not punitive (taser). the cop had (assuming refusing to sign is a crime) the right to arrest, and he tried to do so, and the guy resisted arrest, refused to comply, and walked away. that justifies (under many uof policies) a tasering

It WAS punitive. Walking away is NOT resisting arrest. You are using a term here ("resisting arrest") that connotes someone who is fighting the cops. This guy was not. He was walking away.

Further, the cop admitted it was punitive, and most of the defenses of the cop on this thread are all about how the guy deserved it (i.e., punishment).

And the "right to arrest" is different than the "right to use unreasonable force to arrest". Under the Fourth Amendment (which supersedes use of force policies), you NEVER have the right to use unreasonable force to arrest.

told to put his hands behind his back an did not. officer has the option of wrestling him down on the side of the hiway or immobilizing him in a manner with far less risk of injury to himself and the offender.

it is far safer to put this putz down with the taser than; duking it out in the street, pulling out the tonfa, pepperspray, or drawing a firearm. letting him return to his car to retrieve a weapon or to use the car as a weapon or flee is definitely NOT an option. He does not get to dictate the routine to the officer. he does not get to get back into his car.

you sign the ticket and go to court. note that this clown was 100% wrong - there was a 40 mph sign.

"It WAS punitive. Walking away is NOT resisting arrest. You are using a term here ("resisting arrest") that connotes someone who is fighting the cops. This guy was not. He was walking away. "

depends on the jurisdiction. when an officer has PC to arrest, and he tells a person to submit to handcuffing, and that person refuses and walks away, that IS resisting arrest in those jurisdictions.

you may THINK it connotes someone who is fighting the cops, but i am speaking about legal issues, not connotations to those ignorant of legal statutes.

you want connotations.

let's speak law

here's resisting arrest under WA state law.

"A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him"

nowhere does it mention fighting. im right. you are wrong

:)

hth

"An officer DOES NOT have the right to make the arrest if the only way to do it is through the use of unreasonable force."

correct, and since the guy was resisting arrest (at least under my state laws RCW 9a.76.040), the cop would have the right to run up behind the guy, wrestle his arms behind him, which could likely result in injuries to one or both of them, etc. etc. the taser was not only reasonable, but a pretty good choice.

again, if you want to take the totality of circ's, also consider that as the guy was walking away, he had NOT been patted down at that point, he was closer to the car than the officer (was thus an issue that he may have walked towards the car and then we could have a pursuit issue), there was one cop, and more than one person at the scene, etc. etc. etc.

the situation turned out well fwiw.

PERSONALLY, i would have specifically told the person to sign it OR he would be arrested (once he was out of the car) AND before i told the person to put his hands behind his back, i would have TOLD him he was under arrest

those are BETTER tactics/procedure. that doesn't mean the officer was wrong, it means his procedure/tactics were suboptimal imo. not that mine are OPTIMAL, but they would be (imo) better since i would have done those things.

also, in my jurisdiction, refusing to sign was recently decrim'd, so if he refused to sign, i would just write "refused" and hand him the ticket, so the issue never would have come up.

it DID in the past (when it was crim), and in every case where i gave the person the "jail or sign" option, they DID sign.

but if they didn't, - i wouldhave arrested them.

"Note, that when Mr. Asshole first refused to sign the ticket, the officer immediately told him to exit the vehicle. THAT was where things went wrong. The officer should instead have notified Asshhole that his signature would not be an admission of guilt, and was only a promise to either appear at the hearing and contest the citation, or to pay the fine.

Then, if Asshole had still refused to sign, the officer should have told him that further refusal to sign would be grounds for arrest, and that his arrest, transport to jail and having to bail out would be far, far more inconvenient than signing the citation.

The officer should also have advised the wife right then that, if her husband did not sign the citation, she'd have to follow them to jail to pick her husband up after he bailed out. This might have gotten her to calm her husband down"

i totally agree that these are BETTER options. i do NOT thinkthe officers actions are unreasonable. i do think they are suboptimal. much of what you described is what i would do.

although one thing i disagree with. it is not a good idea to give person "arrest or sign" decisions, etc. while they are still behind the wheel. too much incentive (even though it rarely happens ) for the person to gun the engine and take off. if you have a potential arrest situation, you should first have him exit because then he can't simply take off, endangering himself, and his wife, fwiw.

other than that, much of what you say is BETTER than what he did.

Jamesaust: "I guess that's why Taser (TM) Corporation markets their product as non-lethal alternative to firearms"

nope. been to their site. carry their product. teach use of force.
again, fundamental misconception - usually by democraticunderground types, but many other "normal people" as well. tasers are NOT gun alternatives, any more than pepper spray or control holds are 'gun alternatives'.

please provide evidence for your claim that Taser markets their product thusly. i'll standby.

here's what their faq says:

"TASER device is an electronic control device that is a safer use-of-force option for law enforcement, private security, military and personal defense. The advantages to TASER technology are dramatic reductions in injuries to both suspects and law enforcement officers. No other law enforcement tool has undergone as extensive international scientific testing and scrutiny as TASER technology. Although, no use of force device is risk free including TASER technology, medical experts and recent independent comprehensive reports from the governments of Canada, United Kingdom and the U.S. have concluded that TASER systems are among the safer use-of-force alternatives to subdue violent individuals who could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves.”

“The advantage is that TASER technology can truly immobilize a suspect who can overcome pain, might be on dangerous drugs like cocaine or methamphetamine or even emotionally disturbed, whereas other use of force tools relay upon pain compliance. The TASER system doesn't use pain compliance but immediately stops any coordinated action by the subject only while the TASER system's current is flowing. Recovery is instantaneous so the TASER system only provides a window of opportunity to temporarily stop someone's dangerous actions."

"i have read tons of taser literature, i teach use of force and firearms, and i carry a taser. u are CLEARLY mistaken about the taser (as most laymen are in thinking they are gun substitutes)."

Frightening.

As part of criminal prosecution education, I've participated in several forums where taser use as evidence at trial has been discussed. Two key considerations routinely come up. (1) the natural revulsion some jurors will show toward watching video such as linked above even in cases where use of a taser was clearly justified (and the consequences that can have in winning a conviction), (2) the arrogant dismissal of 'ignorant laymen' or 'Mr. Asshole' (a/k/a, the public, jurors) by 'experts' testifying in court who believe taser use is an unremarkable component of routine police work.

Indeed, isn't the 'Mr. Asshole' mindset the common component in controversial taserings? If the public (to be protected and served, unless they're assholes) is insufficiently respectful and non-compliant where compliance is less than vital then the taser will be used to demand respect and compliance?

Sorry, but all that is accomplished in incidents such is this is to create a gulf between the public and law enforcement to the detriment of both. Even as the Utah police spokesman admitted, although he "couldn't get into detail," that there seemed to be "too much emotion" and "too much ego" involved "on both sides." The difference is that while this was imprudent "on both sides" it was unprofessional on only one side.

"please provide evidence for your claim that Taser markets their product thusly."

I can't tell whether you're (incorrectly) believing you're fooling people or whether your bullheadedness is blinding you to the obvious.

Evidence? Uh...besides the self-evident nature of the product, there's the very (lengthy and pointless to your argument) quote you provide: "...that TASER systems are among the safer use-of-force alternatives..." Hmmm..alternative to what?

Of course you could also dig through the testimonials from various police forces Taser posts on its website from Orange Co., Phoenix, etc. testifying to declines in the use of firearms (e.g., Orange Co. claims in 2006 a 50% decline in shooting incidents). Apparently we are to believe that those who trumpet a fact don't rely upon that fact and its implications as "marketing."

"tasers are NOT gun alternatives, any more than pepper spray or control holds are 'gun alternatives'."

But of course pepper spray, control holds, and, yes, taser ARE alternatives to guns. What I suspect you mean to say (but for a desire to pick a fight) is that "tasers are not gun REPLACEMENTS," which they are indeed not.

The traffic stop itself was highly unreasonable. They guy was probably going like 5 over some arbitrarily low "limit" that everyone (including the police) routinely violates. It is not reasonable in a free country in response to that "violation" to expect citizens to pull over and obey a cop's every direction with a big "yes sir. Thank you sir. Can I have another?"

"The traffic stop itself was highly unreasonable."

assume for the sake of argument it was.

"They guy was probably going like 5 over some arbitrarily low "limit" that everyone (including the police) routinely violates. It is not reasonable in a free country in response to that "violation" to expect citizens to pull over and obey a cop's every direction with a big "yes sir. Thank you sir. Can I have another?""

maybe not. you don't have to be polite. you don't have to be happy. it is required for him to (in many jurisdictions) sign the citation or risk criminal citation (for refusal to sign) and.or custodial arrest. it also is required for him to obey lawful orders, such as "put your hands behind your back" upon arrest for refusal to sign.

if the stop/ticket was unreasonable, the venue to argue that is court. you CNA argue it with the cop, and you MAY (unlikely) get him to change his mind. but you MUST sign (in jurisdictions where required) when ordered to, and you must submit to handcuffing when ordered to.
that's called rule of law.

hth

Read closer. The medical article was not about a fatality, it's true, but did describe the dangers of Tasers to pacemakers. The news article, however, was about a fatality. Even the quote I pulled said so: "Two deaths have been connected to the Orange County taser, Rawlings said."

I don't think Tasers are an automatic "Death Ray" for pacemaker patients... or even a significant near-lethal risk... here's why.

Patients with pacemakers are routinely shocked in medical facilities, either for cardioversion or defibrillation, with FAR more energy than a Taser produces. The current ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) recommendation for external defibrillation energy, with a monophasic defibrillator, is 360 Joules.

The Taser produces <2 Joules.

