Video: Bro tased
posted at 9:31 pm on November 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Starts slow but the initial demand for license and registration contains just enough ‘tude to make it worth watching in full. If you can’t be bothered, skip ahead to 2:00 or (-8:00 if you’re counting down) and see what happens when electricity is introduced into the mix of an ornery cop, a driver who doesn’t take him seriously, and his pregnant wife. The investigation’s already begun:
The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where “a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others,” Nigbur said.
Any threat of injury to the officer here?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Did you really use to be a cop? I would think you would know the answers to these questions…
It was a search incident to an arrest. One might argue over whether or not the arrest was valid or not… But nevertheless, cops have the ability to search the immediate vicinity of the person (this includes vehicles), even if they are handcuffed, after they have been arrested
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
If the vehicle were being impounded, then a search would be proper. But the vehicle was still in the possession of a rightful owner who did not consent to such search and who was not a suspect in any way, shape or fashion.
If you’re at your girlfriend’s house and I arrest you there, does this allow me to search that house? No. There’s no probable cause.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM
And you NEVER turn your back on someone you consider a threat.
Will,
BTW, the alleged “resisting” took place well outside of the vehicle. “Arms length” doesn’t apply to the car.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Nothing new to add, just wanted to be #700.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Yes for not signing the ticket, the driver was subject to arrest. The only chip on his shoulder was dealing with a member of the whiner generation.
He was an uncooperative driver who is refusing to comply, while having he hands near or in his pockets is a threat. In the old days he would have been shot.
I watched the news story. He claimed the police officer did not clock him before the 40mph sign. When the video clearly shows he was passing the sign when as he past the patrol car. Next, he clearly admitted to going 60 mph when the officer asked him. So unless the law of physics does not apply on that stretch of the highway, one cannot slow from 60+mph to 40mph in that distance without hitting the brakes really hard. His brake lights did not come on until he was well past the 40mph sign.
This is just another case of a generation that has never been held accountable for their behavior being faced with having to due just that.
As was clearly stated, this was not the time or place to fight your ticket. It’s the officer’s responsibility to maintain control of the situation - not the drivers.
I could go on, but why.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense - comply or get tasered. Or did you not read your driver handbook. Law abiding - my Ass. I won’t be surprised to see you on the next taser video.
Zaire67 on November 23, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Da, Komrade. Beautiful.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Sorry, man, you are simply wrong. The guy was placed under arrest. End of the story. The guy doesn’t have to give his consent for the officer to search the area within his “immediate control” once he has been placed under arrest by the officer. Your comparison to my girlfriend’s house is also wrong. There always has been an understanding in the legal system that there is a lesser expectation of privacy in a person’s car then in a person’s home. Perhaps you’ve heard of the so-called “automobile exception”? C’mon, you weren’t really a cop, were you? I’ve got the Georgetown Law Journal 2006 annual review of criminal procedure right in front of me: “Searches of vehicles are allowed under the ‘immediate control’ doctine even when the vehicle occupant has exited the car.” See Thornton v. U.S., U.S. v. orozco-Castillo, etc., etc…See especialy U.S. v. Osife “search of vehicle upheld as incident to arrest, though suspect was handcuffed in police car, because suspect had recently occupied and stood next to vehicle.”
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM
one of my best friends growing up was named Jared Massey… kinda looks like him… hope you’re ok J-Rod! don’t let the man keep you down.
Kaptain Amerika on November 23, 2007 at 1:42 PM
It is unlikely(due to my amazing fitness), but for all I know, getting tazed could kill me, cardiac arrest, busted blood vessel in my brain,etc. I really want to avoid being tased, or even peppersprayed, or shot, or slammed on the pavement with a uniformed knee between my shoulderblades. So if I am stopped for any traffic infraction I respectfully comply with any instruction, after stating how grateful I am for the job they do.
Consider it a jedi mind trick(these aren’t the droids your looking for) kissing*ss, or whatever. Demonstrate your superior intellect by not making the situation worse, maybe it is a easy win in court for you, maybe the cop will be suspended or fired in due time, but the dumb*ss drivers attitude got himself tased and arrested, instead of going along his merry way signed ticket in hand(he is the ultimate loser, being the one who must use static cling gaurd instead of deodorant for the next year).
Deal with the police mistake(if there even is one) in court.
christophercube on November 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM
It wasn’t in his immediate control when he was placed under arrest. In fact, he wasn’t placed under arrest until he was tased.
