Audio car speakers targeted towards older customers tend to emphasize the treble range….

The patrolman stated that they’d been in the 40 MPH speed limit and that the sign they’d just passed was not the first sign stating it. I am guessing that, because of the temporary, flagged sign, it’s a construction zone? If so, that makes the speeding worse, and the guy is totally dense for thinking that he can’t get cited just because the officer is in front. Duh.

Granted, that begs the question, was the officer himself behaving within the law before he decided to make the stop? Perhaps it’s different in UT, but, here in NJ, had I been that driver, I could have retaliated by going to the local courthouse and writing the cop a citizens’ complaint for speeding. I’m extrapolating that the guy was following the cop who, until he swung right to video the speed sign, was speeding illegally, i.e. without siren or flashing lights. Either the cop has to admit guilt and pay, which surely creates headaches with his record at police human resources since he was uniformed and driving public property, or he has to go to trial to try for plea bargaining. As that’s far more likely given his above complication, he won’t want to testify against the citizen because he’ll incriminate himself, and the citizen will feel the same pressure against the cop. The state then has no witnesses who can testify for the charges, and the cases are dismissed.

Moments later, when another officer arrived, one of them said, “Oh, he took a ride with the Taser.”

I clearly see why the officer did what he had to once the driver was out of the car and the driver was clearly being a jerk and not helping matters with his attitude. Hopefully, this is situation both drivers and police officers can come away learning something from.

Even when I have been pulled over and don’t agree with officer, I give the officer my upmost respect and know he is in total control of the moment no matter what I do or say. It may not get you out of a ticket, but it helps if you want to take it to court to either plea it down with the DA or totally fight the ticket to find you innocent.

Suspension of the Constitution when it comes to DUI arrests?

How do you figure? … and which part of the Constitution are you suggesting is being violated if I arrest you for driving while intoxicated?

SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM

SilverStar, it must just be you and I and a few others who happened to notice the driver was attempting to go back into his vehicle with his hands in his pockets. That’s a BIG no-no on the job, last I checked.

You’re correct in your puzzlement about the question of the constitutionality of a DUI arrest. That’s like folks who get arrested for whatever, and they scream “YOU HAVE TO READ ME MY RIGHTS!” Um… no I don’t. Not unless I’m questioning you, you mope.

The driver has now gotten a lesson that he won’t soon forget, while the officer will probably need to seek alternate employment outside of law enforcement.

Ugh, what a mess.

The guy maybe was an asshat, but the cop didn’t have any reason to use that amount of force.

I wonder if with this even he was able to make his quota for the day?

Miranda rights are not essential to an arrest, they only preserve statements made as evidence after they are issued. A guy can be arrested and led away in cuffs and mirandized at the station before questioning.

A cop can detain a person with restraints prior to a formal arrest, if the officer perceives a threat to his safety or even a flight risk. I am not saying one existed here, but for sake of discussion, there ya go. Remember that OJ was cuffed and led around for hours and never arrested in the early hours of his drama.

It was clear, however, that the cop should have told the guy he was being arrested and why, or offered him the choice. He should also have warned him to submit or be tased, as he told the other cop he did.

The cop did not need to inform the guy what the ticket said and what he was being cited for, nor did he need to show him the radar gun. First, it is all on the ticket. And second, the guy freely admitted to doing 68, the only at issue thing was whether he was in a 40 mile zone or not, which is a court matter.

All the guys arguments were stupid, and the cops reactions over the top in haste.

Bottom line, this is a contest of dumb and dumber.

I’m sorry, but I gotta side with the trooper here….

Let the officer call the shots. They like that. Oh and don’t forget to thank him or her for only giving you a warning.
Adam on November 24, 2007 at 1:40 AM

And you should blow him. They’ll never shoot you if you’re blowing them.

/wisecrack stolen from Dennis Miller

regardless

I hope this lame excuse for a cop loses his job and get the crap sued out of him

If I were on the jury the “victim” wouldn’t get a dime. Contributory negligence. No you can’t have my license or registration, no I’m not going to turn around. MORON puts his hand in his pocket – did he think he was just going to drive away? There are consequences for being a moron in the vicinity of a control freak cop, regarless of who is more in the wrong.

What

peacenprosperity on November 24, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Well summmed up. Can it all be put to bed now, please?

This was never a debate (or should not have been), about the constitutional use of corporal force. No one on this thread has expressed the desire of tasers being taken away from the police. No one has debated the right of the police to use certain methods to control situations. No one has debated speed ordinances. No one has objected to the cop pulling over, what seems to be the unanimous perception, a spoiled little idiot.

The debate, from the other side is that this particular police officer, in this specific situation, allowed a routine action to spiral out of control until it was necessary for him to use corporal force. The other side is not even arguing whether he should have pulled the trigger, rather that his actions, unprofessional, immature and amatuerish, lead to and caused the moment when he had to decide whether to pull the trigger.

This was never a conservative versus liberal or conservative versus libertarian arguement. This should have always been from the the beginning a procedural and managerial debate.

This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two weevils.

thejackal on November 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Which is what you must always do in the Service.