Pacemakers are intentionally hardened against electric shock, with Zener diodes to shunt higher voltages away from the internal circuitry, and also shielded against electromagnetic interference. I've read about a few cases of Pulse Generator failure in pacemakers subjected to large cardioversion/defibrillation energies, but most pacemakers seem to go right back to functioning after a patient is shocked. The incidence of failure should be correspondingly lower with a Taser, particularly when one considers the small amount of energy involved (of note, this was, in fact, the exact outcome in the case report cited previously).

Uhhh James? If you're going to continue with the sarcastic references to "Mr. Asshole," you might want to know that Whit was quoting someone else when he used that term. The guy who originally used it is on YOUR side of this debate.

I said:

In my state, a driver is subject to being ticketed only for driving more than 11 MPH over the speed limit.

Skyler wrote:

I call BS on that claim.

I liked many of your comments, Skyler. On this one, however, you're wrong. The State is Arizona. I've been to safe driving school twice and received two speeding tickets, and they all tell the same story. Makes some sense to me, too, as people aren't cited for slight violations, only those that are really substantial.

btw, what james fails to realize is the difference between marketing the taser as a "use of force" or "force" alternative vs. a "firearms alternative"

HE MADE the latter claim. what they do is the former. i have numerous "use of force alternatives" (different force alternatives i can apply). here they are (not an exhaustive list, but a pretty extensive one)...

1) command presence (considered the lowest level of force... mere physical presence... not physical force btw, but considered "force" in the broadest context)
2) verbal requests
3) verbal commands
4) come along holds
5) take down maneuvers
6) taser
7) pepper spray
8) joint locks
9) hand, elbow, knee and foot strikes (to primary, secondary and tertiary targets being different levels of force)
10) baton strikes (again with 1,2,3 targets - note that some targets can be considered deadly force when done with a baton, otherwise a baton is not deadly force)
11) PIT maneuver ( aform of vehicular legal intervention)
12) other legal intervention maneuvers
13) spike strips
14) handgun, shotgun, ar-15 (firearms)
15) handcuffing
etc.

note that ALL arrests involve force, specifically physical force. handcuffing is physical force.
note that all of these are "force alternatives"

taser clearly markets tasers as a "force alternative". iow, A form of (physical) force that can augment/enhance the choices that an officer has in a situation. it offers better range than some (like baton and hand strikes), for instance.

taser most definitely markets (as my quote showed) tasers a FORCE alternative.

james cannot provide ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that they market them as a "firearms alternative" which is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING

so, he either lied or misspoke

and he can't admit it.

"Probably just a public misconception, pluribus... I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "eight you're great, nine you're mine" used to describe police ticket policy, but it doesn't really work that way."

i know a hell of a lot of cops, including traffic cops. there is no law (not in any jurisdiction i have worked) that requires a certain amount over to be a valid ticket or stop.

as a matter of "informal policy" most cops i know who "do traffic" give people 10 over. one guy i know says he will pull over starting at 10 over, and between 10-20 over is "gray area" where he may or may not cite vs. warn. 20 over is mandatory cite unless there is an INCREDIBLE EXCUSE.

i have heard of tickets being written for "one over". these cops are ... how can i put this delicately... anal jerks. :)

in most jurisdictions, one is safe from tickets as long as one is within 10 mph.

two exceptions are school zones and construction zones. cops tend to be MUCH less forgiving in these areas.

whit,

That's a good point about not telling someone they are under arrest before getting them out of their vehicle. Speed chases are too dangerous to take an unnecessary risk of setting one of.

OTOH, the officer had a duty to warn the jerk that refusal to sign the citation might get him arrested, with his whole day wasted and the cost of a bail bond added to his traffic fine. The officer made no attempt whatever to obtain compliance.

Look at the video again and watch how little time elapsed between the jerk's first refusal to sign the citation and the officer's order that he exit the vehicle. Also pay attention to the officer's tone of voice and expression. He decided right then to tase the guy. And note, when the idiot got out of his car, how the officer subtly encouraged the fool to keep acting out.

It goes without saying that a guy with a pacemaker probably shouldn't be fighting with the police.

It also goes without saying that a person with a pacemaker shouldn't be killed unavoidably.

People,

Note that while I am very critical of this officer for creating a situation where taser use was necessary (IMO he intentionally did so), and have formed a low opinion of the Utah Highway Patrol due to its hasty exoneration of him, at the precise moment that he used the taser,

the taser use was reasonable. Objectively speaking, the man right then presented a potential threat to the officer justifying use of the taser (look at his far hand in relation to the officer and consider the officer's line of sight to it), and the officer also waited a fraction of a second to make certain that, when the man fell down, he would not collapse into traffic.

Blame the officer for what he did prior to using the taser, and fire him for lying about it afterwards, but not for using the taser itself. This is my day job.

"That's a good point about not telling someone they are under arrest before getting them out of their vehicle. Speed chases are too dangerous to take an unnecessary risk of setting one of"

right. thanks. that's an issue of tactics and "verbal judo". a cops #1 goal is "voluntary compliance". and thinking ahead (like a chess player) as to possible outcomes, optimal outcomes and cost/benefit analysis of various tactics to minimize possible negative outcomes while increasing the chances of positive outcomes.

"OTOH, the officer had a duty to warn the jerk that refusal to sign the citation might get him arrested, with his whole day wasted and the cost of a bail bond added to his traffic fine. The officer made no attempt whatever to obtain compliance. "

i would hesitate to use the word "duty". that carries legal implications. as you know. i would definitely agree he SHOULD HAVE. and i would have. and i HAVE (in the past when refusal to sign was criminal. it has since been decrim'd). see, this we can agree. the officers tactics, demeanor, etc. were subotpimal. he's clearly not that GOOD at what he does. the goal is to gain voluntary compliance. he could have (and most cops i know would have) done a BETTER job. this does NOT mean he was not legally justified. it does not mean the force was not legally justified. it does mean he should have done a better job. when i trained recruits, i stressed this aspect. nobody is perfect, but the small things make a big difference. i have no way of knowing if the guy would have complied IF the cop had done a better job, of course. nor do you. but it would have given the cop MORE justification,and given the guy MORE opportunity to comply. within reason, that's good.

with that in mind, any moron who has a taser drawn and him and STILL chooses not to comply, is probably the kind of guy that probably would not have complied anyway.

"Look at the video again and watch how little time elapsed between the jerk's first refusal to sign the citation and the officer's order that he exit the vehicle."

agreed.

" Also pay attention to the officer's tone of voice and expression. He decided right then to tase the guy."

that's an unwarranted assumption on your part. also, deciding to draw your taser is NOT deciding to tase somebody. i've drawn my taser at least 1/2 dozen times (in the limited time i've carried one). i've never tased anybody. one of the best things about tasers is that (especially so with sober and non-psychotics) a taser gains VOLUNTARY compliance. heck, i had it get voluntary compliance WITH A drunk deranged person just last week (he was standing on the side of the road, had been throwing pieces of lumber at passing cars (claiming they were driving too fast and would kill his pets), etc. the final resolution was he submitted to handcuffing. i spoke to the victim (who had been threatened and had wood thrown at his car (with no damage resulting), and he was okm with not pressing charges. i ended up involuntarily committing the guy for psychiatric evaluation based on past mental history, current behavior, and his statements... problem solved). would i have tased the guy if he did not comply? yes.

' And note, when the idiot got out of his car, how the officer subtly encouraged the fool to keep acting out."

again, i found the cops demeanor suboptimal. i agree he could have been MORE professional and he could have had better voice control - one gets better results with "command voicing" vs. "pissed off voicing" . that's irrelevant to whether the force was justified, which imo it was. but it is POSSIBLE that given BETTER tactics and BETTER verbalization, the outcome could have been BETTER (voluntary compliance).

note also, that's its a BAD idea to warn somebody you will pepper spray them before you spray them. this gives them time to react (physically by slamming eyes shut upon spraying and turning face away, and psychologically) and diminishes the effectiveness. this is NOT the case with tasers, since as long as contact is made - they generally work, so warnings are OPTIMAL in most cases unless there is some sort of imminence.

20/20 hindsight IS easy, but im not just doing that, since i have been in similar situations, and i believe i know tactics that would work BETTER, albeit given a determined non-compliant, they will not work. but at least you raise the chances that they will work AND create more justification (both legally and civilly) if you do have to use the taser). that's BETTER.

anyway, i appreciate the intelligent, rational, and thoughtful response

"Look at the video. I don't care if he was doing 80 in that 40mph zone. 40mph was an unreasonable speed limit. There was no construction in sight. There was very light traffic. It was ideal driving conditions. What is reasonable about pulling someone over under those conditions? For what? Safety"

that's an issue for whatever agency is in charge of setting speed limits. hint: it isn't the police, and certainly not individual officers. i disagree with TONS of laws (to put it mildly). but i don't WRITE them (apart from my legal write to start an initiative, lobby, etc.)

if the speed limit is unreasonable, then that's groovy. but it's not the cops fault. it is certainly irrelevant as to whether the stop or force was LEGALLY justified. that much is certain.

i think it's unreasonable that somebody convicted of domestic violence assault (however minor) loses their right to carry a firearm. it doesn't therefore follow that if i arrest somebody for VUFA for carrying a firearm pursuant to such a conviction, that the arrest and/or force used is therefore invalid.

