More Thoughts on the Utah Tasering Video:
Friday's post on the Utah tasering video drew a flood of responses, including over 2,000 votes and about 400 reader comments. I wanted to add a few thoughts of my own. In particular, I want to argue that the video can plausibly be viewed two different ways depending on what parts of the video you focus on when you're watching.
One way to watch the video is to focus on the 2:00 to 2:30 window and see how little the officer communicates to the driver about what is going on. The driver seems to believe that he can settle the issuance of the ticket and that signing the ticket is an admission of liability. The officer doesn't explain to him that this is wrong: He doesn't tell the driver that the place to settle the ticket is in court or by mail, and he doesn't tell the driver that Utah law allows him to arrest the driver and bring him to a magistrate if he refuses to sign. Even more oddly, after he tells the driver to exit the car the officer doesn't tell the driver that he is detaining him for that reason. As a result, the driver is totally clueless about what is happening. When the driver gets out of the car, he seems to believe that he was ordered out so they could settle the location of the relevant speed sign.
When you watch the video with these facts in mind, the officer's use of force seems plainly unreasonable. The driver exits the car and expects to discuss the location of the speed sign. He's standing there pointing to the sign when the officer suddenly pulls out the taser; the driver is understandably shocked and instinctively backs away. Seconds later, the officer zaps the driver with the taser. In this narrative, the officer is totally out of control. That seemed to be how most readers interpreted the video: 70% saw the officer's use of force as unreasonable.
I don't think that's the only way to interpret the video, though. Watch the video again, and this time focus closely on the 2:30 to 2:40 window. The officer has just ordered the driver out of the car so he can arrest him for failing to sign the ticket promising to pay or appear. The driver sees that the officer has the weapon out and is ordering him to submit to the officer's authority. But the driver makes perfectly clear he is not going to submit. Here's the dialogue:
In this case, the driver does everything wrong with his hands. At the 2:30 mark, he puts his right hand in his right pocket; his right arm is opposite the officer, so the officer can't see what he's doing. Even though the officer has the taser drawn and is pointing it directly at the driver, the driver turns to face the officer and then starts walking away, yelling "what the heck is wrong with you?" and keeping his hand near his pocket. At 2:36, the driver seems to be fishing for something in his pocket while still walking away from the officer to get more distance between himself and the taser. Two seconds later, the officer fires the taser.
If you focus heavily on this specific time window, the officer's use of force is highly regrettable ex post but not unreasonable ex ante. A reasonable officer is going to feel threatened by a hostile driver who won't follow his orders and instead backs away and fishes for something in his pocket. Of course, we happen to know that the driver wasn't armed, and that the driver was just nervously fidgeting. On the other hand, that seems to be the kind of conduct that reasonable officers are going to be looking for to trigger whether they need to use force.
In sum, what makes the video so interesting is that the driver and the officer seem to be inhabiting totally different worlds. The driver is in the first world and the officer is in the second. I think we would all agree that the officer did a terrible job in the traffic stop on the whole; that guy needs a desk job pronto. But I tend to think that reasonable people could disagree on whether the use of force itself was unreasonable.
One way to watch the video is to focus on the 2:00 to 2:30 window and see how little the officer communicates to the driver about what is going on. The driver seems to believe that he can settle the issuance of the ticket and that signing the ticket is an admission of liability. The officer doesn't explain to him that this is wrong: He doesn't tell the driver that the place to settle the ticket is in court or by mail, and he doesn't tell the driver that Utah law allows him to arrest the driver and bring him to a magistrate if he refuses to sign. Even more oddly, after he tells the driver to exit the car the officer doesn't tell the driver that he is detaining him for that reason. As a result, the driver is totally clueless about what is happening. When the driver gets out of the car, he seems to believe that he was ordered out so they could settle the location of the relevant speed sign.
When you watch the video with these facts in mind, the officer's use of force seems plainly unreasonable. The driver exits the car and expects to discuss the location of the speed sign. He's standing there pointing to the sign when the officer suddenly pulls out the taser; the driver is understandably shocked and instinctively backs away. Seconds later, the officer zaps the driver with the taser. In this narrative, the officer is totally out of control. That seemed to be how most readers interpreted the video: 70% saw the officer's use of force as unreasonable.
I don't think that's the only way to interpret the video, though. Watch the video again, and this time focus closely on the 2:30 to 2:40 window. The officer has just ordered the driver out of the car so he can arrest him for failing to sign the ticket promising to pay or appear. The driver sees that the officer has the weapon out and is ordering him to submit to the officer's authority. But the driver makes perfectly clear he is not going to submit. Here's the dialogue:
Officer: Turn around and put your hands behind your back! (pause) Turn around and put your hands behind your back! Now!Watch the driver's hands during this dialogue. Police officers are all about the hands during traffic stops; they want to see them, and they want them out in the open where they can't be grabbing a weapon. When an officer is pointing a weapon at a suspect, his greatest fear will be that the suspect has a weapon on him that he'll try to use; getting control of the situation is essential. So he's going to be paying close attention to the driver's hands.
Driver: What the heck is wrong with you?
Officer: Turn around! Turn around!
Driver: What the heck is wrong with you?
In this case, the driver does everything wrong with his hands. At the 2:30 mark, he puts his right hand in his right pocket; his right arm is opposite the officer, so the officer can't see what he's doing. Even though the officer has the taser drawn and is pointing it directly at the driver, the driver turns to face the officer and then starts walking away, yelling "what the heck is wrong with you?" and keeping his hand near his pocket. At 2:36, the driver seems to be fishing for something in his pocket while still walking away from the officer to get more distance between himself and the taser. Two seconds later, the officer fires the taser.
If you focus heavily on this specific time window, the officer's use of force is highly regrettable ex post but not unreasonable ex ante. A reasonable officer is going to feel threatened by a hostile driver who won't follow his orders and instead backs away and fishes for something in his pocket. Of course, we happen to know that the driver wasn't armed, and that the driver was just nervously fidgeting. On the other hand, that seems to be the kind of conduct that reasonable officers are going to be looking for to trigger whether they need to use force.
In sum, what makes the video so interesting is that the driver and the officer seem to be inhabiting totally different worlds. The driver is in the first world and the officer is in the second. I think we would all agree that the officer did a terrible job in the traffic stop on the whole; that guy needs a desk job pronto. But I tend to think that reasonable people could disagree on whether the use of force itself was unreasonable.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Taser Video -- A Response to Scott Greenfield:
- More Thoughts on the Utah Tasering Video:
- Officer Tasers Man During Traffic Stop -- Reasonable Use of Force or Not?:
He said nothing about being or feeling threatened. Hence that entire section of your post should be struck or at least amended to include this info.
His remarks only make sense in the context of 'pain compliance'.
I missed that class in drivers ed, I guess.
Tasers are not less than lethal weapons, they are less leathal weapons. Anytime a cop pulls one out, it should be for conditions that could also justify a fatal shot: In fact, Tasers can cause fatalities.
I saw your repeated notes, but I didn't understand why you think the point has such force. If the issue is the objective reasonableness of the officer's use of force, why is the officer's explanation for the subjective motivation behind his conduct relevant (assuming it was accurate)? Do you think objective reasonableness should account for subjective intent, such that the reasonableness of an officer's behavior should be based on the subjective question of what he actually was thinking? I don't believe that's the law of excessive force claims, which is why I wasn't factoring in such matters.
When there is such a disconnect between the actors' understanding of the event, I would say that the burden should fall on the authority to correctly assess what is happening.
The cop was wrong to escalate. He had already drawn the taser before he asked the driver to put his hands behind his back. The driver was not given a chance to comply before the officer had already decided to use his taser.
Out of control cop. No doubt about it. The only real question is when did he decide to taser the driver, at the first delay in providing the driver's license, or when he ordered him out of the car. On reflection, it seems clear that it was no later than the latter.
The officer had the ability to shape the event and he purposefully coaxed the driver into a bewildered state that freed the officer to use the taser as he had already planned it.
At least, that's how I would explain it to a jury. I think I'd win.
Seems reasonable that, by using the taser, he would not be threatened. IOW, he avoided being threatened by forcing compliance before a weapon was--could have been--available.
The compliance, however involuntary, avoided the threat. Thus, it is not required that the officer say he felt threatened to have the issue refer to the possibility of a weapon.
Now, I know that lawyers on this board will say, "so you can taser anybody just because he might be a threat". So save your breath.
In this case, the driver was acting in a way that could have been a threat--see post--and not just walking down the street.
I guess I got misinformed on the last thread on this subject. Wasn't it accepted that no signature was necessary and no action was allowed if the driver refused to sign? Now, we have several options, one being arrest.
Placing the thing in the vehicle in a professional manner. Means your arm has to get close to the guy, or he pushes the arm. Then what? What if the driver pitched the thing back out? He didn't seem to have a week's supplies of clues about him. Might have figured that if he avoided ticket cooties, he'd be okay.
Um, no one died. The dude was up and back where he was before about 3 or 4 minutes later.
I don't believe that's the law of excessive force claims, which is why I wasn't factoring in such matters.
I don't know much about the law of excessive force, never took CrimPro, but why isn't the test objective/subjective, similar to the reasonable reliance test that pops up everywhere else? If the test is objective only, doesn't that just give the green light to cops looking to get their jollies off and searching for the first excuse to fire a weapon? Of course it makes sense to presume that an officer in this situation is worried about the driver's gun if there wasn't other evidence, but here there's video evidence that the officer wasn't worried about the guy having a gun.
Nothing about the incident should have suggested to the officer that he was in any danger. There was nothing to indicate a weapon. Every indication was that he was dealing with a motorist upset with a speeding ticket. Yet he pulled a tazer. The cop unreasonably escalated the incident, then when the shocked motorist didn't immediately submit, the cop tazed him.
I don't know what the law says about such a situation, so maybe there's a QI argument, but I'd be shocked if a judge didn't find this to be unreasonable force.
Your whole condemnation of the officer rests on what he didn't say, but you give no weight at all to the video right in front of you. The Officer was already cleared by the USP, and though the Utah AG is going to review it, you better not expect much.
Do you actually think that the officer, after subduing and cuffing the perp, who turns out to be harmless, is going to tell his fellow officer "I was scared shitless, so I tased him"?
Unless the perp weares a badge.
If I'm a prosecutor in the case, I'm going to move to strike you for cause: You're obviously biased! On the other hand, if I'm the defense attorney in the case, I have one helluva witness to call.
I don't think I understand your response. Are you making an argument about the legal standard? Or are you looking more broadly at whether the officer acted reasonably, quite apart from the legal standard?
first- i agree with you completly that focus on part 1 gives you unreasonablness
and i also agree us on part 2 MAY give you reasonableness.
however...regarding part 2 then...your analysis tells us that the hands of the driver and what he does with them..and where they are could possibly create a reasonableness for use of force based on the perceived threat to the officer:
the driver reaching for a weapon.
but if this is true and the reasonableness is based on THREAT and not on noncompliance..then you MUST also say that had the officer used a GUN it would ALSO be reasonable. this is becuase it is ALWAYS OK FOR COP TO USE DEADLY FORCE WHEN IN A DEADLY THREATING SITUATION.
so my question to orin is..had the officer pulled out a gun and shot him and then said the driver's hands justified the shooting..would you still say its possible that there it is reasonable force? or would you then let the first part of the video take over?
if the latter..than you have an inconsistency to explain away.
Another thing that is not quite accurate in Orin's post. The cop told the guy to turn around and he did turn around. The cop then told him to turn around again. Of course, what the cop meant was: "Turn and face away from me with your hands behind your back." But those weren't his "instructions." The guy followed at least half of the cops instructions after getting out of the car.
Finally, if the speed trap were fraudulent from the outset -- if there were no 40 mph sign a half a mile down the road, and if the cop knew there was not and that the stop was wrong from the start -- would that change the analysis of whether the use of force was reasonable? Can a cop stop someone deliberately on a pretext, and then escalate the situation so that he can reasonably use force against the person? I don't know the answer to this, and that's one of the reasons I said I was not sure. (BTW, with my experience in Utah, I tend to think that the stop was bad from the outset.)
No to the first and Yes to the second. If the stop was illegetimate, that merely makes the situation more odious.
It's clear that the motorist was no threat - with his girlfriend (wife?) in the car - but merely insistent, the cop simply got fed up and was intending to arrest him at the time he ordered him out of the car.
The cop could probably have avoided this by explaining that Utah law entitled him to arrest if the driver failed to sign the ticket, but at that point, the cop already had decided to show the driver who was boss, and that lip was enough "lack of control" to justify an arrest and, hopefully, a tasing before that - if, as expected, the driver was stupid enough to be confused and unhappy that he was about to be arrested. One can expect the driver to be instinctively reluctant to turn his back on someone with a taser, and that is EXACTLY what the cop was hoping for.
Your defense of the cop is disgusting.
He probably didn't mean the officer fired a second round of electrodes - he meant that the officer sent electric current through the original electrodes a second time.
First, even though the ultimate question may be objective, subjective intention is relevant to that objective question. That is, in determining whether or not *a reasonable* police officer would have felt threatened, we can examine whether *this particular* police officer did actually feel threatened.
Second, if the officer's subjective intention was to cause (extreme) pain purely in order to elicit compliance, this might show a violation of the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments -- specifically, a substantive due process violation under the shocks-the-conscience standard. I haven't done research on this test recently, but it seems to me that this sort of fact situation at least raises the question.
People with certain types of disabilities move slowly, appear to be *strange,* fidgety, eyes shifty, etc., so did this cop receive the required Title II ADA disability sensitivity and awareness and ADA compliance training to be able to differentiate between a mere stopped motorist with a disability or one who is a true threat to the cop's safety?
It seems this cop was extremely quick on the draw, so it is HIGHLY unlikely his conduct would have been permissible had this been a stopped motorist with some sort of disability the cop was not trained to recognize and handle.
I know a lot of people HATE the ADA, but being way too quick to taser a stopped motorist who might have a disability that could result in a taser death is something such cops should be thinking about.
Law enforcement officer whit and I ended up agreeing on the other thread that the driver was such a belligerent fool that nothing the officer said could have affected the outcome as to the driver. OTOH, had the officer said what he should have, the wife would at least have been alerted to what was about to happen and so been in less danger herself, as well as suffering less shock when the officer dropped her husband. She'd have known in advance that the officer would use the taser.
Despite that I guess that many of us have little clue about the danger of solo highway cops. Maybe a few videos of roadside police fatalities would provide perspective on how quickly the seemingly innocent driver can pull a gun.
And I don't buy the contention that the officer here intended to use the Taser from the beginning. Most people would have complied with authoritative commands from guys holding badges weapons. And maybe filed a proper complaint later.
The officers' intent will be relevant when they ask for punitives though.
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_03092.htm
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_03089.htm
Clear to whom? Having his pregnant wife with him did not temper his belligerance. On these facts they could have been Bonnie and Clyde.
The evidence is not conclusive because it it possible that the officer did know facts sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to perceive a threat, yet unreasonably did not perceive one. So, the subjective and objective inquiries are distinct. But I don't think it's right that they have nothing to do with one another.
1) tasers are less lethal force. so is a baton strike, so is a tackle. people have died from being tackled, and people have died from a baton strike.
i have said this several times (iirc). tasers are at (in most use of force continuums) at roughly the same level as pepper spray. WAY below firearms. heck,. they are below baton strikes (to even a tertiary target (such as the thigh)..
hbowmanMD is 100% wrong about tasers only being justified in circ's that could justify a 'fatal shot'.
people have died after being struck by a baton, they have died after being tackled, and they have died after being tasered. it does not follow that you need some sort of fatal threshold for a taser to be justified.
fwiw, i have volunteered to be tasered. i would not volunteer for a baton strike.
