The bit that got to me is.. when the officer after using the tazer tells her to move "I cant" she wails, so he has justifable reason to tazer her again.... posted by hortense at 10:16 PM on June 3, 2005
Welcome to scAmerica. posted by rougy at 10:17 PM on June 3, 2005
I guess I'll go first. She got stopped for speeding, he checked on her liscence, and found out that her liscence was suspended. He asked her to get out of the car, because he needed to arrest her. She refused.
What should he have done to get her out of the car? posted by 23skidoo at 10:22 PM on June 3, 2005
23 skidoo asks a good question. posted by H. Roark at 10:24 PM on June 3, 2005
Interesting that you chose to link to the original arrest footage. Make sure to watch with the officer's commentary as well. She had been pulled over and arguing with the officer for a few minutes before it was discovered that she was driving with a suspended license. She was ordered out of her car so she could be arrested, and she resisted. Maybe he showed excessive force by zapping her a second time, but it's not as bad as even I thought it was the first time I watched it. posted by Venadium at 10:29 PM on June 3, 2005
They told her to get out the car, she kept yapping on the phone. They pointed a Taser at her, she kept yapping on the phone.
Its harsh, but she walked right into it with her eyes wide open.
Should it have happened? No, its horrible. But she is as dumb as a fucking brick. posted by BadSeamus at 10:29 PM on June 3, 2005
"What should he have done to get her out of the car?" Tasers kill people.
They should be used as a last resort. As I said over on MoFI "If you can't do your job without violently attacking a person who is being an asshole then you are defective and should be replaced. I know that I would have little patience with people like the woman in the video so early on I ruled out cop as a career." This is just bad police work. posted by arse_hat at 10:32 PM on June 3, 2005
I wasn't being rhetorical. Seriously, what should he have done to get her out of the car? posted by 23skidoo at 10:36 PM on June 3, 2005
keswick: fucking pigs
I'll second that in this case posted by nervousfritz at 10:37 PM on June 3, 2005
What should he have done to get her out of the car?
Gee, I have no idea. It sure is good officers can pack 50Kv now, since before there was absolutely no way to arrest anyone who refused to get out of their already-opened car door.
There is no possible way you're being serious asking that kind of dumbass question. posted by odinsdream at 10:38 PM on June 3, 2005
Talking, physical force. I really think dragging her from the car would be less likely to pose a risk of death than the taser. Doing it twice is just sadism. posted by arse_hat at 10:40 PM on June 3, 2005
I didn't see any "resistance".
Non compliance, maybe, but resistance worthy of tazer, no. posted by Balisong at 10:40 PM on June 3, 2005
23skidoo: My answer is that he should have informed her that he was placing her under arrest. At that point, resistance would be, well, "Resisting Arrest", and the tazing would be at least vaguely justifiable. As it was, he just starts yelling threats at her, caused her to cling more tightly to her only lifeline: a cellphone to a remote "witness". She posed no real threat to anything but the cop's ego.
I've been discussing this in a few other forums, and there's some question as to whether being pulled over constitutes automatically being "under arrest" and whether you're required to comply with any lawful request. Any lawyers in the house?
Also, be sure to watch all the videos. For sure, the woman is a real bitch to the cop, but I still think he was way outta line. posted by LordSludge at 10:47 PM on June 3, 2005
"What should he have done to get her out of the car?" Tasers kill people.
Um, well don't ignore the man telling you repeatedly that he is about to taser you if you don't get out of the car. Pretty straight fucking forward.
Gee, I have no idea. It sure is good officers can pack 50Kv now, since before there was absolutely no way to arrest anyone who refused to get out of their already-opened car door.
posted by odinsdream at 10:38 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Yeah, and cops love wrestling dudes out of cars... posted by jikel_morten at 10:49 PM on June 3, 2005
There is no possible way you're being serious asking that kind of dumbass question.
It's not a dumbass question, it's a question designed to get people to talk, instead of grunt snarky one-liners about how cops are evil. Again, I will say that the question was not rhetorical. I was not implying that there were no other alternatives. I was asking people to supply an alternative that they would have used in that situation. posted by 23skidoo at 10:50 PM on June 3, 2005
I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be so outraged about. posted by bugbread at 10:50 PM on June 3, 2005
The only serious problem I have is with the second use of the tazer.
I know I'm not a police officer so I could be missing something... but a woman, lying on the ground in pain does not appear like such an imminent threat that a taser is neccessary.
It really seems to me like he uses it as a punitive measure, rather than as a defensive measure. posted by mosch at 10:52 PM on June 3, 2005
eh, she didn't deserve that, and she didn't deserve to have the gun pointed at her either.
she never did anything to endanger that officer or make him feel unsafe.
innocent until proven guilty and all that. posted by reflection at 10:55 PM on June 3, 2005
Now how did I know, in the midst of her squalling, that she was going to holler, "You all are RACISTS."
Having said that, I would never advocate tasering someone twice like that, jeez. I've gotten shocked once or twice from working around electrical stuff (IT and Telco) but at nowhere near the voltage a Taser puts out. It felt like my whole body had been punched, so I imagine when she was on the ground after the 1st taser hit, she was pretty much out of it.
This is a good description of the effects of electric shock on the body.
I wonder if she really did "take a swing" at one of the officers as he was telling her to get out of the car - I can't tell from the video. posted by Liosliath at 10:56 PM on June 3, 2005
Call me a hardass, but in the old days, they would've shot her.
You're a traffic cop, working for shit pay, you're gonna reach in there and try to force her out? Not knowing what she might do in response to hurt you? Or is it more reasonable to tell the woman 10 times, loudly and clearly (she's obviously not deaf), to get out of the car or she'll get stunned? If I was a cop, I wouldn't trust anyone. posted by fungible at 10:56 PM on June 3, 2005
Um, 23skidoo, I answered your question. posted by LordSludge at 10:57 PM on June 3, 2005
"Yeah, and cops love wrestling dudes out of cars..." Can't do the job? Get another! " The only serious problem I have is with the second use of the tazer. " Yup, bein' an asshole is a good reason to have a dangerous weapon used on you. By that reasoning most of us at MeFi would be zapped. posted by arse_hat at 10:57 PM on June 3, 2005
"If I was a cop, I wouldn't trust anyone. That's why people like you and I should be purged from police forces. posted by arse_hat at 11:00 PM on June 3, 2005
reminds me of an episode of COPS,where some idiot is breaking the law, and they get apprehended by the police...the guy tries to run but is stopped and cuffed, all the while continuing to try to get away - and all of a sudden, some lady steps outta her dingy apartment, with 3 kids in tow (Of course), angry that the Po-leece shouldn't have hurt that po' boy's arm when they were putting on his cuffs. She starts screamin' racism, etc etc.
Ok, how does that remind me of the clip above? It just goes to show that a certain segment of society thinks they can defy any and all authority, and they seek to blame those people who (for the most part) try to serve and PROTECT.
To be honest, if I had done what that woman had done, I would expect the same to be done to me. In fact, where's my taser?...ok, there it is
ZZZAP! *minutes of groaning and crying, and a faint smell of urine* posted by newfers at 11:01 PM on June 3, 2005
eh, she didn't deserve that, and she didn't deserve to have the gun pointed at her either.
she never did anything to endanger that officer or make him feel unsafe.
posted by reflection at 10:55 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Maybe so, but do what he says and the taser goes back in the holster. I know I might get lippy and feel the cop's being a heavy handed prick if I were in the same situation, but tell me numerous times that you're about to use the weapon being pointed at me and I'm sure as hell not going to call your bluff... posted by jikel_morten at 11:04 PM on June 3, 2005
Sure the woman acted incredibly stupid, but the fact remains that the cop is a sadistic little bastard. posted by clevershark at 11:08 PM on June 3, 2005
"If I was a cop, I wouldn't trust anyone. That's why people like you and I should be purged from police forces.
posted by arse_hat at 11:00 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Well, I personally don't think trusting people who are currently breaking the law is the best move, especially if self preservation is something you're into. posted by jikel_morten at 11:08 PM on June 3, 2005
If I was a cop, I wouldn't trust anyone.
posted by fungible at 10:56 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Just one other reason to believe that cops are not on our side. They aren't your friends, they aren't here to help, and they don't want to hear your side of the story. posted by Balisong at 11:09 PM on June 3, 2005
What should he have done to get her out of the car?