"A police chief once told me that some of his officers "can get in a fight in a phone booth." He meant that they lacked the judgment to deal with a tense situation without violence. This looks like one of those cops. "

now THAT is certainly true. to paraphrase wambaugh, i know one cop who gets punched so often, he ought to wear a catchers mask. the most important tool in a cops arsenal to gain compliance is how he talks to people. this is true in everything from interrogation, to interview, to gaining compliance in all sorts of situation.

clearly, the motorist here was a jerk. maybe, even given a MUCH better officer (at verbalization and warning) the guy STILL would have refused, and STILL would have been tased.

this is why agencies need to hire the best, and train the best, and not be afraid to fire (especially during probation period when its easy) those that don't meet the highest standards.

the reality is that there are a fair amount of pretty mediocre cops. but it's also true that even when dealing with those cops, you don't have the right to refuse to sign a ticket, or resist arrest. (and note that i already cited our state law that does not require anything more than refusal to comply with arrest for that crime to be committed)

"It was a serious question. Can you sign the ticket, at write by your name "without prejudice"? That's what I would do, since it was not my idea to sign the thing and I'm only doing it under threat of force."

no reasonable cop (or judge i presume) would have a problem with that. signing the ticket is (in my jurisdiction), NOT a promise to appear, and NOT an admission of guilt. it is simply an acknowledgement of RECEIPT OF the ticket.

like i said, its not even criminal in WA (any more) to refuse to sign, but in those places where it is, it need not be a big issue (nor is it for 99.9% of people).

a GOoD cop would explain that 'signing the ticket is a ' (promise to appear in those jurisdictions where that is true) or "acknowledgement of receipt" (... where that is true), but again that's not necessarily LEGALLY required. it's just 'good police work"

whit,

That's perfect. Given that moron refused to comply even when the officer was crouching and aiming a taser at him, there was no realistic chance that he would have complied no matter what the officer might have said earlier.

I would add, though, that, had the officer done what he should have, he would have (a) covered his precious rear, (b) minimized the risk of engaging the wife, (c) not embarrassed the Utah Highway Patrol and (d) given himself and the UHP a more professional reputation.

thomas, i don't disagree. like i said, i find this officer's tactics to be subpar. i find his verbalization to be subpar. both those things are pretty clear to me, and i've been doing this stuff for 20 years. in 20 years, i don't have a single IIU complaint despite shootings, uses of force, and scores of arrest. so, i think my tactics and verbalization are probably pretty good. i see what works and what doesn't. and frankly, some of that i had to learn the hard way - i have the hosptial trips, etc. to prove it.

there are two seperate issues. did the officer do the best job he could have done? not even close. did he do an adequate job, within legal boundaries? yes.

could he be trained to do better? absolutely

was the force justified? yes.

could it have been avoided? maybe. but EVEN if it wouldn't have been avoided if he had done a better job, as we both agree - it would have been MORE jusitified, less likely to embarass his agency, and would have "looked better". that's hardly a legal requirement, it's just Better

The criticisms against the officer harm the cause of civil rights in two ways.

First, the illogic of the criticism weakens the ability of the blog to support logical and knowledgeable discussions (*). Second, it weakens the credibility and reputation of those of us who speak out against genuinely abusive police practices.

(*) Even by the standards of this blog, the ignorance involved is astonishing. There are ten posts complaining the officer didn't say "you are under arrest" - haven't any of you posters taken Criminal Procedure? If not, why are you posting your opinions about the law of arrest on a legal blog? Then there are the posts whining the officer was insufficiently polite, or lacked "communication skills," as if this had any relevance to the issue of the reasonableness of the tasering.

Whit,

I'm assuming that since he required the signature, the state laws must use it for that purpose. I haven't taken criminal procedure yet, but that's what a cop told me at one time in some state I was crossing.

this is why agencies need to hire the best, and train the best, and not be afraid to fire (especially during probation period when its easy) those that don't meet the highest standards.

Police unions are the main reason so many bad cops remain on the force. They are extremely powerful, and politicians will do almost anything to get the "FOP Endorsed" label.

Most people think "FOP Endorsed" means that the politician is tough on crime. In reality, it means the politician gives the police union all the protection the police union wants.

But again, let me repeat, don't get belligerent with a cop, period. It will never help. Take the ticket, and fight it later by going to court or filing a complaint.

Requesting the heretofore noncompliant driver to exit was merely prudent. One of the things running through the cop's mind must be "Will this guy grab a gun and shoot me?" Once out of the vehicle, the guy's possible weapons are limited to what he has on the person.

Uh say what? You don't seem to realize how innocent people react when the cops try to sting them. The more times I watch this video the more it strikes me as 'speed trap'.

The officer starts pursuing the vehicle before the 40MPH zone. Once in motion an officer cannot claim to observe speeding or the relevant magnitude. Nonetheless, he waits for the vehicle to enter the 40 MPH zone and then launches his sting.

"Finally, it appears that at least some posters don't understand just how dangerous traffic stops can be for cops. Cops get murdered during traffic stops. They need to stay in control to protect their own safety. The good ones can do that with words and rarely need to use a taser."

well yes. like i said, i have yet to fire my taser at somebody (carried it for a while, and been a cop for much longer). but i have POINTED it at people at least a 1/2 dozen times. and EVERY time they complied.

trust me, somebody who won't comply when they know they have a taser pointed at them CLEARLY are not going to go "gently into the good night" generally speaking, regardless of how good the cops verbal judo skills are.

like i said, *i* would have said "sign or i have to arrest you". the cop could have verbalized BETTER.

Remember, the military exists to protect you. The police exist to control you. Don't test their control or you'll regret it.

Apply a bit of military strategy (ancient) to this problem, particularly if you are unfortunate enough to be up against a bad-tempered or bad officer.

Sun Tzu said "If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant."

On the side of the interstate, the police officer holds all the cards... and attempting to poke him in the eye only tips your hand, and marks you as his enemy (Sun Tzu also said "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable").

The best advice I can give is to be polite, play nice, take copious mental notes, and if you really want to get your pound of flesh, take it to court, where your hired-gun attorney and expert-witness testimony can tip the scales of justice in your favor.

On the side of the road, you can only lose... how badly you lose depends largely on you.

Public Defender,

I disagree with your contention that the officer was a "belligerent jerk". He was neither. He was sly, confrontational and unprofessional. The person he really endangered was the wife.

The driver was a belligerent jerk. I agree with whit that the driver was looking for trouble and highly likely would have kept going until he found it.

An admonition by the officer to the wife, before he told her Darwin-Award wanna-be husband, would likely have kept her out of it entirely and might have gotten her on her husband's case enough to avoid the violence.

Laura S. opines:

The more times I watch this video the more it strikes me as 'speed trap'.
The officer starts pursuing the vehicle before the 40MPH zone.

and Skyler offers:

The man was peacefully moving about the state's public lands.

I hope neither of you have a driver's license, since your powers of observation are underwhelming. On the video the officer clearly states that the 40 mph sign was the SECOND. News reports confirm that the driver was stopped in a construction zone. There are valid safety reasons for reducing speed in construction zones, and indeed, BEFORE reaching the actual site of the construction.

What is remarkable to me is how certain people are able to convince themselves of facts not in evidence once they have made up their minds. Your erroneous opinions serve as an interesting illustration of the powers of self deception, and the unreliability of witnesses, who have seen incontrovertible fact time and again, and yet manage to avoid recognizing germane facts that are at odds with their fixed conceptions.

Jagermeister:

The officer does clearly say that it was the second sign. The driver also says that he never saw the first sign. That leaves open the question of who was right. Was there a first sign? Was it plainly visible? Was there any construction going on in the construction zone?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions. But you seem to have convinced yourself of the answer as much as the people who think otherwise.

As I said before, I was caught in a bogus speed trap in Utah once. I'm 99% certain that the ticket I got was a sham. But I basically had to pay it. Of course, I could have contested it in court. All I would have had to do to contest it is get off of work for a couple of days, and drive from California to the small town in Utah. Then, I might have been able to convince the judge that I was right, but even then its doubtful. And if I did win, the cost of fighting the ticket (including time off from work, gas and car expenses, hotel, etc...) would have well exceeded the amount of the ticket.

BTW, knowing that about the cost of going to court, I have sometimes pleaded my case to an officer who stopped me, and have even persuaded some of the officers to let me off with a warning, or to write a lesser citation.

Let me make sure I understand. Are those claiming that the driver was the victim of a speed trap claiming that the UHP set up a "fake" construction zone and that there wasn't any construction, or that UDOT is complicit with UHP in creating fake construction zones and staffing them simply for the benefit of the UHP to trap unwary speeders?

If there was no construction going on don't you think that the various news outlets would have detected this, or that other motorists might have chimed in to expose the state's perfidy?

Occam's razor implies the simplest explanation is often the most correct. Perhaps the reason it was reported he was stopped in a construction zone was because it WAS a construction zone.

May I also point out that zones begin before the actual construction to allow traffic to slow BEFORE it encounters heavy equipment, lane closures, slow vehicles, entering trucks, and sundry obstacles to driving.

I think I'm giving up on this thread, as we've now reached the point of absurd supposition.

I think I'm giving up on this thread, as we've now reached the point of absurd supposition.

Funny how you didn't reach that point back when people were theorizing about rear-firing pocket guns.

You can beat the system by going to court...

Um, no you can't. You don't absorb very much from the comments you read, do you?

Perhaps the reason it was reported he was stopped in a construction zone was because it WAS a construction zone.

May I also point out that zones begin before the actual construction to allow traffic to slow BEFORE it encounters heavy equipment, lane closures, slow vehicles, entering trucks, and sundry obstacles to driving.

The stop occurred in a construction zone. That's why it was reported that the stop occurred in a construction zone. What's not as clear is whether there was a first sign indicating a 40mph limit, and if so, whether that sign was plainly visible.

Also, sometimes on rural highways, there will be "construction" that goes on for miles without any evidence of any construction at all. Having seen the video, perhaps you could show us the indications of "heavy equipment, lane closures, slow vehicles, entering trucks, and sundry obstacles to driving."