2) the objective reasonable test is something people should be research. it is based on what an officer, with similar training and experience would reasonably be expected to do in similar circ's. the fact that an officer might enjoy the tasing (which certainly isn't in evidence here, but assume it) certainly might make him LOOK bad, but it's not the issue as to objective reasonableness.
3) one does not need to suspect a guy has a weapon to draw a taser. tasers are (correctly) mostly used when no weapon is suspected or seen. one does not (necessarily -depends on the use of force continuum of the agency) need to feel threatened to use a taser.
4) it is clear the cop told the guy MULTIPLE times to put his hands behind his back and the guy didn't. that is KEY.
5) tasers can be used (again, depending on the agencys use of force policy to arrest subjects who are non-compliant. the non-compliance does not necessarily have to rise to the level of threatening behavior. when the guy repeatedly refused to comply with hands behind his back, that IS an arrestable offense in every jurisdiction i am aware of. whether or not the cop was justified in telling him to do that, is a different question. but clearly the taser was fired after the person REPEATEDLY refused to comply with those directions.
the question comes (basically down to this). *if* the officer was justified in tackling the guy or pepper spraying the guy after he refused to submit to handcuffing, then (depending on the specific use of force policy) a tasering was ALSO justified (they vary slightly, but generally speaking, if either of those other force options are justified, it's roughly the same level of force as a taser).
there is an argument that using a taser is better in the situation here. you REALLY don't want to be doing too much wrestling out in the roadway (dangerous for both of you), and what people don't acknowledge is the taser worked PERFECTLY in accomplishing the goal - placing him into custody with (apparent) injury.
as i said, the VAST majority of the time (almost every time i have pointed a taser at somebody. one time, i had a person who ignored it, BUT we had multiple officers and ended up wrestling him to ground. he ended up scraped up, we got scraped up, and one officer got a sprained joint. iow, multiple injuries. wrestling matches on pavement... not so good. and again, we had 4 officers and 1 suspect), when a person is confronted with a drawn taser, they comply. in almost all cases where i have drawn a firearm on somebody, they have also complied.
the difference is that the former (taser) is a MUCH MUCH lower level of force and 99% of people understand that if i am pointing it at you, i WILL use it. you get voluntary compliance. that is good for BOTH the officer AND the suspect. no injuries.
i'm 215 lbs, and competitive weightlifter. i've got a fair amount of martial arts training too. it is still dangerous to wrestle with people (even middle class SUV DRIVERS! lol like that makes a difference) and you NEVER know the skill level of the person you are dealing with. my wife is not all buffed up and certainly not large, but she is a pretty good kickboxer and martial artist. visual perception can be deceiving.
there are a # of factors here that are also relevant. this person did NOT take a bladed stance, he did not take a boxing stance, he did not make any threatening statements, etc. those are also relevant.
but again, one cannot make a rational assessment of whether the force (specifically the tasering aspect) was justified if, as most people who keep commenting on taser do, you don't understand where tasers fit on the use of force continuum.
they are not firearms alternatives (as one erroneous poster claimed in another thread). if you can justify pepper spray, or tackling somebody, generally speaking, a taser is justified.
\nice begging the question. that it was a "needless escalation" is certainly not evident. also, in use of force inquiries, the # of officers present IS relevant to the level of force used. so is the size of the officer, etc. you may not like it, but ceteris paribus LEGALLY SPEAKING, a solo officer can more easily justify (in some circ's) higher level of force based on the fact that he is alone. that's how use of force analysis works.
Then the officer had about a hundred other things he could have done to accomplish that task. Ordering the guy out of the car and then pulling a tazer on him, and shooting him almost immediately was not a reasonable way to arrest him.
"if we know his subjective state of mind, we can infer from that state of mind something about the facts he knew at the time"
Its rare that you know someone's state of mind but don't know what facts are facing the officer. Maybe in some unique fact scenario, but I don't see how this argument would apply here. What objective circumstances facing the officer are not clear from the tape?
Pain compliance techniques are legal in UT per Forrester v. San Diego (CA9, cert denied (25 F.3d 804). Once a police officer has given a warning he is entitled to use increasing amount of physical pain to effect the lawful arrest.
pain compliance maneuvers to GAIN compliance (wristy-twisty) holds is legal.
The cop did a lousy job, and should be reprimanded in some fashion, but, despite common 60s wisdom, in the breakfast of life the cop is the chicken and the driver is the bacon-supplying pig.
What is this based on? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody dying from pepper spray or a tackle. I think you could pretty easily establish that use of a taser constitutes a greater use of force (because of the greater risk of fatality) than those other options.
Whit, I generally agree that an officer may generally use reasonable force to force compliance with a legal order. Noncompliance does not justify any kind of nonlethal force though, and not all nonlethal force is equal.
Likely we can agree the officer appears to have done a poor job of communicating (not explaining the purpose of signing the ticket nor the consequences of not doing so and maybe by not announcing that the suspect was going to be placed under arrest).
However, having decided to arrest or detain the suspect, the officer seems to have had ample reason to unholster his taser when he did. The suspect had been non-cooperative, the officer was alone (it appears), there was at least one other person in the car, and passing traffic adds a risk to all parties if the suspect attempts to take a chance and flee on foot or initiate a hand-to-hand fight. It seems to me that there was a reasonable chance that the use of the taser would be appropriate given how the situation was unfolding so having it readily available was a reasonable precaution given that the act of unholstering it did not harm the suspect in any way. For example, if the suspect had actually pulled a firearm from his pocket, the delay of unholstering his taser (or sidearm) could have cost the officer his life (and, if the suspect was either skilled or [un]lucky, likely would have).
Note I'm not making an argument that the eventual discharge of the taser was appropriate given the facts of the situation.
Isn't the onus on the police to effectively train their officers in communications skills and deescalation of stressful situations? From this as well as many other such occurences it appears to me that the average citizen is now expected, even required, to act completely calm and rational as understood by the officer in order not to get hurt. That is an unreasonable and impossible expectation bound to fail. It is high time the pressure were put on police departments to live up to Justice Scalia's view of professionalism. Otherwise we will all live in fear of the police making a mistake.
In the legalistic sense, yes, once the motorist refused to obey a lawful order to comply the officer was probably allowed (citing Forrester that I quoted above) allowed to use a taser to effect the arrest. Note that, in Forrester, the CA9 accepted the flimsiest pretense regarding 'officer safety' (possible back injuries from dragging/carrying) and said nothing about any sort of real physical threat or danger to the officers.
In this sense, Orin's analysis of whether there was or was not a gun
In a more relevant sense, however, such a use of force reflects poorly on the officer's communication skills and critical judgment. Being an effective LEO is more than just using force - the best cops are the ones that don't let the situation devolve to the level of using force (of course, sometimes it's necessary). One of the most effective LEOs I've ever met working in NE Portland, he was on the force for 50+ years and can count on his fingers the instances where he actually used force*. The kind of respect that he got from both criminals and law-abiding-citizens alike was awe-inspiring.
Bottom line, I would not want to hire this guy to be an officer in my town, nor would I promote him if he was. I might nominate him for SWAT or other primarily tactical duties that keep him as far away from the citizenry as humanly possible.
*Funny story he told me: he observed a rather large gentleman selling drugs from his squad car and so got out and told the man he was under arrest which caused the suspect to start running (not too fast though). He followed the man and radioed for backup until, about a block later, the man was out of breath and stopped. He again told him he was under arrest and drew his baton - the man dared him to attempt the arrest (the cop was 55+ years old and outweighed by quite a bit) to which he basically declined, saying he'd rather wait a while and chat.
Eventually, backup arrives and one of the lesser-ranked officers motions to start arresting the fellow but he tells him to sit tight. Meanwhile, the suspect is getting more and more belligerent and telling the cops that he's going to kill the first one that comes at him. Eventually, however, there are about 20 cops and the Sargent tells him that he might kill the first few but he's not going to win against all of them. You can imagine what happens next. According to the Captain, even diverting all those officers was cheaper (in man-hours) than filling out the paperwork associated with the use of force.
Poor word choice.
IMO the video shows enough evidence for the driver as plaintiff to get to trial on battery and 42 USC 1983 claims. It also shows enough evidence to justify a jury verdict for either side.
I personally believe the officer:
(a) should be civilly liable (but not his agency, which makes a difference for 42 USC 1988 attorney fees),
(b) violated his agency's regulations (that is what he lied about),
(c) should have been disciplined in some fashion for violating the regulations,
(d) should be fired for lying about it (it's usually the coverup which nails you, but rarely the underlying offense),
(e) intentionally and unnecessarily escalated the incident, and, finally,
(f) it didn't make a hill of beans difference what the officer said or did because the driver wanted to escalate it too - whit convinced me of that.
Sure, the officer should have explained the situation to the driver and informed him of the consequences of not obeying the officer's commands, but if the officer lets the next driver walk away and reach for his pockets, the officer may well be dead.
Uh, what?
It's the SWAT guys who are running around killing and wounding citizens in no knock raids on the wrong houses all over the country. Trigger happy officers who shoot at the first sign that a groggy person waking up from sleep and having no idea what's going on are not the sort of people we want on SWAT teams.
Of course, killing innocent citizens left and right, and summarily executing their tiny yapping dogs for kicks is SOP. But if you go to Hooters off the clock, WELL THEN YOUR CAREER IS OVER!!!
The officer can't very well claim, "Well, I didn't feel threatened, although it occurred to me that a reasonable person would, so I tased the guy on that basis." (You certainly can't claim self-defense, provocation, duress, etc. on that basis: the subjective perception has to be there for us to get to the objective analysis at all. Otherwise, you get to commit the perfect crime.)
With the threat off the table, we are dealing with forced compliance.
Howard Wasserman: Don't worry, the SCOTUS film club can meet and tell us what really happened.
Part of the 'problem' with tasers (and CIs) is the relative severity of the pain they inflict as compared with the lack of long term damage (except for the very small minority that up and die). The infliction of a comparable amount of pain with a baton or fist would leave marks for weeks. In this way, tasers fools us into thinking they are not as severe as they real are but I can testify first hand that tasers are really f***ing painful - it's like being punched in the gut by a 300 pound man hundreds of times per second.
"Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.
Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
Obi-Wan: Move along.
Stormtrooper: Move along... move along."
One of my clients DIED from a tackle, at a gas station. He went down backwards and hit the back of his head on the concrete lip around a pump. It was a random assault and the perp was never caught. I was waiting at a deposition for him to show up.
Skyler, from the news interviews, the guy is a Utah resident.
As a general question, if a police officer stopped you, shoved a piece of paper in your face and ordered you to sign it, would you sign it without question? Doesn't anyone remember the old adage that you shouldn't sign anything without reading it first. Even the officer's reassurance shouldn't be enough. Does anyone doubt that this officer would lie in court about what he told the driver, if he could and not contradict the video?
The guy was a suspect of a moving violation. Sober traffic violators who do not have outstanding warrants who travel with their wives/girlfriends/sisters do not typically flee or initiate combat.
This thug did not tell the driver that he was under arrest, let alone why. The driver clearly had no idea what was going on, why this person was giving him strange orders and had pulled a weapon on him. He is not a mind reader and is not supposed to know that the policeman has decided to arrest him. If you do not tell someone that you are arresting him, and why, then he has no reason to obey you, and is entitled to do whatever he damn well wants, including defend himself against what appears to be an unprovoked attack.
Many commenters have said the guy should have just signed the ticket in the first place. Again, why on earth should he? Even if there's a law requiring him to, how is he to know that, if the policeman didn't tell him. Until this thread came up, I had never in my life heard of signing a ticket; if I'd been that guy I would certainly not have signed without an explanation of what it was I was signing. I don't sign things just because people tell me to, and certainly not when armed people shout at me to sign, with the implied threat that if I don't it won't go well for me. I would assume that the cop is trying to set me up for something, because that's what cops do. If the cop wanted him to sign he had the duty to explain to him what it was, what his signature would achieve, and what the options were if he didn't want to sign.
I also remind readers not to take Whit's word for anything. An honest cop is even rarer than an honest politician, and my default assumption is to regard the uncorroborated word of a policeman the same way I would the uncorroborated word of an admitted accomplice to a crime. Policemen as a class simply cannot be trusted, and if someone will lie on the stand why wouldn't he lie on a blog?
Well, a linebacker tackle in the middle of the road would probably be as dangerous as tazer. I believe cops are trained in technique. A takedown by grabbing the guy's arm and twisting and pulling him down is a much safer tackle.
That confuses me. The fact that they cause more pain and less injury sounds like a point in favor of a taser over other choices to achieve the same end. Barring actual torture (as in "tell me where you've hidden the cheese mr. bond and the zaps will stop") I don't know that I have a problem with law enforcement using non-injurious pain tactics to keep the actual level of safety high.
No, I've never been tasered. But I have had a stun gun demonstrated on me. I've been punched a number of times by 200+ pound men. I've been kicked across the quadriceps twenty or so times in a single sparring match. If a taser hurts less than that (re. whit's comment about being willing to be tasered but not willing to be struck across the thigh with a baton) and injures less than that then I'll prefer a taser to being clubbed thanks.
I agree, but the thing is, the use of the taser here was not used in a situation involving anybody's safety. Determining whether force is reasonable involves balancing the government's interest with the intrusion on the victim's rights. Maybe its just me, but ensuring compliance from obstinate speeders isn't a government purpose that reasonably requires the infliction of the amount of pain caused by a taser.
Exactly!
The cop hands out tickets all the time, and is familiar with his state's requirement for a signature. The driver may never have got a ticket in that state before, and not have known what he was being asked to sign. I have received tickets in three states (NY, CT, and PA) and don't recall ever having to sign anything. If I'd been that guy I would not have understood why I was being asked to sign this (as far as I knew unjustified) ticket, and would have refused unless it was explained to me.
Has the guy who got tasered now lawyered up or is he still saying that he doesn't think the cop should be punished just maybe better trained?
Says the "Dog"
I'd ask him to wait while I read it. After reading, I might ask for clarification to make sure I understood what the ticket said and what signing meant. I suspect the cop would be happy to to answer. That's what happened the one time I was ticketed for speeding.
That cop should certainly have communicated certain information to the driver. That said, the constant interruptions by the driver really didn't help matters.
After watching the video, do you really think this cop would be happy to answer, or even to wait for you to read it? I don't. I think he would have decided that you were "failing to comply with his instructions" and have issued you the same telepathic arrest notice that he did to the actual driver. And then told the judge whatever seemed most convenient.
The relatively high pain/injury ratio makes tasers a great idea but it also introduces a brand-new risk into play: that officers will overuse it and there will be little outrage because human beings are hardwired to correlate harm with injury. There are numerous instances of uses of the taser that are not really warranted except as an expedient. We take the good (and there are tons on liveleak) with the bad (also tons on ll) all told because the good uses outweigh the bad.
Furthermore, you last statement is correct but totally irrelevant to the instant case: tasering this man did nothing for officer safety nor for public safety. The safest thing to do would be to order the man back into his car and call backup. First of all, the backup might include someone with a modicum of training at using the english language to communicate ideas but more relevantly, human beings react differently to authority manifest in a group. There's no way the man would have said peep if there were even 3-4 patrolmen ordering him to comply (all told, they would also save man hours!).
I find that, in tense police encounters, it's very useful to ask an officer what is being asked of me versus what is being ordered of me. The way I see it, nothing that an officer /orders/ me to do in clear terms can really be held against me. I've had officers get very very mad at me when they realize I'm effectively trapping them in the word games they play. By forcing a police officer to issue a clear and unambiguous order (and then complying completely and without hesitation) everybody wins (except the officer that was trying to manufacture a consent search, but hey, nuts to him. . .)