Waited until she got tired of sitting there and got out? The cop's time isn't golden; it's not even REMOTELY justifiable to draw and fire a weapon (even a non-lethal one) just to speed things up. Stick a cop car in front of hers, and stick another one behind it, and she's not going anywhere but out.
It's almost guaranteed that if the cops had just held off for half an hour, she'd have gotten off the phone and come out. She's not just going to barricade herself in there all day.
Alternately, if he could do it without hurting her, just open the door and drag her out.
I'm not going to say the woman wasn't a jerk and an idiot, and the arrest was entirely justifiable, but it's possible for both the cops and the woman to be wrong. In this case, they both were; the woman should have gotten out, but the cops had NO justification for any kind of attack. They should be fired and barred from any kind of police/security work forever. posted by Mitrovarr at 11:09 PM on June 3, 2005
arse_hat :"Yup, bein' an asshole is a good reason to have a dangerous weapon used on you. By that reasoning most of us at MeFi would be zapped."
I'd support that...Even if I was one of the people who got tazered. posted by bugbread at 11:10 PM on June 3, 2005
Sure the woman acted incredibly stupid, but the fact remains that the cop is a sadistic little bastard.
posted by clevershark at 11:08 PM PST on June 3 [!]
During to Officer McNevin's wrap up he mentions that Victoria was trying to remove the taser barbs herself and would not turn over and put her hands behind her back.
If his discrpition is accurate, (i can't REALLY tell from the video) the second tasering seems reasonable to me. posted by Hicksu at 11:11 PM on June 3, 2005
The arrest wasn't for speeding, it was for driving with a suspended license. I can tell you, unfortunately from personal experience, that in many places that is a required arrest. Note that the word is suspended, not expired; this isn't for the most part paperwork, it's deliberate flouting of the requirements to maintain a driver's license, and evidence of a prior serious traffic violation. Since in many cases it's easy to keep your license by showing up in court, paying a fine, and being humble to the judge, getting suspended pretty much means something. (In my case, I had no proof of insurance; I had a defense, but I had to go to court and work with the DMV to get things straight again.) She knew her license was suspended from the moment she saw the cop, and played dumb even after he found out.
Having gotten through a similar situation myself without being tasered, I have little sympathy. She created a confrontation. The cop may have been a little too quick by some lights but it seems like he responded within the rules of engagement of his department and training. The taser exists to protect cops without the use of lethal force. Unless we want more Rodney Kings, more choke-holds, or more Amadou Diallos, we're gonna have to accept a little more tasering. The risk may be non-zero, but so is Greco-Roman wrestling. posted by dhartung at 11:12 PM on June 3, 2005
In the career panoply, being a cop is only moderately dangerous. A cop must be aware and observant but folks who can’t work with the sick, the drunk, the angry, the stupid and the antagonistic should not be cops. posted by arse_hat at 11:12 PM on June 3, 2005
It's almost guaranteed that if the cops had just held off for half an hour, she'd have gotten off the phone and come out. She's not just going to barricade herself in there all day.
Ma'am you're under arrest. So whenever you get a chance, could you end your phone call and please exit the vehicle, you know, when you get a second. If you could go ahead and just do that, that'd be great. Thanks. We'll be out here waiting in the meantime. Let us know if you need anything. posted by jikel_morten at 11:14 PM on June 3, 2005
arse_hat :"A cop must be aware and observant but folks who can’t work with the sick, the drunk, the angry, the stupid and the antagonistic should not be cops."
And these cops did work with the angry and antagonistic. posted by bugbread at 11:22 PM on June 3, 2005
Ma'am you're under arrest. So whenever you get a chance, could you end your phone call and please exit the vehicle, you know, when you get a second. If you could go ahead and just do that, that'd be great. Thanks. We'll be out here waiting in the meantime. Let us know if you need anything.
Yes, seriously, that IS how they should have done it. If she took off or drew a weapon, that's when they should have used violence, not just because she was inconveniencing them or insulting their giant cop egos by not following directions instantly.
God forbid the police be polite, and remember the fact that the people they arrest are every bit as important as they are. posted by Mitrovarr at 11:22 PM on June 3, 2005
What is wrong with you people? The situation involves, from the looks of it, a pretty scrawny woman and TWO very able-bodied, armed officers. Tazing someone is what you do when you're about to be attacked and you need to take someone down that you otherwise wouldn't be able to physically. That's what tazers are designed for.
This situation shouldn't even involve weapons at all. There is absolutely no reason for it to. Yes, she was speeding, being an ass, and not obeying the officer's orders, but nothing...absolutely nothing about this situation endangered the cops.
That's the whole of the situation right there. If, on the other hand, you think it's absolutely okay for an officer (protect and serve, and all that) to make any demand whatsoever at a traffic stop, and when it isn't obeyed, it's "i told ya so!"... well, I feel sorry for you. I really do.
"Get out of the car or I'm going to slash your tires... going to slash your tires...slash your tires....OKAY THERE, YOU MADE ME DO THAT..."
The reason it's completely, utterly ridiculous is that it isn't AT ALL NECESSARY. As others have already mentioned above, physical force to remove this woman from the car would have been entirely reasonable given her attitude, and would certainly have been within the capabilities of the TWO ARMED OFFICERS up against this woman with a cellphone.
And that isn't even considering the SECOND zap from the tazer... pure sadism. The officer should, by any rational standard of what would be professional, should be suspended indefinitely from his duties.
During to Officer McNevin's wrap up he mentions that Victoria was trying to remove the taser barbs herself and would not turn over and put her hands behind her back.
I find her response to being shot with metal darts and then electrocuted perfectly reasonable:
1. Figure out what the hell just happened
2. Locate source of problem, attempt to remove it as quickly as possible
3. Retreat into state of paralyzed fear and panic - do not move at all.
We'll be out here waiting in the meantime. Let us know if you need anything.
And what exactly would be the problem with this, besides that you obviously find it a bit humorous? posted by odinsdream at 11:24 PM on June 3, 2005
Wouldn't that be resisting arrest? I honestly don't know. Would being told that you are being placed under arrest and proceding to sit in your car for an hour not be against the law? posted by jikel_morten at 11:26 PM on June 3, 2005
The arrest wasn't for speeding, it was for driving with a suspended license.
You don't pull someone over for a suspended licence, and you don't tazer them if it is. posted by Balisong at 11:27 PM on June 3, 2005
"And these cops did work with the angry and antagonistic." and totally fucked it up. posted by arse_hat at 11:29 PM on June 3, 2005
You don't pull someone over for a suspended licence, and you don't tazer them if it is.
posted by Balisong at 11:27 PM PST on June 3 [!]
She didn't get tasered because of a suspended licence. Strawman. posted by jikel_morten at 11:32 PM on June 3, 2005
odinsdream :"That's the whole of the situation right there. If, on the other hand, you think it's absolutely okay for an officer (protect and serve, and all that) to make any demand whatsoever at a traffic stop, and when it isn't obeyed, it's 'i told ya so!'... well, I feel sorry for you. I really do."
Nicely false dichotomy: you either think that they shouldn't have tazed her, or you believe that they can make any demand whatsoever?
If we're going to play the stupidly false dichotomy game, then, let me take a spin:
"If, on the other hand, you think it's absolutely okay for an officer to let anyone go, no matter the severity of the crime, if the perpetrator just doesn't 'feel' like being arrested...well, I feel sorry for you. I really do."
Silly, huh? And pretty much the equivalent of your statement.
arse_hat :"'And these cops did work with the angry and antagonistic.' and totally fucked it up."
I dunno. They got her out of the car. They got her cuffed. They didn't cause any long term injuries. From what I can tell, "totally fucking it up" consists of "annoying metafilter members". In which case, my neighbor totally fucked up on making his new stereo system, because it annoys me. posted by bugbread at 11:34 PM on June 3, 2005
No, she got tazered for non compliance within 10 seconds.
Reguardless of guilt, she was a non-threat.
What do you want to bet that these cops just got new tazers last week, and were dying to try them out? posted by Balisong at 11:36 PM on June 3, 2005
Balisong :"You don't pull someone over for a suspended licence, and you don't tazer them if it is."
Er...no, you pull them over for speeding, then you discover they have a suspended license, then you arrest them for driving with a suspended license and/or speeding. And you don't tazer them for driving with a suspended license, or for speeding, but for not following orders to get out of the car. It's pretty simple; you should watch the video again if the sequence is confusing. posted by bugbread at 11:36 PM on June 3, 2005
And what exactly would be the problem with this, besides that you obviously find it a bit humorous?