It's possible that the driver is simply a liar, and that there was a first speed sign, clearly visible, and he was going 68 in a 40mph zone. It's also possible that there was no such sign until after the cop pulled him over. What we know for sure, is that the officer lied to his fellow officers about the warning he claims to have issued to the guy. So, from the evidence on the tape, he's an established liar. I don't know what exactly follows from that, but I'd be interested in hearing how you might apply Occam's razor to this information.

... and after the suspect put his hands out of view

If I recall correctly, the fellow who got shot so many times he had holes in the bottom of his shoes in NYC for wielding a deadly pizza box had his hands out of view, too.

I wonder why there was such an uproar, then? His hands were out of view. That makes everything okay.

Especially when you consider that delivering a pizza isn't a crime, but speeding apparently marks you as a violent felon who is inches away from doing a quick-draw routine that Billy the Kid would have envied.

Oh, and in case you didn't get the memo: The cop stated on the video why he cut loose with the Taser, and it didn't have a thing to do with the pockets. Please watch again, and take notes.

The officer had a view of the front pocket of the man for quite a good amount of time. There was no bulge or any other indication that the man could have been armed. He obviously was not armed.

A good amount of time, eh? I timed it. The officer had less than three seconds to view the suspect's front torso after he got out of his vehicle. And the officer spent most of that time looking at the suspect's face, not his waist. The suspect also had his shirt loose and hanging over his pant waist and belt. A momentary view gives an officer perfect knowledge of what's in a suspects pockets and tucked into his waistband? Enough certainty to bet the officer's _life_ against avoiding a split second of discomfort for an argumentative, uncooperative suspect?

After all, you wouldn't want the officer to be betting his life, now would you?

Trying to get back into your vehicle at that point

...Objection. Assumption.

or shot if the officer lacks access to a taser.

Interesting that you think that if the officer didn't have a taser that murdering the fellow was the next best choice.

That explains a lot. I wonder if all the pro-taser commenters feel the same way?

You can beat the system by going to court...



Um, no you can't. You don't absorb very much from the comments you read, do you?

Um, actually, you can... happens every day. Do you think you have a better chance acting like an ass on the side of the road?

Good luck with that...

Trying to get back into your vehicle at that point

...Objection. Assumption.

A laughable objection. Where do _you_ think the guy was heading? For a stroll on the other side of the highway?

More than one in ten motor vehicles in this country contain a loaded firearm. The percentage is actually much higher in the South and West.

But you think a cop should just let an argumentative suspect back into his car if they feel like opting out of an arrest. Excellent idea. That'll work very well when adopted as standard operating procedure.

Interesting that you think that if the officer didn't have a taser that murdering the fellow was the next best choice.

Only if the officer wants to collect retirement benefits someday. Probably 9 times out of 10 the worst thing that will happen if a suspect gets back into his car is a low speed chase resulting in serious property damage, an arrest, and massive police overtime. Probably 9 times out of 100 something worse will result, like a bystander seriously injured during a high speed chase. You'll probably looking at being killed by a lunatic grabbing a gun from under the driver seat only about 1 time in 100.

Since an officer will make a stop like this about 25 times a year, that would give the average highway patrolman a lifespan of about 4 years. Just think of all the money we taxpayers would save in reduced retirement expenses!

I get a little tired of hearing how dangerous being a cop is. Cops are not even in the top ten for most dangerous jobs. The guy who was tasered dropped like a rock and landed on the back of his head. I would say the cop should be charged with assault and battery.

Disgusting. There is no other appropriate reaction to that attitude. Absolutely repulsive in its amorality.

Amorality? Why? Because I recognize that the practical effect of adopting a policy that permits a suspect to return to his vehicle during an arrest if he feels like being argumentative will result in a LOT of dead cops (and even more dead suspects for that matter).

Talk about strawmen.

Policemen are human beings working in the constant presence of danger and death job while handling a loaded firearm. While I certainly hope every one has the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the thinking speed and emotional coolness of a supercomputer, and a photographic memory to boot, I know that is not the case. Even the best of them occasionally make mistakes and panic, overreact or simply loose their temper. And most of them are, by definition, not the best. Like the rest of us, most of them will experience multiple occasions in their career where their judgment fails. But when their judgement fails it can have lethal consequences. And sometimes, they can do everything they are supposed to do and it will STILL result in a lethal accident.

I do not approve of all police shootings, and certainly would have approved of a shooting in this case. I don't approve of all taserings, or even of this idiot being tasered. But I recognize that violence is _inevitable_ in large percentage of cases if officers feel they have no other alternative to gain control of suspects who refuse to comply with ordinary instructions during an arrest. And I think we would all rather that an officer display a failure of judgement by using his taser instead his a service revolver or nightstick.

30 years ago that same officer _would_ have pulled his service revolver. And even if he had no intention of discharging it, accidents happen. Mistakes happen. And mistakes with firearms tend to be lethal.

The taser, despite its problems, is much less dangerous. It gives the officer a means of escalating above yelling, but short of threatening lethal force. Police shootings have plummeted like a stone in water since the widespread adoption of the taser. I happen to think its a good thing. Idiots like Mr You-WILL-Drive-Back-And-Look-The-Sign-With-Me get shocked a lot more often, but they get shot a lot less. On balance, I think that makes them lucky.

Are you merely making things up as you go along or are you just willfully uninformed that a police vehicle can be in motion and still have its radar unit operabl?

Doesn't even matter. All the officer has to do to tell that a vehicle he's following is over the speed limit is glance down at his own speedometer. No radar required.

Hint: When being called to account for making an assumption, and you search your little bag of facts and find nothing, the proper reaction is not to pull a bunch of completely fictitious numbers straight out of your nether regions to justify the previous assumption.

Well, at least I'm not a pompous, cop-hating windbag too obtuse to tell the difference between a claim of statistical certainty and obvious "pencil-on-napkin" order of magnitude estimates.

Its fairly well known that 40% of households in the USA own at least one firearm. Surveys of gun owners have indicated that somewhere between 25-40% keep a firearm in their vehicle. So roughly speaking 10-16% of families have at least one car with a gun in it. 10% seems like a pretty good guess of the actual numbers when you realize the average household has 1.5 cars, and account for the fact that a lot of people will LIE rather than admit to breaking the law to an anonymous pollster. I stand by 10%.

I estimated 25 stops a year in which an officer arrested an argumentative or "noncompliant" suspect during a traffic stop. That was based on numbers I have been given by highway patrolmen when asking for information during an electronic records system deployment (I learn lots of weird little statistics that way). But we probably cannot trust anecdotal evidence. So looking up the statistics on the DOJ website, it turns out that officers use force to make an arrest (in 2002, the most recent year available) during 1.1% of traffic stops. Or about in time in 50. So conservatively estimating 6 tickets a day times during a 200 day workyear, and multiplying by 1.1% gives us 13.2 traffic stops a year in which force is used.

Dang. Seems I was actually off by about 40%.

I admit I pulled the numbers for what might happen where a suspect allowed to return to the drivers seat during an arrest "out of my ass." Police have learned from bitter experience that this results in unacceptable to the fatalities to police, to suspects and to bystanders, and it is now part of standard training to point this out. Police have been routinely drawing weapons to prevent stop this from happening for decades, so it doesn't actually happen that often anymore.

OTOH, a 1-100 rate for attempted use of firearms by argumentative, non-compliant suspects seems well within the right order of magnitude to me. And I'll stand by it until someone gives me a better number. Since I was off by 40% on the number of violent stops a year, give patrolmen a 5.6 year lifespan instead of 4.

Still seems like pretty crappy odds of surviving until retirement to me. Maybe highway patrolmen should continue to prevent belligerent jackasses from getting back into their cars during arrests. Even if it means using a taser. Until we deploy indestructible robocops, thats probably the judgment the bulk of flesh-and-blood policemen will make, too.

Just as an aside, not only have shootings by the police declined since the taser was introduced, homicides against police officers have plummeted as well. Police homicides peaked the year the taser was introduced. They have dropped by about 60% since then.

Maybe its just coincidence, but there are a lot of reasons to suspect the two might be connected.

You, like TheNewGuy, are attributing a whole lot of attitudes and statements to me that I simply haven't made... Why the two of you think your arguments gain strength with strawmen for fluff, I do not pretend to know.

Feh. Your comment here is a ludicrous stretch:

Interesting that you think that if the officer didn't have a taser that murdering the fellow was the next best choice.

That explains a lot. I wonder if all the pro-taser commenters feel the same way?

Then there was this gem:

Every single person on this thread who advised the person to go to court and fight it there actually means "who cares if the stop was corrupt, just pay anyway" or they have a naive to the point of being infantile appreciation of how traffic courts in speed-trap jurisdictions work

You've snarked much, and contributed little. Perhaps you'd be better served by removing the log in your own eye.

Chittleb said:

The hard reality is that traffic stops are dangerous to cops, and therefore dangerous to motorists.

Which is exactly why they should stop making traffic stops for petty things like speeding when it clearly is not hurting anyone.

Gray said:

The suspect was lucky not to get shot. Before the widespread adoption of tasers, the same officer would have had a firearm drawn in this situation.

Actually, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. I can't recall the name of the case, but the police are not allowed to shoot someone (use deadly force) merely because they are fleeing.

That's probably why donut eaters like tasers. It gives them more options to act when they would otherwise be obliged to let you go.

The more I look at this one, the more I think the donut eaters are out of control in this country.

However, the law being what it is, and the very fact that the idiot driver SAW the taser means that he had every expectation that he could be shot. It should never have gotten to that point, but the idot driver did his best to make sure it did.

s per the Utah Highway Patrol spokesman, the officer could have just written "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and allowed the driver to proceed on his way. The arrest was strictly optional.

Then I'd like to change my vote. If he was not obliged to get a signature, then there was no need to escalate whatsoever.

