who HASNT been tasered?

[UConn James]

Same here. I never understand why it's such a problem for people.

 

The thing that sticks in my craw, tho, is the SCOTUS ruled fairly recently that officers don't have to tell people the truth. Ala CSI, etc. where they say to a suspect in interrogation, "We got your DNA and it's a match!" when they don't have jacksh--. If they can lie in that situation, what stops them from lying, saying, "Sign here. It, uhhh, doesn't indicate guilt or anything."

 

I have several nuclear family members who are in LE --- military, city and town. I've picked up a lot on how to handle given situations from the driver's pov, such that you don't unknowingly voluntarily give up your rights. If a cop asks to look in your trunk, ask him for the search warrant and that anything and everything that's listed had better be in there. So many people will just open up their trunks or do whatever is asked in 'go along to get along' style, when doing any of these things can only be bad for you.

 

This case is just rife with stupidity. She's stupid for not signing the ticket, sure, but the officer surpassed that stupidity by leaps and bounds. It is legal to refuse to sign a speeding ticket. The cop can then arrest you... many/most cops just make a note on there of, "refused to sign ticket." The signature is just a surety that the accused will show up in court; arrest happens for those who will probably not show up. It's unconscionable that before Tasers came around, the officer would have shot her, because that's the threshold niche where SOP Taser use fit in. Unfortunately, we've seen all too many cases where their use is unfounded (i.e. the 6-year-old, the seated grandma, and the dude in the wheelchair) --- at best, it's a lazy cop's tool of immediate ultimate compliance and at worst it's little boys who want to use their toys.

 

I see where some say that b/w an ugly, physical arrest or Tasering, it's Catch-22. Granted from the above, I'm more than aware that being a police officer these days is a tough, thankless job. In quite a few of these cases, tho, it's not yet anywhere near the level of a brouhaha/fracas arrest.

[Booster4324]

But you honestly don't think that if he man-handled her off the side of the road and forced her to stay there it wouldn't be a big deal? You'd still be bitching that he used too much force. The women was endangering HIS life by not following orders. What gives her that right? The fact that she's pissed she got pulled over for breaking the law? Screw her!

 

And again, I don't think using the taser was the correct action to take here. But since she wasn't listening to him, and pushing her apparently wasn't working, wrestling her away from the road and forcing her to stay there was, and I'm absolutely sure if he had done that he would be in the same amount of trouble because he "roughed up a little old lady."

 

Yes, I have been all through these threads about cops complaining about them.

 

I already addressed your point in my post.

[Booster4324]

See mine below.

You are the superior typer.

 

I meant I was agreeing with you.

[Guest dog14787]

If I'm a cop, I wrap her up and carry her to the otherside of the vehicle. He could have easily cuffed her and completely controlled the situation. I understand it might have been by the book but when does common sense take over? Every profession has SOPs, sometimes you have to think for yourself. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't anyway, might as well act with compassion.

 

If you were a cop then you handle the situation the way you are trained to handle the situation. When you start taking things into your own hands and not go by the book,that's when things can go wrong and folks get hurt or killed.

 

You could be right here Push and this may have been completely unavoidable, but without seeing the whole thing on tape though its really hard to tell.

[PushthePile]

I meant I was agreeing with you.

I meant to say you beat me to the punch.

[Acantha]

If you were a cop then you handle the situation the way you are trained to handle the situation. When you start taking things into your own hands and not go by the book,that's when things can go wrong and folks get hurt or killed.

 

You could be right here Push and this may have been completely unavoidable, but without seeing the whole thing on tape though its really hard to tell.

The thing that I want to know is why was she out of the vehicle to begin with. The article says that she was tasered because she wouldn't sign the ticket, but the video doesn't show that. If the cop made her get out of the vehicle because she wouldn't sign, then I would find him far more at fault. A signature on the ticket (which, as others have said, isn't an absolute necessity as far as I know) doesn't justify the added safety risk of having someone out of their car on the side of highway.

[PushthePile]

If you were a cop then you handle the situation the way you are trained to handle the situation. When you start taking things into your own hands and not go by the book,that's when things can go wrong and folks get hurt or killed.

 

You could be right here Push and this may have been completely unavoidable, but without seeing the whole thing on tape though its really hard to tell.

The book can only take you so far. In any profession you need to be able to think on your feet and make sound choices given the circumstances. You can't train for everything.

 

You are right to reserve judgement dog, but it's hard to imagine anything that could have justified his actions.

[Guest dog14787]

The thing that I want to know is why was she out of the vehicle to begin with. The article says that she was tasered because she wouldn't sign the ticket, but the video doesn't show that. If the cop made her get out of the vehicle because she wouldn't sign, then I would find him far more at fault. A signature on the ticket (which, as others have said, isn't an absolute necessity as far as I know) doesn't justify the added safety risk of having someone out of their car on the side of highway.

