American Policeman aggressor tases dude for no reason

[Wezil]

That is a silly requirement. Much better to require the officer to sign attesting that it was served upon the driver.

[BlackCat]

Just out of curiosity - how did the vid end up on youtube ?

I mean, it's not some nosey civilian interfering in policework with his cellphone or like.

[LordShiva]

Teh cop probably uploaded it to show off to his friends

[Wezil]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Just out of curiosity - how did the vid end up on youtube ?

I mean, it's not some nosey civilian interfering in policework with his cellphone or like.

No it was clearly from the cruiser's camera.

UHP officials were unsure Tuesday how the tape became public. Massey could have filed an open records request for the tape or his attorney could have asked for it as part of filing a lawsuit, said UHP spokesman Cameron Roden.

[BlackCat]

skimmed that article too fast.

[Wezil]

I still find it strange that UHP claim they don't know how the video was released.

[Donegeal]

Spec... I get the feeling that you like me. You keep posting things that you know I will respond to.

Anyway, the situation seems a little odd, mainly because of a couple of minor proceduaral things (that could strictly be a departmental thing, but it has to with schooling if you ask me). I was taught that when you approach a vehical, the first thing you do is introduce yourself. "Hello. I'm officer/deputy/trooper such-n-such with whatever-the-hell department. The reason I pulled you over sir/ma'am is blah blah blah...". The cop never did that. It really is not big deal, it;s just something that I have always done because that was the way I was taught (and I mean before I became a cop). It might not be required by that department (come to thinkof it, I don't believe that it's required by my department, but everybody does it).

For me, the main question comes down to why did the cop decide to arrest the person. Refuse to sign the ticket? Big deal. Just means I have to write down "Refused to sign" in the signature line. However, the guy could have been from out of state, which changes the procedures. Maybe the department has a requirement that all out of state people must sign tickets. Maybe he was from out of state and refusal to sign is cause for arrest.

Now the biggest problem I have with this situation, is that the cop didn't tell him he was being placed under arrest until after he tazered him (once again, this is really only a formality and is not nessicerily departmental policy).

Judging by the subjects personality and reactions, I don't believe that the introduction omission or the lack of telling him he was being placed under arrest would have made any difference. This looks to me like a classic case of "I know my rights!". If you think you know your rights because you watch CSI or some such TV, you're a boob looking to get tazed. Yes, you have the right to be explained the whys and you get your miranda rights, but not immediately or at your request. You get them when time, and your behavior, allows. On the side of a busy highway is not the place. Once you are secured in the car and any situation with your vehical (in this case, dealing with the wife) is set, then you might get explainations (it depends on you at this point and making demands does not help).

Now as to why the guy was tazered, he was not following instructions while being arrested (this is why not being told he was being arrested is such a big deal to me), and in fact proceeded to go back to his car. On the busy highway, the cop didn't want to use empty-hand control because a struggle could have very easily ended up falling into the traffic (and not everyone was pulling to the left, but thats another thread ). He thus went to his tazer because "other means of control have proved insufficient" as the policy states (remember, being given a verbal order by police is a means of control).

So, in my perception, the use of the tazer on a non-compliant subject attempting to flee arrest on a busy highway was justified (I just wish the damn officer had told him directly that he was placing him under arrest!).

Could someone change the thread title to more accurately describe the actual situation? Maybe "American Policeman Aggressor Save the Life of a Non-compliant Fleeing Arrestee by Tazering Him.".

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Donegeal
So, in my perception, the use of the tazer on a non-compliant subject attempting to flee arrest on a busy highway was justified (I just wish the damn officer had told him directly that he was placing him under arrest!).

Could someone change the thread title to more accurately describe the actual situation? Maybe "American Policeman Aggressor Save the Life of a Non-compliant Fleeing Arrestee by Tazering Him.".

Awesome - it's insane rationalization day.

I think the title should be "American Policeman Aggressor Attempts Murder" since it's a miracle the tazered guy didn't fall into traffic and get killed. Hell, why didn't the officer just shoot him to be more efficient?

[Donegeal]

Hehehe... or to be the person to fall into my little trap...

It is an established fact that when people fall from getting tazed, they fall back towards the direction of deployment.

People should really learn that they need more info before jumping to conclusions.

(thank you for taking the 'fall' Kontiki )

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Hehehe... or to be the person to fall into my little trap...

It is an established fact that when people fall from getting tazed, they fall back towards the direction of deployment.

People should really learn that they need more info before jumping to conclusions.

(thank you for taking the 'fall' Kontiki )

I'm sorry - do you think that makes me look foolish, Mr. He-Was-Fleeing Arrest and Other-Means-of-Control-Have-Proved-Insufficient???

I thought it was pretty clear I was joking. I hope to hell you are too.

[BlackCat]

Doesn't you need to do a awful lot of paperwork if you gun down someone, wich isn't nessecary when using the tazer ?

Besides that, why the heck did he start arguing about a speed ticket ? No matter what, he would have had a better chance at a court.

I might be wrong, but isn't it after you are arrested that you can claim miranda rights etc ?

[Donegeal]

Not at all.

He was being placed under arrest, and was attempting to leave the area. That's fleeing.

Verbal control is step two on the force option continuum. It had been tried and proved to be insufficient as his instructions were not being followed.

Things are not a matter of degree in this case. You either follow directions or you don't.

Fleeing is not a matter of degree either. You either stay, or you attempt to leave. Wether its by running, car or just walking, it is still fleeing.

But like I said, the cop should have told him he was being placed under arrest. Since he didn't tell him, he could say he didn't know he was being arrested.

[Donegeal]

We need that tazer smilie...

[Snotty]

I was under the impression you didnt argue with american cops.

At least the guy didnt tazer the pregnant woman. now that would have been 1st rate youtube

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks Donegal for your post

The officer was an idiot for not telling the guy he was under arrest and not answering how fast the guy was going. But, in spite of that, when the officer told him to turn around, the guy should have realized what was happening.. and he DID turn to back to his car.

Maybe the cop should have yelled at him for another second or so and if he kept walking then tazed him.