# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Cop tasers man who refuses to sign speeding ticket

## Coop77

See the video at: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc


Utah Cop's Itchy Taser Finger Probed

Nov. 21, 2007 

A dashboard camera video posted on YouTube less than 24 hours ago showing a Utah Highway Patrol officer firing a Taser at a driver he stopped for speeding has prompted authorities there to expedite an internal investigation into the incident.

"We've known about the incident since it occurred," Cameron Roden, a spokesman for the Utah Highway Patrol, told ABC News. "But with it coming out on the Internet, we're trying to move the investigation along."

Jared Massey, 28, posted the nearly 10-minute long clip on YouTube two months after the confrontation with police took place along a rural stretch on a state road two hours east of Salt Lake City.

In it, John Gardner, the officer, is shown on his own dashboard camera as he approaches Massey's SUV and tells him that he pulled him over for speeding in a 40 mph zone.

Massey and the officer have a brief dispute over speed limit signage before Gardner returns to his cruiser to write the ticket. He then approaches Massey and the two again engage in a dispute, with Massey claiming Gardner stopped him "blind" -- without a radar gun -- and that he had not yet passed a sign where the speed limit on the road dips to 40 miles per hour.

Gardner tells Massey that he's going to sign the citation, a demand Massey refuses before the officer asks him to exit the vehicle.

The video shows Gardner walking back to his cruiser to place the citation on his bumper as Massey gets out of the car and points toward the spot where Gardner saw him speeding.

In less than six seconds after asking Massey to get out of the car, Gardner has told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back and pulled out his Taser, a device that fires tiny, tethered cartridges that transmit electrical currents to shock an intended target.

Gardner tells Massey two more times to turn around and put his hands behind his back, to which Massey responds, "What the hell's wrong with you?" and walks back toward his vehicle. At that point, Gardner fires the Taser, stunning Massey, who drops to the road.

Massey's pregnant wife, Lauren, then jumps hysterically from the SUV's passenger door, objecting to the officer's use of his Taser. Gardner then handcuffs Massey, telling him that he is arresting him for not following his requests.

"You know what, you should have followed my instructions," Gardner tells Massey as he lies handcuffed on the road.

Gardner then tells Massey's wife the same thing, as she repeatedly tells him, "You had no right to Taser him."

When he threatens to arrest her if she doesn't stay in the car, Massey, who has since stood up, tells Gardner, "Officer, you got a little excited."

Massey then asks repeatedly to have his rights read to him after being told that he's going to jail. At one point, Gardner says, apparently to another officer, "Oh, he took a ride with the Taser, pretty painful, heh?"

At the tail end of the clip, which has generated hundreds of comments and been viewed nearly 25,000 times in the first 24 hours after it was posted, a second officer arrives on the scene and Gardner explains the incident to him. "He was completely in charge," he said, describing Massey's behavior.

"I said, 'Hop out, put your hands behind your back.' He didn't do it," Gardner told his colleague. "I said, 'Put your hands behind your back.'" When Massey refused to follow his order, Gardner continued, "I said no, I'm not playing that game, pull out the Taser, 'Turn around, right now, or I'll Taser you.'" The colleague responded, "Good for you."

Massey filed a complaint with a local patrol office, according to Roden, the Utah Highway Patrol spokesman. Gardner has not been reprimanded for the incident and, Roden said, has not been disciplined for incidents in the past.

The department has a nine-page Taser policy, Roden said, and this is an incident that will be taken "very seriously."

In the video, before Gardner takes her husband to jail, he tells Massey's wife, "It didn't have to go this way, but it did."

Now that decision will be made by the state's public safety internal affairs officers. 

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3899692&page=1

----------


## Coop77

This totally pisses me off. Just because tasers are "less lethal" doesn't mean they can just taser whoever, whenever they want, like it's a water gun. 

In my opinion tasers should only be used by an officer in self defense, when he would otherwise use a gun or billy club. Not used as a threat device - "behave or I'll taser you!"

----------


## Mealticket

judgement call....if i was the cop i might have waited a little longer to taser but it kind of look like the guy was back to the drevers door

----------


## thegodfather

The officer obviously did not have a radar gun in his vehicle, which is why he was unable to tell the driver how fast he was going. This traffic ticket would have never held up in court without a calibrated radar gun printing out a speed report. Additionally, you never SIGN anything just because someone tells you to, or threatens to taze you if you dont. That is called signing under duress, which as far as I know makes anything that you sign under such conditions completely void. 

We have so many problems in this country right now, yet we are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into officers policing our roads like the Nazi Secret Police. While there are people selling crack on street corners, Officer Dickhead is pulling someone over for speeding on a desolate Utah road in the middle of the desert. Not to mention, these are OUR roads, we pay for them with our tax dollars. 

The government should fear the people, not the other way around....

What a step in the direction of a police state. And we're missing the biggest picture here, Tazers were incorporated into Law Enforcement as a *LESS THAN LETHAL* option. Tazers are not, and I ****ing repeat for anyone stupid enough to argue with this, they are NOT NON-LETHAL!!!! They were originally meant to disarm dangerous suspects, you know, people who are wielding knives or other weapons, that if they charged an officer would otherwise be shot with a real gun. Instead, the tazer can disarm them safely, which a REDUCED risk of death. People can still be killed by Tazers, they have the chance to cause abnormal heart rhythms leading to death.

----------


## Red Ketchup

> "We've known about the incident since it occurred," Cameron Roden, a spokesman for the Utah Highway Patrol, told ABC News. "But with it coming out on the Internet, we're trying to move the investigation along."


A nice way to say: "we were going to burry this one but since the video is out in public we have to pretend like we're doing something about it".

Got to love power happy cops... 

Red

----------


## MeanMachine2000

> People can still be killed by Tazers, they have the chance to cause abnormal heart rhythms leading to death.


I don't know if you guys in the States heard but a Polish man was recently killed in the Vancouver Airport by being taserd by the police. It is causing huge contravercy over the use of these "Less-Lethal" weapons. Personally I think that power tripping cop was way out of line.

----------


## football2007

It seems like I hear these stories of cops using tasers when it is completely unnecessary almost every few weeks...