 

Good point on why she was out of the car to begin with and another part of the story that without answers its hard to determine who's at fault.

[Guest dog14787]

The book can only take you so far. In any profession you need to be able to think on your feet and make sound choices given the circumstances. You can't train for everything.

 

You are right to reserve judgement dog, but it's hard to imagine anything that could have justified his actions.

 

 

You think because she's an older lady, she will easily be subdued , but in reality an elderly lady could be a terrorist capable of anything, or a wacko who escaped from a mental ward, she could stab or injure you, give you aids from a single open wound.

 

What I'm saying is your captain may prefer you stick to the book on something like this.

[RayFinkle]

Equal rights suck.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What I'm saying is your captain may prefer you stick to the book on something like this.

 

And there lies the problem in many professions.

[Guest dog14787]

Equal rights suck.

 

 

That pretty much sums it up in three words

[Lv-Bills]

Just to answer the question, I don't think Lou Ferrigno has been tasered. I could be wrong, but I don't think he has.

[UConn James]

You think because she's an older lady, she will easily be subdued , but in reality an elderly lady could be a terrorist capable of anything, or a wacko who escaped from a mental ward, she could stab or injure you, give you aids from a single open wound.

 

What I'm saying is your captain may prefer you stick to the book on something like this.

 

And your uncle could be your aunt.

 

The day that an officer assumes the very worst about everyone, that everyone's out to get him/her and as a result they have an itchy Taser-finger... is the day they should be weeded out.

 

In the academy, 60% of my brother's class washed out either b/c they couldn't do the physicals or, as he said, they were sh--heads. Among what was left, about half only passed b/c of nepotism, which when this was said, I was a little taken aback. Until, at the ceremony, about half of the class had their badges specially presented to them by their officer fathers, uncles, brothers, etc. I don't mean to take away from any of them who do their jobs well and got where they were by merit....

 

But sometimes it takes a little longer to weed out the sh--heads b/c they have deeper roots.

[Guest dog14787]

And your uncle could be your aunt.

 

The day that an officer assumes the very worst about everyone, that everyone's out to get him/her and as a result they have an itchy Taser-finger... is the day they should be weeded out.

 

In the academy, 60% of my brother's class washed out either b/c they couldn't do the physicals or, as he said, they were sh--heads. Among what was left, about half only passed b/c of nepotism, which when this was said, I was a little taken aback. Until, at the ceremony, about half of the class had their badges specially presented to them by their officer fathers, uncles, brothers, etc. I don't mean to take away from any of them who do their jobs well and got where they were by merit....

 

But sometimes it takes a little longer to weed out the sh--heads b/c they have deeper roots.

 

 

I was giving examples of why you would want to stay within the guidlines of how you are trained, nothing to do with assuming the worst, that's my point, you are not there to assume, you are there following your training and instructions on how to handle different situations. Your superiors prefer that you are not hurt or killed, this is not 24 starring Jack Bower were you make things up on the fly.

[Booster4324]

I was giving examples of why you would want to stay within the guidlines of how you are trained, nothing to do with assuming the worst, that's my point, you are not there to assume, you are there following your training and instructions on how to handle different situations. Your superiors prefer that you are not hurt or killed, this is not 24 starring Jack Bower were you make things up on the fly.

 

Yes, because training covers all contingencies and orders should always be followed. There is no room for deviation. Agreed?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes, because training covers all contingencies and orders should always be followed. There is no room for deviation. Agreed?

 

Gets tricky like I said in the other thread. Sometimes you are only able to enforce what the law specifically tells you are able to do. Not do everything except what the law prohibits you from doing. This leaves room for deviation very narrow.

[Booster4324]

Gets tricky like I said in the other thread. Sometimes you are only able to enforce what the law specifically tells you are able to do. Not do everything except what the law prohibits you from doing. This leaves room for deviation very narrow.

 

Ok, lets put it this way (just to be clear for the slow witted, EIII evidently), if the book says you should taser a 72 year old woman, it is wrong. They say the new tasers are safer, but bets on whether a PD in Texas has them?

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

Tasering rather then direct confrontation is used more and more when someone refuses to follow orders, its possible this was by the book.

 

However, like the previous poster pointed out, this is all being pulled out of context without seeing the whole uncut video.

 

Push/press the individual up against the back of the vehicle, bring one arm behind and handcuff and have sit in the back seat of the squad car. This is a 72-year-old woman, not Howard Ballard.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ok, lets put it this way (just to be clear for the slow witted, EIII evidently), if the book says you should taser a 72 year old woman, it is wrong. They say the new tasers are safer, but bets on whether a PD in Texas has them?

 

 

I know what you are saying and tend to fall on your side. Tasers are becoming tech "crutches" like UConn pointed out.