That if you're driving on a suspended liscence, you shouldn't get to decide when you get arrested, and it shouldn't be dependant upon how long you can sit inside a car. If they should have dragged her out of the car, that's one thing, but there's no way that the cops should have to wait for her to be okay with being arrested. posted by 23skidoo at 11:37 PM on June 3, 2005
WHEN IS SHE PLACED UNDER ARREST??? posted by LordSludge at 11:38 PM on June 3, 2005
Just last week I went to a fabric store to buy some material for a curtain. A women in front of me went on a screaming jag because she felt the tax on her purchase was out by 2 cents! She carried on for close to 20 minutes (I wondered out to look at the plantings in the boxes in front of the store). She even brought out the race card, which was funny as the sales clerk was an east Indian Muslim! Assholes abound and if you can’t deal without resorting to a deadly weapon then you should not be a cop (and as an Irish Catholic boy I have cops in the family). posted by arse_hat at 11:38 PM on June 3, 2005
Balisong :"What do you want to bet that these cops just got new tazers last week, and were dying to try them out?"
Ok, I'll bet $5 that that was not the case...but how are we going to resolve the bet? Seems like we'd need to know someone in the department. posted by bugbread at 11:39 PM on June 3, 2005
"but for not following orders to get out of the car. It's pretty simple; you should watch the video again if the sequence is confusing.", WOW you are scarrrrrry. posted by arse_hat at 11:40 PM on June 3, 2005
bugbread, you must have misunderstood my sentence. It was horribly worded, I admit. I don't know who dichotomy is, or why I want to set him up with anyone. What I was saying is this:
* What happened shouldn't have happened, and those of you who think it should because she "disobeyed" the officer are surprising to me because:
* I don't think officers can simply demand whatever they want, i.e., if you don't do ____ I will do ____, and when I do ____, I'm completely justified, because you disobeyed me.
And, what I was trying to get across was, if you believe officers CAN make demands that are then retroactively justified when someone disobeys said demand, I feel sorry for you, because that's so horribly misguided.
And you don't tazer them for...but for not following orders to get out of the car.
No, you don't tazer them for that, either. posted by odinsdream at 11:42 PM on June 3, 2005
Well, what part of "get out of the car or I am going to tas you" did the individual not understand?
Idiocy like this starts in our current school system, and ends individuals up in prison when they can not comply with the most simple of requests from authority figures.
Good God, that woman is screaming like a stuck pig. On the other hand, that might just be her level in some aspects.
Maybe they could replace Darth Vader's "Nooooooooo" with her voice....
Hate me forever, but the more of this I watch, the more it cracks me up.... good thing this did not occur during the Roman empire, or missy would simply not be around anymore. Or, imagine missy doing this in ANY OTHER COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES.... we all know the answer to that situation.
Nothing follows. posted by buzzman at 11:44 PM on June 3, 2005
What if (Ut, oh.. strawman comming up, you can just tell) she was consolong a frightened child in the back seat, and wanted a second to make sure the child was OK before confronting the cop? What if the child was on the phone?
The cop acted with undue force. He should at least be investigated to see if he has a history of a heavy hand, and maybe give him a written warning. If it happens again, prosecute. posted by Balisong at 11:45 PM on June 3, 2005
there's no way that the cops should have to wait for her to be okay with being arrested.
posted by 23skidoo at 11:37 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Exactly. That's one of the most effed up things I've ever heard. posted by jikel_morten at 11:45 PM on June 3, 2005
Cops dont take chances with their lives when someone is being confrontational. posted by stbalbach at 11:46 PM on June 3, 2005
THEY ARREST HER AT 07:59:33!!! AND WHY ARE YOU TYPING ALL IN CAPS???
odinsdream :"those of you who think it should because she 'disobeyed' the officer are surprising to me because:
* I don't think officers can simply demand whatever they want, i.e., if you don't do ____ I will do ____, and when I do ____, I'm completely justified, because you disobeyed me."
Ah, now we're getting closer to the point of what I was saying above, and, quite possibly, one of the sources of disagreement in this thread.
You think the tazing was wrong. However, you're interpreting the people who think it was right as believing that officers can simply demand whatever they want.
I think the tazing was justified. I do NOT, however, think that officers can simply demand whatever they want.
??? For understanding the sequence was "speeding -> pull over -> ask to exit car -> taze -> discover suspended license -> arrest"? I wasn't aware chronological comprehension was scarrrrrry. posted by bugbread at 11:47 PM on June 3, 2005
I'm sort of confused by the apologists for the cop as well. No, in the old days they WOULDN'T have shot her, I don't know what freakish alternate reality you live in, but in mine I don't recall people being shot for taking their sweet time exiting a vehicle. I won't say they were necessary super polite, but they didn't use lethal force.
They didn't use batons either; you couldn't really under these sorts of circumstances. I have to think they had non-lethal and effective methods for dealing with this sort of situation in the past; why are those methods suddenly inferior to tasering a woman? Why does the existence of an admittedly effective but excruciatingly painful weapon suddenly make it the preferable choice?
If you're going to say it's because it's less likely the cop will be killed or injured on the job, I'd like to see the statistics where police officer injuries/fatalities have gone down since the introduction of the taser, since you'd expect to see at least some decrease that's attributable to their use. Otherwise it's just a more painful and less humane way of dealing with tense situations.
And you know what? Even if injuries, or even deaths, have gone down, I'm not sure I'm an advocate for their unrestricted use. If the only criteria for possible tools is that they work, they don't usually kill the suspect, and they make the cop's job safer in some situations, it leaves open a pretty vast array of methods that could be considered at once both effective and horribly inhumane. posted by wolftrouble at 11:48 PM on June 3, 2005
Show me the confrontation. She was TOTALLY non-confontational.
Did she pull out a knife or something that the video not show? posted by Balisong at 11:49 PM on June 3, 2005
"Well, what part of "get out of the car or I am going to tas you" did the individual not understand?" And how is that relevant? How about "dance for me wino or I am going to tas you" or maybe "show me your tits whore or I am going to tas you"? Not getting out of a car is not a reason to use a deadly weapon. posted by arse_hat at 11:49 PM on June 3, 2005
"ask to exit car -> taze ->" OK now it all makes sense! posted by arse_hat at 11:51 PM on June 3, 2005
The tazer isn't used to stop resistence.
It's used by cops as a form of as extra-judical punishment. posted by orthogonality at 11:52 PM on June 3, 2005
bugbread, what's scary is that you think "electrocution" somehow fits into the sequence by even the strangest definition of "rational behaviour" as far as I can tell.
I want to know why you think electrocution should be considered so soon (at all, really) in a situation like this, where the officers already clearly have the upper hand physically, mentally, strategically, and in terms of their armament.
I'm not going to address your comments about false dichotomy or my fill-in-the-blanks, because they didn't make any sense. posted by odinsdream at 11:55 PM on June 3, 2005
She was going to be arrested. She refused to get out of the car and she physically resisted arrest. The police department probably feels that there is less risk of physical injury to both the officer (way more important to the pd) and the resistor if instead of trying to wrestle a person resisting arrest, the police use a tazer. That said, I still agree with And you know what? Even if injuries, or even deaths, have gone down, I'm not sure I'm an advocate for their unrestricted use. If the only criteria for possible tools is that they work, they don't usually kill the suspect, and they make the cop's job safer in some situations, it leaves open a pretty vast array of methods that could be considered at once both effective and horribly inhumane. posted by lazy-ville at 11:56 PM on June 3, 2005
She was TOTALLY non-confontational.
You cant be serious. Look, I have a step sister who is a cop, I hear the stories all the time. This lady had it coming no questions. If a cop tells you to step out of the car and you dont do it, a world of hurt is coming down, and the only question becomes, whose going to get hurt. This "lady" was playing games even after she got tazed. posted by stbalbach at 11:58 PM on June 3, 2005
Get some more cops, extract her from the vehicle and lower her self-esteem without using Tom Swift and his Electric Rifle. Still, funny is funny. posted by longsleeves at 12:00 AM on June 4, 2005
Well, what part of "get out of the car or I am going to tas you" did the individual not understand?
Perhaps the part where the cop has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to demand that? The cop's right to use weapons derives from the same principle as everyone else's; he gets to use them to defend himself, or others. He has absolutely NO RIGHT to use a weapon unless she attacked him, or attacked someone else.