SSHH, you're ruining the police's ability to justify treating everyone based on the lowest level of scum that they encounter!
Reg: "What is this based on? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody dying from pepper spray or a tackle. I think you could pretty easily establish that use of a taser constitutes a greater use of force (because of the greater risk of fatality) than those other options. "
already went over this. people have died from being tackled, died from wrestling with police, etc. look up "excited delirum".
you can't pretty easily establish what you claim. read up on the science of taser, the safety, and the fact that in custody deaths have always, and will always happen - when polydrug using, bad-heart having, cocaine using, etc. etc. people get into knock down dragout fights, sometimes they flatline. it happens. ALL uses of force have SOME risk of death.
"Whit, I generally agree that an officer may generally use reasonable force to force compliance with a legal order. Noncompliance does not justify any kind of nonlethal force though, and not all nonlethal force is equal."
i never said that. but if you don't understand the safety of the taser and its LOW position on the use of force continuum, you can't properly assess its justification.
I think the officer acted unreasonably, but this is a close call.
true. and irrelevant. if the guy is not complying with directions to submit to handcuffing, you don't give him the OPPORTUNITY to do so.
that is how you PREVENT more serious injury, long drawn out foot pursuits, etc.
An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force
</blockquote>
At the very least, the officer's statement about why he took an action could be used as evidence of how a reasonable officer would read the situation. And the proponent of this point of view has a strong case to make - the officer, unlike anyone looking at the video, was actually there. Are you saying, the attorney will ask, that the officer was unreasonable in his reasons?
utterly false. tasering him got him into custody with no injuries to either him or the officer, prevented the possibility of the guy running away, running back to the car and driving off, etc. all of which are MUCH worse outcomes than the guy suffering discomfort for a few seconds (and yes, i have experienced tasering firsthand)
" The safest thing to do would be to order the man back into his car and call backup."
no, that's possibly the most unrealistic assessment i could imagine. clearly, you have no concept of proper officer safety tactics or street reality.
" First of all, the backup might include someone with a modicum of training at using the english language to communicate ideas but more relevantly, human beings react differently to authority manifest in a group. There's no way the man would have said peep if there were even 3-4 patrolmen ordering him to comply (all told, they would also save man hours"
bull. a guy who willingly doesn't comply when he doesn't have a taser pointed at him would "no way" fail to comply with 4 officers present?
this is even worse than 20/20 hindsight. it's blind speculation, with no factual basis.
cops know how unpredictable people are. we base our actions and decisions based on the (limited data ) we have.
this guy, by his actions certainly does not create clear conclusion that he certainly would have complied with 4 officers.
this also ignores the danger of having the guy drive off (with the 'pregnant wife') etc. and ignores the fact that you have no idea how long backup can take to arrive. depending on location, backup could be up to 1/2 hr off or farther. you do NOT want to let the guy stew for 1/2 hour, nor do you want to pull an officer that far off his beat for a misdemeanor arrest.
again, i'm not trying to sound snarky, but you clearly have no understanding of how actual force encounters develop in the real world, nor how best to handle them, nor the realities of patrol work for a state trooper.
Google a bit on group psychology. It's well established that people react much more deferentially when confronted with a group of people than an individual.
So because some people get high on meth and stab people we should treat everyone like shit?
If he drives off, you pick him up a few miles down the road. You've got his driver's license and plates. Unless he's some sort of master spy with safehouses in every state he won't get very far (and he'll do serious time for fleeing and eluding).
Yeah, because after stewing for 1/2 hour he's going to come charging out of the car karate-chopping at 4 officers. He's not a freaking crackhead - you don't have to treat him like one. Furthermore, when you weigh the time it would have taken to pull an officer from his beat to the time this cop has to fill paperwork on use-of-force, go to court, the balance changes.
I worked as an intern doing IT for a local police department. You'd be surprised how much you can learn reading through the files. For instance, in the cases where an officer got a positive ID and a license plate but chose not to chase a fleeing suspect, >75% were brought in within a month and virtually 100% were brought in within a year. Another fun fact, the "top" 10% of officers generate about 50% of the use-of-force incidents. Either they have incredibly bad luck (always arresting the crackheads) or somehow, the other officers manage to do their jobs without resorting to physical violence.
Police have way too much power. Obey them like the slave masters they are and give the minimum assistance allowed by the law.
Cops are brutish and unaccountable.
"whit, he wasn't looking for the opportunity to bolt "
you don't know this. you have no way of knowing this. and again, it's irrelevant. an officer doesn't want to give him the OPPORTUNITY to do so. he has already CLEARLY demonstrated criminal behavior and a desire not to comply.
"(seriously, where the hell would he go in the middle of an interstate?). All the objective indica point to the fact that this guy was not a flight risk."
rubbish. and again, you don't want him running back to the car, then you've got a several thousand pound deadly weapon in the hands of somebody who has ALREADY DEMONSTRATED he won't submit to arrest.
" If the officer had told him to get back into his car, he would not have driven away (and even if he did, you've got his license and plates, he'd make it, MAYBE, 20 miles)."
again, that's dumb. you don't LET people do this. if you were a recruit, you'd get bad grades. you've already evidenced your intent to arrest him. the WORST thing you can do, based on him now knowing this, AND based on his behavior is to "king's X" and tell him return to your car. you've isolated him FROM The car, from his wife, and that is the safest place to arrest him.
im not going to give a course on patrol tactics, but i can tell you unequivocally you are 100% wrong. i 100% agree that this officer had poor command presence, and i'm not impressed with him. otoh, your conclusions are simply absurd, completely dismissive of the complexities of human behavior, and how to use smart patrol tactics to minimize opportunity for injuries to bystanders(on the freeway), his wife, himself, and the officer.
it shows no basic understanding of psychology. the majority of officer assaults occur AFTER the suspect has been advised that he is under arrest and prior to the handcuffs being cinched closed (about 80%) iirc. that's because once the "perp' knows he is being arrested, you are much more likely to get an extreme flight or fight response, adrenaline dump, aggressive behavior, etc.
you would NEVER tell the person to put his hands behind his back (several times) with a taser pointed at him, then when he refused to comply you say "ok, go back to your car" and wait for backup. seriously. that would be probably the worst example of patrol tactics i have ever heard in my life (and i've seen some doozies). command presence (confidence w.o arrogance) is a great way to protect yourself. what you are suggesting is the opposite. it appears to the suspect as both cowardice and weakness, and criminals PREY on that. even middle class guys in SUV. you are asking to make the situation MUCH MUCH worse.
really.
Do you NOT think that how the officer at the scene characterized the hand is relevant to how a reasonable officer would characterize it? Are you saying the officer is not reasonable?
oren,you still don't have a clue. i didn't say you had tghat indicia. i said GOOD POLICE WORK is that when you have a resistant, noncompliant subject - you don't give him the OPPORTUNITY.
i've been in many foot pursuits. by learning how not to give people the opportunity, you cut down on them - and the resultant injuries, escapes, etc.
" or by car (pick him back up in a jiff)."
seriously. if you (in my dept.) went to arrest a guy, then he didn't comply and you told him to go back to his car, and he ended up taking off in the car, you would (and should hopefully) at a minimum get mandatory retraining, if not discipline. that is just colossally stupid, as i explained in my post on psychology.
" Maybe spending a lot of time as a cop has jaded you but there's really no reason to treat everyone like the worst kind of scum that I'm sure you've encountered. He was better than that and therefore deserved better"
this has nothing to do with treating him as scum. you treat him respectfully. you do NOT tell him to comply with handcuffing, with taser drawn, THEN when he refuses, allow him to just get back in the car. it's simply horrendous patrol tactics. ask ANYbody familiar with patrol procedure. it's insane.
"Google a bit on group psychology. It's well established that people react much more deferentially when confronted with a group of people than an individual"
i went to grad school (never completed it) for psychology. i don't need to google it. i am well aware of group psychology. i already explained th eproblems with this approach - availability of backup, etc. but the #1 issue is that you do not go through the prehandcuffing procedures, THEN "king's x" and let him return to the car and wait for backup. you are rewarding (in his mind) his defiance and increasing the possibility you will be assaulted, he will rabbit, etc. it's insanely bad tactics
"If he drives off, you pick him up a few miles down the road. You've got his driver's license and plates. Unless he's some sort of master spy with safehouses in every state he won't get very far (and he'll do serious time for fleeing and eluding"
you keep missing the point. that's terrible patrol tactics. you created the risk by evidencing your intent to arrest, THEN let him get back in the car. if your going to let him get back in the car, your better off just driving off and mailing him the criminal cite instead of arresting. seriously. of course by letting him get back in the car, you are REINFORCING IN HIS MIND that he gets rewarded for defying lawful orders. that is bad idea.
also, this has nothing to do with treating him like shit. you are arresting him. he is noncompliant. it has nothing to do with treating him like that. you are respectful, but not subservient to his desires NOT to comply
"Yeah, because after stewing for 1/2 hour he's going to come charging out of the car karate-chopping at 4 officers."
or he refuses to get out of the car, and the wife takes his side,. do you pepper spray into the car? seen that happen. works great till they drive off, and strike a tree after being pepper sprayed. it's just TERRIBLE patrol tactics. i am ok with waiting for backup, but not AFTER you evidence intent to arrest and he is noncompliant. it's grossly ignorant of psychology and tactics to suggest this.
" He's not a freaking crackhead - you don't have to treat him like one."
you are treating him like a noncompliant person you are trying to arrest. i don't treat crackheads worse than middle class SUV drivers. everybody (and i mean it) gets respect. but if i am arresting somebody, i don't give free passes to middle class SUV drivers who are noncompliant. i judge people by their actions, not their class or choice of drug.
fwiw, crackheads, etc. have generally been VERY respectful and compliant. if you treat people with respect, GENERALLY SPEAKING, you get respect in return. THAT is what works.
" Furthermore, when you weigh the time it would have taken to pull an officer from his beat to the time this cop has to fill paperwork on use-of-force, go to court, the balance changes. "
no, it doesn't. and its irrelevant to the issue that he had already evidenced intent to arrest. ThAT's why you don't then quit and tell him to get back in the car.
"I worked as an intern doing IT for a local police department. You'd be surprised how much you can learn reading through the files."
or being a cop for 20 years, and reading thousands of police reports, both as followup detective and initiating officer, and actually SEEING events unfold firsthand. but i'll defer to your IT intern experience (rolls eyes)
" For instance, in the cases where an officer got a positive ID and a license plate but chose not to chase a fleeing suspect, >75% were brought in within a month and virtually 100% were brought in within a year. "
of course. if the guy took off after this incident there is no WAY i'd chase him, ESPECIALLY with his wife (innocent third party in the car) . that would be stupid.
it does not follow that GIVEN your intent and actions towards arrest, since he is not willing to submit to arrest, you let him get back into the car.
see, the street is a little different. i've interviewed hundreds of arrestees, prison inmates, etc. i've arrested for murder and on down the line. i've used pretty much every kind of force imaginable (except firing my taser, fwiw). i know what works. criminals (and those who intentionally disobey orders to submit to handcuffing are criminals) FEED off of weak officers. an angry tone of voice is bad. shows fear. so does letting a person you are trying to arrest just walk back to the car. it's bad idea. it makes assault MORE likely.
"Another fun fact, the "top" 10% of officers generate about 50% of the use-of-force incidents. Either they have incredibly bad luck (always arresting the crackheads) or somehow, the other officers manage to do their jobs without resorting to physical violence."
of course this is true. and fwiw, crackheads rarely require much force. i've seen more uses of force in regards to drunk DUI women (ask any DUI car) than crackheads. seriously. alcohol in general, but i digress.
i've never had ONE use of force complaint in 20 years, and i've used them (pretty much all), and that's because if you treat people with respect, EVEN IF YOU HAVE to taser, strike, wrestle, or even shoot at them, you usually get respect and understanding.
and certainly, just like in every career, a small %age of officers are the majority of the problem in regards to excessive force and/or poor tactics (which often leads to more force in general).
but, and im really serious here. your suggestions for tactics are (or would be if any cop followed them) dangerous, nonsensical, and less likely to result in success than good patrol procedure
"
except that's just your absurd way to avoid the issue. nobody is advising treating him like a crackhead. just do me a favor and if you ever actually try to do police work, learn some real patrol tactics first. respect EVERYBODY and do what's right. clearly you are unaware of how to do patrol work.
According to the article cited by the OP, the officer did NOT have to arrest the driver. He could have simply "placed the ticket in the car in a professional manner."
The police officer CHOSE to ignore the driver's questions, CHOSE not inform the driver of the signing rules, and CHOSE to escalate the situation to arrest.
Of course the law makes the driver responsible for the bad choices of the officer. Typical cop logic.
no. this cop has mediocre command presence and is lacking communications skills. if he had better communications skills and command presence, he might not have had to resort to taser.
i haven't had to resort to actually firing my taser. good command presence lessen the likelihood as does good communications skills. it is entreily possible this guy might STILL have had to be tased. we will never know
Aren't the police trained to always look at the hands in traffic stops? Why would an officer focus on the driver's head?
In any event, I believe the legal issue is whether it was visible to the officer, not whether you think that particular officer fully appreciated it or really focused on it.
rubbish. ime most people, including crackheads RESPECT the good cops, and that's most of em.
i've had people come up to me years after i arrested them and THANK them. all people get treated with respect.
i am surprised there is all this enmity towards crackheads, like they should get treated worse than the guy speeding. i treat everybody with respect - crack users , prostitutes, speeders, robbery suspects, etc.
"According to the article cited by the OP, the officer did NOT have to arrest the driver. He could have simply "placed the ticket in the car in a professional manner."
MOST arrests are not mandatory. in my jurisdiction, only felony warrants and Domestic violence crimes (even with minimal probable cause - blame VAWA) are MANDATORY.
there is nothing MANDATING i arrest people for murder if i have PC.
"The police officer CHOSE to ignore the driver's questions, CHOSE not inform the driver of the signing rules, and CHOSE to escalate the situation to arrest. "
correct. he has mediocre communication skills. nobody could argue with that.
"Of course the law makes the driver responsible for the bad choices of the officer. Typical cop logic."
nope. it makes him responsbile for refusing to comply with the law. he can be a jerk all he wants. as can the cop (but the cop shouldn't be).
Yes. I agree the guy has poor communications skills and that he could have avoided using a taser. Let's be honest: "command presence" is "do what I say now or I'll kick your ass." Command presence is most useful when communication time is over.
BTW, I completely agree with you about handling the guy once he's out of the car and the officer decides to arrest. I just don't think there was ANY reason to arrest the guy in the first place.
I lived in the UK for four years, and the police there are far, far superior to US police. They are courteous and approachable, even helpful. They inspire a desire to assist.
US police inspire a desire to resist. Funny how that "do what I say or I'll kick your ass" "presence" can cause that.
And the law makes him responsible for the failures of the officer. Like I said.
whit's 1:40 am, and 2:04 am, posts are entirely correct. I was plaintiff's counsel for all thouand+ hours of excessive force litigation. I have since reviewed dozens of excessive force civil cases for a trial court. This sort of thing has been my day job for thirty years.
While I believe the officer erred, the only seriously wrong thing he did was lie about it afterwards. His use of the taser, at the moment he did it, was reasonable. He should have tried harder to avoid the necessity of doing so, but the driver had lost control of himself, and made the taser use pretty much inevitable, before the officer told him to exit his car.
A small proportion of officers certainly do generate most use of force instances, and I suspect this guy is one of them. He rather clearly, to my experienced eye, decided to tase Mr. Moron when the idiot refused to sign the ticket. I.e., he had malicious intent at that point. IMO he welcomed the opporunity to use force.