OK:
Say hello to probable cause. And to Justice Rehnquist:
In U.S. v. Orozco-Castillo, the vehicle was impounded. See above.
See Chimel v. California, cited thusly in Osife:
Neither are concerns here. And actually, the best case for your argument is New York v. Belton.
Right, I’m lying to you on the internet for my entertainment. Either that or I was, 86-89. You figure it out.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM
You know.. the more I watch this the more I change my mind about the officers actions. I can’t support this tasing. What I can support is the officer holding the driver down, farting on his head, giving him an atomic super wedgie, then tasing him.
GoodBoy on November 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Two questions:
1. What is the longest HotAir thread? This one must be close.
2. Anyone remember this song? Seems appropriate here.
windbag on November 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
One more reason not to visit Utah.
Still, the tased bro was an a$$hole.
This is a matter of choosing the lesser of two weevils.
thejackal on November 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Not quite, Pablo. The officer told him to turn around and put his hand behind his back, twice (obviously “seizing” him–placing him under arrest). He then tasered him. At this point he has the legal right to search within in his immediate control, which includes his vehicle…you should know this, as you quoted Osife. As Osife states, it doesn’t matter whether or not the person was handcuffed, the logic being that the person could escape and thereby retrieve a weapon from the car/immediate vicinity. Plus, you don’t use evidence found during the search to establish probable cause, that would be going backwards… Just because the officer didn’t find contraband doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to conduct the search (as long as it not unreasonably intrusive).
I’m merely suggesting that once an officer (any officer) makes a valid arrest, he has the right to search the vehicle, even if the person handcuffed. The vehicle does not have to be impounded in order to do so. So you would agree that this is the general legal principle, it just doesn’t apply in this case, because the officer didn’t have probable cause to arrest this guy? I’m actually starting to come around to your side…
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
For Sale:
One Dead Horse. Comes with stick for beating.
Call 1-800-555-TASE
Please see our Ebay ads.
GoodBoy on November 23, 2007 at 2:43 PM
He’s going to escape from the handcuffs in the back seat of the car with two cops on scene? Uh, no.
Osife seems to go against the grain of Chimel. The fiction that the officers can be in any sort of danger from what might be in a vehicle while the owner is cuffed in the back of the cop car makes about as much sense as Kelo.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Legally, I think the cop had the right to place the kid under arrest for refusing to sign the ticket, or he could have just written “refused to sign” on the ticket and let him go.
Legally, I think the cop had the right to taser the kid for backing away after being ordered to put his hand hands behind his back.
Legally, I think the cop had the right to search the vehicle as incident to the arrest. He is in the process of arresting the kid and the kid’s wife might grab a gun to spring her husband.
However, the cop should be kicked off the force and he doesn’t deserve to wear a shield, because he created this situation with his short temper, his ego, and his failure to communicate clearly. Idiots like this can get innocent people killed.
The cop, if he is allowed to remain one, should have the following phrases tattooed to his forehead:
“Signing this ticket is not an admission of guilt”
“If you refuse to sign, I can arrest you.”
“You’re under arrest”
“I know you are but what am I.”
Saying any of these things before whipping out the taser would have avoided this whole incident.
tommylotto on November 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Let’s not get too carried away with a comparison to Kelo… But seriously, that’s the legal precedent…argue with the courts all you like, but if the officer had made a valid arrest, he would’ve been well within his authority to make a reasonable search of the vehicle.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM
If you’re going to split hairs, split the right hairs. The state does not have rights, they have powers. Only citizens have rights.
HerrMorgenholz on November 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Yea, although I did correct that in 3:08 (I said authority, instead of “rights”) It was a careless slip, but the argument still stands…All law is about spliting hairs…sorry, buddy.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I’d say the office went too far. It really worries me that we , as a society, would condone this level of violence for a traffic violation. Let him go, and let the judge deal with him when he gets to court.
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 3:33 PM
That cop is going to be pwned by the driver of that SUV.
That’s quite the story the arresting cop gives to the back up officer at the end of the video. Almost sounded like the driver may not have “had” to sign zee paperz. Notice how he completely leaves out the part where he told the driver to get out of the car and conveniently adds that he “warned” the driver about getting tazed. The cop is a complete scumbag.