Or, imagine missy doing this in ANY OTHER COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES.... we all know the answer to that situation.
In any other country? Almost any nation in Europe would have dealt with this better. Canada would have dealt with this better. The only countries that would have had the answer you describe are brutal, third-world hellholes we have no desire to emulate. posted by Mitrovarr at 12:01 AM on June 4, 2005
If that's the case, why not just shoot a fire extinguisher full of pepper spray into every vehicle stop, and all police show up in gas masks.
It'd probably be safer for the police, and they wouldn't stop you if you weren't pre-guilty right? posted by Balisong at 12:01 AM on June 4, 2005
I'm not going to address your comments about false dichotomy or my fill-in-the-blanks, because they didn't make any sense.
posted by odinsdream at 11:55 PM PST on June 3 [!]
Actually, it made perfect sense. posted by jikel_morten at 12:01 AM on June 4, 2005
"If a cop tells you to step out of the car and you dont do it, a world of hurt is coming down" AH, so the cops ARE just thugs! posted by arse_hat at 12:05 AM on June 4, 2005
(Dios is gonna have a field day when he gets back from vacation...) posted by Balisong at 12:09 AM on June 4, 2005
wolftrouble :"I have to think they had non-lethal and effective methods for dealing with this sort of situation in the past; why are those methods suddenly inferior to tasering a woman? Why does the existence of an admittedly effective but excruciatingly painful weapon suddenly make it the preferable choice?"
The old way was training a weapon on the person in the car while the other officer opened the door, grabbed the occupant, and slammed them to the pavement. Basically, I just see this as six of one and half a dozen of the other. Tazing hurts a hell of a lot more, but you're far less likely to break a limb. You're marginally more likely to have a heart attack. You're less likely to get a concussion.
arse_hat :"How about 'dance for me wino or I am going to tas you' or maybe 'show me your tits whore or I am going to tas you'?"
Since you support arresting for driving with a suspended license, then, how about arresting someone for being left-handed, or for double-knotting their shoelaces? After all, as long as we can make random inapplicable examples as 'counterarguments', anything goes!
Personally, I'm saddened, arse_hat, that you apparently support arresting people merely for being Jewish.
arse_hat :"'ask to exit car -> taze ->' OK now it all makes sense!"
Arse_hat, I'm talking chronology, not justification. Someone asked "since when do you taze someone for driving with a suspended license". I'm pointing out that in neither her, their, or most of our minds, was the tazing related to the suspended license. It was related to the not-getting-out-of-carness. So, yeah, chronologically, it makes sense. That doesn't mean it's justified, or civil, or humane, or anything else which is a good topic for discussion. But saying "she got tazed for having a suspended license" is like saying "I got a cold when I was an infant for cheating on a test when I was in elementary school". It is possible only in the realms of science fiction, and should be avoided in a serious discussion. If trying to maintain that causes preceed effects is "scary", then may the world always be scary.
odinsdream :"I want to know why you think electrocution should be considered so soon (at all, really) in a situation like this, where the officers already clearly have the upper hand physically, mentally, strategically, and in terms of their armament."
Because, without tazing, they don't really have the upper hand in terms of strategy (she is in a car, they are not), armament (unless god forbid you propose that they forego tazing her and shoot her instead, which I clearly don't think you believe), mentally (I'd say that's about a tie). So the choice comes down to "taze" or "grab and wrestle out of car", and wrestling out of a car, I suspect, hurts just as bad, but carries a larger risk of permanent injury than tazing does.
And if they don't maintain the option of wrestling out of the car, they have no upper hand at all.
Mitrovarr :"Or, imagine missy doing this in ANY OTHER COUNTRY EXCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES.... we all know the answer to that situation."
Japan probably would have let her go (recalling amusing videotape where cops try to arrest a guy high on speed swinging a bat, only to run like hell when he comes after them, culminating in him stealing their police car. America is far too permissive of police action, but in Japan you lose the ability to be promoted permanently if you ever fire your weapon, even if you don't hit anyone. But that's just random trivia.)
Balisong :"If that's the case, why not just shoot a fire extinguisher full of pepper spray into every vehicle stop, and all police show up in gas masks."
Because not everybody refuses to follow standard pull-over procedures, like getting out of the car, opening the glove box, producing driver's license and registration, and the like.
Man, is there anybody in this thread who'se wearing cleats, because this whole thing seems to be composed of one giant slippery slope.
Balisong :"It'd probably be safer for the police, and they wouldn't stop you if you weren't pre-guilty right?"
It's sad that you think so. posted by bugbread at 12:09 AM on June 4, 2005
It's called snarky sarcasm.. but you know that. posted by Balisong at 12:12 AM on June 4, 2005
"Arse_hat, I'm talking chronology, not justification." OK, by chronology you are right but the justification is not there and the thug should be fire. posted by arse_hat at 12:13 AM on June 4, 2005
Well, I have always complied with what police ask of me and situations evolve in professional manner. ... ~I'm on the phone now so I can't step out of the car ~ ... DUH, no wonder the cop got irritated...
Add onto that, the broken windshield, suspended license, speeding, no seat belt... Hmmm... does anybody want her near their elementary school when class lets out? Driving around their neighborhood?
I say get this person out of the car, and never to be driving a 4,000 pound projectile again.
Either way, some pro-bono Florida lawyer is using Florida taxpayer monies to attempt damages because of this incident. Talk about where liberalism meets the taxpayer! Ha! posted by buzzman at 12:17 AM on June 4, 2005
Ya know.. I used to drive with a *expired* licence.
For 6+ years.
I had been afraid of getting it renewed because when I did, the gal at the DMV told me there was an outstanding charge against my driving record.
When I finally wend down and got it cleared up it was..
"Skateboarding on the Sidewalks" ticket.
Filed as a moving violation.
What a crock of shit!
I had been pulled over, and showed my expired licence, and the cop had given me a ticket.
$40 plus court costs.
This was in a whole different dimention, tho...
It was the Clinton years. posted by Balisong at 12:18 AM on June 4, 2005
"Arse_hat, I'm talking chronology, not justification." OK, by chronology you are right but the justification is not there and the thug should be fire.
posted by arse_hat at 12:13 AM PST on June 4 [!]
I think if you resist arrest, as she did, you open yourself up to the use of force, albeit at some unknown quantity. The subject will not necessarily know what's coming (wresling, baton, pepper, purple nurple...etc) and essentially rolls the dice by not cooperating. It's basically the chance one takes by resisting. In this case, the subject had the luxury of seeing the tool of coercion accompanied by numerous warnings and still chose to resist. posted by jikel_morten at 12:25 AM on June 4, 2005
I believe, if someone is pointing a Taser at you, and asking you to do something, you shouldn't be overly surprised if you don't do it, and get tasered. Cop or not.
She got what she was looking for.
Sure, the cop was a fucking asshat too - but since when is it news that a cop is overly aggressive? Look at the people you went to school with who turned out to be cops. It attracts an aggressive personality type. (Not saying all cops are aggressive here)
When you combine a non lethal weapon with that sort of personality, and a dangerouos and stressful job - then this sort of thing is going to happen on a weekly basis. The consequences of cop escalating the situation into violence are reduced because hes replaced his pistol with a Taser. posted by BadSeamus at 12:27 AM on June 4, 2005
bugbread, electrocution is not reasonable at all unless the cops felt they were in danger. They weren't in danger, they just had no idea how to control the situation without using their new toys. Their actions are like that of frightened children; when you don't get your way, hit something hard until you get your way... and I for one certainly don't feel safer knowing these guys wear a badge. I really don't.
I don't understand at all how you think being pulled out of your car by your arm is worse than having electrified metal darts shot into your flesh.
It's also interesting that you seem to be taking the position that this woman was, if not on equal footing, had the upper hand. You have to admit that's amazing, I mean...really incredible. posted by odinsdream at 12:27 AM on June 4, 2005
I had been pulled over, and showed my expired licence, and the cop had given me a ticket.
$40 plus court costs.
This was in a whole different dimention, tho...
It was the Clinton years.
posted by Balisong at 12:18 AM PST on June 4 [!]
sorta.. is that the cop's place to judge, or... the judge? posted by Balisong at 12:32 AM on June 4, 2005
Hate me forever, but the more of this I watch, the more it cracks me up....