But it is quite possible that the officer also recognized that Mr. Moron would at least give him the opportunity to use the taser, and might make taser use necessary, regardless of what the officer said or did.
Mr. Moron was out of control at that point. He was not going to do what the officer said until the officer got his attention with the taser. Mr. Moron absolutely had to be shocked out of his defiant frame of mind.
I'd award him only a dollar in nominal damages. And I was plaintiff's counsel.
As far as ordering him back into the car, you are right that it is a bad tactic. After watching the video again, I realize that it is clearly too late to try to de-escalate the situation (which was my intent). At the point where he refuses to submit to arrest, the officer has no choice but to arrest him by force.
The question then becomes, how could a competent officer let a simple traffic citation spiral out of control into a situation where he had no options?
Also, please use blockquote when quoting.
Funny, I came to that conclusion on reflection myself.
I still assert that a calmer and better trained officer could have convinced him to sign the ticket without the use of force. This is, of course, speculation.
No he didn't. He had questions, and the officer wanted the ticket signed instantly. The law allows the officer to arrest for that, but let's get real. A cop used a taser because HE failed to communicate. It's the cops fault, even if the law IS on his side. Cops always get away with crap like this.
An let's get real again. A guy was shocked into insensibility over a $75-150 violation. The officer didn't have to arrest the guy. He tasered him for $150.
yes on the former. the latter is only a maybe, GIVEN his itent to arrest. we don't know if the guy would have complied GIVEN a more competent officer
" Let's be honest: "command presence" is "do what I say now or I'll kick your ass." Command presence is most useful when communication time is over. "
nope. command presence is what makes the "do what i say" stuff much less likely to be necessary. you are misunderstanding the term. it's how you stand, look in your uniform, etc. it's having a stable, respectful yet firm tone of voice, etc.
good officers either have it, or develop it. it keeps you safer, makes people much more likely to comply WITHOUT an "or else". it means a confident BUT NOT ARROGANT demeanor, etc.
look it up.
i think you might also find it interesting htat the UK police are MORE likely (per arrest situation) to use physical force (read that in FBI law enforcement journal) and suffer a higher rate of injury.
i love the way the UK police do their job fwiw. england INVENTED modern policing concepts (robert peel) and while i don't like their authoritarian nannystate surveillance no free speech legal system, i think their cops are great guys, generally speaking.
the term Oren is searching for is "MIGHT" have convinced him. heck, i said that about 20 posts ago in the other thread. nobody can deny the cop has poor communications skills and command presence. totally irrelevant to the use of force being justified, but yes... better cops tend to get better results with less force.
they also tend to get more confessions, less complaint, etc. etc.
In practice, most US police ARE arrogant. I'm not saying you are, but it's just a general fact. US police do not interpret "command presence" as "bearing." It's not a crucial point, but you really ought to deal with police without benefit of your badge sometime.
whit wrote, "i think you might also find it interesting htat the UK police are MORE likely (per arrest situation) to use physical force (read that in FBI law enforcement journal) and suffer a higher rate of injury."
I know that, but they also have a far lower rate of arrest in the first place. You'll notice that's inline with my comments all along here. The office didn't need to arrest in the first place.
In the US, yes. But it shouldn't be. Officers that abuse their discretion should face harsh scrutiny. The officer did not have to arrest to effect the citation.
Oren: For one thing, I was using 'crackhead' in the more general sense of 'unhinged person that is likely to attack the police'. Maybe meth would have been more appropriate? PCP?
ok. my point is twofold. people who are THIS noncompliant ARE creating an apprehension that they may escalate to physical force MORESO than yer average joe. actually, if you want to assault a cop (and yer smart) you don't act like this guy, and set the cop on (greater guard). you act compliant, then strike out of nowhere. a guy once got the drop on me by doing exactly that. and i was staring at a handgun. nothing i could have done. that's reality.
but when somebody does all those "little things" that scream to your "spidey sense" you are naturally going to be more on guard.
you approach every driver on every traffic stop as a potential threat, but you don't draw a gun or taser (obviously) unless specific factors justify it. it's this guys behavior that justified the actions of the cop. middle class SUV driver or crackhead makes no difference in that respect.
"As far as ordering him back into the car, you are right that it is a bad tactic."
wow. huge cred to you. somebody actually saying 'you were right' and changing their mind about a previous point like that show intellectual integrity which is near absent on the internet. seriously.
" After watching the video again, I realize that it is clearly too late to try to de-escalate the situation (which was my intent)."
yes. fwiw, as mentioned i have de-escalated by reholstering a taser drawn and pointed at somebody. however, i was also hand-on with him, and had another officer with me also "on him". we still ended up with scrapes and bruises and another officer got a sprain etc. and we STILL had to tase him (but not me - my partner) several times, and it was just a frigging nightmare. but i appreciate that you appreciate that ONCE you tell somebody they are under arrest (or do the functional equivalent by drawing taser and telling them to submit to handcuffing), you really can't de-escalate.
" At the point where he refuses to submit to arrest, the officer has no choice but to arrest him by force. "
that's a fair cop (pun intended)
"The question then becomes, how could a competent officer let a simple traffic citation spiral out of control into a situation where he had no options? "
like i said, i am not quite willing to say he is INcompetent, but he is (at least by this one incident) subpar in presence and communications skills.
assume he had explained that not signing would result in arrest (if that 's the law) or just given the guy the frigging unsigned citation, i would be happier.
nobody here thinks this cop is particularly good at his job. and it is POSSIBLE that given a better cop, the situation could have been resolved WITHOUT taser. we'll never know of course.
Also, please use blockquote when quoting.
alconeus: In the US, yes. But it shouldn't be. Officers that abuse their discretion should face harsh scrutiny. The officer did not have to arrest to effect the citation.
that assumes that deciding to arrest is an ABUSE of his discretion, which i don't agree with.
personally, there is a wide range of discretion, for better or worse. the other option is bright line stuff that also has its drawbacks. i know a lot of cops for instance who almost never make marijuana arrests. assuming it's a small amount, and the guy IS cooperative, they get a warning and get kicked loose.
so, discretion can work for the criminals as well, and usually does
The driver should have obeyed, even though the cop was brutishly intent on arrest. The stupid US laws allow him to be brutishly intent on arrest.
Before that, the cop should have tossed the citation into the car and gone off to nab another speeder. No one should be treated to violence over a $150 violation.
I don't know that those two are totally unrelated. An officer that relies on force in situation where it might be avoided is unjustified insofar as he doesn't make a sincere effort to resolve the issue without it.
That's probably too strong a statement so let me try to restate it (and I'm not myself quite sure what I mean so this might just be garbled). For an officer like this one, it is possible that every individual use of force is justifiable but that, in the aggregate, the officer creates situations like this one that lead to an overall unjustifiable use of force.
Violence over $150 violation where arrest isn't even required --- that's unquestionably absurd, to me.
not in my experience, and that's as a civilian on the other side of the badge as well.
" I'm not saying you are, but it's just a general fact. US police do not interpret "command presence" as "bearing." It's not a crucial point, but you really ought to deal with police without benefit of your badge sometime"
i did. i played in a band in college and was ALWAYS (thus) dealing with the cops. mostly Santa Barbara Sheriff's. they were TOTALLY respectful, had a good sense of humour, etc. my experiences, even as a long haired surfin' d00d were almost universally good. i had one cop who (i thought) was doing an illegal search of my car and i told him that. i did NOT resist the search. :)
the venue to appeal would have been criminal or civil court. i didn't have anything, but you get my point.
but the VAST majority of my many police encounters were very positive.
"I know that, but they also have a far lower rate of arrest in the first place. You'll notice that's inline with my comments all along here. The office didn't need to arrest in the first place."
but the UK police have a very different system. i've studied it. they concentrate much less on custodial arrest, especially summary custodial arrest. so, you have to take it in context with their system.
there is no criteria in regards to "need to arrest" that really applies here imo. look, different cops have different thresholds for when (given an arrestable offense) they decide to arrest.
and of course even when arresting physically into handcuffs (at least where i work), you can still complete the criminal cite, search the car and release.
fwiw, my jurisdiction has no vehicle search exception based on PC. you need a warrant if you have PC to search a car, but you can search it INCIDENT to an arrest of a vehicle occupant (but if multiple occupants you can't search property reasonably believed to belong to the non-arrestee).
also, our (weird) :) supreme court decided that for an incident to arrest search to be valid, it must be not just "incident" but AFTER a full custodial arrest which means telling the person they are under arrest AND handcuffing him (in one case where an officer placed a guy in the police car in the back and allowed him to use cell phone it was viewed non-custodial EVEN though iirc he told the guy he was under arrest). weird. if miranda came up , the same court would have viewed it as custodial but that's a liberal judiciary for you.
anyway, i thus arrest ALL suspended drivers, and then search the car. every time. by NOT using "discretion" to only do it with some drivers, i avoid appearance of impropriety and claims of only searching a given race, gender, age group, class, etc.
but this means that every suspended driver must get handcuffed (Which is a form of physical force) and placed in the cruiser and told they are under arrest.
it does not invalidate the search if AFTER the arrest, and search, i then "unarrest" them and criminally cite. as long as i never told them "i'm going to unarrest you after i search if i don't find anything" which is a wonderful quirk of WA law.
but i am SURE that in england (which has much looser search and seizure, no fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine iirc, etc.) they 'd just search yer car.
Also, whit, if I may ask a quick question, why is it that cops seem to take factual disputes about their citations/arrests as challenges to their authority? The guy here incorrectly thought there wasn't a 40MPH sign and for some reason the cop took some sort of offense at that. The more respectful cops that I've encountered are usually quite clear that you are entitled to your version of events and that ultimately there will be a judge to sort them out.
FWIW, I usually feel more nervous when I'm freely talking to the cops. By the time the cuffs are on, nothing I say can be used against me or construed as consent. Maybe that's just me.
i understand what you mean. it is not unjustifiable in a LEGAL sense, but certainly in a moral/common sense/let's solve the problem sense it is UNACCEPTABLE.
officers should not attempt to avoid all conflict. i know some officers who literally never make traffic stops, and never make any suspect contacts unless responding to a specific 911 call. that's one extreme that's bad for society. otoh, if an officer has a lack of skill and tactics that result in a statistically significant higher # of people who assault HIM and/or require a higher # of uses of force to accomplish the same objective, that is also bad.
it's certainly not prudent. but agian, the best is the enemy of the good. the point is that the cop is in the tail of the bell curve. his uses of force are signfiicantly out of wack in comparison to arrests, etc. yes, the guy should get retraining, and maybe a couple of weeks with a training officer. corrective counseling. it's better for him (less paperwork and lawsuit threats), the dept. and the citizenry. win, win, win.
"Also, whit, if I may ask a quick question, why is it that cops seem to take factual disputes about their citations/arrests as challenges to their authority?"
cops with small egos or lack of patience, probably. i don't. i RARELY write tickets. hate em. but i'm more than willing to explain the citation and before writing, i give the person opportunity to provide an excuse or mitigating factors. that's actually part of the recognized judo verbal tactics for traffic stops.
heck, i know a cop who once pulled over a guy for DUI. asked the guy how much he had to drink. guy was australian. admitted to drinking a 12 pack. cop actually DROVE HIM HOME he was so impressed with the guys honesty. of course the guy was leaving for australia the next morning, so that might have been part of it too.
" The guy here incorrectly thought there wasn't a 40MPH sign"
more correctly: he CLAIMED he thought that.
i've been a cop long enough not to assume that a cliam is true whether made by a victim, suspect, witness, or supervisor :)
" and for some reason the cop took some sort of offense at that."
which shows poor communications skills. cops who take tickets personally are pretty silly.
i personally don't CARE if the guy takes it to court. i have no vested interest.
i find it funny fwiw when people assume we work for or with prosecutors necessarily. my job is not to make a stronger case for the prosecution. my job is to impartially gather evidence, regardless of which side it benefits.
i am also keenly aware that i am often forced (domestic violence) to make arrests where a unfortunuately significant percentage are simply bogus. that sux. i don't take it personally when a case on weak evidence (let alone victim fabrication) is dismissed or found not guilty, except if its a really stupid judge's decision.
" The more respectful cops that I've encountered are usually quite clear that you are entitled to your version of events and that ultimately there will be a judge to sort them out."
yes. that again is part of verbal judo. if you do it RIGHT, most people will thank you for the ticket. seriously. another lesson is that you can lecture OR cite. but if you do both, you are asking for a complaint. that's like a double whammy.
99% of a cop's job is knowing how to talk to people. seriously. there is one inexcusable sin for a cop imo - cowardice. and one absolutely necessary skill - communication.
what most people don't understand also is that cops don't just ask questions for the content. they ask questions to gauge veracity (reminds me of some questions on the MMPI).
with (relatively minor offenses) one is sometimes better off by admitting X when asked, then not admitting X especially when X is evident to the officer. all you do is prove to him that you are a liar. cops get lied to SO often, the truth is a tonic. it might not "set you free" though.
i've had people, even post-miranda post custodial arrest FREE THEMSELVES by explaining why they weren't responsible for said crime. i know defense attorneys argue to never give a statement post-miranda to cops, but IF you are innocent (or have a really good ruse to make it appear that way), it is not always a bad idea.
otoh, most defense attorneys frequent clients are almost always guilty and in their case, they are probably best off legally (if not morally and psychologically) by shutting up
otoh, some cops are citation happy, so yer screwed!
Given that tasers can and have killed people in the past I don't think you get to say it's reasonable to use the taser unless it would be reasonable to use a gun in the same situation.
In my mind, this suspect had already acted way out of the ordinary. His most notable "unusual" action was not being willing to sign the ticket -- I assume that the text above the signature line is as clear as it is where I live and is not written in Sanskrit or Hieroglyphs. It only takes about 15 seconds to read it even if the officer didn't explain it and I've never had an officer get impatient while I read it (which I've had to do more times than I'd like to recall).
So, if I'm on the jury, you might guess wrong about what seems "typical". Lest you think I'm a "pro COP/prosecutor" person -- a prosecutor can advise you otherwise. I spent several days deliberating in a jury room until we finally gave up because I was hanging a jury (me alone voting "Not Guilty") on half the counts based on "minor technicalities". Even though the defendant was complete scum and "probably" was guilty on all counts, the prosecutor still has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt on each and every count, no matter how tedious, they want a conviction on.
debunking this ONE MORE TIME
tasers are less lethal force. so is a baton strike, so is a tackle. people have died from being tackled, and people have died from a baton strike.
i have said this several times (iirc). tasers are at (in most use of force continuums) at roughly the same level as pepper spray. WAY below firearms. heck,. they are below baton strikes (to even a tertiary target (such as the thigh)..
people have died after being struck by a baton, they have died after being tackled, and they have died after being tasered. it does not follow that you need some sort of fatal threshold for a taser to be justified.
fwiw, i have volunteered to be tasered. i would not volunteer for a baton strike.
you cannot asses the reasonableness of the taser here if you don't understand where and how tasers fit into the use of force continuum. and clearly - you don't
on a lighter note... he clearly did not watch this essential training video
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2458063
The subjective intent goes to your other point--this cop needs a desk job. The subjective intent shows what thought process this officer uses to make decisions, and this incident shows that he's using a Taser to protect his ego, not his safety. That's dangerous for the officer, the public, and any other officer that has the misfortune to be partnered with him.
To the limited extent that can typically be determined, yes. The fact is that there are two standards of behavior: the extremely permissive standards that a jury who is cautious about second-guessing an officer would apply in a court, and the much more restrictive standards that society as a whole expects them to follow except in extreme circumstances.
If cops regularly planted people's face in the concrete or blew people out of their shoes under the kinds of circumstances some commenters here countenance, we would need forklifts to handle the volume of bodies.