Don't forget the cops threats to arrest the wife, and his lies at the end of the video when another officer arrives on scene. The cop was out of control, also look where the man fell in the road. Lucky he doesn't get run over.

Don't forget the cops threats to arrest the wife, and his lies at the end of the video when another officer arrives on scene.

The only "lie" the officer told was asserting that he warned the suspect that he would be tasered if he did not obey instructions. Calling this a "lie" is an exaggeration, since anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would have figured that out when the officer removed the taser from his belt and trained it, without needing an explicit verbal warning.

This is not the inner city, but a guy with his pregnant wife in an SUV. Arrest and taser should only be used in threatening situations.

Who was it who claimed that suggesting some commentators wanted law enforcement efforts confined to the ghetto was a straw-man argument?

Given that cops sometimes overreact, provoking a cop is always stupid, even if the cop is in the wrong. The time and place to defeat a bad cop is in court, not the initial confrontation. And while it might be gratifying and maybe even profitable to provoke a cop into going to far then sue and collect a big settlement, would it not be wiser to not provoke the cop in the first place?

Are we talking about rabid dogs, or police officers enforcing the laws of a free people? A lot of commenters have made it sound like cops are more akin to forces of nature than to rational human beings. If cops are as out of control as you make them sound, gunning down anything that might threaten them, that hardly sounds like a good group to whom we should give guns and authority.

Its fairly well known that 40% of households in the USA own at least one firearm. Surveys of gun owners have indicated that somewhere between 25-40% keep a firearm in their vehicle. So roughly speaking 10-16% of families have at least one car with a gun in it. 10% seems like a pretty good guess of the actual numbers when you realize the average household has 1.5 cars, and account for the fact that a lot of people will LIE rather than admit to breaking the law to an anonymous pollster. I stand by 10%.

So maybe the better point isn't that we shouldn't provoke cops, but cops shouldn't provoke motorists? If motorists are so dangerous, the behavior of this Utah patrolman seems unwise: the wife could have rolled out with a pistol, or the man could have shot him during the lengthy time when the cop was walking away with his back to the driver. If it's as wildly dangerous out there as some of you make it sound, perhaps a better response from the cop would have been: "You don't want to sign the ticket--fine, you'll be getting all of this in the mail. Now have a safe drive."

Still seems like pretty crappy odds of surviving until retirement to me. Maybe highway patrolmen should continue to prevent belligerent jackasses from getting back into their cars during arrests. Even if it means using a taser. Until we deploy indestructible robocops, thats probably the judgment the bulk of flesh-and-blood policemen will make, too.

Over the last three years, there have been 48, 55, and 57 officers feloniously killed while on duty. With around 675,000 officers nationwide (not counting another couple hundred thousand civilians providing law enforcement). I'm not excusing cop killing or saying there should be more of it, but statistically those are still pretty good odds of surviving until retirement.

Please see here.

Actually, compare the number of cops killed to the number of people killed in Washington DC, where the population is still below 600,000. For all the talk of how dangerous it is out there for cops, it seems more dangerous to live in Southeast DC. There's a whole slough of cities where that's the case. If cops got killed at the same rate as people in Detroit, there would be more than 300 cops killed every year. The statistics are somewhat incongruous, but the larger point stands.

c.grey:

You excuse your fabrications as being over-the-napkin, yet you expect people to take them seriously. Fine.

Are you aware of any studies whatsoever that show a link between jurisdictions that have more lax traffic arrest rules, and cops surviving four years on the job? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I've seen a hint or two of what the pure libertarian approach to traffic law would look like. Anyone care to expound?

I've seen a hint or two of what the pure libertarian approach to traffic law would look like. Anyone care to expound?

Sure it begins with the notion: no harm, no foul. Rules help determine who is a fault but do not dictate arbitrary behavior.

The classic example is running a red light at a deserted intersection with high visibility to reach the hospital in an emergency.

A trouble with traffic laws is that they open a whole-can-of-worms--specifically in their use as a pretext for searches and as revenue machines.

Only if the officer wants to collect retirement benefits someday.

Can we please stop with the law enforcement propaganda about police officers getting killed?

First, as has been pointed out numerous times, that has nothing to do with this incident. The cop wasn't afraid. He was pissed off because the guy was giving him a hard time.

Second, law enforcement is not a dangerous profession. (I use the term loosely, since traffic cop is primary tax collection, not law enforcement.) It's not among the top ten dangerous professions. Very few cops get killed. Virtually no cops get shot at traffic stops. (Spare me the anecdotes; I'm aware it happens. Compared to the number of traffic stops, it's within rounding error of zero.) Treating a routine speeder as a potential assassin is lunacy.

Escalating within 2 1/2 minutes to violent arrest because he argued with you is even more loony. Was the driver argumentative? Sure. Did he refuse to comply? No. In fact, after initially arguing with the cop, he handed over his license and registration. He wanted his say. Does the cop care? No. Is it the cop's prerogative to use force because he doesn't feel like listening? No.

If the cop had actually felt threatened, we could debate whether he was being reasonable or paranoid. But he didn't feel threatened. He used force because the guy pissed him off.

I am not always anti-law enforcement. In the case Orin worked on -- Scott v. Harris -- the driver, not the officer, was at fault. But this was not a case of a driver fleeing from the cops. He was walking slowly. The officer never told him he was under arrest or threatened to use force if the driver didn't comply. (It may not be legally required for the cop to do this, but it goes to reasonableness of his actions.)

So maybe the better point isn't that we shouldn't provoke cops, but cops shouldn't provoke motorists? If motorists are so dangerous, the behavior of this Utah patrolman seems unwise: the wife could have rolled out with a pistol, or the man could have shot him during the lengthy time when the cop was walking away with his back to the driver. If it's as wildly dangerous out there as some of you make it sound, perhaps a better response from the cop would have been: "You don't want to sign the ticket--fine, you'll be getting all of this in the mail. Now have a safe drive."

Bingo. The motorist wasn't very prudent. But why do some people treat it as if it's the citizen's job to avoid being harassed by cops, rather than the cop's job to avoid harassing citizens?

This means for instancing timing the vehicle with a radar gun. For this evidence to be admissible, the officer must be stopped while taking the reading. There are two versions of events here: the officer insisting he took the reading after the 40MPH zone began and the the video which clearly shows the zone as the officer is driving.
Traffic radar is doppler radar, which can automatically subtract the officer's speed. Cosine error is negligible on a flat straightaway, as this appears to be. The video does not show the beginning of a 40MPH zone; the video shows a portable 40MPH speed limit sign. Whether it marks the beginning of the construction speed zone, we can't tell. I don't know about your experience, but in mine highways often have more than one speed limit sign.


Secondly, the situation was not threatening in any way. This is not the inner city, but a guy with his pregnant wife in an SUV.

I can tell you've never been beat up by a belligerant white boy. The driver was not moderating his behavior in deference to his sweet preggo wife. He might have bought the SUV with the proceeds from his meth lab for all that the cop knew

As a European, I am astounded by the inability of American police to solve problems without immediate resort to force.

As an American I was astounded by the ability of German police to assume that Autobahn speeders will willingly stop and pay a fine at the roadside to men dressed essentially in ordinary office attire. (Yes it was a construction zone.)

Which is exactly why they should stop making traffic stops for petty things like speeding when it clearly is not hurting anyone.

Motorists kill highway construction workers not infrequently. We're all free to disregard laws we think don't apply to us, but we forfeit the right to whine about getting caught when we are.

We all tend to think we're much better drivers than we are. When I took traffic school, 80% of my fellow violators claimed to be above average -- and we weren't in Lake Wobegon at the time.

The worker most likely to be murdered on the job is cab driver -- because, like state troopers, they never know who it is they're stopping for.

"Outrageous. First of all he should have pointed out immediately that not signing the ticket meant arrest, "

yes, he should have. i would have. and have done so. it does not follow then that by NOT doing it, that the force was unjustified. the cop did not do a perfect job, or a great job. he did an adequate job, within the law, and the force was justified. he could have done a better job.

that's irrelevant to the FACT that when a cop says to put your hands behind your back and you refuse to submit and walk away and then continue to resist (and note that according to my state laws, it IS resisting arrest even when the resistance is walking away and/or passive), after being confronted with the officer and his drawn taser - you are wrong. period.

the officer does not have to give you 16 levels of legal justification WHY you need to put your hands behind your back.

i have made 100's of traffic stop. the VAST majority of people do not act like this guy acted. HE created the problem, not the cop.

if he disagrees with the ticket, he can argue all he wants, but he CANNOT refuse to sign (in states where the law requires it). that's a crime. he cannot refuse to submit to handcuffing/obey the order to put his hands behind his back. that is ALSO a crime.

you can be as much of an a**munch as you want, but you can't break the law. and he did.

"plus that signing did not mean admitting guilt.
Secondly, the situation was not threatening in any way. This is not the inner city, but a guy with his pregnant wife in an SUV. Arrest and taser should only be used in threatening situations. "

which is false under most use of force policies in re: the taser. and it is also a ridiculous assumption. there is a subtle soft bigotry. hey, it's just a guy in an SUV (at least you didn't include race) with a pregnant wife. he couldn't POSSIBLY be a threat. try working the streets for 20 years (like i have) , and you will learn (through hospital trips) that you cannot make such assumptions.

the cop must use force that is reasonable. reasonableness of force is based on a totality of the circ's as presented ot the officer. primary among those, ARE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE SUSPECT. that's what justified the taser. not the SUV. not his pregnant wife.

i have seen 90 lb wives swing deadly weapons at an officer.

the PRIMARY issue in determining reasonableness of force is what the officer witnesses. the person's BEHAVIOR justified the force (taser) whether he was driving an SUV, a maserati, or a yugo.

this is the kind of ridiculous, dismissive, completely ignorant and non-legal argument that one should not expect to see here. but is all too common

uses of force almost always LOOK ugly. so what? the issue is reasonableness, and the tasering was clearly reasonable.