Do me a favor: bookmark your comment then go to bed. Wake up in the morning, re-read it. Yeah, real funny shit, eh? posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:34 AM on June 4, 2005
Balisong :"It's called snarky sarcasm.. but you know that."
Yeah, I got that, but it was snarky sarcasm pointed at me/us related to a position that me/maybe-us don't hold, which is that people are pre-guilty, so that was snarky sarcasm directed back at you (i.e. "Since I don't think that, then it must be you that's thinking that.")
odinsdream :"they just had no idea how to control the situation without using their new toys."
Do you have any justification for that opinion?
odinsdream :"I don't understand at all how you think being pulled out of your car by your arm is worse than having electrified metal darts shot into your flesh."
You haven't seen many people get pulled out of their cars, then. We're not talking "aggressive version of trying to get shotgun seat in your friend's car".
odinsdream :"It's also interesting that you seem to be taking the position that this woman was, if not on equal footing, had the upper hand. You have to admit that's amazing, I mean...really incredible."
I'm not...quite. I'm saying, if police are denied all options of excercising force, then, except for the psychology of the badge and uniform, she would have it. After all, without the ability to use the force legally, what hand do cops have? Scintillating personality and conviviality?
Regardless, I've let my bile get the best of me. I should probably clarify what I think:
You have to obey the directives of an officer when they've pulled you over, as long as said directives are within the boundaries of the law. As such, "Get out of the car", or "Show me your driver's license and vehicle registration" are perfectly legal and valid. "Show us your tits being valid" or "Cops can ask you to do anything they want" is in no way my opinion, or true.
At the point you are disobeying an officer's orders, you're breaking extra laws. That was stupid.
Tazers are non-lethal force. In my opinion, they're marginally (but only marginally) better than the older alternative, "slam person's face on pavement", and better than alternative "allow person to continue to break the law and force a standoff until they decide to either capitulate (good) or drive off (much worse)". Without the ability to use any force whatsoever if the arrestee is nonviolent, the only power police have is to effectively arrest only violent perpetrators or rely on the honor system ("We'd really like you to get out of the car, ma'am, if that's OK with you"). In a situation like that, a murderer who was polite to the police could just sit in his car and decide at leisure whether to capitulate, fight or flight. A child pornographer could just hole themselves up and decide whether to capitulate, fight or flight. And if we accept "fight" as being the only option where any force is allowed, that means that anyone could flee the police at will, as long as they never directed any violence at the police. Ignore sirens indicating that you pull over, whathaveyou.
On the other hand, I do agree that lethal force should only be directed at perps immediately posing a violent threat at the police or others. You can taze a murderer running away from you; you should not be able to shoot them in the back. If said murderer, armed with knife, is running at the police, however, or some other bystander, then lethal force weapons should be permitted (though not required; if you can taze a murderer running at someone with a knife, then by all means do so, instead of shooting them).
And, all that said: the cops were assholes. That's pretty straightforward. If there'd been a ten minute standoff, it would be more justified. Allowing a short time to obey the law is not as decent as waiting. Calming her down. Explaining the situation. So, yes, I think they are assholes. I just don't think it's to the degree that they should be fired, described as the gestapo, or the like, which is what triggered me. To provide a non-violent example: a cop who writes you a ticket for driving 1 mph over the speed limit is an asshole. A royal asshole. But I don't think they should be called the gestapo, or to be fired. They're an asshole, that's all. Lots of people are assholes, and within reasonable limits, we deal with it. The lady was an asshole. The cop responded by being an asshole. In an ideal situation, the lady wouldn't have been an asshole. In an ideal situation, if she were an asshole, the cop wouldn't have been an asshole. Unfortunately, they were both assholes. I just don't think either one exceeded the boundaries of acceptable assholism. posted by bugbread at 12:39 AM on June 4, 2005
Just for the record, there's a difference between "expired" and "suspended." Often license suspensions are for things like DWI's, or driving recklessly and refusing to take breathalyzer or drug test. It indicates that the woman could indeed be dangerous in a car, and that warrants arrest. The manner of arrest is another matter. posted by QuietDesperation at 12:40 AM on June 4, 2005
In the career panoply, being a cop is only moderately dangerous.
Right, and that's only because most people have the sense to follow lawful orders by police officers because those cops are able to use force if necessary to carry out their duties. Take away the ability to use force and the job danger becomes much less "moderate." The danger to the rest of us, when the police are figuratively castrated by you (dare I say) anarchists also becomes much less "moderate."
And Balisong, *all* uses of force, including keeping somebody in handcuffs, could be considered "extra-judicial punishment." Would you care to elaborate on which uses of force by police are okay and which are not? It would go a long way toward assessing your credibility on this.
Pulling somebody over and not being able to see what the driver or passenger(s) may be reaching for is one of the most dangerous parts of a police officer's work. Of course, they're all "pigs" to you geniuses, so fuck 'em. Right?
I may be going way out on a limb here, but I'd wager that many of you who are so militantly opposed to police have a history of run-ins with the law. I'm sure they're just out to get you. . . posted by BrandonAbell at 12:41 AM on June 4, 2005
Yes, I will remember it. For all the time riding a dirt bike in the city limits, driving with a suspendend license, or as now, and expired inspection sticker, ... if the cops catch you; and you CHOOSE to challenge the police... you LOSE!!! I am laughing now. Stupid actions yield stupid results. I think it is hilarious. Odds say that once downtown, her license is also previously suspended, or her insurance is false.
As before, and either way; people like this do NOT need to be in charge of 4,000 pound projectiles moving along at 51 mph in a 35 mph limit area. Or any other.
as a little sidebar... she did pass in the slow lane, didn't she? Set for stun, and end her license for five or more years. Priviledge revoked! posted by buzzman at 12:43 AM on June 4, 2005
Balisong :"sorta.. is that the cop's place to judge, or... the judge?"
Kind of a tricky question. First off, judging is within a cop's place in certain situations (not necessarily this one). For example, "Guy with machinegun shooting at elementary school kids" = the cop has the ability, by seeing the crime taking place, to act as a sort of proxy judge and shoot Mr. Machinegun. He doesn't have to avoid all force in order to arrest the person in order that the judge (or, more accurately, the jury) decides whether the person is guilty or not.
In this situation, which I acknowledge is far, FAR less cut-and-dried, there are certain parts in which the police cannot act as judge; for example, determination of speeding. Even though the cop has a radar, it's up to the court to determine if the person was really speeding. However, at the point where the person is resisting arrest, it does fall in to the cop's scope to determine that the person is resisting arrest. Whether that justifies tasering is a separate issue, but in this place it is the cop's place to judge if they're resisting arrest...Which, again, is why the chronology (or, better phrased, "why he tasers her") is important: if you interpret the tasering as being "for having a suspended license", then he's just totally, absolutely, incontrovertibly in the wrong. However, he doesn't tazer her on finding out that she's got a suspended license, or that she's speeding, but he tazer's her for resisting arrest / failure to obey an officer's commands. In this case, it is his place to judge, to the extent of determining a follow up course of action, but not OK to judge to the extent of fining or providing other punitive actions unrelated to causing her to stop her noncompliance. That is, if he didn't taze her or take any money, that would be fine. If he tazered her but took no money, his judging would be fine, but his determination of appropriate course of action might not be fine. If he tazered her and fined her on the spot, his judging would not be fine.
BrandonAbell :"I may be going way out on a limb here, but I'd wager that many of you who are so militantly opposed to police have a history of run-ins with the law."
I support this officer's actions (or, at least, the first tazering, but not the second). I think he was a jerk, but I support his actions as being within acceptable scope. I am, however, generally opposed to the police. Not as a concept, but in their particular reality. I have no history of run-ins with the law. Many, many, many people I know are opposed to the actual reality of police, and they have no history of run-ins with the law. I think you are going very very far out on a limb. posted by bugbread at 12:53 AM on June 4, 2005
And Balisong, *all* uses of force, including keeping somebody in handcuffs, could be considered "extra-judicial punishment." Would you care to elaborate on which uses of force by police are okay and which are not? It would go a long way toward assessing your credibility on this.
Well, OK. I wasn't the one who brought extra judicial punishment up, but OK..
Pulling fingernails out Not OK
Politely asking someone to put down the phone, and waiting until they did, before questioning them further, OK
Chinese Water Torture, Not OK.
Grabing the phone from their hands while having a hand on your pistol in order to ensure their attention, OK.