Good cops use the grey area between the two standards when they need it. Bad ones ride the grey area for ego satisfaction, and they get away with it precisely because to reduce the grey area would remove the protection for the good cops as well.
But you need not make this tradeoff when you have evidence that sadism is involved, because you can then punish without fear of catching out the good ones in the net.
The fact that this officer did not interpret that situation as threatening is not just evidence of his subjective mindset, but also evidence that a reasonable officer would not do so. (Or evidence that this officer is unreasonable, if you prefer.)
(*) Sounds like a word. Sort of. Keyer, on the other hand, does not.
I think cops have a distorted view of how much they are respected. I am always polite and deferential to police officers. That's because I saw one come out of nowhere and break my friend's neck while we were walking down the street bothering no one. I know that cops are armed and will be allowed to commit any range of atrocity for whatever reason they want to fabricate. Cops have guns and tacit permission to be violent at any time they wish. You're darn right I will act respectfully around them.
But that doesn't mean I respect them. Or like them. They think they are my master, and they have the gun to prove it. But that doesn't mean that I don't hate and despise them. But the cop won't know that, he'll think he is loved.
Yeah, cops get about as much "respect" as that gun will give them.
Second point: Whit commented sometime back that tasering the guy is better than chasing him if he happened to get in his car and drive off.
So what if he did? We know that the signature is NOT required. There was no reason to detain him any further except that the cop did not feel that the driver was obsequious enough. There was not sufficient fawning, servile compliance and the policeman can't let that stand.
And now Whit can't admit that this cop exceeded all sensible restraint and has closed ranks completely with a rogue cop who threw a guy in jail for the crime of being lippy to his master.
This is pretty key.
Did the cop give the guy sufficient, clear instructions that the guy was clearly noncompliant rather than confused about what was being asked of him?
If so, is it the law that the motorist was then either disobeying a lawful order and/or resisting arrest?
No, they don't. I'm a Marine. I was in Haditha just a month prior to the massacre by 3/1. I don't protect those Marines one bit because I was there and I know what their job was and how they were supposed to do it. I don't like my honor and the good name of my Marine Corps being tainted by what they did.
If an institution does not disassociate from those that do not meet its standards, then those become its standards. If cops want to stand up for this uncommunicative bully, then they are all bullies and we should be even more wary of them.
It's high time we take these tasers away from the police. Clearly, they only serve to allow the police to use less restraint. It's so easy now to shoot someone with a taser and say, "oh, it's nonlethal force" and it's not a gun substitute. And it saves them from breaking a sweat too. I liked it better when the police had to be a bit more circumspect with the use of force.
Soon we will all be wearing Captain Kirk Star Trek pain collars and our masters will use them when they need our compliance to their orders. After all, it's safer than using a club or a gun. And easier for the cops. And it makes us more obedient.
Well, there's a dispute about whether a reasonable officer, viewing the events, would have perceived a threat from the driver (that is, that the driver might be reaching for a gun).
Ryan argued, relying on the officer's statements, that the officer didn't in fact perceive a threat. Our host responded that the officer's perception was irrelevant -- whether or not Ryan was correct.
My argument is that if Ryan is correct in his characterization and interpretation of the officer's statements, it's relevant because, from the officer's actual state of mind, we can infer something about the facts he knew. So the state-of-mind evidence "ha[s a] tendency to make the existence of [a] fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence," FRE 401.
It isn't an objection to relevance that a finder of fact might consider the tape alone clear, or might give the state-of-mind evidence little weight. Another finder of fact might give it more weight -- after all, we are often told to trust an officer's professional judgment in such matters. And Greg has since pointed out ways in which this might be made an effective jury argument.
Now, it's true courts often *say* that subjective state of mind is irrelevant to an objective inquiry. But I think that it is correct only to say that subjective state of mind is not the ultimate issue -- not that it is wholly irrelevant.
I can't help but feel that if one is a police officer, and an incident like this makes you react violently, you don't belong in uniform. In other words, there's a level of risk you have to accept in order to both protect and serve the public, and if this kind of thing is too dangerous for you, get out.
I can't help but draw an analogy to firemen. This kind of behavior from cops is the same as if the firemen didn't even try to put out the fire because it was too dangerous.
This cop signed up to protect and serve. Arguments about command presence and the like are irrelevant. If he was afraid, he didn't belong there.
Bias disclaimer - I sympathize a bit with the driver. Many years ago, a guy, who turned out to be a plainclothes police officer interested in arresting me, bashed my drunken head into a parked car. Subjectively, I assumed he was an ordinary citizen behaving unlawfully and delivered an elbow to his head. The rest was pretty unpleasant for me. I'm certain that had the officer communicated better that my subjective reaction would have been different.
What we should be asking is if this use of force was justified. The motorist was going over 40mph on a highway with ideal driving conditions, very light traffic, and no construction in sight. Whoop-dee-doo. I submit that it is unreasonable to use any force to write a ticket in that situation.
Besides, the cop never answered the question.
What the heck is wrong with him?
*having said that, I would not advocate resistance to that use of force.
This must vary from state to state.
I've received a few moving-violation tickets in MA and I always had to sign to acknowledge receipt of the ticket; the officer generally said something like "sign here. this is not an admission of guilt", and there was similar fine print on the ticket blank.
Still, a normal human--the cop--is probably hard-wired to alert to somebody acting outside the bounds of reasonable and logical and normal.
Example: Do you start paying attention to a guy sitting on a park bench? More attention to a guy sitting on the sidewalk? Sitting on a park bench in a sleet storm?
This driver would have gotten my attention, were I the cop, far more than I have given any cop reason to pay more than the standard attention to me. I got a speeding ticket many years ago--last one--and the cop was absolutely professional. In fact, I never laid eyes on him. I could only see him in my left outside mirror, and then only his belt buckle. I could not possibly have been a threat to him without making a number of preliminary moves. Good work. But, then, I spoke normally, not obsequiously, not aggressively, took the ticket as requested. I disagree with the speed limit on that section of road and figure it's a good place for trolling cops. But, as Socrates did, the law is the law and you have the responsibility to obey it if you are a voluntary citizen. Especially if you know in advance. If you don't like it, change it or move.
What troubles me about this discussion is the whiff of concern that the driver was one of "us", and the cop, of course, was not. Had the driver been a scraggly-haired redneck with a couple of missing teeth and a beat-up F150, I think the responses would have been different.
"No, they don't. I'm a Marine. I was in Haditha just a month prior to the massacre by 3/1. I don't protect those Marines one bit because I was there and I know what their job was and how they were supposed to do it. I don't like my honor and the good name of my Marine Corps being tainted by what they did. "
cmon. i am talking about protecting each other (cops, teachers, etc.) with relatively minor stuff. that happens in nearly every profession, even though cops and the whole "blue line of silence" thang gets emphasized.
when you are talking about major serious stuff, it's another story. there's a difference between murder and rape and mere lack of competence etc.
"If an institution does not disassociate from those that do not meet its standards, then those become its standards. If cops want to stand up for this uncommunicative bully, then they are all bullies and we should be even more wary of them. "
bully? rubbish
"It's high time we take these tasers away from the police. Clearly, they only serve to allow the police to use less restraint. It's so easy now to shoot someone with a taser and say, "oh, it's nonlethal force" and it's not a gun substitute. And it saves them from breaking a sweat too. I liked it better when the police had to be a bit more circumspect with the use of force. "
like i said, im way more circumspect than most cops and have never had a use of force but the reality is that if we take away tasers, there will be hundreds of more injured/dead people per year, including cops, suspects, etc.
nobody who has looked at the data of taser adoption combined wiht significantly decreased death/injury/lawsuits can deny that
what is correct is PUNISHING those who deserve it, train those who need it, and provide police with the tools to do their job.
i personally think cops should have to be WAY more physically fit, WAY better at martial arts (like the japanese require), etc. but that will never happen.
Soon we will all be wearing Captain Kirk Star Trek pain collars and our masters will use them when they need our compliance to their orders. After all, it's safer than using a club or a gun. And easier for the cops. And it makes us more obedient.
he needs training. it's also a bit presumptive based on ONE incident to assume that he is always this poor at communication, etc.
yes. but remember there are AT LEAST 3 levels of review of a use of force:
departmental - was he within policy, is there discipline or training to be done
criminal - (state, and fed (which i think should be double jeapardy but isn't but that's another topic ... trying on the fed AND state side for the same essential thing is lame...)
civil - obvious.
i know of a case where an officer pepper sprayed two females. long story, but to put it briefly he WAS justified (pretty clearly) in pepper spraying them. but also, WHILE spraying them he said words to the effect of "take this bitch" or something like that.
clearly, that suggested the subjectively he was THINKING punitive, even though objectively he was justified. and he was disciplined, although the force was neither excessive nor criminal.
cops have gotten in (media and public perception at a minimum) for after a completely justified use of force - for being seen smiling, high fiving, etc. this does not NECESSARILY mean anything more than they are happy its over, and that the cops prevailed - after all, the #1 goal is going home alive for a cop. however, it just LOOKS TERRIBLE to "high five" yer partner after having to baton strike somebody.
i've struck several people (hard) with batons. never even generated a complaint from them (and probably 1/2 at least of people who get struck are gonna complain officially). a HUGE part of the reason is that i treated the person firmly, but with respect. if you strike somebody AND belittle them you are nearly guaranteed to get a complaint. EVEN IF THE FORCE IS 100% justified. because it's not about reality. it's about perception and hurt egos.
i know another guy who was in a literal fight for his life with a suspect (robbery, eluding, etc.) and the guy was finally handcuffed. the officer was alone, and in a 5 minute battle royale with this guy. probably 90% of officers (and let's admit it - a higher %age of female officers) would have had to shoot the guy. this officer is a former special ops guy and is extremely physically competent and also was a golden gloves star.
anyway, after brouhaha was over, the officer panting and exultant looked down at the guy and said "you fight like a little bitch! "
needless to say the guy complained. again, force 100% justified but stuff like that just pisses people off.
I'm sorry, but using a taser is not relatively minor. It may be minor to you, but it isn't to anyone else. That's kind of the problem I see here, that the police are now quite nonchalant with using a taser.
If you don't see this as "bully" behavior then you need glasses.
Well, maybe the use of force was already too high anyway. Reduction in lawsuits is a good thing, but the lawsuits are against the police because they used too much force. It would seem there is already a problem with police using force when not appropriate.
Your solution to excessive instances of using force is to make the use of force easier? Sounds exactly how the government likes to solve problems.
Yes, but I fear that some people think that the ones deserving punishment are the guys getting pulled over by bullies with badges.
"
you will note that defense attorneys in most of these polls are usually NOT respected or liked nearly as much.
not that im implying anything :)
of course for those that have NEEDED A defense attorney, appreciation is probably higher :)
i worked deep undercover for a long time. most of the people i dealt with were criminals. none of them (obviously) had any idea i was a cop. so, i heard the UNVARNISHED opinion and most of them had been arrested, most multiple times.
the majority liked and respected cops. many hated the drug laws (mj guys). fwiw, most of the meth-heads ironically thing meth is terrible and SHOULD be illegal and wish they never started.
im basing my opinion on what i saw as a perceived civilian. i also note that in polling when people are asked how they respect various careerists in various jobs
the data supports my position... i quote
"A recent poll conducted by Harris Interactive shows that most of these jobs actually retain their lofty status into adulthood (although superhero was sadly not on the questionnaire's list). In the telephone survey of 1,020 adults, people ranked firefighting as the most prestigious occupation, with 63 percent giving it a "very great prestige" rating. Doctors, nurses, and scientists were the next-highest ranked occupations, followed by teachers, military officers, and police officers. Priests/ministers/clergy, farmers, and engineers round out the poll's top ten. (To see the complete results, click here.)"
google for this sort of poll. there are tons of them. invariable cops rate near the top in terms of respect and admiration.
rubbish. i have been critical of this cops skillz (not so much mad skillz) from the beginning. i have also said that GIVEN that he had legal justification TO arrest (which was apparently his intent when he told the guy to put his hands behind his back) that the force was JUSTIFIED.
you fail to understand that there is a difference between saying force is JUSTIFIED vs. saying this guy is any sort of great cop.
a cop can be an officious prick and have mediocre skillz. that's tangential and irrelevant to whether the force used IN THIS INCIDENT is justified or not. the former is a much more nuanced, complex and multifactorial question. the latter is one that deals with the law in regards to use of force, something i, and most cops are pretty familiar with.
you are conflating two issues. you see the cop as an officious jerk with poor judgment. that's groovy, but irrelevant to whether the force is justified.
"
again, you misunderstand. what i am saying is there is a difference between an arguable and somewhat subjective interpretation of a complex incident, where reasonable people (and cops) can disagree (such as was this force justified) and a BLATANTly corrupt and evil act like murder and rape.
*if* the cop was unjustified that's a far cry from saying he is a vicious murderous evil raping thug
understand the difference. people will tend to rally around their kind in muddy, arguable incidents like this, where IF the person was unjustified its not the same thing as saying they were an evil, malicious raping murderous piece of garbage.
No, it's completely relevent. It was his being a jerk that caused the whole incident.
If a cop can use force against a citizen simply because he goads the citizen into some innocent behavior that he can claim meets some justification of using force, then there is no restraint on that force.
Notice that the taser was drawn and aimed long before the driver was told to do anything. This is nothing more than a rogue cop, albeit not the worst of them but still rogue, wanting to get his jollies by tasering a man that he simply didn't like. And he got to threaten a pregnant woman too. What a hero!
Cops are supposed to protect us. They are not supposed to eliminate all risk to themselves by tasering everyone they meet.
not imo and ime. in 20 years, my impression (and i note this has been supported by civilians who go through the trouble of citizen academies and/or ridealongs to see how stuff ACTUALLY happens in the street, is that cops on the whole use less force (significantly so) than they are often justified in using and are pretty circumspect and restrained, moreso than the law requires.
" Reduction in lawsuits is a good thing, but the lawsuits are against the police because they used too much force."
or people PERCEIVE there is too much force. there is a lot of misunderstanding and hype about tasers (several myths of which i have debunked) such that the answer is : WHY NOT SUE?
the reality is that in an environment where the facts can generally get out, the VAST majority of suits are unsuccessful because the overwhelming # of taser uses are justified. they also tend to look icky and that makes people react emotionally not intelligently to analysis of the justification of same .
" It would seem there is already a problem with police using force when not appropriate. "
of course. it has been a problem and always will be. cause cops are human. just like in any profession, there's roughly 90% who are basically competent but not superstars, honest, and reasonably conscientious. 5% are exceptional and 5% suck and/or are actually corrupt in some way.
