Good news: Cop tasers 72-year-old great-grandmother

2. There are those who have said, “well, he should have just let her sign the ticket when she said she would.” WRONG. She had that opportunity. Once she was ordered out of the vehicle, the officer had made up his mind he was going to arrest her. Once the decision is made by an officer and/or the “magic words” are said (you’re under arrest), the arrest is going to happen, regardless of what “bargaining” the subject wishes to do. This is one of the Golden Rules of police work – once an arrest is started, it will be finished.
That’s complete bull$hit. You write this like the cop is God, and once his words are uttered it’s game over. Slow down there fella. We have rights, that a good many men died fighting for. All of this nonsense about cops ordering citizenery as though they’re subjects is offending to anyone who believes in liberty. A 72 year old woman refused to sign a ticket, and this guy took her down like she was Pablo Escobar hauling crack across the border.

kkaneff79 on June 9, 2009 at 9:05 PM

>> That’s complete bull$hit.

No, it’s called “order.” It’s what polite society is based on – the maintaining of order.

>> You write this like the cop is God, and once his words are uttered it’s game over.

The police represent, again, order and the laws of the state and nation that have been voted upon by the public as the rules that we are all to abide by. So, when a cop says something, yes, it’s game over. Until court, that is, but that’s a whole other topic.

>>Slow down there fella. We have rights, that a good many men died fighting for. All of this nonsense about cops ordering citizenery as though they’re subjects is offending to anyone who believes in liberty.

The lady was not exercising any rights, she was merely being stubborn in the face of, again, the laws of the State of Texas.

Here’s a protip for you: When a cop tells you to do something, you do it. That’s, agaaain, “the law.” The time to debate is not then – it’s at court. If you opt to attempt a debate at roadside, you’re gonna lose that particular debate.

>> A 72 year old woman refused to sign a ticket, and this guy took her down like she was Pablo Escobar hauling crack across the border.

No, he didn’t, not by a long shot.

Please see my first, lengthy post in this thread for my qualifications on this matter.

Thank you, drive thru. . .

RedNewEnglander on June 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM

2. There are those who have said, “well, he should have just let her sign the ticket when she said she would.” WRONG. She had that opportunity. Once she was ordered out of the vehicle, the officer had made up his mind he was going to arrest her. Once the decision is made by an officer and/or the “magic words” are said (you’re under arrest), the arrest is going to happen, regardless of what “bargaining” the subject wishes to do. This is one of the Golden Rules of police work – once an arrest is started, it will be finished.
If that’s the Golden Rule of police work, then it’s no wonder why cops are finding their integrity under increasing scrutiny. That Golden Rule is needlessly argumentative, especially in connection with a traffic stop.

It also accomplished nothing here. It put the officer’s life in danger of oncoming traffic. It put the lady’s life in danger of the taser and the traffic. It resulted in a lawsuit, and a media circus.

How can it be that the incorrect decision would have been to let her sign the ticket? It seems obvious that defusing the situation would have been more appropriate and would have served everyone better: the lady, the police, etc.

A mindless rule that once a cop says a “magic word,” he has to proceed with blind efficiency toward that goal, is not what makes good policing. Good policing is a smart cop using his brain to obtain law abiding results with minimum of harm and with proper deference to common sense and the law.

You’ll have to do better than that, I’m afraid.

Sydney Carton on June 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM

>>If that’s the Golden Rule of police work, then it’s no wonder why cops are finding their integrity under increasing scrutiny. That Golden Rule is needlessly argumentative, especially in connection with a traffic stop.

Actually, that Golden Rule is anything *but* argumentative – there is no debate. Police represent the law and we all live under those laws. Without law, there is no order. Without order, there is no civilization. When the decision is made to arrest, the arrest WILL be made – that is the law.

>>It also accomplished nothing here. It put the officer’s life in danger of oncoming traffic. It put the lady’s life in danger of the taser and the traffic. It resulted in a lawsuit, and a media circus.

True, but remember – it’s the old lady’s *behavior* that led to all of this, not the law, not the officer’s actions.

>> How can it be that the incorrect decision would have been to let her sign the ticket? It seems obvious that defusing the situation would have been more appropriate and would have served everyone better: the lady, the police, etc.

You are correct in the whole “defusing” angle – that’s why I said in my first post in this thread I would likely have handled things differently at the outset. Still, once the officer has made the decision to arrest, there is no going back on it. Period.

>>A mindless rule that once a cop says a “magic word,” he has to proceed with blind efficiency toward that goal, is not what makes good policing.

Prior to that decision to arrest having been made your point is valid.

Again, you’re not reading the situation correctly. Once the decision has been made to arrest, the arrest MUST be made. That is why the law allows officers to use force, up to and including DEADLY force to affect and arrest on a subject. And once she was ordered out of the vehicle, that decision was made – no turning back.

>> Good policing is a smart cop using his brain to obtain law abiding results with minimum of harm and with proper deference to common sense and the law.

Up until the decision to arrest has been made. After that, you WILL comply. Period.

>> You’ll have to do better than that, I’m afraid.

I’ve made hundreds of arrests and thousands of vehicle stops in my career – those are the unique qualifications I bring to this debate. And you?

RedNewEnglander on June 9, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Here’s a protip for you: When a cop tells you to do something, you do it. That’s, agaaain, “the law.” The time to debate is not then – it’s at court. If you opt to attempt a debate at roadside, you’re gonna lose that particular debate.

RedNewEnglander on June 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM
When a cop tells you to do something, you do it? Here’s a trivia question for you: you’re pulled over for a speeding violation. The cop says to you: Open your truck, I want to search it.

Do you have a constitutional right to refuse?

I’ll state outright that I’m a practicing NYC attorney and I know the answer to this question, but you’re free to answer and I’ll explain whether you’re right or not.

Sydney Carton on June 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Well, you’re introducing a whole other scenario, aren’t you? But I’ll bite, counsel. ;)

In your scenario, which has nothing to do with the topic, you have the right to refuse a search.

Is it generally good practice for common citizens to “do what a cop tells you to do” as I’ve advised – yes, yes it is. Why? Because, unless you really do “know your rights” chances are, you’re going to get arrested for refusing to comply with what is more than likely going to be a lawful order from an officer. Ah, if I had a dime for every time someone told me “you can’t do that – I know my rights!!! WHARGARBLE!!11!11|”

Now, back on topic – how about *you* answer whether the old lady was right to resist the officer’s lawful orders or not, and I’ll tell *you* whether you’re right or not.

The remain on topic police are here! ;)

RedNewEnglander on June 9, 2009 at 9:49 PM