----------


## Coop77

> It seems like I hear these stories of cops using tasers when it is completely unnecessary almost every few weeks...


It seems to have become an easy first resort for them.

----------


## Coop77

> The officer obviously did not have a radar gun in his vehicle, which is why he was unable to tell the driver how fast he was going. This traffic ticket would have never held up in court without a calibrated radar gun printing out a speed report.


Unfortunately that kind of bs does hold up. Local judges in local traffic courts, especially in little towns, are just as corrupt as the cops. I was given a speeding ticket in a little Texas town because the cop said he was going the speed limit behind me and I "pulled away from him." Giving out-of-towners tickets is a big source of revenue for a lot of little towns.

----------


## Teabagger

I haven't watched the video but I agree the use of the Taser has gotten out of hand. It is seen by many as the first option to use in controlling someone. The trooper was wrong...you don't have to sign the ticket to make it "legal", and by signing you are not admitting guilt...you're only acknowledging you have received a summoms to appear in court on a particular time and date. If you refuse to sign and take the ticket...oh well..if you don't show up when you're supposed to then the judge issues a bench warrant for you're arrest, and then you WILL go to jail.

But tasers are used way too often, either by scared cops, power hungry cops, or pussies. You wouldn't use OC spray or use a baton on someone that didn't sign their ticket...you shouldn't use a taser.

----------


## AandF6969

I'd sue the shit out of them

----------


## DSM4Life

I got pulled over a month ago and when the officer asked me if i was signing the ticket i said "hell no." He looked at me like i had 3 heads then threw theticket in my lap  :LOL:

----------


## Fat Guy

I am going play devils advocate on this one and I know its not going to win me any AR popularity contest.  :Icon Picknose:  However, cops have a tough job and when you are going blind into a situation and you have a noncompliant argumentative person then what is that cop to do? 

The cop told the guy to put his hands behind his back 3 times and the guy did not comply (not to mention the guy had his hand on his pocket the whole time which makes cops nervous :EEK!: ) so the cop being afraid for his own safety Tased the guy. I think the title is misleading in that the man got tased for not signing the ticket but rather he got tased for not following the instructions of the officer. 

However, I do believe the officer was not clear and did not give the guy clear instructions when he asked the guy to step out of the car. If the police officer wanted the guy to step out of the car and put his hands behind his back or to stand in one spot then the cop should have clearly stated that before the guy got out of the car. 

I can understand both positions in this video. I understand the cops position of going into an unknown situation where therere people who wish for your demise and having a high anxiety about it.  :Don't know:  Also, I understand the guy who got tased in that he felt his rights were violated, but I dont think the side of the road is any place to argue about it. 

I think the thing I can pull away from this video is that when a cop pulls a taser on me it is in my best interest to follow directions.  :1jail: 

IMHO

----------


## Joe Champagne

No doubt Mr. Massey should have stopped his motion. Question. What did police officers do before tasers? The system worked only they did not use electricity to torture their subjects. I strongly object to use of tasers in situations such as John Gardner encountered. As always there are officers that will cross the line then rely on their back slapping, laugh- around -the -coffee -table comrades to congratulate them for being a tough guy. Enough of the torture, insist police do their jobs and enough of the tasers. Enough. I am sure the man from Poland tasered in Vancouver would agree, if he were alive.

----------


## Amorphic

theres been lots of controversy over tasers lately. A lot of officers do not understand the life threatening consequences of using tasers free will.

Last week a polish man was killed in Vancouver airport, he was tasered by an officer because he was holding a stapler and was misunderstood as he yelled "help" in polish to the people around him.

Cops need better training on the severity of danger in using tasers

----------


## Diamonite

give me a ****ing break. all these cops lately need to go back to the academy and rethink all this taser shit. an unarmed civilian who wouldn't sign a ****ing speeding ticket and in front of his wife and kid gets tasered. i would have been less pissed off if that retarted pig just tackled the man and cuffed him. but seriously. way to fold under pressure. just like the taser incident in the city vancouver british columbia. where the man died. and he was just a traveler who couldn't speak english and was frustrated after being held at the airport for over 10 hours. 

****ing ridiculous. i hope the next time they hold new taser seminars all these "police officers" drop dead. cheerz.


p.s. after reading some posts above. an experienced officer would wait until the man did his little spiel. then arrested him. getting so hot headed isn't the answer.

----------


## DSM4Life

> I am going play devils advocate on this one and I know its not going to win me any AR popularity contest.  However, cops have a tough job and when you are going blind into a situation and you have a noncompliant argumentative person then what is that cop to do? 
> 
> The cop told the guy to put his hands behind his back 3 times and the guy did not comply (not to mention the guy had his hand on his pocket the whole time which makes cops nervous) so the cop being afraid for his own safety Tased the guy. I think the title is misleading in that the man got tased for not signing the ticket but rather he got tased for not following the instructions of the officer. 
> 
> However, I do believe the officer was not clear and did not give the guy clear instructions when he asked the guy to step out of the car. If the police officer wanted the guy to step out of the car and put his hands behind his back or to stand in one spot then the cop should have clearly stated that before the guy got out of the car. 
> 
> I can understand both positions in this video. I understand the cops position of going into an unknown situation where therere people who wish for your demise and having a high anxiety about it.  Also, I understand the guy who got tased in that he felt his rights were violated, but I dont think the side of the road is any place to argue about it. 
> 
> I think the thing I can pull away from this video is that when a cop pulls a taser on me it is in my best interest to follow directions. 
> ...


I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.

When it comes down to it, i think the officer was wrong but at the same time the man once out of the car should have complied 100%.

----------


## Coop77

> I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.


He asked the guy to get out of the car so he could cuff the guy, probably. When you try to exercise your rights at the scene they usually bust you for something else. Refusal to take a breath-alcohol test, refusal to consent to a search of the vehicle, etc.. all usually result in them taking you in.

----------


## AandF6969

> He asked the guy to get out of the car so he could cuff the guy, probably. When you try to exercise your rights at the scene they usually bust you for something else. Refusal to take a breath-alcohol test, refusal to consent to a search of the vehicle, etc.. all usually result in them taking you in.