"Your solution to excessive instances of using force is to make the use of force easier? Sounds exactly how the government likes to solve problems. "
no my solution is to give cops more tools that are LESS likely to result in injuries to suspects AND officers AND bystanders, because our #1 goal is to protect life.
all other issues aside, the reality is that literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people are alive because tasers exist.
the range aspect alone (vs. hands-on or baton) is significant.
unfortunately, when cops wrestle with people for instance, sometimes their gun gets taken. and over 7/10 times when a suspect gets a gun from the cop - it gets used against him
a coworker of mine was killed in exactly that circ by a naked (ie unarmed) man. i can guarantee if he had tased the guy, it would have looked bad (white cop tases unarmed naked mentally ill black man), but nobody (in hindsight) wouldn't prefer that outcome.
like i said, personaly i have a much higher defensive tactics skill level than most cops and i have never fired my taser (although pulled it and pointed it at least 1/2 dozen times). but again, in every instance those people complied (well, all but 1 and in that case i reholstered the taser, but the facts are different and the guy ended up getting tased during the long and injurious fight anyway. and there were several cops on scene. ).
i'd much rather have a force option that looks icky, but saves lives and injuries.
i also know that OF COURSE some cops abuse tasers, just like you can abuse ANY kind of force option.
deal with the violators. don't throw the baby away with the bathwater n stuff
no, it's not. read back and see my discussion with oren. even a plaintiffs attorney jumped in and confirmed this outlook.
it is not at all true (fwiw) that the cop being a jerk CAUSED the incident. anybody actually reviewin the tape can see the guy did NOT WANT to comply from the outset.
it is true that MAYBE given a cop who was better at communication, he might have been able to gain voluntary compliance, but that is speculative.
but people are responsible for their choices. and use of force analysis is based on criteria you don't undestand. what is relevant is - based on the facts/circs known to the officer at the time, were his actions REASONABLE and within use of force guidelines, NOT could he have done better and.or was he kind of a snarky wanker.
hth
The fact that you say this is irrelevant suggests to me you don't understand the excessive force analysis. The necessity of force is determined in the context of all of the facts. A reasonable officer knows a person in the situation of the driver here is not a risk to flee or fight. You can't taze (or tackle or pepper spray) a guy who poses no risk and has committed only a traffic violation because he is whiny. Even if he had probable cause to arrest the guy, (I haven't yet heard a good argumnet that he did), you can't resort to substantial force against a nonthreat just because he doesn't comply within a few seconds.
In my clerking years, I handled over a dozen cases like this, and I can't think of one in which I thought the case against the cops had merit. I don't know enough 9th Circuit law to know, so it still might get kicked on qualified immunity. But I'd bet even the most conservative judge would have trouble giving the cop summary judgment on the force issue.
this is a matter of law. let me give you an example. there was a case where an officer arrested somebody where the offense was in fact a non-criminal (civil infraction) infraction. open container in a public place. the law had recently been changed to make the (former arrestable crime) merely a civil infraction, and thus custodial arrest was not justified.
anyway, pursuant to the arrest, force was used.
there was no question that the arrest was not valid, because the "crime" was no longer arrestable.
and there was no question that the drugs found pursuant to arrest must be suppressed (fruit of the poisonous tree and all). if the guy had confessed post-miranda to a triple homicide, that also would have been surely suppressed.
but the case law is clear that even given an UNLAWFUL arrest, that a person is (in my jurisdiction) required to submit to arrest and that resisting even an unlawful arrest (and im not conceding that this arrest was unlawful, just responding to your question) is still illegal.
now, there is some case law in my jurisdiction that given a KNOWING "bad transaction" iow where the officer arrests or stops somebody where they CLEARLY know it's not justified, that if injuries result from force, they most definitely can be sued, even if the force was otherwise justified. to give a contrast.
the rational the courts (and im under the 9th circuit - incredibly liberal, and WA supreme court - ditto) is that it's bad to have people make ad hoc subjcetive interpretation of the validity of an arrest, and resist them if unjustified. the proper venue for redress is the courts. otherwise, we justify cops and civilians getting hurt during those encounters.
certainly if a suspect thinks an arrest is invalid, he shoudl SUBMIT to it, but ask to speak to the officers supervisor and explain his case.
i do know of one case where exactly that happened, and the guy was subsquently arreested (after 15 minutes total in handcuffs) and got a nice payout from the police, no court required - for his trouble. that's the legal and ocrrect way to handle it.
absolutely not. he neither knows that nor should he (ridiclously) assume that, although we have already gone over this point extensively earlier.
"you can't resort to substantial force against a nonthreat just because he doesn't comply within a few seconds. "
he is not a "non-threat" but i agree that he has not EVIDENCED any threatening behavior, just noncompliance. however... those are not the same thing. if i pull over a little old lady and arrest her for suspended license and warrant for not dying her properly (for the sake of illustration) i do NOT transport her unhandcuffed cause she's NOT a threat.
the issue is - is the force REASONABLE.
the issue is - once an arrestee (or about to be) refuses to submit to handcuffing, starts walking away etc. on a freeway, etc. and with all the other facts and circs known - was it reasonable ot use a taser, especially after multiple demands to comply to tase him. i think it is . i've studied enough use of force cases to also suggest that my opinion is educated by understanding the use of force contiuum
i've said it before. i have to say it again. it is NEVER clear that a person is a NONthreat. it is true that the level of force you use must be consistent with the objective, the underlying crime, etc.
to contrast. it would NOT be justifiable (under my use of force continuum) for the officer to strike the man with the baton.
that would CLEARLY not be justified.
it WOULD be to tase the person, although i most likely would not have.
When the guy was on the ground, and the wife came out, whould she have been justified comming out with a gun drawn? "Please step away from my husband." Some guy just incapacitated her husband. She is now alone in the car with kids. Can she reasonably fear for her safety? Sure the guy who incapacitated her husband wore a badge, but he sure was acting like a psycho. One moment they were stopped for going over 40mph (whoop-dee-doo), the next minute...
it's that simple.
1) People can always accurately explain in words their reasons for performing any action: (Well, I saw your head coming closer, and your eyes closing, so I was sure within 82.5% probability that you wanted me to kiss you.)
2) Giving one reason for performing an action precludes all other reasons for performing an action, even when there has been no time for reflection and analysis.
3) No white man in his 20s travelling with a female in an SUV can ever be a threat to any officer, even though he is angry and non-compliant.
4) Police have nothing to fear from civilians, while civilians are in fear for their lives every time they are stopped by government authority paid to enforce the law, authorized to use force, and trained in the use of force.
Again, that probably says a lot more about the excesses of the amount of force allowed. I would hope that police are held to the standard of common sense, too. Just because one in a million peaceful, but whiney, men accompanied by their pregnant wife and dressed respectfully, whining but not threatening, might go looney toon and shoot up the place, doesn't mean that it is reasonable to treat all people like they are murderers. Especially when there was no requirement to arrest the guy at all.
If the police can choose to let a guy go after getting all the information needed and delivering the citation or arrest a guy when there is no indication of danger, the police should be held to the standard that they default to letting the guy go.
We are not the subjects of the police. Too many police don't understand that. This one certainly didn't.
I just wanted to thank you for posting this video.
I have spoken with my 16 year old son several times on what the procedure is if or when he is stopped by a police officer.
1) Hands on steering wheel with license and registration in hand.
2) Answer all questions with "yes sir", "no sir" and when asked "do you know why I stopped you? respond with "I don't know sir".
3) Be unfailingly polite but do not admit to anything.
4) Take ticket and call me.
I used the video as a demonstration of why my rules are so important. I would say that the video of the guy being tased drove the point home much more than anything I could say.
"3) No white man in his 20s travelling with a female in an SUV can ever be a threat to any officer, even though he is angry and non-compliant"
exactly. i see this consistently. i also see it in the discussions on the progressive boards in regards to the woman at the airport.
clearly, white middle class SUV driving people need to be treated with kid gloves and can never be a threat. it's actually a subtle kind of classist bigotry.
it IS true that certain people can be dealt with with higher force from the outset. you do not just walk up to an armed robbery suspect's car . you do a felony stop.
EVERYBODY deserves respect. that is far different from the belief here that white middle class SUV driving males deserve some sort of deference where they have a RIGHT to resist (passively at least) arrest, especially when its for a minor offense, and the officer is using allegedly bad judgment etc.
that's simply rubbish.
similarly, we handcuff everybody. we don't assume that cute petite soccer moms are a nonthreat and transport them unhandcuffed for instance. uniformity of treatment at that level also protects against claims of racial bias, etc.
otoh, it is true that an officer's knowledge of a suspect prior violent acts etc. CAN be used to justify higher levels of force from the outset or in response to threats, etc. - within reason.
it's also relevant as to so called frisk factors within a decision to frisk for officer safety
which is of course not the case. #1 the VAST majority of arrests are "not required". the exception in my locale are felony warrants and DV offenses.
that's ToTALLY irrelevant to the justificaiton of force ONCE the decision to arrest was made.
furthermore, the guy was not treated like a "murderer" this is nonfactual, hysterical histrionic rubbish. he was treated exactly like a person who resists arrest should be (although the verbalization should have been much better). he was given orders, he refused to comply and he was tased.
i have arrested murderers, kidnappers, etc. the proper response to seeing a kidnapper (alleged to be armed as well during the offense) that i saw literally walking down the sidewalk last month was to draw my gun on him, order him to the ground, and arrest him.
that's what i did/;
that would not be justified (obviously) in this case. nor would a baton. but a taser was
the force must be REASONABLE. a taser for a noncompliant arresteee is generally reasonable, given that differnet agencies have slightly different authorization for tasers within the use of force continuum
ime, assuming the stop is for a traffic infraction, you are more likely to get a warning if you do admit. im not advising to admit to something you didn't do, but if you were going 80 in a 60, at least with me , you would have a greater chance to get a warning if you were honest.
again, he has the right not to admit, but it's not necessarily optimal.
like i said earlier, many cop questions are not designed to get information. they are designed to test veracity/truthfulness.
but it's kind of a 50.50 thing. certainly what you admit can be used against you, and makes the case easier to prove.
Sorry - I know the general rule and was asking how it works in the excessive force context, where subjectivity isn't relevant to evaluating the force. It seems like we ask alot of all actors when we ignore the subjective. The driver has to know the officer isn't doing something inappropriate, despite his subjective impression that he wasn't speeding and that the officer is clearly mistreating him for some reason, and not saying anything about being under arrest. The officer has to know that his use of force is unreasonable, despite his subjective impression that the driver is being threatening and not reacting the way "safe" people do when being arrested. But it can't be the law that the state gets the benefit of the doubt, and the citizen doesn't.
Good advice, but I prefer the Chris Rock method myself.
But that driver didn't ask for time to read the citation, right? He didn't even let the officer finish the sentence he began when handing him the ticket, right?
In any case, if I had been the driver, I strongly suspect this cop would have been happy to answer my question for other reasons. After all, I would not have been acting like a complete jerk from the beginning. My first reaction when rolling down the window would not be to refuse to hand over my driver's license and registration. (What's the point of that?)
So, by the time we got to my being handed the ticket, it's quite likely the cop would have managed to finish sentences and even explain what signing meant before I even had to ask.
That driver was acting like jerk and contributed to the whole mess.
Now, since it appears one is not allowed to observe that the driver was acting like a jerk without providing balance, I'll talk about the cop. The cop messed up in many regards and may either also be a jerk, or just have tendencies toward being a jerk.
The stop may have been a speed trap at least in the sense that construction is not currently happening, and the cops know they can pick off speeders who will disregard the speed limits. It also appears the cop did not need to force the driver to sign the ticket.
So, I think the cop should have handed the driver the ticket and let the driver leave. That would almost certainly have been the best thing for the cop to do at this point.
Moreover, at this point the cop should have a inkling this driver is not going to be cooperative after he leaves the car. So, if he orders him out of the car instead of just handing him the ticket, things are likely to get even worse.
By not letting the guy leave-- as permitted by law in Utah-- I think the cop contributed substantially to the escalation that ultimately lead to all the 'are his hands in his pocket' speculation that may or may not justify the tasering at the point when it finally happened.
But this is not a 'an either / or ' type deal. Much of the fault for mis-communication that is being attributed to the cop alone does fall on the driver for perpetually interrupting the cop before he could say the things the cops-critics say the cop should have said.
Yes, the cop should have said many things. He should be trained to better deal with jerks.
Why does this cop need better training for how to deal with what are, in the end, non-violent, non-crack head jerks, who are unlikely to shoot you? This driver acted like a jerk in this instance; the cop will encounter more jerks in the future.
@whit-- I've been stopped about 5 times and gotten 1 ticket and 4 verbal warnings and no, I'm not that cute!
The one time I got a ticket, I the cop really had no choice. The cops first words to me were something like, "Did you know you were going a little fast. . .?". I sort of blushed and said, "Yeah. . .", in that sort of non-argumentative 'you got me voice.' He pointed out that it was drizzling and he clocked me while I was zipping past semis. I said, "Yeah. . . "
When he came back I read the ticket. My speedometer read much faster more than stated on the ticket. While handing me the ticket, the officer suggested I might not need to be driving quite as fast as I had been and asked me where I was going. I told him I lived in Ames, Iowa, my husband lived in Downers Grove, Illinois. He said, in a rather wistful voice "I guess I kinda wish my wife was driving 79 mph to visit me! But I'm sure he'll be even happier if you get there in one piece." (I was doing more than 79 mph. He knew it. I knew it. No argument. )
@OrinKerr-- Despite your threat to keep me off the jury in the cops murder trial, I'll still stand by my position that I would vote to acquit that cop of murder. I still haven't made up my mind on the whole unreasonable use of force issue as a criminal matter. I'd probably actually need to stay awake during the trial and listen to how the evidence and law are presented. On a civil suit, I'm pretty darn sure that after seeing that tape, I would have find it difficult to award any substantial monetary damages to the driver.
Maybe the driver and cop's attorney's convince them to settle with the cop agreeing to take some sort of training to improve his communications skills? (If I were Solomon that's what I would suggest.)
In case people are wondering, I'm not a cop. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer, which I guess would ordinarily make me a potential juror. :)
Here in Ohio there are very few warnings. And with my 16 year old, I really don't mind if he gets a ticket. I figure if he is doing 80 in a 55 zone he deserves the ticket and maybe that ticket will keep him from being cut out of a car after he loses control some rainy night.
think about how it would work otherwise. every time somebody thought an arrest was invalid, they could lawfully resist, etc. etc.
just wouldn't work
iirc MA until RELATIVELY recently actually did (technically) allow a person to resist an unlawful arrest.
what it comes down to is the person is required to submit. heck, many people would LOVE to be falsely arrested - cause it's free money when you sue.
and in many cases, you don't have to. if the admin realizes the arrest was bogus, they just offer a payout cause its much cheaper than dealing with court.
as for the EXCESSIVE force. if the initial transaction is KNOWN to the officer to be invalid (like he makes a subject stop when heKNOWS that he is not legally allowed), pretty much ANY force will be deemed excessive. that's why officers - who sometimes DO stop known drug dealers for instance and pat them down and throw their drugs away- without reasonable suspicion for the stop - are going to get screwed if the guy ends up resisting in any way and gets injured. cause even if the force WOULD have been justified, since the stop was knowingly illegal, it is by definition excessive force.
the primary issue was " was it a good faith exception" (like the non-arrestable open container thing) or an intentional bad stop
1 in viewing the video, the officer never says that he is placing the driver under arrest. Thus, a "reasonable" person (however loosely defined) would have no definitive basis for concluding that they were being placed under arrest. Thus, no resisting arrest; rather, non-compliance with the officer's instructions;
2. it appears to my reading that Whit's perspective is that the driver should be expected to read all the non-verbal communication from the officer (i.e., about actually being under arrest, etc.) whereas the officer is not expected to correctly read all of the driver's non-verbal communication. In his perspective, the officer can always assume the worst of the driver (re: the weapon in the pocket, etc.), but he obliges the driver to always assume the best of the officer (re: he's not just on a power trip while he's lighting me up with his taser). These seem to be somewhat contradictory expectations of the two participants involved;
3. never does the officer explain about the signature on the citation, nor the consequences of not signing. Rather, the citation is presented with an instruction to sign, followed by an extremely brief period to exhibit compliance. As others have mentioned before, I would be inclined to read the citation before signing, and (under the tense conditions that were clearly present) would probably not be in a position to read whatever was on the citation and act accordingly within a sufficiently short period of time to make the officer feel all warm and fuzzy about my compliance. In fact, I would need to remove my glasses to read anything less than 24-pt type at that distance, which would apparently be interpreted as reaching for a weapon that might have been hidden in the car headliner.