Pointing and then tazing someone talking on the phone because they did not immediately comply with your request? Not OK.
Calling for backup to render the car and it's operator completely immobile, OK
Using a tazer on a persumably innocent trafic stop for a non- life threatening situation, Not OK.
Killing an armed assailant who is comming at you with a broken bottle, OK
If the cops can't use any more restraint than this, they should be US army prison guards, not cops on US streets..
(you know,, snarky) posted by Balisong at 12:58 AM on June 4, 2005
bugbread: THEY ARREST HER AT 07:59:33!!! AND WHY ARE YOU TYPING ALL IN CAPS???
Cuz nobody was addressing my question, a rhetorical question of chronology rather than of simple timestamp. (Sorry if the font offended you; I hope we can put that unpleasantness behind us. I also used the "big" tag. Bad Sludge.) Anyhow, my point...
My problem with the stop: The cop demands that she hang up the phone and get out of the car without informing her that she's under arrest. (Sure, from the video we know that she knows/thinks/fears she is about to be arrested, but the cop doesn't know this.) Is she legally obligated to comply?
bugbread: Because not everybody refuses to follow standard pull-over procedures, like getting out of the car, opening the glove box, producing driver's license and registration, and the like.
She did produce license and registration. And getting out of the car is not, I think, a "standard pull-over procedure". I've been pulled over several times (all speeding...), and I've never been asked -- before seeing this video I may well have refused.
Seriously, I want to know:
1. Are you legally "under arrest" anytime a cop pulls you over? (I think the answer is no.) If so, that would seem to obligate you to comply with ANY request, so as not to be Resisting Arrest. If not...
2. What all are you required to do without being under arrest? Pretty sure the license, registration, and proof of insurance are mandatory. Pretty sure opening your trunk or even glovebox is not, without probable cause. (See illegal search and seizure) Not sure whether exiting vehicle is mandatory or not.
3. Is it different depending on whether you're pulled over in a vehicle vs. stopped while walking/biking/skateboarding/whatever?
Is there a lawyer in the house??
Quite telling that so many people think she deserved to be tazed for being rude. So much for rule of law. Bring on some sweet, sweet street justice!
On preview: Wow that's the most uses of "asshole" I've ever seen in a single paragraph! Gotta say, though, that the use of a potentially lethal weapon is a high grade of assholism than yakking on a cell phone... posted by LordSludge at 1:01 AM on June 4, 2005
bugbread, please stop pretending someone in the thread believes he tasered her for having a suspended license or speeding. Nobody thinks this is what happened, and we can all review the video to verify this more-than-obvious fact.
The whole point is that given the entire situation, it seems very UN-reasonable for him to choose tasering when he did. The woman was not posing a threat, was not resisting arrest physically (unless you count sitting there as "resisting"), and was in plain view of both officers during the event. The use of a weapon, even a so-called "non-lethal" one (ask someone with a pacemaker...) is uncalled for. Pulling her out of the car would be completely justified. I don't know why you pretend that wouldn't be legal, yet believe shooting darts at her is. posted by odinsdream at 1:04 AM on June 4, 2005
I may be going way out on a limb here, but I'd wager that many of you who are so militantly opposed to police have a history of run-ins with the law. I'm sure they're just out to get you. . .
I think your limb snapped and yeah; I'm a genius.
I've worked in armed security, personal protection and housing projects in Chicago where we did get shot at and fucked with regularly. We were trained to de-escalate situations; not meet them with superior firepower. That's just fucking insane and over the top. There's a protocol you follow to assess threats. Based on just that video, it sure looked like the cop went from sero to sixty with no in-between. posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:08 AM on June 4, 2005
So... When is a person considered to be "under arrest"? Is it:
a. Anytime a cop pulls you over?
b. Anytime a cop tells you to exit your vehicle?
c. Anytime a cop gets angry, yells at you, and threatens to taze you?
d. Anytime a cop tells you are, in fact, under arrest?
e. Other?
Cuz I sorta thought the answer was "d.", and he never once told her that. Hence, no resisting arrest, just, at worst, failure to comply with a lawful request. And I'm not even sure about that.
On preview, longbaugh: Exactly. Excessive use of force just makes the world more dangerous for cops. It's as if they think they can bully public opinion into submission. posted by LordSludge at 1:17 AM on June 4, 2005
I, (knock on virtual wood), haven't been pulled over for many years.
The last time I did, I had a pistol in the car. (headlight out)
I told the officer right where it was after he asked if there were any weapons in the car. I asked him if he would like for me to give it to him, or if he would want to retreive it himself.
He wanted to retreive it himself, so I exited the car, just like I was told.
The pistol, a Ruger p89 loaded, and chambered, was just where I told him it was. along with an extra magazine.
He thought I was DUI. I said I wasn't.
I passed 4 different breathalisers, that they just couldn't believe weren't working.
He said I needed to go down to the hospital for a blood test. I complied.
My pistol was taken as "possible" evidence.
The results came back and my Blood Alcohol level was 0.00%
But I still spent a night in county jail.
I talked to the DA about getting my pistol back, and he said it was to be destroyed.
I knew my rights, for the state and county, and city limits, and knew that even concealed, which it was, and loaded, which it was, I was legal in my carry option.
I got my pistol back.
It cost me $800 for a lawyer to convince the DA that I was legal in my actions, all over a $350 pistol. but I won, and got it back.
Everything except the part about me having to prove that I was legal for the DA. was justifiable. I talked guns with the cop who had me in his cruiser. We talked about tritium nightsights, 9mm VS. .45, polymer VS. steel guns. He was very polite. So was I.
The point is that I was LEGAL in my carrying of a loaded concealed firearm, and I'm glad I live in the wild west, rather than S. Florida, where that would be a death sentance. posted by Balisong at 1:29 AM on June 4, 2005
LordSludge :"And getting out of the car is not, I think, a 'standard pull-over procedure'. I've been pulled over several times (all speeding...), and I've never been asked -- before seeing this video I may well have refused."
Ok, then, this may also be a big component in the gap occuring here: any times I or a friend have been pulled over, it included a "get out of the car". So I just put that together with "show license and registration". If it's in fact unusual, I can see where a lot of the divide here is happening.
LordSludge :"What all are you required to do without being under arrest? Pretty sure the license, registration, and proof of insurance are mandatory. Pretty sure opening your trunk or even glovebox is not, without probable cause. (See illegal search and seizure) Not sure whether exiting vehicle is mandatory or not."
That's the big question. And, honestly, I don't know.
LordSludge :"Quite telling that so many people think she deserved to be tazed for being rude."
Who thought that? If she'd exited the car while calling the cop an asshole, I definitely don't think that tazering would be remotely justified...who argued that rudeness was the issue?
LordSludge :"Gotta say, though, that the use of a potentially lethal weapon is a high grade of assholism than yakking on a cell phone..."
odinsdream :"bugbread, please stop pretending someone in the thread believes he tasered her for having a suspended license or speeding. Nobody thinks this is what happened"
My apologies (with reservation): I am not "pretending" that someone believes that. I am just plain wrong. It wasn't malicious or intentional. Balisong wrote: ""You don't pull someone over for a suspended licence, and you don't tazer them if it is." and then when I wrote out the chronology, arse_hat took issue with it. It appeared to me that Balisong and arse_hat were both taking the position that the tasering was due to the suspended license. Arse_hat clarified a few posts up, and upon reading your comment, I reread the thread and discovered that Balisong shortly after the first post said something to the effect of "That's not what I'm saying". So, I apologize for misreading; I was not "pretending", though.
odinsdream :"The whole point is that given the entire situation, it seems very UN-reasonable for him to choose tasering when he did."
Agreed. Like I say, I think it was unreasonable and jerkish and, again, assholish. I just don't think it's to the degree of firing him or comparing him to the Gestapo.
odinsdream :"was not resisting arrest physically (unless you count sitting there as 'resisting')"
I do.
odinsdream :"was in plain view of both officers during the event."
Agreed.
odinsdream :"I don't know why you pretend that wouldn't be legal, yet believe shooting darts at her is."
When did I "pretend" that? And what's with all the "pretend"?
LordSludge: Just wanted to let you know that we're not ignoring you, I just suspect that nobody knows the answer to your questions.