"Thirdly, but probably irrelevant to the whole issue: the cop is an asshole through and through. Do we want to give people like this a gun and authority? "

again, totally irrelevant. the cop was justified. a justified asshole is still legally justified.

cops have to put up with a lot of assholes, fwiw. i will take any level of verbal abuse (and have). but there is a line, and guess what - that line is based on BEHAVIOR. it was the suspect's behavior, his ACTIONs that justified the tasing.

his bad

amazing. the losers in this debate have morphed from trying to say the force was to attacking the very concept of traffic laws, use of force, etc.

"Bingo. The motorist wasn't very prudent. But why do some people treat it as if it's the citizen's job to avoid being harassed by cops, rather than the cop's job to avoid harassing citizens?"

stopping people for violating the traffic laws is not "harassing" people. it's enforcing the laws. if the traffic laws are unreasonable, that's the LEGISLATURE's fault. THEY make the traffic laws. NOT the cops.

cops are executive branch. ever heard of seperation of powers? i have SOME discretion. i can choose not to target crimes (so called victimless crimes) that i am not particularly interested in. but i can't rewrite the laws.

if you have a problem with the laws resulting in harassment (using harassment as a word that means "enforcement of the law") then argue to the LEGISLATURE against the law as currently written.

let's just get rid of all speed limits. then the cops can't "harass" people for speeding.

"But this was not a case of a driver fleeing from the cops. He was walking slowly."

he was walking away AFTER being told to put his hands behind his back. that's illegal. period.

" The officer never told him he was under arrest or threatened to use force if the driver didn't comply. (It may not be legally required for the cop to do this, but it goes to reasonableness of his actions.)"

he is not legally required to tell the guy he was under arrest. his order to put the hands behind the back is still lawful and was still ignored.

nobody is arguing the cop did the best job possible. his actions were reasonable and legal.

"Second, law enforcement is not a dangerous profession. (I use the term loosely, since traffic cop is primary tax collection, not law enforcement.) It's not among the top ten dangerous professions. Very few cops get killed. Virtually no cops get shot at traffic stops. (Spare me the anecdotes; I'm aware it happens. Compared to the number of traffic stops, it's within rounding error of zero.) Treating a routine speeder as a potential assassin is lunacy. "

what you don't seem to understand is that the dangerousness is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced (as it should be) by proper officer safety tactics (which i have taught along wiht firearms/use of force).

for example, drawing a taser on a resistant subject (like in this case) is safer than chasing him and wrestling him to the ground.

far far more cops are shot than are shot and killed (mostly due to body armour). in my 30 man unit, 3 of my fellow officers have been shot in the last 5 years.

far more WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT without officer safety tactics. those include drawing our weapons at suspected felons, and using tactics that give us AN ADVANTAGE. we are not required to use equal force (presented with somebody in a bladed boxing stance, we are not required to take one as well. we are justified in drawing a baton, taser, etc.).

police work IS a dangerous profession. the danger is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced by good officer safety tactics. that's GOOD. cops shoot far more bad guys than we get shot by. that's GOOD.

let me give you an example. felony stops. when stopping stolen cars, bank robbery suspects, etc. - cops do felony stops - multiple cars, gun drawn, etc. this makes stopping car thieves, robbers, etc. MUCH safer. but if cops walk around with their head up their okole and DON'T use proper safety/precaution (like this officer did) they SIGNIFICANTLY increase their chances of injury or death. we have to do this within the law. we can't pat down everybody (my best friend was shot and killed by an armed murderer who had shot somebody else earlier that evening. he had no reason to pat the guy down and got shot in the head. that's a reality we face. but GIVEN sufficient factors, we take sufficient precautionary measures).

yes, there are jobs with far more physical danger - deep sea fishing, steel worker, lumberjkac, etc.

some danger in all these jobs is unavoidable. what is not acceptable is not using precautionary measures against those that choose to escalate, etc.

the cop was justified in drawing and shooting hsi taser. he is not required by law to wait until assaulted OR to chase the guy down on foot and tackle him as he walked away. that is a big part of why more cops are not shot or killed.

like i said, some risks are unavoidable. i had a guy get the drop on me several months ago. i walked up to him and while speaking to him, he drew a pistol. those risks are UNAVOIDABLE.

that's why we develop use of force continuums. cops MUST have the right and authority to use reasonable force. and that is not based on unjustified assumptions about middle class SUV drivers with pregnant wives.

and there is plenty of danger out there. i personally know over a half dozen people i have worked with who have been killed on duty.

we handcuff people who are under arrest (and in several other situations). why? because it's safer AND it's justified.

probably 95% of people don't "need " to be handcuffed, but it's safer to do so, it's legally justifiable, so we do it.

it's officer safety and tactics that keep literally thousands of police officer a year alive who would OTHERWISE be dead.

that's what people don't understand. they see tasers as unreasonable cause they look icky. but they are reasonable, safe and save lives.

i am sure handcuffs would be viewed similarly if they were new. handcuffs suck. they are uncomfortable, demeaning, they hurt, etc. but we use them on ALL arrestees no matter how small the crime. that uniformity SAVES lives and prevents injuries, to cops AND suspects.

we need to ensure that cops have the authority to use reasonable force. it saves lives- cops, bad guys and innocents. few instruments have saved more lives than tasers have (per year). the stats don't lie. but they look icky. getting rid of tasers LITERALLY would sentence many people to death.

If the cop had actually felt threatened

I'm curious how David was able to make that determination. Voice stress analysis? Absence of stains on the front and back of the officer's pants?

Reading comprehension. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, the police officer explained three times why he used the taser. "Felt threatened" was not one of his explanations.

Cops are not shy about claiming that a suspect made a threatening move; they'll even do that in situations when it's ludicrous, like the Rodney King case. He didn't do so here. At no point -- not any of the three times he explained why he used the taser -- did he even suggest that he was worried about his safety from the motorist.

stopping people for violating the traffic laws is not "harassing" people. it's enforcing the laws. if the traffic laws are unreasonable, that's the LEGISLATURE's fault. THEY make the traffic laws. NOT the cops.

1) Cops have the discretion as to which laws to enforce.

2) Cops routinely exercise discretion; they don't pull over every speeder they see.

3) Cops routinely violate those same traffic laws. Next time you see a cop driving along the highway below the speed limit (barring traffic jams), let me know, okay?

4) Next time you see a cop writing a ticket to a cop who's speeding, don't let me know, okay? Because I'd have a heart attack from shock.

So let's not pretend that they're just neutrally enforcing the law, okay?

5) I wasn't referring to mere "stopping people for violating the traffic laws." I was referring to this officer's approach to enforcement. He escalated the situation repeatedly.

rubbish. there is such thing as civil service protection, etc.

Right; that's part of the problem.

like i said ( several times) the cops verbal judo was suboptimal. that's a far cry from him being corrupt, etc. his force was lawful and reasonable.

If one can handle a situation without using force, then using force is per se unreasonable.

he is not legally required to tell the guy he was under arrest. his order to put the hands behind the back is still lawful and was still ignored.

If you're lawfully arresting me, perhaps I am required to cooperate by putting my arms behind my back. If you're not lawfully arresting me, why do I have to listen to your "order"? Police are not superior officers to Americans. I don't work for you; you work for me. And even if your outrageous interpretation of "resisting arrest" were reasonable, if you don't inform me you're arresting me, then I can't possibly be resisting arrest.

for example, drawing a taser on a resistant subject (like in this case) is safer than chasing him and wrestling him to the ground.

We're not discussing his "drawing" of the taser, but his use of the taser. Nor is the question tasering him would have been better than some other use of force, but whether any use of force was necessary.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, at no point did the cop warn the driver that (a) the cop would have to arrest him (*) if he didn't sign the ticket, or (b) that he was under arrest, or (c) that if he didn't stop, he would have to use force to arrest him.

And finally, even if the legislature has created a vague category called "resisting arrest" which is so broad that it encompasses merely walking away, calling him "resistant" is disingenuous. Tasering a violently resisting person may be safer than simply physically attacking him, but that does not mean that tasering a non-violent "resistant" person is.


(*) Fortunately, because as has also been pointed out repeatedly, that's not true in Utah.

i have no idea if refusing to sign a cite is a misdemeanor in utah. MANY posts back, i said that ASSUMING that refusing to sign a ticket is a crime (it no longer is in WA state where i work fwiw, but was until recently)

What was the crime? Misdemeanor or felony? What was the statutory punishment for refusing to sign a ticket?

Are you sure you're not confusing the fact that not signing creates grounds to arrest on the underlying offense with the claim that not signing is an offense?

Whit, I appreciate your comments and professional demeanor, but I'd like to know your reaction to the opposite assumption, that which was claimed by someone after 350 or so posts, that Utah law does not require a signature and the officer can simply write in "refused to sign."

I tell you what, that changes my vote completely. If that is true, there is no justification whatsoever for the arrest and all subsequent actions purporting to unnecessarily arrest the idiot (and he's still an idiot) are thus excessive.

It's true that once the taser is drawn and the man turned aside with his hand reaching for his pocket, the police officer has reasonable justification to protect himself.

But as you yourself admit, the cop is also "suboptimal" (which I take is a professional term for "idiot") in how he handled this.

I don't much like traffic cops. I don't much like speeding fines. I think they are silly and nothing more than a disguised tax. But I believe in our representative democracy. I am outvoted and I abide by the fact that every jurisdiction in this country disagrees with me. So if a cop pulls me over, I am polite enough and comply with his orders.

But if this assumption about signing is correct is what then?