Regardless of whether the officer's use of force was appropriate under the applicable state statute is rather moot at the time that the specific confrontation was going down. There were plenty of opportunities for the officer (an employee of the state) to attempt to de-escalate the situation, none of which were (apparently) taken up.
I do not always make the knee-jerk reaction that the police are wrong and the public right; however, the policeman is the only person in this confrontation who has supposedly received training about such situations. If Whit's reaction(s) are any indication, it would appear that the LE community is content to hide behind an arbitrary conclusion of "justified" rather than looking at the video in the context of what went wrong.
Clearly, something went wrong on this traffic stop - thousands of similar incidents happen every day without swirling around the internet and attracting literally hundreds of comments from impassioned advocates on both sides. Nonetheless, the fact that something went wrong indicates that someone (or some persons) are/were wrong. I for one am not excusing the actions of the driver - the boy's a moron. Likewise, however, I'm not excusing the actions of the policeman - he's a moron as well. He (the cop) is, however, the only party in this little transaction who is supposed to be trained in its handling, and professionally responsible for his actions. In my mind, he (the cop) is the loser. If he has any significant experience on the force at all (and I must assume that he does), he would know that this baby was spinning out of control from the start. He apparently elected to allow it to continue on its spinning trajectory, because the video doesn't help him on otherwise minor matters like "did you explain the signature" and "did you advise the 'perp' that he was under arrest". Once the confrontation got to that point, the officer was apparently quite lucky that this driver didn't have a heart condition or some other hightened risk of death from riding the lightning.
The officer even exhibited (at least to me) a bit of braggadocio with his colleagues when asked about what happened at/during the stop. He apparently showed no remorse for a traffic stop that got out of hand, in fact, he lied about what he said and did, and then (seemingly) joked about the outcome. He's a poor reflection on the Utah State Police, which is probably a very fine organization with a large PR problem on their hands. I would hope that if the officer is not reprimanded/punished specifically for his actions at this stop, that his career meets the dead end it deserves once the spotlight is off this video. He's a problem employee, and management should show him the door, and make certain that he doesn't get placed in a similar situation with some other police force.
It almost always is the law that the state gets the benefit of the doubt. Big surprise.
You think this is bad, go learn about the immunities judges and prosecutors enjoy for on the job misconduct.
im not going to address the rest, because this first is so obviously false. i already cited the relevant case law in my jurisdiction. this WOULD be resisting arrest.
in those that require a specific statement of telling the person they are under arrest for the resisting to stick, the proper charge when he refused to submit to handcuffing would be "obstructing" because he disobeyed the order to submit
either way it's illegal, and an additional charge.
Second your advice to focus on short segments of the video is misleading. Events should be judged in the totality of the circumstances wherein events in the past shape the objective interpretation of subsequent events.
Third, as another commenter points out, it is a state decision to put these men at-risk by first instructing them to bring in X dollars of revenue via tickets and second by having them work alone.
Whatever danger the officers may face cannot justify an aggressive posture on the part of the state's agent when it is the state's choices that create the danger.
The relevant question is whether aggressive police practices are consistent with due process. In that sense, I believe this discussion is outside of the narrow confines of the fourth amendment. The question is not whether the officer had cause to arrest the driver. The question is whether the means and methods used by the officer in the course of his duties comport with 'due process'.
Actually, we don't know what the officer said as he was handing the ticket over. He is beginning to explain something as he leans in the window to hand over the ticket. He appears to be pointing at something on the ticket. All words are muffled until the point where the driver raises his voice.
It quite likely given the amount of time elapsed and the officer's gestures that he was at least trying to point to the signature line and explain what signing would mean. He may even managed to explain that. We just don't know. When he is leaning into the window, we can't hear him.
In contrast, we can hear the driver even though he's in the car because the driver is shouting!
With regard to what we actually hear, the cop's statement, "first you are going to sign this" was in response to the driver's insistence that the two of them will walk down the road to look for the speed limit sign before he, the driver, will sign anything. (For all we know, the driver believes that the cop must stay until he, the driver, has signed. Who knows?)
So, depending on what was said in the muffled portion of the tape, at this point, the cop's answer may be simply mean he is, he will elect to walk down to the sign, but not until after the driver signs the paper.
This would, in fact suggest, the cop is actually being really, really nice. After all, why should the cop agree to walk down the road if the driver choses not to sigh the ticket? There is no legal requirement the cop walk down the road before or after the driver signs the ticket. The driver could refuse to sign, but in that case, the cop isn't going to walk 1/2 mile done the road to look at for the sign.
Could all of this been communicated more clearly? Sure. But there's no point in assuming nothing was said during periods when the cop is clearly speaking but the sound is muffled.
Out in the rest of the world, if your colleague screws up, he suffers at least some penalty. Your citations merely highlight a "rush to innocence" rather than a desire to find out what went wrong.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer (that last bit might come as a surprise, huh?), but I might suggest that the manner in which you have elected to stack up the violations would only help out the driver when his day in court arrives - to the jury (or even a judge with a modicum of common sense), this officer had an agenda that included escalating a conflict and adminstering what might otherwise be called "street justice". Unfortunately, the little metal thing on your shirt grants you the right to do neither.
not true at all. see: professors with tenure, etc.
" Your citations merely highlight a "rush to innocence" rather than a desire to find out what went wrong. "
no... they cite a difference between LEGALLY justified and
"the best way he could have done it"
the point of the thread was the former. i readily admitted it appears this officer did not do a particularly good job at communicating etc.
that's not what the question was.
if you don't understand the question, you can't put out a rational analysis.
"I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer (that last bit might come as a surprise, huh?), but I might suggest that the manner in which you have elected to stack up the violations"
that *i* have? what are you talking about?
" would only help out the driver when his day in court arrives - to the jury (or even a judge with a modicum of common sense), this officer had an agenda that included escalating a conflict and adminstering what might otherwise be called "street justice"."
nope. it appears that the violator had the agenda. to try to be noncompliant and resistant.
" Unfortunately, the little metal thing on your shirt grants you the right to do neither"
the fact that you turn this into a matter of individuals, specifically "me" as in "you the right" shows you are being immature and turning this from a discussion of concepts into personalities.
it aint about what i would do. ive never had a IIU complaint in 20 yrs.
i would not have tased him, and i;m also much more talented than this guy is in verbal judo
since you decided to make it personal
that's COMPLETLEY irrelevant to the issue. - was the force justified.
right. so appealing to legal precedent, written policy,, etc. in defense of officer's actions are equivalent to "hiding" behind "arbitrary" conclusions of justification. due process, precedent, etc. are not arbitrary. it's called rule of law.
and again... the analysis over "what went wrong" assumiong that something DID go wrong, is a DIFFERENT issue from was the force justified.
you, and many others can't seem to grok the difference. one is a legal analysis. do you accuse suspects, etc. of "hiding" behind the law? of course not. but i guess cops don't get the benefit of that?
so again. saying it appears justified says NOTHING about what the cop could have done better (or the violator)
literally.
Moreover, do we really want to live in a world where a police officer can be allowed to claim "reasonable fear of injury, assault etc." simply because a person's hand is near his pocket? Police officers can already justify stops and searches for bizarely contradictory reasons: e.g., the driver was "too" calm, the driver was "too" nevous. The driver was speeding, the driver was pegged at exactly the speed limit so as to avoid police notice.
Now we will allow police to say the driver was a threat because he had his hands up, he was a threat b/c his hands were hanging down near his pockets, the driver was a threat because he was walking towards me, the driver was a threat because he was backing away from me to his car, the driver was a threat because he turned around, the driver was a threat because . . . .
There was NO objective indication that the driver was resisting arrest (esp. since he had never been advised he was under arrest) or that he was violent. Until placed under arrest or detained an individual has NO obligation to obey a police officer's commands. Here the individual had been "detained" for the the purpose of a traffic stop but not yet been placed under arrest or "seized" so as to justify additional commands to place hands on car etc.
Sure, just b/c one CAN see two narratives does not mean that it is reasonable to give credence to this alternate narrative. Stalin felt "threatened" by every member of the Communist party or military that gained any prominence thus justifying their arrest and imprisonment or death. In some cases he was probably "justified" in feeling threatened but that doesn't mean his reaction was justified and in the vast majority of cases he was paranoid, like this officer.
in those that require a specific statement of telling the person they are under arrest for the resisting to stick, the proper charge when he refused to submit to handcuffing would be "obstructing" because he disobeyed the order to submit
Thanks for the explanation.
Could it be reasonably summarized as "If you think the cop's orders are unlawful, follow them anyway, then sue his pants off"?
But that's the legal standard mess I'm worried about. OK says force is excessive only if its more than objectively reasonable.
If it's really the rule that in the moment, force can be treated as excessive only based on the subjective knowledge of the officer, that doesn't leave us non-mindreader citizens with much comfort in dealing with what seems to be a misbehaving officer, or even a person impersonating an officer. Or should we all take our tasing or wood shampoo with the comfort that we stand to get money damages in return for our pain? Sounds out of sync with the "better 100 guilty men go free" philosophy.
What, then, is the incentive to do better? If the cop is allowed by law to manipulate a citizen into non-complying, and can decide beforehand that he is going to taser a citizen that he thinks doesn't kiss his butt with sufficient artistry, then what's to stop him from doing that if he just really likes to taser people?
I'm not going to say that this is what happened as a matter of fact. I think a jury could be persuaded of it, and I think it is a plausible explanation for what we see. Regardless, let's say it was the case. If he can escalate on his on whim when it's not necessary, what's to discourage him from doing so?
I think Whit's defense of this use of force speaks volumes for the police frame of mind. The police think that if they commit an act that has any shade of justification, then it is beyond condemnation. Lawmen can be automatons that aren't required to use human interpersonal skills to size up a situation and react responsibly.
I'm not saying cops should unnecessarily risk death, but before using force they should have more reason than what we see here. Citing some odd ball extreme case where some innocent-seeming encounter goes wrong does not justify an overreaction on 99.9999% of the rest of us. Cops are human and should be held to certain standards of understanding human behavior. This cop certainly understood it and used it to get his jollies by tasering a mildly obnoxious fool.
Like it or not, that is the current state of US law.
Sounds out of sync with the "better 100 guilty men go free" philosophy.
That philosophy applies to judges and juries, not people taking action in the field.
If you're going to cite caselaw, it needs to be from Utah or an applicable Federal court, because any "requirement to submit" is a highly state-specific analysis. In some jurisdictions, there is no requirement to follow police orders when the orders are unlawful. See, e.g., People v. Howard, 408 N.E.2d 908 (N.Y. 1980) (citizens need not obey unlawful police orders to stop); cf. State v. Brennan, 780 A.2d 585 (N.J. App. Div. 2001)(extensively reviewing N.J. caselaw on requirements to obey police orders; obedience required only if force not excessive, and order is in furtherance of police duty).
Just to throw in one bit of info to the discussion, as a matter of Constitutional law, it is not a 4th Amend. violation for police to order someone out of a car once the car is already stopped. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977).
Oh come on!
It's one thing to hold a trained officer to a higher standard than a random civilian.
It's quite another to treat the officer as a Jedi mind-master and the civilian as a totally mindless blob with no responsibility for his own actions.
It's more plausible to me that the cop screwed up, lost control of the situation, and panicked.
If the video shows you that the driver had an agenda to be "non-commpliant and resistant" while not recognizing that perhaps the alternative interpretation might have some validity, you've proved my point. You've assumed that the driver is exhibiting "criminal" tendencies (I can't find it now, but you used the "criminal" word somewhere up the thread). Then you toss up rhetorical arguments concerning what the original "question" was all about, and the fact that I "can't put out a rational analysis". I find it somewhat presumptuous of you to unilaterally determine that I can't put out a rational argument when some (admittedly not all) of yours are predicated on a perspective that you insist noone else can posssibly understand, since many of us are not in Law Enforcement.
The attitudes that other posters have been positing above about peope in the LE community seem to come to life in some of your posts. You mention your experience and the fact that you haven't "had a IIU [wtf is this?] complaint in 20 yrs" as the basis of your credibility, yet most of your arguments are based not on experience, but rather a suggestion that we "civilians" can't possible grasp the issues involved.
That's an argument that works two ways - while it might lend some credibiilty to your comments, it might also be perceived as evidence that you view the entire discussion as a confrontation similar to that on the road in Utah.
You and I are not arguing with potentially deadly force, but that officer was. You can make all the arguments you like that a Taser is less than deadly force, but I can see what it did to this driver (and to the guy in the Toronto airport a few weeks ago), and my opinion is that a Taser might not always be deadly, but it does represent a significant escalation of force beyond words. In the traffic stop in question, the driver had ony fired off words to the officer; however, must of the "LEGALLY justified" escalation that you keep coming back to (in your response to the "one true question") did involve significant force.
You say that you wouldn't have tasered this guy, and for that I must applaud your candor. But your immediate defense of "legally justified" strikes us civilians as splitting hairs. You need to understand that I didn't view you and I to be adversaries in this discussion, right up to the point where you tell me that I "can't put out a rational analysis." I never said I was making a rational analysis - I said (in effect) that "this is how I see it". I'm not trying to split hairs or talk about precedential justification - I'm trying to talk about what's right in the case of the traffic stop, and in the case of your apparent perspective about it.
Police officers always seem to feel that they are not appreciated, or that they public is against them - yet it is often the police officers who quickly jump to an adversarial stance. I didn't call you out - it was the other way around. You have apparently taken my comment regarding "giving you the right" as a personal affront, and it's your right to do so. But bear in mind that this is perhaps the crux of what I said at the beginning of this paragraph - you've made it a "you vs. me" situation almost immediately. Understand this - I am not telling you that you can't elect to consider that a personal attack; I am, however, suggesting that it buttresses some of what I've been saying earlier in this thread. I would have expected the same consideration for you when you say that I am immature. I suspect that I've got a sigificant number of years on you, and in professions and situations that you probably wouldn't immediately grasp. Nonetheless, I'e entitled to my opinions, and none of your continued confirmation of them is going to make me change my mind.
"Put your hands behind your back" would seem to cover all of those possible warnings, unless you're suggesting the officer should have tried variations on a theme to discover the magic one that the driver would respond to.
als: Utah is a lightly populated state whose residents are mostly well-behaved Mormons. It's not going to generate the volume of criminal caselaw that older, more populous, more free-wheeling states like NY or NJ have. There's a reason the Godfather was set in NY, and the Sopranos was set in NJ. But you're the law student; why not use your free Westlaw and Lexis accounts to research the issue, as a kindness to the group?
I'm confused why you don't think the cop's subjective beliefs are relevant to the objective question of reasonability. The question whether the totality of the circumstances justified the officers actions surely depends centrally on the officers on view of the situation.
Should the officer not himself have the appropriate state of mind (he shot someone on a whim) but happens to get luckly and the victim was displaying objective signs a more cautious officer might have noticed how does this not establish that the officers actions were objectively unreasonable? After all no competent officer believing as that officer did would have acted in the manner he did.
Sometimes people go free when they shouldn't. It's sort of a foundation of our legal system. It applies to cops who are accused of crimes, too.
My point being that all of the "I think...," "In my state...," "Assuming...," and "my police department's policy..." statements are rather useless clutter on the thread. How many hundreds of comments were made in Friday's thread debating (i) whether the guy had to sign the ticket, or (ii) whether the cop had the power to arrest him? Both of these are answerable questions, which ultimately were answered. There are questions of reasonableness, my own being that the guy was given mixed directions and had a weapon drawn on him 2 seconds! after a statement by the cop. These issues are debatable. But an awful lot of space is being wasted, and confusion generated, by issues with definitive answers, and totally irrelevant cites to authority.
The magic variation is "Simon says, 'Put your hands behind your back.'". Everyone knows this.