MrC_5150 on November 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Which is what you must always do in the Service.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Well,,, I watched this several more times. The cop told him to get out of the car which he did. The cop then lost it when the guy walked over to the cruiser and told him to “turn around” the man then DID TURN AROUND and walked away from the cruiser! The cop just kept yelling “turn around” and then just shot him! He was in the process of complying when shot. His order was confusing and this cop should be fired! How could this cop ever be trusted in a real crisis!
JellyToast on November 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM
What was it the school boy was fumbling with in his pocket
When the trooper tazed him?
Looked like he had a wadded up baggie.
Beto Ochoa on November 23, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Romeo13, you’re clueless on this subject to comment. What have you been arrested for in the past that gives you such a bad opinion of cops? Must have been a real hum-dinger.
MsUnderestimated on November 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Cops have dangerous jobs, so they have to react and so so fast or they can be dead when faced with the wrong people. That may seem kinda rough to those of us who are rarely if ever faced with dangerous situations, but that’s the way it is.
Aylios on November 24, 2007 at 1:26 AM
I don’t know if this is a record for HA, but as someone who was in on the beginning of this thread, it is amazing that it still continues. Way back when I tried to get big flacid
dog and bomb thrower doctor to get off of the constitutional rag and realize that this is all about an isolated incident and the individual behaviour of two people. It has never been argued, by those who are offended by the officers behavior, that the driver was right in any way. He appears to be a little spoiled piss ant with out enough intelligence to keep himself out of trouble. My personal guess is that this guy got his butt kicked regularly in middle school.
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.
peacenprosperity on November 24, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Handy dandy tip for when you are pulled over…when you see those lights and know the officer is coming for you, respond in kind by turning on you hazards. When you find a safe place to pull over, turn on your interior lights, and roll down all of your windows so they can clearly see everything going on in the car when they approach. Never immediately reach for the glove box for your documents. The officer sees you and has no idea what you are going for. Gun, proof of insurance, whatever…Keep your hands on the wheel in plain view. Some people think that its good to get out, to show a submissive posture. DON’T. Wait for the officer to ask you to get out. Jumping out of the car (with good intentions) can make you seem aggressive. 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
Well summmed up. Can it all be put to bed now, please?
Frozen Tex on November 24, 2007 at 1:43 AM
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
Shay on November 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Oops I don’t know what I did wrong with the /blockquote but the first sentence was a quote, the rest wasn’t.
regardless
Shay on November 24, 2007 at 9:45 AM
What would a cop have done in this situation before tasers? Would he have been justified in using deadly force?
Hell no! There will always be asshats out there that police have to deal with, but should a taser be used whenever some jerk gets a little mouthy?
drewas on November 24, 2007 at 11:13 AM
And you should blow him. They’ll never shoot you if you’re blowing them.
/wisecrack stolen from Dennis Miller
Pablo on November 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM
What we have here is …
abinitioadinfinitum on November 24, 2007 at 5:59 PM
This policeofficer going to get 10 years in prison, anything less is a misjustice
EricPWJohnson on November 24, 2007 at 10:01 PM
a couple things:
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.
Karl on November 25, 2007 at 4:45 AM
What the point is the sign? There doesn’t seem any need for a 40mph sign. Seems like it is being used for a BS speed trap (think of a tax hike for DPS’s budget) If there wasn’t multiple signs, then this cop pulled him over way too soon.
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?
Tim Burton on November 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Is there ANY statutes broken by the refusal to sign a speeding ticket in any of the 50 states? I’m glad the whole thing was caught on video (to protect both sides), but I really wished that cooler heads were present at the time of the incident.
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.
itzWicks on November 25, 2007 at 11:29 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.
MsUnderestimated on December 1, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Thanks for the responses back from Nov. 23. This clearly seems to be a contintious and divisive issue for some. I defer to the investigation’s conclusions on this, but personally still thought the officer could have done a better job of informing the driver of his options for not signing before telling him to get out of the car and the matter escalated. His statement to the other trooper didn’t help matters much either:
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.
Planet Boulder on December 3, 2007 at 9:55 AM
The patrolman doesn’t even strike me as ornery at first; he even says “Hi, how ya doing?” before saying “Y’er going too fast.” He pales in comparison to the aggressiveness of the Austin, TX example. The cop perhaps should have explained that a signature is not an admission of guilt, blah, blah, blah, but, by that time, the jerk nature of the driver had already been established. I’d say, all in all, taxpayer money was well spent on this guy’s room and board.
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.
flutejpl on December 3, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]