How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?

----------


## thegodfather

> How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?


You dont...people have no idea what they are talking about...everyone is a curbside attorney... If you do not consent to a search, they call the dogs...Then, the dogs have to alert to something in order to give them probable cause. I have heard RUMORS of them giving the dogs commands in German which causes them to false alert, therefore giving probable cause. However, if they search the vehicle and find nothing there are no grounds for arrest. Despite what people think, they cannot "go get a search warrant and come back to search your car..." Because, not consenting to a search does not constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause by which a judge would issue a warrant. They need some concrete tangible reason to perform a search of the vehicle, all minor traffic violations does not constitute probable cause. 

The instances where officers will search the inside of the vehicle without a warrant, is for their safety. They are allowed to search in places where you could concievably access a weapon. This is why locked containers such as your glove box, your trunk, and any locked containers within the vehicle are off limits to a search of the vehicle for officer safety. It is not concievable that you would be able to access weapons quickly enough by unlocking these compartments, before the officer blew your brains out.

----------


## AandF6969

So many people are unaware of the fact that you have to CONSENT to a search for an officer to enter your vehicle... and a lot of times they'll try to trick you like "You don't mind if I take a look around in your car, do you?" or if you get out of the car and leave the door open they'll sit down while saying that... but NEVER EVER consent to a search. Say "Sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle and will not waive my 4th amendment rights." Even if you don't have any contraband in the car, fukk em. Bring their power trip down a notch.

----------


## Coop77

> How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?





> You dont...people have no idea what they are talking about...everyone is a curbside attorney... If you do not consent to a search, they call the dogs...Then, the dogs have to alert to something in order to give them probable cause.


What I meant was if you don't roll over and consent, you'll piss them off, and they'll *find* some reason to take you in / give you a hard time. Try it. They're not going to say "I can't search? Ok sir, you have a nice day then." 

A lot of guys become cops because they have some kind of small-penis inferiority complex and want to show people who's boss. Basically they just like to push people around.

----------


## buffgator

> I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.
> 
> *When it comes down to it, i think the officer was wrong but at the same time the man once out of the car should have complied 100%.*


*
*
I think both where out of line and need a swift kick to the balls. The cop was not very proffesional, but seriously if a cop asks you a couple times to put your hands behind your back, and you attempt to walk away instead, than your an idiot.

----------


## buffgator

oh yeah...and I have never heard people bitch and moan and groan when the help of an officer goes there way, only when it does not.

----------


## sooners04

In most states including the one I live in. If you refuse to sign a citation you can and will be arrested for refusal to sign. The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match. I see no other option here. Sign the ticket and challenge it in court if you wish. I don't know about other departments, but our police department cannot "print out" a speeding report. Officers are also certified to visually estimate speed and can write tickets based off that.

----------


## Amorphic

> In most states including the one I live in. If you refuse to sign a citation you can and will be arrested for refusal to sign. The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match. I see no other option here. Sign the ticket and challenge it in court if you wish. I don't know about other departments, but our police department cannot "print out" a speeding report. *Officers are also certified to visually estimate speed and can write tickets based off that.*


 thats retarded

----------


## sooners04

Its a fact, sorry.

----------


## DSM4Life

> thats retarded


That is BS but its true.

----------


## qualityclrk1

using the taser for anything except self defense is unacceptable....they can't use their stix or other weapons w/out it being for self defense...imagine if the cop would have shot pepper spray in his eyes- that'd be a huge deal...the cops are not there to issue out punishment...the taser to me- is a form of punishment....if the judge sentences him to a shot from a taser lol then thats a whole different fight....Just the other day around where i'm from..there was an older man who was in his prison cell and he was feeling sick and refused to get out of bed in the morning, so the guards came up, and tased him as he laid in bed....and it killed him!!! the man hadn't been to trial yet for the reason he was even locked up!

----------


## Coop77

> The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match.


There's a lot more chance of someone getting seriously hurt from being tased than from being wrestled to the ground. Did you see how he fell straight back on the pavement? That's no joke. People die all the time from those things.

----------


## sooners04

So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions? Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.

----------


## thegodfather

> So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions? Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.


Tasers are a less than lethal option for police officers to use IN LIEU OF shooting them with their firearm. They are to be used when a suspect is potentially threatening the LIFE of the officer. They are not to be used after giving a person a verbal instruction two times, and immediately escalating the situation to force. Again, these are not NON-LETHAL means of force, there are very dangerous risks to using these things. I find it disturbing how people in this thread are justifying and advocating a means of torture against otherwise law obedient citizens. 

Again, these devices were intended for suspects who pose a serious threat to an officers life, and as an option to using lethal force on the suspect to save the suspects life. It is not a first line of defense, or at least it was not intended to be, it seems that law enforcement has seriously lost site of this. The police are there to serve the people.

----------


## Coop77

> *So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions?* Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.


Uh.. yeah, he does have to take that chance. That's the job he signed up for. You could make the same argument for him pulling his gun and shooting the guy for not obeying. Tasers, batons, guns, pepper spray - they all should be used for defense only. That guy did not attack the officer.

----------


## sooners04

Shooting the guy would not be justified as that was not a deadly force situation. This suspect committed a crime and did not obey a lawful order from a peace officer. Your suggesting that a physical fight would be more reasonable than using a tool that immobilizes the suspect so the officer can arrest him for BREAKING THE LAW. I think thats almost hypocritical, because if the officer did that and he had to really hurt the guy just to get handcuffs on him, then you would be pissed at that. So it seems its a lose lose for the officer here and I can show you MANY videos of officer getting there ass kicked and even killed from physical confrontations and the use of a taser would have saved their lives. Waiting until the suspect attacked him would be too late and the officer would then not be able to use the other tools, thats like an MMA fighter saying he can't fight until he has been punched square in the face first, LOL!!

----------


## Coop77

> Shooting the guy would not be justified as that was not a deadly force situation.


People die from tasers all the time, just like they die from being shot. Tasers are called _less lethal_ by the manufacturer, not _non lethal_. Thus the officer did use potentially deadly force. 