The idiot should have still complied but clearly the cop and the police department should be sued for exceeding his authority and endangering a peaceful citizen for no reason. The police department should be hammered hard.

If the cop was required to get the signatrue, which is a silly requirement after all, then I'll support him. But if not, he should be hung out to dry.

Traffic radar is doppler radar, which can automatically subtract the officer's speed. Cosine error is negligible on a flat straightaway, as this appears to be.

Haha. Indeed it is doppler radar. This means that it measures the relative speed. Consequently, "moving radar" works by aiming a second beam at the ground. There are only a few conditions in which this works properly because of cosine error. You mention a case of cosine error: slopping terrain.

Unfortunately there are many other forms of cosine error.
One such form is simply having the detector off-axis from the target. Another is the acceleration/deceleration of the police vehicle.

Additionally, there are other methodological problems. The admissibility of "Stationary Radar" requires several conditions to be met. Among these:

1) the officer has to perform a site survey to determine if the surrounding environment interferes with the correct operation of the radar gun. This is generally impractical from a moving vehicle.

2) the officer is required to sight the vehicle through the gun. Especially when using radar rather laser techniques, sighting is critical because the beam is very wide at subject to substantial measurement error at distance. Generally it is not possible for the officer to properly sight the instrument while driving.

I think people are confused by what radar guns can and cannot do. A radar gun is relatively cheap, primitive instrument. It is much, much, much less capable than the radar on, say, a fighter jet.

AnonLS: I wasn't arguing that you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest; I was not addressing that issue. I was conceding that you don't have the right to resist a lawful arrest, and then pointing out that if you're not under arrest, you obviously can't be accused of "resisting" it. The question of unlawful arrest falls in between those extremes, and I suspect varies from state to state.

(That having been said, I think the court's decision in Pena-Flores was wrong from start to finish. Not only does it arguably declare that you can't interfere with an unlawful arrest, but it also finds that mere speech can be "interference.")

I see. You know he didn't feel threatened because he did not volunteer the statement, "I felt threatened."

No. I know he didn't feel threatened because he explicitly provided a different reason for his use of the taser.

It has nothing to do, of course, with being a "wuss." An officer has no trouble saying, "He made a threatening gesture" or "I thought he was going for a weapon" or even a simple "He refused to show me his hands."

David,

I actually wasn't intending to target your post directly. Caselaw after Pena-Flores speaks of that case, as affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court, as standing for "indicia of arrest" being sufficient. One of the Idaho cases that is cited in Pena implies that *knowledge* of the arrest is required; given the circumstances here, I'm not sure that *knowledge* can be assumed, i.e. I'm not entirely sure a motorist would be fully cognizant of the situation if suddenly a cop draws a weapon instead of writing a ticket, particularly given the short time-span involved.

So where do things stand: We know that the cop could lawfully arrest the guy for speeding. We also know that the cop is under a duty to inform the guy that he's under arrest; the question is did he do so adequately. I'm about out of time to look at this tonight, i.e. it's exam season and statutory bars to patenting beckon, but I'm curious as to what legal, vs. wise, obligations do citizens have in obeying police orders. Any takers?

he is not legally required to tell the guy he was under arrest. his order to put the hands behind the back is still lawful and was still ignored.

The Supreme Court has said that if I'm walking down the street and a cop tells me to stop, I can keep walking. But you're telling me that if a cop tells me to put my hands behind my back, I'm supposed to presume that I'm under arrest. There has to be some sort of magic words involved; it is not too much to expect law enforcement professionals to say, "you're under arrest."

Whit, your arguments lead me to believe that you'd basically be okay if this cop would have just tased the guy as soon as he rolled down his window. Was the driver reaching for his wallet or his gun? Better safe than sorry. Arming so many cops with Tasers is bad because I don't believe we can trust cops to police themselves on these matters. The fact that this cop says, on tape three times, that he Tased the guy for walking away from him seems to have made zero impression; later at a review hearing he claimed self-defense, so it was justified, case closed. If police review boards by that justification, they shouldn't be trusted by the public.

Arming so many cops with Tasers is bad because I don't believe we can trust cops to police themselves on these matters

I agree with this. If we make use of force too simple and easy and requiring less justification, then it will become too simple and easy for too many occasions that will get lower and lower in importance. Next thing you know we'll all be walking around wearing Capt. Kirk shock collars in that Star Trek episode.

There should be a high threshold for any use of force. I think that if this cop did not require a signature, then it's very obvious that he simply was arresting the man on a PPO charge. A weird cop that was a friend of a friend of a friend at a bar one time told me that PPO means "pissed-off police officer."

Much of this discussion involves telling the guy he must sign, or be arrested. Or perhaps not be arrested.
Is the issue that telling him about the potential for arrest legitimizes what follows?
Or does somebody expect the driver to act differently?

I've been involved in a few sweaty situations where the "I don't understand..." "What did I do...?" are not possibly indicators of confusion, but meant to annoy, or confuse the issue.

As in, "You can't come in without a ticket."
The guy comes in anyway. You escort him out. "What did I do?" "I don't understand." Pretty soon the guy is getting into the injustice of having to have a ticket.
All bullshit by somebody who thinks he's going to manipulate the cop. Not only is it annoying, it indicates an intent to not comply. With that as a lead-in, the physical non-compliance is more threatening than if the guy had acted more normally and simply looked confused.
When you pull this what-did-I-do? crap, one thing is sure. You know exactly.
So what's the point? Giving the cop a hard time.

If I were in a "situation", I'd try to use words as a distraction or misdirection. I'd be meek as a bunny, presuming bunnies are really meek, until the other party was mentally relaxing. In this case, the verbal crap the guy gave the cop, starting with the insurance and registration, is clear evidence of intent not to comply.

Skyler.
Is it confirmed there was no need, legally?

However, the question was not whether to get the guy to sign, but whether the tasing was legit. Once they got to that point, the situation was what it was and the tasing question is what matters.

In judo, there are what are known as "aggravation techniques", description on demand. They don't amount to a throw or choke, but are designed to distract the opponent, to get him reacting to, say, a knuckle in the chest instead of defending against a throw. This "I don't understand" crap is, IMO, the same thing. The driver was getting ready to make some kind of stupid move. Once the cop was led to believe he was having some kind of verbal conflict, his attention to the physical possibilities would be reduced. He would then be vulnerable.
It might be true that this driver, this one particularly, would not do that. But that's not the way to bet.

I guess the other question is, suppose you give the guy a friendly wave and let him go unsigned. What does the state do next? Is he going to comply then? He's going to continue not complying until forced to.

The person who says speeders shouldn't be stopped unless they harm someone is nuts. Once they have harmed someone, I guess it's too late. Or is that not relevant?
And shooting a gun in a crowded residential area should be okay up until the first fatality?

"Aubrey, but if there was no need for a signature, then there was no need for any further compliance. The cop should have just said thanks and good bye. Why he felt a need to ruin everyone's day is a mystery. Unless he's just a bully."

yes. once the citation is complete (on a traffic stop for a civil infraction, and again... is speeding a civil infraction in Utah or a misdemeanor), then the "transaction is over". if the guy wants to be left alone, that's his constitutional right. if there is no requirement to sign, then write "REFUSED TO SIGN" and hand him the citation, or if he insists on walking away, give it to his wife back in the van.

now, again, in some places it is also illegal to walk on a limited access freeway, but that's a whole other ball of wax. regardless, if the guy is just an aggravated putz AND your reason for the stop is done - then it's no longer a stop, it's a "social contact" and the guy should be free to walk away.

the question is have is WHAT REASON (why) was the cop asking the guy to put his hands behind his back - terry frisk (if so, for what?), or arrest, or what? and if for arrest, what was the charge?

If you go to frisk somebody, and they refuse to comply, THEN you have an arrestable offense (obstruction). otoh, if the court later rules you didn't have sufficient "frisk factors' then the obstruction woudl get tossed.

Doesn't this scare you?

Not many people have commented that the policeman completely turned his back on the citizen, after he ordered him out of the car. Probably not how they teach it at the academy.

The citizen, meanwhile, reads these non-verbal cues, and thinks he's still having a pleasant discussion about where the sign was, and whether he's going to sign the ticket. The officer turns around, sees him approaching with an outstretched arm, panics and pulls his weapon.

It was horrible police procedure that led to the escalation, and the officer has some nerve to claim that the citizen was responsible for it. By the time you're facing the point of a weapon for failing to sign a ticket, I dare say you have the right to be a little non-compliant (though it's not prudent to be so, as this guy found out).

Guy could have died by falling into the road because of this incompetent cop. Not even to mention the awful communication skills at the window. Inept on so many levels.

If he had felt at all threatened, he wouldn't have turned his back.

I have personally experienced the following sequence:

cop: "Put out your hands."
me: "Huh?" (puts out hands)
handcuffs: "zzzzip"
me: "Am I under arrest?"
cop: "yes"

Lesson 1: Cops don't always tell people when they're under arrest - this may well be a widespread training deficiency, or it may be a deliberate tactic, I just don't know.
Lesson 2: Being cooperative was my best strategy in both the short run (this occurred before the invention of the Taser, so I saved myself a whack in the head) and the long run (it was a holiday and they couldn't find a judge, so I got let go. If I'd given the cop trouble they'd have found one.)

If you look at when the cop starts to pull him over, it seems the cop starts to try to pull the driver over, BEFORE he even crosses the 40 mph sign, which is exactly the point the driver tried to make.

A valid point to make in court, but useless and time-wasting to make on the side of the road after the ticket has been written.

After all the discussion, I'd say the Taser shot was justified at the time of the walking away and pocket-reaching, but that it's the cop's fault the situation reached the point where a Taser shot was necessary.