I was always under the impression that it was something like:
You're under arrest when you are told you're under arrest. However, you have to comply with lawful orders by a policeman at a traffic stop, even when you aren't under arrest. Failure to do so makes you fail to comply with the law, which thereby makes you eligible for arrest. Or something along those lines. However, IAAL (I Am A Layman). posted by bugbread at 1:33 AM on June 4, 2005
If the woman was not already told she was under arrest, she wasn't. And the first, and second tasering was illegal.
Being beligerant is not against the law, if it is, show me the law.
If you continue to be beligerant after the cop tells you you are under arrest, you are breaking the law.
This is not what happened in the video.
The cop was still using unreasonable force. It was post-stop, but pre-arrest. If people can go to jail and be charged for resisting arrest, then cops can be charged for using undue force before arrest.
All he had to say is, "Ma'am, you are under arrest" and this wouldn't be an issue. posted by Balisong at 1:47 AM on June 4, 2005
bugbread, it seemed like here's where you came off, to me, as assuming it was somehow legally risky for them to use physical force, yet somehow tazing was okay:
I'm saying, if police are denied all options of excercising force, then, except for the psychology of the badge and uniform, she would have it. After all, without the ability to use the force legally, what hand do cops have?
The police definitely weren't denied any options with regard to force, so clearly they do have the upper hand, by quite a large margin. As far as I know, it's normally acceptable for a cop to physically move you around in cases where you're being arrested. This is almost always expected in such cases, and in this situation, where the door was already open, and apparently the woman wasn't buckled in, and was using at least one hand to hold a cellphone, it would have been trivial and easy to pull her from the car. In my imagination, it's that doting reno-911-style "lets get out of the car crazy grandpa...ookaaay dooowwwn we go..."
These officers could have held the lady up by the shoulders and dangled her in the air. But, what happens instead? Metal electrified darts. posted by odinsdream at 1:49 AM on June 4, 2005
I guess what really gets to the heart of my frustration is the very visible level of frustration and short temper of the officer. This person is charged with enforcing the law, and his handling of the situation, if not outright illegal, is certainly not professional...and in my opinion downright shameful. More importantly, though, was how clearly out of control the officers allowed this relatively passive situation to get. In my mind, I stack this behaviour up against a situation where the officers are actually threatened, and I come up with something very disturbing and dangerous to everyone involved. If they haven't been trained to handle a belligerent-but-unthreatening lady half their size, can you honestly say they've been trained properly? posted by odinsdream at 1:55 AM on June 4, 2005
odinsdream :"After all, without the ability to use the force legally, what hand do cops have?"
Sorry, that was meant to include tazering and pulling from the car. I certainly don't think that the use of physical force is risky (er, well, rather, it is, but tazering is probably more risky. So, yeah, effectively, physical force = not appreciably legally risky). And I was apparently misinterpreting proscriptions against use of
odinsdream :"These officers could have held the lady up by the shoulders and dangled her in the air. But, what happens instead? Metal electrified darts."
As I figured, this is the point of contention. With the exception of pacemakers, I consider (through purely anecdotal evidence: I've never gotten so much as a traffic ticket) tazering to be more painful and less injurious than pulling and pavement slamming, which is less painful but more injurious. While I'm sure that they could have dangled her in the air, I've never seen that performed, neither in real life nor documentary footage. All I've ever seen is slamming on pavement or against side of car. posted by bugbread at 2:03 AM on June 4, 2005
Just stumbled onto this now...
Looks to me like an asshole cop on a power trip pulling a dick move. I'd be mad too if I pulled someone over and they put me off to talk on the phone, but if I'm the law at that point, I GRAB THE PHONE and say "She's under arrest and will call you back, maybe." I DONT GODDAMN RUN 10,000 VOLTS THROUGH HER BODY.
Is she a little to blame? Yeah, like 5%...dumb move trying to talk on the phone in the first place, dumber to keep trying when he draws a gun, dumber when he says get out or get tased. But if you're a cop charged with the duty to protect and serve citizens, assuming innocence and pulling over an ornery woman whose license is suspended for whatever reason and you pull your gun and taser and shock her twice? That's dumber than everything else put together.
She was being stupid - but the cop made the really poor choice, and he's going to go down for it, I guarantee it. No jury is going to watch that video and let it slide (although let's not forget 4/26/92). posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:09 AM on June 4, 2005
Alright, the dangling in the air is hyperbole, but meant to emphasise my opinion that the officers are stronger than this lady by several times, and could easily restrain her physically (here comes the best part) without the slamming-into-the-pavement part!
Why is slamming into the pavement necessary? Is she going to run away? To where? They know who she is and presumably where she lives. This situation couldn't be more under their control. It's practically something I'd expect to see directly in a training situation. Something not exactly by the book, but certainly not at all threatening, with several different options for how to handle it from waiting it out to shooting her brains out, and everything in between. No, they didn't handle it as badly as possible, but they did get pretty damn close. It would be the kind of training exercise that would end with the instructor asking "And what could Johnson have done differently, anyone?" while Johnson gets an F and a note that reads "try harder not to taze middle-aged moms next time."
On preview, BlackLeotardFront, I believe it was 50,000 volts. posted by odinsdream at 2:14 AM on June 4, 2005
Hmm...can't find anything offhand about what laws govern compliance with police orders before arrest, but I have stumbled across a laundry list of common pull over points:
* When you see the red overhead lights and/or hear the siren, remain calm and safely pull over to the right side of the road.
* Remain in your vehicle unless the officer advises otherwise.
* Keep your hands on the steering wheel so the officer can see them.
* Avoid any sudden movements, especially toward the floor, rear seat, or passenger side of the vehicle.
* Do not reach for your license or other documents until the officer requests them.
* If your documents are out of reach, tell the officer where they are before you reach for them.
* If you have a weapon in the vehicle, promptly notify the officer of its location.
* If the stop occurs during darkness, turn on your dome or interior lights so the officer can easily see the interior of your car.
* If there are passengers in your vehicle, encourage them to remain quiet and cooperate with instructions.
* Regardless of your innocence the officer still has the right to see your paperwork and ask you to exit the car.
* The officer may issue you a citation. If you feel the reason is vague or unclear, ask the officer for details.
* Avoid becoming argumentative. If you contest the violation, you will have an opportunity to address the matter in court.
* Be honest with the officer.
* If you receive a citation, accept it calmly. Accepting it is not an admission of guilt. Your signature is usually, but not always, required.
(No, the above is not a description of law, and it isn't meant to serve as cop propaganda, though it basically is. I just post it here as a list of "relatively common" arrest things. Show documents? Check. Step out of car if asked? Check. Notify of weapons? Check. Show tits? No. Dance? No.)
Also, apparently, whether the officer has to state your charges or not varies from state to state. I suppose it is possible (any lawyers in the house?) to be under arrest without a verbal declaration of arrest. posted by bugbread at 2:16 AM on June 4, 2005
No jury is going to watch that video and let it slide
In this thread alone, there's nowhere even close to 100% agreement that what the cop did is punishable. posted by 23skidoo at 2:20 AM on June 4, 2005
odinsdream :"Why is slamming into the pavement necessary? Is she going to run away? To where? "
You're right. I think I was thinking with an uneven and mismatched mix of abstract logic ("physical force" vs. "tazer") and concrete reality ("slamming to ground"), making my own dichotomy (groundslam OR tazer) false. While "groundslammin" would probably have been the next most likely course of action, we're not talking about what's likely, we're talking about what's right or good. He should have neither groundslammed her nor tazered her, but applied other, appropriate physical force (which I'm not too familiar with but am darned sure exists). posted by bugbread at 2:22 AM on June 4, 2005
I suppose it is possible (any lawyers in the house?) to be under arrest without a verbal declaration of arrest.
I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought you had to be read your miranda rights when you were arrested. Even if there is some obscure law that allows an officer to "arrest" you without actually saying so, it certainly is in the best interest of the officer to promptly notify the person that they are, in fact, under arrest. posted by odinsdream at 2:31 AM on June 4, 2005
odinsdream :"Even if there is some obscure law...it certainly is in the best interest"
Definitely agreed. posted by bugbread at 2:34 AM on June 4, 2005
I don't think that anything constitutes arrest until you are notified, in your language, or maybe Spanish, that you are under arrest. (Navajo?)
Anything that happens before is subject to criminal prosecution as if another non-cop did it to you.
Anything that happens after is subject to police procedure.