> Your suggesting that a physical fight would be more reasonable than using a tool that immobilizes the suspect so the officer can arrest him for BREAKING THE LAW.


An officer putting his hands on someone to arrest them is not necessarily a "fight." If the guy had been threatening, or attacked the officer, the taser would be appropriate. The guy had his back to the officer for %#$'s sake. 
Should they just tase everyone routinely before putting handcuffs on, just as a precaution in case they might resist?

----------


## DSM4Life

> People die from tasers all the time, just like they die from being shot. Tasers are called _less lethal_ by the manufacturer, not _non lethal_. Thus the officer did use potentially deadly force.


People also have died from drinking too much water so should we ban water? 
You cant take the very small percentage of people that have a reaction to the taser and ban it. 

Also comparing tasing to a gun is just dumb. I'd rather be tased any day of the week then shot.




> An officer putting his hands on someone to arrest them is not necessarily a "fight." If the guy had been threatening, or attacked the officer, the taser would be appropriate. The guy had his back to the officer for %#$'s sake. 
> Should they just tase everyone routinely before putting handcuffs on, just as a precaution in case they might resist?


Its considered resisting arrest if you do not comply with an officer. An office is then allowed to use force. 

You ever see the taser being used on a suspect fleeing from officers? I have. So are you going to tell me that running from the cops is considered "threatening?"

----------


## sooners04

One thing you have to understand about police work is there is something called the force continuum. The force continuum is what we as police officers used to deal with suspects. It is the basis for all the decision we make or dont make. It looks like this:
1: Officer's Presence:

2: Dialogue:

3: Taser or Pepper Spray:

4: Hands on ,or Physical Control:

5: Intermediate Weapon, ( night stick,ASP):

6: Lethal Force: 

It is upheld by the supreme court that an officer can use one step above the suspects actions. 
Ex: The suspect was not responding to the officer's dialogue (verbal commands) so the officer takes it to the next level, but cannot skip a level unless the suspect takes his or her actions to the next level. The next level was the spray or taser, then if the suspect gets physical, the baton can be used, then if the suspect has a weapon, then deadly force can be used. You keep arguing, but I would like to know what you would have done in this situaiton if you were the cop. Remember, this guy is under arrest, how would YOU handle it?

----------


## DSM4Life

> One thing you have to understand about police work is there is something called the force continuum. The force continuum is what we as police officers used to deal with suspects. It is the basis for all the decision we make or dont make. It looks like this:
> 1: Officer's Presence:
> 
> 2: Dialogue:
> 
> 3: Taser or Pepper Spray:
> 
> 4: Hands on ,or Physical Control:
> 
> ...



Good post and i agree 100%

----------


## sooners04

Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil. That what judges are for.

----------


## DSM4Life

> Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. *Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil*. That what judges are for.


You think this would be common sense

----------


## buffgator

I have an idea for all you anti taser people who say put hands on. You guys wrestle on the side of a highway with trucks and cars whipping by. Or let him disobey orders, walk to his car, and then pull a gun. Anyone who purposley disobeys orders that are clearly given is considered a threat. I know that all you guys think that his life (the officer) is not valued because its not yours, but I bet he disagrees.

----------


## sooners04

Well said!!!

----------


## Coop77

> People also have died from drinking too much water so should we ban water? 
> You cant take the very small percentage of people that have a reaction to the taser and ban it.


I didn't say they should be banned. I said they should be used for defense. 




> Also comparing tasing to a gun is just dumb. I'd rather be tased any day of the week then shot.


Ok, pepperspray. Baton. Whatever. The point was using a weapon on someone who is not being violent, and has their back turned to you, is not appropriate, and should not be their first resort in such a situation. 




> You ever see the taser being used on a suspect fleeing from officers? I have. So are you going to tell me that running from the cops is considered "threatening?"


No. That's a different situation.

----------


## Coop77

> You keep arguing, but I would like to know what you would have done in this situaiton if you were the cop. Remember, this guy is under arrest, how would YOU handle it?


I would have handed the guy his copy of the ticket and said see you in traffic court have a nice day. There's a checkbox that says "refused to sign."

----------


## sooners04

Then you might be in violation of department policy and been repremanded for it. Good choice!!! No reason the officer's career has to suffer because this asshole refuses to cooperate with him. Obey the law and law enforcement and this stuff doesn't happen, its that easy. SHEESH!! There is no checkbox that says refused to sign on our citations, but it varies state to state I'm sure.

----------


## thegodfather

> Then you might be in violation of department policy and been repremanded for it. Good choice!!! No reason the officer's career has to suffer because this asshole refuses to cooperate with him. Obey the law and law enforcement and this stuff doesn't happen, its that easy. SHEESH!! There is no checkbox that says refused to sign on our citations, but it varies state to state I'm sure.


Ok, I reviewed the video again. At no point before the officer actually shot the 'suspect' with the taser did the officer ever say *"You are under arrest."*  He said, put your hands behind your back. However, this would never satisfy a court. For the person to know he is under arrest, the officer must identify as such. You cannot say "Put your hands behind your back," "Dont move," "Come here," etc, etc, etc... Those things do not suffice. So I disagree, this man did not KNOW that he was being arrested, because the officer never said so. It is not up to the public to determine and decifer the officers language to know if he is under arrest or not, or if he has committed an offence that he needs to be arrested for. Watch the video again, he at no point before using force on the man ever said* "You are under arrest,"*  the point at which you are no longer free to go. It does not matter that he was given a direct order by the officer to put his hands behind his back, he was not being detained by the officer at that time, because he never identified to the man that he was in fact being detained, he simply gave a command like "Put your hands behind your back." Not to mention, the officer was not able to tell the man how fast he was going, therefore he never identified to the man what crime he had committed. The officer basically "imagined" the crime the man had committed, and then when he would not sign the *fraudulent charge*, was arrested for non compliance. You cannot be cited for "speeding" without a specific speed being asessed. This is asinine, because the definition of speeding is associated with a specific speed. 

All the legal bullshit aside. You can pretty much tell from the video that had the officer had a little more patience, exercised a little more restraint and professionalism, that he most likely would have been able to handle the situation without violence. The officer is the one who escalated the situation.