The Tasering might well have been unnecessary if the cop had done has job a little better - like if he had ever used the phrases "under arrest" or "stop or I'll shoot."

Tasers exist as less lethal substitutes for firearms. It follows that use rules mimic those of firearms.

From what many here are saying, they are also a less lethal substitute for a billyclub to the back of the head, and the rules applied to their use are those for any kind of physical intervention.

Cop drew the Taser before the citizen had dis-obeyed any instructions, (other than to sign the ticket, which was not required.) I think the cop was startled that the citizen had not stayed by his car door, but instead followed cop (who had totally turned his back on the citizen to walk back to his cruiser and put down his clipboard.) Citizen had a thumb hooked in his pocket, but all 4 fingers were exposed, citizen was not even looking at cop, but pointing at traffic sign down the road with his left hand. That hand did not move, watch the elbow.

I found the cop's use of the Taser to be an unreasonable use of force. And it's use was apparently premeditated by the cop, as it was pulled prior to any non-compliance by the citizen.

Now at this time, the cop had presumbably already run his license and determined that the citizen had no wants or warrants outstanding. Was there nay need to effect an arrest on the citizen? Very doubtful, cop seems to have lacked discretion.

As to when it was fired, the cop instructs "Turn around", and the citizen did, citizen is now facing away from cop, and looking over his shoulder. Cop now instructs "turn around"? Which direction did the cop want him to face? Was the citizen suppossed to piroette like a ballarina?

I am pretty conservative/libertarian, but this alarms me, as does the defense of the cop by many here.

The poll question is a bit ill defined.
If you think that at the moment that the officer fired it was justified, but that if the officer had done his job better that moment would never have occurred, do you answer "yes" or "no"?

So just out of curiosity, from the police officer's perspective, what do you do when you have a motorist that is ignoring instruction after instruction? Keep asking nicely and use the word "please" often? I'm less interested in stating my opinion than I am hearing what those who think this was excessive think would have been a more appropriate means of handling a motorist that will not follow instructions. I think the motorist was out of line but give me a better scenario and I will agree that the officer was out of line. I don't know what the better scenario is so at this point I think what the officer did was reasonable.

Let's try that again...

The police officer should limit his demands to those he is legally authorized to make, and perhaps give the notice he is legally required to give, per UT ST 77-7-19, before using the weapon on the guy for not complying.

"Tasers exist as less lethal substitutes for firearms. It follows that use rules mimic those of firearms"

i have already debunked this myth (feel free to go back and read my post about various options in the use of force spectrum).

i also debunked the misstatement that taser MARKETS it as a firearms alternative.

tasers are no more a "less lethal substitute for firearms" than is pepper spray, a baton, an elbow strike, etc.

again, FALSE. i teach use of force and firearms to officers. i also carry a taser. i am well aware of the use of force continuum. i would guess (based on what i have read on the net) that a VERY large %age think what you say is true. it is not

the reason tasers are called "less lethal" (among other reasons) is THAT TECHNICALLY speaking, almost any use of force CAN result in death, although very unlikely. a punch to the sternum can result in death. a baton strike to the leg can result in death. being pepper sprayed, then stumbling into traffic can result in death. ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.

tasers are (in my agency and many others) roughly the same level of force as pepper spray. they are BELOW (in my agency) elbow, knee, foot and hand strikes. iow ceteris paribus, it is preferred (and easier to justify) tasing somebody than striking them in the thigh with your calf or baton, for instance.

so, since your premise is false, your conclusion does not follow.

their use rules are NOT like a firearm. not in the slightest. again, read my post on the use of force continuum. i've repeated myself enough. one CANNOT make a proper assessment of any use of a taser as to "reasonableness" if one has completely false impressions of WHERE THE TASER FITS ON A USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM.

one more time for the studio audience... tasers are not designed to be a substitute for firearms, they are MUCH lower on the force continuum, and the rules for drawing them, pointing them at people, and actually pulling the trigger are COMPLETELY different.

it is not even close.

"Why ask the citizen to exit the vehicle?"

in this case, i can see no reason why. assuming it was just for an infraction AND he had already completed the citation, i see no need.

""The Supreme Court has said that if I'm walking down the street and a cop tells me to stop, I can keep walking. "

no,it doesn't.
If the cop doesn't have sufficient grounds for a Terry stop, then it does, at least by implication."

well, duh. but obviously if you have committed an infraction or there is terry for a crime, then you do have to stop. of course you DON'T have to stop if the cop does not have a valid reason to stop. fwiw, you have no way of KNOWING this at the time he tells you of course. but you are correct that IF it is not a terry or an infraction, you don't have to.

note also that there are several other situations where stop can be enforced (freezing a hot scene for instance has been upheld time and time again. it's BASICALLY a terry, but even if there is no particularized suspicion, the cops have authority to stop EVERYBODY at (for example) a shooting etc. and then sort out who is suspect, who is victim, who is witness, etc.

there are also community caretaking stops ( i have done dozens of these) that justify a stop even though neither terry nor infraction applies.

for example, a person is reported suicidal and is walking down the street. committing (or threatening to commit) suicide is not a crime, thus there is no 'reasonable suspicion of a crime' (terry), but a stop is justified, and using reasonable force to make the stop is also justified. i've had a bunch of these. heck, i've had a guy pull out a gun and blow himself away in front of me, so the community caretaking is not just a created reason. it's to protect people from themselves (which bothers me as a libertarian but i digress).

another community caretaking case i had justified warrantless entry. responding to a house party. d00d opens the door. while speaking to him, i see a guy (apparently) unconscious on the couch. i ask person at door to have somebody wake the guy up to make sure he's ok. person at door refuses and tries to slam door on me. my partner and i make forced entry and check the guy out. turns out he was a VERY high BAC (.39 iirc) and we ended up calling an ambulance and transporting him to hospital.

pursuant to our entry, evidence of criminal activity was seen in plain view, and during the suppression hearing, the entry was (of course) contested. held up under community caretaking.

but im babbling..

Whit, I appreciate your experience, but you're getting on a thin argument. You said,

it is also better to have the person exit the car BEFORE such a statement is made, so as to avoid driver from stepping on gas and taking off.

But if no signature is required, and now you're implying that in some jurisdictions that you're not even allowed to arrest for traffic violations or for refusing to sign, then what is the problem if he steps on the gas.

I think this cop's hole is getting deeper and deeper. At first I accepted the UHP story about the justification, but now it appears to be little more than cops protecting each other again.

The cop plainly pulled out the taser long before any reason existed to do so. Why isn't this an assault? He was aiming at the man before he even asked him to put his arms behind his back.

I hope this cop gets sued and suffers severe economic loss as a result. I hope the UHP gets sued. The more we put the hurt on those who abuse authority, the safer we all are.

whit: "that's a reality we face." Oh, come off it. The average citizen has a lot more to fear from a cop than the other way around. By your logic we ought to open fire the instant we see a black and white. Of course we would be held accountable for it.

A very good friend of mine had his head busted by a cop for the crime of having put his hands up palms forward to show that he wasn't a threat. He eventually won a judgement for a bit over a million dollars- after paying for his lawyers and three separate surgeries over as many years he just about broke even. He completely lost his senses of smell and taste, and looks nothing like he did before. If I recall correctly the cop didn't even lose his job. That's your civil immunity in action. The only atypical thing about it is that he was from a fairly well off and well connected connected family and was at least able to take _some_ action. That's the reality _we_ face.

whit: "i personally know over a half dozen people i have worked with who have been killed on duty."

Really? Let's do some math here... if about 200 cops a year are killed in the line of duty (I believe this number includes accidental death- the number slain feloniously may well be closer to the 60 cited above) and you have 20 years of law enforcement experience then you've worked with well over 0.1% of all the cops killed over the last 20 years. It's safe to assume that well over 2 million people have worked as police officers over that 20 years. You can't claim to have known personally over 20,000 people, or even a significant fraction of that number (and due to the caveat above the number should probably be quite a lot more). So, either you are bending the truth a bit here or the cops you work with are far, far, more likely to be killed than is the norm- and I've been conservative with the figures.

This kid was clearly no threat- he was a type that anyone who has done any job that deals with the public will recognize. There's always someone who wants to argue... and probably most people who have to deal with them occasionally fantasize about visiting some kind of violence on them. The difference is that cops do it, because they can get away with it. And that is what all of your arguments boil down to- it's kind of amazing that you expect so much more from a civilian than from a law officer though.

If this cop did think that guy was a threat he has such subpar tactical skills that he should be fired on that basis alone. If he'd been dealing with a real danger he would be dead. But I think if he had thought he was dealing with a real danger he would have acted completely differently.

I'm with Skyler- I hope there's a big settlement, though I won't hold my breath. But I'd go farther- aggravated assault sounds about right, with no pleading to a lesser charge.

There is a difference between reasonable and legal. While the officer may not be charged, this incident was unreasonable.

1. The driver was asking simple questions that the officer could have an dhsould have answered. The speed he was being cited for should have been on the ticket. The officer allowed this to get out of hand by not communicating with him.

2. The officer did not have any fear of this guy. He told him to get out of the car, and he did. The officer pulled out his taser well before the driver turned around and put his hands in his pocket, indicating (to the viewer) he was going to use it if the guy didn't do what he told him. He never issued a warning. I don't buy the 'he was going for a gun' bit.

3. At the end, he is explaining what happened to the other officer. He changed the story so the guy would think he was doing the right thing. The other officer just assumed his buddy had been right. I wonder what his opinion of this video was later when he saw it?

I have a huge problem with Whit's ongoing arguments in that he never address the fact that the officer LIED, and is on tape LYING about the incident.

I hope he does not believe that lying about legal issues is OK for the police.
This officer does not need training. He needs firing. He lied about a small incident. What else will he lie about?