Because it was part of the Illinois Rules of the Road Handbook, I figured everyone knew how to behave when stopped by the police. This should be part of driver training and license testing in every state.
[dope slap] D'oh!
If you can think back to when you were a kid and playing ball, and someone said Duck!, your response was probably WTF? shortly before being pegged in the side of the head. That's pretty analgous. At 2:28, the cop says "Turn around..." At 2:30 he has a weapon drawn. The expected reaction from most people, i.e. that objectively reasonable person, if expecting to point something out to a cop, would be WTF? if a weapon is drawn on them within two seconds. As for the "warning," informing the arrestee that he is, indeed, under arrest is a requirement under Utah law. You know, that whole answering definitive questions thing...
Skyler. The officer was never a jerk. The driver was a belligerent jerk and caused the entire incident. Nothing untoward would have happened had the driver not been so belligerent. IMO the officer could have been a saint and nothing would have changed because the driver wanted an incident and would have kept pushing until he got one.
He and the officer deserved each other. IMO the officer decided both to arrest AND to tase the driver when Mr. Moron refused to sign the ticket. Bad intentions, though, matter little provided the officer’s conduct was reasonable.
whit – the officer violated one regulation, which made his conduct unreasonable enough that, in a civil case, summary judgment for the defense would highly likely be denied. That same regulation violation, though, tends to absolve the Utah State Police of liability – all it need do is show that the officer was adequately trained concerning that regulation. IMO there’d be a real good chance the USP could prevail on summary judgment.
And the officer’s one regulation violation would also adequately support a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an excessive force civil action, though it could easily go the other way too. I personally would find the officer liable for reasons I’ll explain, but even then I’d award the driver only one dollar in nominal damages, finding 99.99% contributory negligence. The wife is another story. And, if she’s not his wife, she’d get nothing, not to mention being dumped on summary judgment.
drewski &whit,
drewski has a point about this officer likely being a problem employee. whit, you should pay attention to this if you are still in the field. You’ve been talking about the officer’s conduct in this instance in isolation from his broader pattern of conduct. You’ve spent a career avoiding this kind of trouble. My experience here was concentrated on officer screwups and, now that I’m working for a court, I also review wrongful termination suits by officers.
This officer’s record is crucial to what happened and to retention decisions. Municipal, county and state risk managers are getting involved in LEO internal investigations. They are very, very aware that 5-10% of officers are responsible for more than half of all uses of force, and far, far more than half of claims for excessive force. Vehicle cameras of the sort this video was taken on are being used for personnel decisions.
IMO, based on my experience in thee matters, the odds are 10/1 or better that this officer’s personnel file shows a record of questionable uses of force. It is more likely than not that there is at least one civil claim, or even lawsuit, for excessive force by him.
whit has said that he’d at least send this officer to further training. That would be appropriate if he has a clean record. A less than clean record, coupled with his one violation of regulations, would merit discipline of a week’s suspension to get his attention, plus the retraining.
But he lied about his violation of the regulation to the other officers who came out. That was on the videotape and is a whole different matter. The crucial issue, which we do not know about, is whether the officer repeated the lie in his report, or to his superiors. If he did, he should be fired. There are two reasons for this.
First, and this is a state law issue, his lie might be something which must be (a) put in his personnel file and (b) disclosed to defense counsel in future prosecutions involving this officer as a witness. I’m not familiar with Utah criminal procedure. California law requires it. This is death to any prosecution in which that officer is a witness – his/her credibility would be gone.
Note that the Colorado church security guard who prevented the Sunday massacre had been fired from her Minneapolis police employment for lying during an internal investigation. It is likely that she was fired because Minnesota has a disclosure rule similar to California’s.
Second, lying during in a report, or to superiors, is a convenient excuse to get rid of problem officers. This is where the risk managers become involved. They are having increasingly greater influence on termination decisions concerning high-risk or problem officers.
And it’s not just a question of whether the problem officers, if retained, will proceed to acts creating greater and greater civil liability by their departments. They are a bad influence on other officers, particularly junior ones, and that increases their employers’ exposure too.
So if the arresting/tasing officer here has any record of excessive force, he should be suspended for a while. If he lied to his superiors about this incident, or in his report, AND he has a record of excessive force, he should be fired.
IMO he has the record (10/1 odds) and very likely lied about, or concealed, his regulation violation in either his routine report of the incident, or to his superiors afterwards. We don’t know about those, but my familiarity with patterns of police misconduct tells me both are likely here.
It doesn't matter whether a "specific statement" is required. Knowledge is required. The driver here obviously did not know he was under arrest.Police do not have any to give arbitrary "orders" to people in a non-police state. Nothing was being "obstructed."
Why is that? Shouldn't the intentions of the officer matter some amount? If the officer has an intent to taser this guy before he even pulls over the car, hypothetically, then escalates as quickly as he can to provoke a reaction to which he can respond with a taser, wouldn't you say this is a bit much?
Shouldn't the police be held to a standard that they should keep the peace rather than breach the peace except when necessary? Just because a cop CAN concoct a viable scenario for his use of force does not justify his use of force if it is not consistent with his actual intent for the use of force. If he just wanted to light the guy up for being a jerk, he's not justified in doing so just because he pulls a taser and starts yelling at him for no reason.
I'd remind everyone, that the Utah Highway Patrol has stated that no signature was required, no arrest required. Clearly the man was not a danger to anyone. It was an abuse of the officer's discretion to arrest him. The officer just wanted to be sure that the citizen was properly obsequeous to the police and he forced the situation.
A policeman who understands that he is a public SERVANT and not a jack boot would allow his better to proceed unless there is a reasonable danger. There was no danger at all in this situation. It's the wrong mindset our nation's police have.
Also, the reports say that he failed to report this incident on his written reports. How likely is it that the discharge of a taser was forgotten? He's a liar. He's a bully, and he will do it again because he can get away with it.
Next time you meet a cop, remember, he just might not like the cut of your jib. In this case the citizen was a bit foolish, but next time the cop just might think he's not fast enough. Or polite enough. What kind of standard is that for a free country?
well, like most govt. jobs - not a lot. cops don't get merit pay. assuming there is evidence that the cop is procedurally and tactically weak, the incentive is that he is mandated (consistent with his union's protection) to attend remedial training.
"If the cop is allowed by law to manipulate a citizen into non-complying, and can decide beforehand that he is going to taser a citizen that he thinks doesn't kiss his butt with sufficient artistry, then what's to stop him from doing that if he just really likes to taser people? "
neither of these assumptions are proven or even likely. he did not manipulate this guy into anything. the cop had mediocre communications skills, but based on my analysis (of hundreds of traffic stops), the cop didn't CAUSE this guy to act like a putz. that was his decision.
"I think Whit's defense of this use of force speaks volumes for the police frame of mind. The police think that if they commit an act that has any shade of justification, then it is beyond condemnation. Lawmen can be automatons that aren't required to use human interpersonal skills to size up a situation and react responsibly"
you have a problem with reading comprehension. i have said 1) *i* would not have tased the guy given that set of circumstances 2) i don't think the officer did a very good job on the stop
you can CONDEMN all you want. the issue was : was it REASONABLE force. 1 and 2 are irrelevant to whether that is true or not. do you understand the distinction?
"I'm not saying cops should unnecessarily risk death, but before using force they should have more reason than what we see here."
in your opinion. LEGALLY (is it justified) they don't. thems the facts.
"Citing some odd ball extreme case where some innocent-seeming encounter goes wrong does not justify an overreaction on 99.9999% of the rest of us."
except its not an overreaction. it is a legally justified (imo) use of force. but yes, if i made the erroneous assumptions you did, then the (false) conclusions you made might logically follow
in your opinion. what people here don't seem to understand is that whether or not it was good judgment to arrest person for crime X, ASSUMING that there is lawful basis TO arrest person for crime X, then its totally irrelevant as a matter of law, as to whether the force was legally justified.
period
personally, i love game theory and stuff like that. so, i think of these things differently than most cops.
regardless, your point is irrelevant.
police agencies can (and some do) discourage or even prphibit arrest for certain arrestable crimes.
i am aware for instance, that bellevue PD (prior to it being decriminalized) did JUST THAT in regards to the crime of refusing to sign a citation.
that's FINE
but given lawful authority, you can wank all you want that he SHOULD NOT have arrested the driver, but it's irrelevant to the force issue as to reasonableness.
That was not a practical hypothetical but a legal hypothetical. I was arguing that if you take those facts as stipulated it would not constitute an objectively reasonable use of force on account of the objective fact that was the officer's subjective belief (the belief is subjective the fact that he believed it is fully objective).
and as i explained, then if that's the case, the charge is "obstructive" . either way, when the subject intentionally refused to place his hands behind his back - he committed a crime.
"Police do not have any to give arbitrary "orders" to people in a non-police state. Nothing was being "obstructed"
you really don't understand this case law do you. i've testified in exactly these type of cases. guys get convicted.
let me explain it to you. cops have the authority to place people in handcuffs, for a # of reasons, and/or tell them to place their hands behind their back (such as for a pat frisk, etc.). that's not arbitrary. that's lawful authority. if you refuse to do so, you are violating the law. you may not like it, but that's the law.
you cannot refuse that order because YOU think it's "arbitrary." go ahead, try that defense.
*if* (and it's a big if), it was determined later IN COURT that the cop had no lawful authority to give you that order, THEN not only would you have a dismissal, you might have a nifty lawsuit. but that argument is to be made in court. a cop does not need to (although i may do verbally) give you a long dissertation in the field as to why you are lawfully required to put yer hands behind your back.
i probably, in a year, order people to place their hands behind their back (pursuant to either arrest or pat down) at least 250 days a year. less than 3% i'd estimate will refuse, and given further verbal persuasion, maybe only about 1.5% or so will STILL refuse. generally speaking - they go to jail for obstructing.
i dislike authority, and believe the most essential right is the right to be "left alone". it doesn't follow that cops have to justify to you, or anybody why you need to obey their lawful order. that comes later. in the field, given a on order by a police officer, you obey it.
great post, btw, but reading your post i am not sure which reg you are referring to
the main problem i have (and have seen in this thread) with laymen making their judgments is that most of them who reference tasers and make their analysis fail to understand that tasers are a LOW level of force in the use of force continuum.
yes, they are less lethal. so is a punch to the sternum or wrestling somebody to the ground.
what annoys me is that a huge percentage of posts relied on the clearly false assumption that tasers are a much higher level of force than they actually are.
you may not like it that tasers are roughly (depending on specific UOF policy) at the same level as pepperspray, but tha's the facts.
as i've repeatedly explained - gneerally speaking, if the cop was justified (legally) in spraying, he was justified in tasing.
and people constantly morph t he conclusions of LEGAL JUSTIFICATION vs. all the other irrelevant prattle as to his jerkiness (tm), lack of communications skills, that he supposedly just wanted to tase this guy, that he had bad judgment, bla bla.
that is NOT relevant as to legal justification. period. it's relevant to a # of other issues, but not justification.
The point I was trying to make was that the driver's hands were in the "extremely dangerous" position of being in/near his pockets for quite some time before the officer decided that he was a threat. The officer had a significant period of time to explain that if the driver did not sign he could be arrested, had plenty of time to warn the driver to remove his hands from his pockets and plenty of time to advise the driver that he was under arrest.
The officer did none of these things which argues against the claim that he tasered the driver because he posed a significant threat to the officer.
AKAIK, there is a USP/UHP regulation the persons be advised that non-compliance will result in being tased. Before being tased. This officer did not so advise Mr. Moron.
I agree with you that, if the officer's aiming a taser at our Darwin Award wanna-be, with the officer crouching and almost shouting with a high emotional content in his tone of voice, did not impart the same information as a verbal admonition, the verbal admonition would not have changed the outcome.
and was thus in violation of that regulation. that's crystal clear. thank you.
"I agree with you that, if the officer's aiming a taser at our Darwin Award wanna-be, with the officer crouching and almost shouting with a high emotional content in his tone of voice, did not impart the same information as a verbal admonition, the verbal admonition would not have changed the outcome"
yes. you could argue that he did the "functional equivalent." but if their reg said he must verbally advise him, etc. he's probably in violation. if it said 'advised" i guess it's a little murky, since clearly the guy could see the taser.
regardless, it shows poor tactics for the officer. the point of drawing the taser, in this circ was to be in a ready position IF the guy got aggressive, and to have it ready if it was needed.
i have said repeatedly and agree that he should have said words to the effect of "comply with my instructions, or i will taser you".
in some circs, there is no time (exigency) etc. to give a warning, but in this situation, it was clearly "doable" and should have been done
absolutely true.
" An officer should be required to use reasonably good judgment as well. That's my point."
well, yes. although how do you "require it". we screen people for judgment, etc. during hiring and training. at that point, its relatively easy to fire somebodhy for consistently using poor judgment.
" There should be liability when an officer goes out of his way to instigate an incident. I'm not saying that he did, I'm saying it's possible he did. I think a jury, if asked to do so, would be able to decide and should"
that's entirely too subjective a standard imo to be able to subject an officer (or a citizen) to any sort of punitive action in court or whatever. most agencies give officers rather broad discretion. iow, they don't tell them "don't arrest for misdemeanors X, Y, and Z. they are minor offenses".
if the legislature wants to decrim them that's their business.
i think it's very bad idea to have policy that you don't arrest for certain misdemeanors. i think it's good policy to hire people with excellent judgment because it pays off in the long run.
But they can say, if you needlessly zap a guy, you're wrong.
1) Hands on steering wheel with license and registration in hand.
2) Answer all questions with "yes sir", "no sir" and when asked "do you know why I stopped you? respond with "I don't know sir".
3) Be unfailingly polite but do not admit to anything.
4) Take ticket and call me.
I've been stopped twice. Did a slight variation.
1) handed over my driver's license.
2) Pulled my .45 on the officer.
I forgot, first I told him I had it in the glove compartment and asked if he would like to hold it. Then I pulled it out and cleared the chamber.
3) once said I didn't know, because I didn't, the other time conceded I was speeding.
4) In one case the officer asked my opinion of 1911 clones -- he was thinking about buying a 1911, and should he spend the extra money for a real Colt? Was mine reliable? Meanwhile motorists are passing an officer standing there with a guy holding a pistol in his hand as we discuss guns. In the other case he told me I could get a CCW permit really easily, just a training course and a modest fee, and then I wouldn't have to leave the gun in the car where it might get stolen, but could pack it concealed almost anywhere.
I like living in Tucson. I've never been stopped out in the county, but they tell me the deputies are more pro-gun than the city officers, so maybe they'd offer to buy it from me.
Holsinger said:
Bad intentions, though, matter little provided the officer’s conduct was reasonable.
Why is that?
Because the Supreme Court said so.
See above at 12.11.2007 12:49am.
I think we're getting some confusion here due a word having two different meanings: one an everyday commonsense menaing, the other a technical term-of-art meaning.
In everyday speech, if I'm condemning a behavior, I probably think it was unreasonable. By that definition, the cop in question may have been unreasonably incompetent.
In the technical terminology of the 4th amendment law, tort law, and departmental procedures that impact a police officer trying to figure out how he's supposed to be doing his job, "reasonable" means "not egregious enough that you're going to lose a lawsuit over it or get evidence thrown out of court." It is not necessarily the same as "up to departmental standards" which may be quite a bit higher.
Which is how Whit can say it's legally "reasonable" and "justified" and still such crappy police work as to justify management intervention.
Based on your analysis of hundreds of traffic stops, have you EVER caused anyone to act like a putz? If not, I question the neutrality of your analysis.
whit,
Based on your analysis of hundreds of traffic stops, have you EVER caused anyone to act like a putz? If not, I question the neutrality of your analysis.
I question your premise that a police officer "causes" a civilian's actions.