----------


## thegodfather

Also, please take notice in the video, that the officer reaches for the taser immediately after putting the clipboard down, before the man had ever disobeyed any direct order.

----------


## abstrack

The office didnt grab his taser immediately after putting the clip board down. He placed the clip board down, ask the guy to place his hands behin his back for detainment, the suspect blantely refuses, the officer draws his taser, the suspect still ignores the officers request to put his arms behind his back and begins to walk away, the officer then tasers the suspect.

If the guy would have just stopped arguing with the officer and took his complaint to court, then there would not be an issue. The suspect did nothing but refuse listen to the officers orders while trying to give him a citation for speeding.

----------


## thegodfather

> The office didnt grab his taser immediately after putting the clip board down. He placed the clip board down, ask the guy to place his hands behin his back for detainment, the suspect blantely refuses, the officer draws his taser, the suspect still ignores the officers request to put his arms behind his back and begins to walk away, the officer then tasers the suspect.
> 
> If the guy would have just stopped arguing with the officer and took his complaint to court, then there would not be an issue. The suspect did nothing but refuse listen to the officers orders while trying to give him a citation for speeding.


He was free to go. The officer never said *"You are under arrest,"* therefore he was not under arrest at that time. It is not up to the suspect to "ASSUME" he is under arrest. The escalation of force was not nessecary, certainly not with a taser that has the potential to stop your heart. The taser is a LESS THAN LETHAL means of force. It was originally designed to be used IN LIEU of deadly force such as shooting an armed suspect with a gun.

----------


## Logan13

> Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil. That what judges are for.


it is easier for many to hold police officers accountable rather than asshole civilians.

----------


## DSM4Life

who cares anymore  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Logan13

> who cares anymore



"Don't taser me Bro"..................

----------


## DSM4Life

> "Don't taser me Bro"..................


If that was me, after the cop pulled the trigger i would have just grabbed the tasers mid-flight and said "Now what?"

----------


## Logan13

> If that was me, after the cop pulled the trigger i would have just grabbed the tasers mid-flight and said "Now what?"


Matrix does kick ass..........

----------


## Dizz28

> Matrix does kick ass..........


It's on right now, SciFi channel

----------


## sooners04

> Not to mention, the officer was not able to tell the man how fast he was going, therefore he never identified to the man what crime he had committed. The officer basically "imagined" the crime the man had committed, and then when he would not sign the *fraudulent charge*, was arrested for non compliance. You cannot be cited for "speeding" without a specific speed being asessed. This is asinine, because the definition of speeding is associated with a specific speed.


Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. The refusal is the arrestable offense. You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:
(1) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with section 60-6,185, the limits set forth in this section and sections 60-6,187, 60-6,188, 60-6,305, and 60-6,313 shall be the maximum lawful speeds unless reduced pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits:

(a) Twenty-five miles per hour in any residential district;

(b) Twenty miles per hour in any business district;

(c) Fifty miles per hour upon any highway that is not dustless surfaced and not part of the state highway system;

(d) Fifty-five miles per hour upon any dustless-surfaced highway not a part of the state highway system;

(e) Sixty miles per hour upon any part of the state highway system other than an expressway or a freeway, except that the Department of Roads may, where existing design and traffic conditions allow, according to an engineering study, authorize a speed limit five miles per hour greater;

(f) Sixty-five miles per hour upon an expressway that is part of the state highway system;

(g) Sixty-five miles per hour upon a freeway that is part of the state highway system but not part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways; and

(h) Seventy-five miles per hour upon the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except that the maximum speed limit shall be sixty miles per hour for:

(i) Any portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways located in Douglas County; and

(ii) That portion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways designated as Interstate 180 in Lancaster County and Interstate 129 in Dakota County.

(2) The maximum speed limits established in subsection (1) of this section may be reduced by the Department of Roads or by local authorities pursuant to section 60-6,188 or 60-6,190.

(3) The Department of Roads and local authorities may erect and maintain suitable signs along highways under their respective jurisdictions in such number and at such locations as they deem necessary to give adequate notice of the speed limits established pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section upon such highways.

The officer can visually observe a vehicle exceeding the limit and write a citation per this statute.

----------


## Logan13

> Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. The refusal is the arrestable offense. You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:
> (1) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with section 60-6,185, the limits set forth in this section and sections 60-6,187, 60-6,188, 60-6,305, and 60-6,313 shall be the maximum lawful speeds unless reduced pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits:
> 
> (a) Twenty-five miles per hour in any residential district;
> 
> (b) Twenty miles per hour in any business district;
> 
> (c) Fifty miles per hour upon any highway that is not dustless surfaced and not part of the state highway system;
> 
> ...


They do not care what the laws states.....they view the world through "feelings" alone.

----------


## sooners04

Who is they? and if so, then "they" should look at both humans feelings.

----------


## Prada

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...q42Tcis4BRjxuw




> PARIS (AFP) — Antoine di Zazzo says he has been 'tasered' more than 50 times and never felt the worse for the ordeal.
> 
> One of the biggest Taser representatives outside the US base, Di Zazzo also gave a surprise blast of the stun gun to French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen and offered a test dose to Nicolas Sarkozy before he became France's president.
> 
> Sarkozy diplomatically declined, according to di Zazzo, but the president's no-nonsense law and order tactics are one reason why the engineer businessman is confident of huge demand for the gun, despite controversy over its use in North America and being declared a form of torture by a UN committee.
> 
> The French leader vowed before his election in May to buy a Taser -- which paralyses targets -- for every policeman and gendarme in France which could provide a market for at least 300,000 guns alone.
> 
> The Taser France chief said he has endured more than 50 Taser shots during tests and demonstrations of the gun.
> ...

----------


## Coop77

> Officer has no legal responsibility to tell ANYONE how fast they were going. *The crime committed was refusing to sign a citation*, you cannot arrest on speeding alone. *The refusal is the arrestable offense.* You CAN indeed be cited for speeding without a specific speed. The definition of speeding in my state is:


I think you're mistaken there. At least in Utah, where this occurred, not signing is itself not a crime. See link below, or google it yourself. 

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230005,00.html




> UHP spokesman Cameron Roden said if a driver refuses to sign a speeding ticket, the officer who pulled that person over has several options.
> 
> "If you sign a citation, it's not admitting guilt by any means. It just says you'll promise to appear in court," he said. "If someone refuses to sign the citation, they're refusing to appear in court."
> 
> At that point, the arresting officer has the option of taking the driver into custody and to a hearing before the local magistrate, Roden said.
> 
> Salt Lake civil rights attorney Brian Barnard agreed police do have the right to arrest a driver who does not sign a speeding ticket.
> 
> *Refusing to sign a ticket is not a crime under Utah state law.* Signing a citation but then failing to show up in court, however, is a class B misdemeanor.
> ...

----------


## Coop77

> PARIS (AFP)  Antoine di Zazzo says he has been 'tasered' more than 50 times and never felt the worse for the ordeal.[/url]


Antoine di Zazzo obviously has a healthy heart. This doesn't really prove they're harmless, if it's supposed to.

----------


## Prada

> Antoine di Zazzo obviously has a healthy heart. This doesn't really prove they're harmless, if it's supposed to.


No that wasnt the point. It was more to point out the legal issues and complications regarding Tasers is not limited in the US. I just found it an interesting article. Like the flying saucer in riots.

----------


## thegodfather

> Taser says its device "saves lives" because it is an effective alternative to a real gun. Each stun round is videod by a camera on the gun for future evidence.


Ok, that just made my point exactly. It is an effective alternative to a real gun, and as such, should ONLY be used in situations where the Officer would be using his REAL GUN, but INSTEAD, uses the Taser as an alternative to killing the suspect. It was NEVER meant to be used as a FIRST RESORT to su**ueing a suspect.

----------


## Teabagger

> I think you're mistaken there. At least in Utah, where this occurred, *not signing is itself not a crime*. See link below, or google it yourself. 
> 
> http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695230005,00.html


I think I said that earlier....I'm...uh...shall we say...pro cop, but I think this cop acted, or reacted in an unprofessional manner which only reinforces the stereotype some here have of the cops being nothing more than "jack booted thugs". The cop acted the way he did because he could...maybe he was having a bad night, or his wife or g/f or b/f was pumping the neighbors cat...I don't know and don't care...but when he wears that uniform he better have his shit in one sock and leave his personal issues at home.

----------


## Prada

> Ok, that just made my point exactly. It is an effective alternative to a real gun, and as such, should ONLY be used in situations where the Officer would be using his REAL GUN, but INSTEAD, uses the Taser as an alternative to killing the suspect. It was NEVER meant to be used as a FIRST RESORT to su**ueing a suspect.


Yes exactly and that is where the problem is. Using the gun in unnecessary situations.

----------


## Act of God

The entire ordeal could have been avoided with a level-headed cop:

"Sir I am asking you to sign this ticket only to acknowledge your receipt of it and to assure your appearance in court. This in no was implies guilt on your part or admits guilt. Refusing to sign the ticket gives me the right to take you into custody"

That is better than

"sign this! No? Get out! TASE"

----------


## FLBMWMech

For the record-- I think 90% of taserings are ridiculous. I read a news article about a school resource officer tasering a 6 year old who was throwing a tantrum. 

That being said: 
Its not the police officers job to explain laws to you. You sign promising to appear in court OR they take you to county jail for processing and then Bail procedure to ensure you'll show up in court. 

Two: If the officer pulls you over-- tells you to get out of the vehicle-- It is not required of him to explain to you WHY and then ask you if you agree with his reasoning. 

Three: If you walk away from an officer that is telling you to STOP, and you are going toward your car then you are presumably attempting to escape or going for a weapon. He's lucky the officer didnt actually shoot him or beat him black and blue with a nightstick for resisting arrest. 

Four: In a situation where you are stopped by any peace officer-- If he tells you to keep your hands in plain sight, YOU MUST. If he tells you to Stop, YOU MUST. If he tells you to get on the ground, YOU MUST. 
He doesn't have to first recite 25 lines of legal disclaimer before putting handcuffs on you. He doesn't have to tell you the reason that you're being arresting or detained before he su**ues you (not sure what moronic TV show someone picked that up from) 

If this guy would have signed the ticket, he wouldnt have been arrested. If this guy would have followed instructions while the officer was taking him into custody, he wouldn't have been tazed.

----------


## Act of God

The point is that simple conversation skills that we learned in grade school could have averted the situation. Unfortunately, this cop was touting the "do as I say no matter what" attitude a lot of police officers front with. He was more interested in being a bad ass and getting his way when a simple conversation with a CLEARLY non-aggressive person would have yielded safer and better results.

You aren't legally bound to do anything a cop tells you to do. I'm willing to bet my 3 years of law school and 5 years of practice that I know more than you do on the subject.

----------


## thegodfather

> The point is that simple conversation skills that we learned in grade school could have averted the situation. Unfortunately, this cop was touting the "do as I say no matter what" attitude a lot of police officers front with. He was more interested in being a bad ass and getting his way when a simple conversation with a CLEARLY non-aggressive person would have yielded safer and better results.
> 
> You aren't legally bound to do anything a cop tells you to do. I'm willing to bet my 3 years of law school and 5 years of practice that I know more than you do on the subject.


Thank you...Can you please reaffirm what I have been saying earlier in the thread. The Taser was only meant to be used in situations where the officer would otherwise SHOOT the suspect using DEADLY FORCE. That is why it is called a LESS THAN LETHAL *OPTION.* This is because, there is a lot LESS of a chance the Taser will kill the suspect, not a 100% chance that the suspect will not die. Tasers use amounts of electricity that can disrupt heart rhythms. That is why they are absolutely NOT APPROPRIATE for su**ueing suspects with just because they're not doing what you say. Additionally, the situation in this case could have easily been resolved much more diplomatically.

----------


## Act of God

Don't forget, even assuming both sides are both wrong (assholes) the POLICE OFFICER is trained to deal with all types of people. They go through the academy and are TAUGHT not to let people rile you. Even if you spit in the cop's face they are taught to keep a level head (although I wouldn't expect anyone to tolerate that). The officer has the badge, the gun, and the taser. He is held to a higher standard and is expected to be the "adult" in the situation, not the bully.

----------


## buffgator

what kind of lawyer are you?

----------


## buffgator

heres a poll, which one of you anti taser guys would wrestle him to the ground?

----------


## Coop77

I don't think the only options are a) wrestle or b) taser. There situation didn't call for a physical altercation at all.

----------


## Dizz28

> I don't think the only options are a) wrestle or b) taser. There situation didn't call for a physical altercation at all.


it didn't, I think there might have been other options available at the time? Something called common sence comes into play here. Does this guy really look like that much of a threat. Right when the officer got the guy to the back of the vehicle...before (the suspect) turned around to walk back to his car...the officer was already taking out his tazer *escalating the situation*  without any provocation.

I agree with godfather, tazers should be used as less than LETHAL options, as in the suspect is about to or using physical force against the piece officer. I think this police officer excercized the weight of his badge instead of acually trying to resolve this situation in due course.

and also, the police officer never said "i'm placing you under arrest for..." which is required to be announced in some form as it happens, right?

----------


## qualityclrk1

i wouldn't have wrestled anybody to the ground...did the cop ever say "place your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for w/e w/e w/e" ?? i really don't know, could someone clear it up for me, i haven't seen the video w/sound- work computer doesn't have speakers

----------


## qualityclrk1

if the cop would have said that, then the man turned and walked away, thats about the time the cop should have slammed him onto the car....where was assistance?

----------


## qualityclrk1

> who cares anymore


DSM i posted in the computer forum again....i just know how u love talkin about old shit....  :7up:

----------


## Dizz28

> i wouldn't have wrestled anybody to the ground...did the cop ever say "place your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for w/e w/e w/e" ?? i really don't know, could someone clear it up for me, i haven't seen the video w/sound- work computer doesn't have speakers


He said "put your hands behind your back" as he was grabbing his tazer, Which one can *assume* ment "you're under arrest" ....but that won't hold up in court

----------


## Act of God

> what kind of lawyer are you?


Trial

----------


## buffgator

the whole situation was pathetic, but both guys are jack asses. You dont walk away from a cop who is telling you to put your hands behind your back. Also though you dont let someone walk away when your trying to arrest them.

----------


## buffgator

> The point is that simple conversation skills that we learned in grade school could have averted the situation. Unfortunately, this cop was touting the "do as I say no matter what" attitude a lot of police officers front with. He was more interested in being a bad ass and getting his way when a simple conversation with a CLEARLY non-aggressive person would have yielded safer and better results.
> 
> *You aren't legally bound to do anything a cop tells you to do.* I'm willing to bet my 3 years of law school and 5 years of practice that I know more than you do on the subject.


can you give us a referance for this. There are still consequences for not doing what they say though.

----------


## Dagron

I'm wondering how I missed this thread... yet another example of why tasers need to go from whence they came.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> I'm wondering how I missed this thread... yet another example of why tasers need to go from whence they came.


Tasers shouldn't go away they are a good tool used properly. Cops who abuse them or their power should go away

----------


## Dagron

I disagree, law enforcement seemed to be operating just fine until the advent of tasers, and police abuse rarely seemed to be an issue. I can understand and respect why you may disagree, though.

----------


## AandF6969

> I disagree, law enforcement seemed to be operating just fine until the advent of tasers, and police abuse rarely seemed to be an issue. I can understand and respect why you may disagree, though.


Was police abuse rarely an issue because the media didn't make it one, or did it not exist?

----------


## Dizz28

> Was police abuse rarely an issue because the media didn't make it one, or did it not exist?


I think the media is a major deciding factor whether something becomes an issue or not.

----------


## FLBMWMech

> Don't forget, even assuming both sides are both wrong (assholes) the POLICE OFFICER is trained to deal with all types of people. They go through the academy and are TAUGHT not to let people rile you. Even if you spit in the cop's face they are taught to keep a level head (although I wouldn't expect anyone to tolerate that). The officer has the badge, the gun, and the taser. He is held to a higher standard and is expected to be the "adult" in the situation, not the bully.



If you are really an attorney, then you'd know that spitting on a police officer is BATTERY on a law enforcement official. A couple years back, a guy in Orlando did this during a traffic stop and was given 366 days in prison. I don't really understand why so many people feel that they shouldn't be held liable for the consequences of their actions(breaking the law)-- but everyone else (IE: The Cop) should be punished for acting within their duty and within the law.

----------


## Logan13

> If you are really an attorney, then you'd know that spitting on a police officer is BATTERY on a law enforcement official. A couple years back, a guy in Orlando did this during a traffic stop and was given 366 days in prison. *I don't really understand why so many people feel that they shouldn't be held liable for the consequences of their actions(breaking the law)-- but everyone else (IE: The Cop) should be punished for acting within their duty and within the law*.


Very well put!

----------


## Act of God

> If you are really an attorney, then you'd know that spitting on a police officer is BATTERY on a law enforcement official. A couple years back, a guy in Orlando did this during a traffic stop and was given 366 days in prison. I don't really understand why so many people feel that they shouldn't be held liable for the consequences of their actions(breaking the law)-- but everyone else (IE: The Cop) should be punished for acting within their duty and within the law.


Actually "battery" doesn't exist in the state that I practice, it is assault. I didn't say that spitting on an officer is not a crime. I said that they are trained to be the level head in heated situations. They are TAUGHT (you know what that means right?) not to lose it and go off the handle when they are tested by uppity assholes.

They have guns, badges, cuffs and backup...they have a responsibility not to lower themselves to the level of the perp.

/thread

----------


## qualityclrk1

BUMP only because i found this on the cbs news website:
A man died after state troopers stunned him with a Taser when they said he became "uncooperative" after being involved in a wreck. 

The man, identified by his father as Mark C. Backlund, was involved in a rush-hour crash Tuesday evening on Interstate 694 in New Brighton. No other vehicles were involved. 

"Troopers attempted to bring the situation and individual under control, and in the process, deployed a taser," said Lt. Mark Peterson with the Minnesota State Patrol. 

Backlund was breathing but unconscious when paramedics arrived, according to Allina Medical Transportation spokesman Tim Burke. He was pronounced dead at Unity Hospital in Fridley. 

The official cause of Backlund's death has not been determined, the state Department of Public Safety said. The Anoka County Medical Examiner was performing an autopsy. 

Five state troopers were placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure, the Department of Public Safety said. A spokesman would not describe what kind of "uncooperative" behavior was involved. 

The state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is leading the investigation. 

"This is a traumatic event for a lot of people," superintendent Tim O'Malley said. "Someone has died and in fairness to that person, the troopers, family members and others who may have been affected, we need to make sure that we're accurate and thorough." 

Backlund had been driving to the airport to pick up his parents, who were returning from a trip to Florida. 

State Patrol Lt. Mark Peterson didn't return telephone calls Wednesday or Thursday from The Associated Press seeking more information. 

CBS station WCCO correspondent Sue Turner said his parents were picking up their luggage when they got a call from one of Mark's friends informing them that their son was dead. 

Gordon Backlund said he was told his son's heart stopped, but he added his son had no heart conditions. Autopsy results are not expected until Thursday afternoon at the earliest. 

"He was a caring individual," his father Gordon Backlund told Turner. "Mark loved life, he was happy. He was kind of a kidder." 

The life they describe is not one of a man out of control. Mark lived with his parents after moving back home from California. He was working part-time while attending school. His family said he was always there to help a friend in need. 

He leaves behind a 2-year-old child, Nathaniel. 

"His son was so important to him," his sister, Melanie Backlund Moe, told WCCO "I'm just really devastated that his son wont get to know him now." 

A U.S. Justice Department study released in October said arrest-related deaths involving Tasers or other conducted-energy devices are rising, although overall numbers are low. From 2003-2005, there were 36 such deaths total, with a jump from 3 cases in 2003 to 24 in 2005. 

"It's sometimes upsetting to look at, but really the alternative is a big wrestling match with a police officer and could escalate all the way up to a use of deadly force," said Minneapolis Deputy Chief Scott Gerlicher in October 2007. He spoke about Tasers then because the Minneapolis Police Department is equipping some of its tasers with cameras. 

His department had done an internal study on Taser use and found it reduced injuries to the officers completely. Injuries to the people tasered was 5.8 percent, compared to 43 percent when officers used traditional force. In 2006, MPD officers used Tasers 232 times, up 75 percent from the year before. 


*
Good bye tasers you ****ing criminals* Theres a picture of the dude on the website...i can't find anywhere in the article where it says how old the guy is, but he looks to be mid 20's....This KID lost his life to the hands of law enforcement over a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT.....what the F*CK was he being so uncooperative about? Was he not turning over his insurance or what!? I can't fathom an occurence in which tasing someone over a traffic accident seems appropriate...let alone killing a man over it.... :Chairshot:

----------


## DSM4Life

> *
> Good bye tasers you ****ing criminals* Theres a picture of the dude on the website...i can't find anywhere in the article where it says how old the guy is, but he looks to be mid 20's....This KID lost his life to the hands of law enforcement over a TRAFFIC ACCIDENT.....what the F*CK was he being so uncooperative about? Was he not turning over his insurance or what!? I can't fathom an occurence in which tasing someone over a traffic accident seems appropriate...let alone killing a man over it....


There are always 3 sides to a story, the man who got tased, the cop, and the truth.

----------


## thegodfather

> "It's sometimes upsetting to look at, but *really the alternative is a big wrestling match with a police officer and could escalate all the way up to a use of deadly force,"* said Minneapolis Deputy Chief Scott Gerlicher in October 2007. He spoke about Tasers then because the Minneapolis Police Department is equipping some of its tasers with cameras. 
> 
> chairshot



He just admitted that the cops are using the devices inappropriately because they dont want to actually have to work to subdue a suspect, they want to immediately taze him.* Once again, these devices are only designed to be used in a situation where the officer would otherwise be using his firearm.*

----------


## Logan13

> People also have died from drinking too much water so should we ban water? 
> You cant take the very small percentage of people that have a reaction to the taser and ban it. 
> 
> Also comparing tasing to a gun is just dumb. I'd rather be tased any day of the week then shot.
> 
> 
> 
> Its considered resisting arrest if you do not comply with an officer. An office is then allowed to use force.


well said.

----------


## Coop77

Geeze, how many people have to die before they ban these things, or at least cops stop using them like they're water pistols.

----------


## Coop77

> "It's sometimes upsetting to look at, but really the alternative is a big wrestling match with a police officer and could escalate all the way up to a use of deadly force," said Minneapolis Deputy Chief Scott Gerlicher in October 2007.


Well that worked out well. They used deadly force to avoid using deadly force.

----------


## qualityclrk1

BUMP....more bull shit on the taser situation...tasers are becoming a PROBLEM....if u wouldn't draw ur glock, u shouldn't draw a taser---hopefully we can all agree on that point....dunno if i already said this, but one of the first thigns u learn in a hunters safety course is NEVER point a gun at anything you don't mean to kill.....i look at the taser same way....read this from cbsnews.com, and tell me if u think it was justified....

*
Deputy Uses Taser On Fleeing Bicyclist* 

HAMILTON CITY, Calif., Jan. 29, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) *A Glenn County sheriff's deputy shot a man with a Taser gun for allegedly riding his bike at night without proper lighting.*

According to a sheriff's spokesman, the bicyclist ignored warnings from the deputy he would use the stun gun, then fled on foot.

One probe struck the bicyclist, Omar Herrada Rivera, 39, but he did not receive a shock.

After being checked out at a hospital, Rivera was held in the county jail on suspicion of resisting arrest, riding a bicycle without proper lighting, and suspicion of riding under the influence of alcohol. The sheriff's spokesman said the deputy's decision to use the Taser was proper.

___

Information from: Chico Enterprise-Record, http://www.chicoer.com

*i don't believe the punishment received from the taser fit the crime committed*

----------