Anything else is beyond the law, and prosecutable. posted by Balisong at 2:35 AM on June 4, 2005
Also, amusing (well, quite mildly) anecdote about effect of American pop culture on the world: an Aussie friend who had a cop friend in Australia reported it was not uncommon for people to demand that the police read them their Miranda rights, even though there is nothing called a "Miranda right" in Australian law, because it's what they saw in movies and assumed was "what happens when you get arrested". posted by bugbread at 2:39 AM on June 4, 2005
What I'm confused about, then, basically, is the whole "you aren't under arrest, but you have to do what the police tell you" end of the law. For example, if a police car flashes lights and rings its siren behind you, you have to pull over, despite the fact that they haven't announced that you're under arrest. The same for producing a driver's license, etc. So while you aren't under arrest, you still have to do what they ask, and, presumably, ignoring them is illegal. Always been a bit wavy about the specifics of how that's worked out. posted by bugbread at 2:41 AM on June 4, 2005
Those of you who think the cops should have lifted her from the car. I have a few questions. 1. Do you think this woman wouldn't have struggled? 2. Can two men hold onto a thrashing woman without slamming her against something (ground/car).
Regardless of all of that, as soon as they tried to grab her the woman could have stabbed the officer as far as they knew. Tasering is far preferrable to gun drawn wrestling out of the car (no AD's, no shooting of the suspect if she does have a knife/gun).
This woman is clearly in the wrong, and I am no fan of police having excessive power but you argue in court. The cops should not and are not required to wait while you take your own sweet time complying with their lawful orders. Those of you who suggested parking two cop cars around the car and waiting for her really want your pie in the sky. What happens four hours later when those same cops are needed at a hostage situation or a bank robbery or anything? Why is this woman more important than the hostage or the bank. She's not. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.
I live semi-near this area and sincerely hope that they keep this lady off the road for a long time. posted by BackwardsHatClub at 3:11 AM on June 4, 2005
Those of you who think the cops should have lifted her from the car. I have a few questions. 1. Do you think this woman wouldn't have struggled? 2. Can two men hold onto a thrashing woman without slamming her against something (ground/car).
Regardless of all of that, as soon as they tried to grab her the woman could have stabbed the officer as far as they knew. Tasering is far preferrable to gun drawn wrestling out of the car (no AD's, no shooting of the suspect if she does have a knife/gun).
This woman is clearly in the wrong, and I am no fan of police having excessive power but you argue in court. The cops should not and are not required to wait while you take your own sweet time complying with their lawful orders. Those of you who suggested parking two cop cars around the car and waiting for her really want your pie in the sky. What happens four hours later when those same cops are needed at a hostage situation or a bank robbery or anything? Why is this woman more important than the hostage or the bank. She's not. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.
I live semi-near this area and sincerely hope that they keep this lady off the road for a long time. posted by BackwardsHatClub at 3:11 AM on June 4, 2005
The officer tried to pull the driver out of the vehicle but she resisted. In addition Officer McNevin maintains that she took a swing at his colleague when he tried to remove her cell phone from the right side of the car. And there did appear to be some kind of commotion within the car on the video.
If you listen to the commentary from the police sergeant he explains that physically pulling the woman from the vehicle would have been more dangerous for both the woman and the officer.
It looks to me like the officer handled this one by the book. posted by grouse at 3:21 AM on June 4, 2005
if a police car flashes lights and rings its siren behind you, you have to pull over, despite the fact that they haven't announced that you're under arrest.
Is that 'resisting arrest' or 'failure to yield to an emergency vehicle'? My point being that I thought there was a specific law addressing that.
The same for producing a driver's license, etc.
What would that offense be, assuming you flat out refuse?
Hey, that's a good link you posted. It appears that there is indeed a middle ground between 'freedom' and 'under arrest':
A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave.
Can we agree that the woman was "in custody", but neither free to leave nor under arrest? The obvious followup question is... what are your rights and obligations while "in custody"?
Hrm..., just caught this:
* Regardless of your innocence the officer still has the right to see your paperwork and ask you to exit the car.
If that's true, can the cop taze you if you are completely innocent but refuse to exit the vehicle? What if you refuse to show ID? (For some reason the thought of: "pull-over -> tazing -> have-a-nice-day" cracks me up...) Guess the 50,000V question is: Can the tazer be legally used to coerce the subject into compliance with lawful requests while in custody but not under arrest?
What if you refuse to turn on your dome light, turn off the radio, keep both hands on wheel, refrain from picking your nose, eating onions, drooling excessively, talking with a silly accent or other things that are non-threatening but annoying to a cop? Are you legally eligible for a tazing if you refuse to comply?
Man, seems like some really fundamental questions that we don't have the answers for! Heh, where's a lawyer when ya need one?
FWIW, I want this woman off the road as much as anybody, not just for the legal offenses, but also cuz she's a shitty driver (driving while talking on phone, passing on right), but the use of a tazer -- or any weapon -- by a law officer on a citizen for anything but self-defense (expediency, punishment) is wrong. posted by LordSludge at 3:29 AM on June 4, 2005
LordSludge :"Is that 'resisting arrest' or 'failure to yield to an emergency vehicle'? My point being that I thought there was a specific law addressing that."
Sorry if you misinterpreted me; that was my point too. There is not just a binary situation of "not under arrest, do what you will" and "under arrest, subsequent to all arrest laws". There are other situations, covered by other specific laws which I don't know anything about, that entail situations where you aren't under arrest, but must obey.
One that does occur to me, by the way, as a possibility for situations where the person has not yet been placed under arrest but is not cooperating, is "obstruction of justice". So, it occurs to me, if you refuse to provide your driver's license or the like, even though you haven't been arrested yet (for example, they've had a report of a stolen car that matches your's description, and they want to run your license through to see if it's yours or not. You are not under arrest until they can determine that you're the thief, but they can't determine you're the thief until you've given them your license), you could be charged with obstruction of justice.
LordSludge :"Can we agree that the woman was 'in custody', but neither free to leave nor under arrest?"
My guess (just a guess), is that this is true.
LordSludge :"Can the tazer be legally used to coerce the subject into compliance with lawful requests while in custody but not under arrest?"
Again, while I don't know, I have to say, you are the angel of appropriate and relevant questions. posted by bugbread at 3:41 AM on June 4, 2005
LordSludge : "Can the tazer be legally used to coerce the subject into compliance with lawful requests while in custody but not under arrest?"
I think the question would be more appropriately phrased: Can the tazer be legally used to force the subject into a position that he/she could be lawfully arrested.
She may have been in custody but the officers were attempting to arrest her. posted by BackwardsHatClub at 3:48 AM on June 4, 2005
BackwardsHatClub: I think the question would be more appropriately phrased: Can the tazer be legally used to force the subject into a position that he/she could be lawfully arrested.
Seperate question, but I'd think yes. My own question still stands unanswered.
BackwardsHatClub: She may have been in custody but the officers were attempting to arrest her.
Once again, shouldn't an officer that's arresting a subject have to inform the subject of that fact? How can a subject 'resist arrest' if they don't know that they're being placed under arrest?
I've had this happen, minus the resisting part. Cop was talking with me, then just slapped on the cuffs. I was like ... huh?? What if I had jerked my hands away? Would that be 'resisting arrest'?? posted by LordSludge at 4:04 AM on June 4, 2005
I agree with you that he should have said it, but the fact that he didn't doesn't excuse her behavior. In the heat of everything that was going on I can understand him not actually saying it, I might do the same thing. His normal strategy may be to get people out of the car before he informs them they are under arrest because it's less likely for things like this to happen that way. posted by BackwardsHatClub at 4:27 AM on June 4, 2005
If this was an IQ test then the woman failed.
Did she think she was going to call his bluff?
Did she think that the officer was joking?
Tazering someone certainly isn't the preferred outcome to a traffic stop, IMO. OTOH, not doing what a cop says when they have a weapon pointed at you.... I just can't fathom. This woman will end up on the Darwin awards sooner or later, whether it's at the hands of the cops or not.
FWIW, I'm probably someone who's side with, say, the ACLU over the cops 99.9% of the time. While I do think that this cop was an asshole, I'm more shocked at the absolute utter stupidity of the woman. posted by MjrMjr at 4:33 AM on June 4, 2005
Fair enough, but it can't/shouldn't be 'resisting arrest'. Maybe 'obstruction of justice'?
Actually, it would appear to me, at this moment, that you can indeed be tazed for refusing to comply with a lawful request (obstruction of justice?), regardless of whether you actually broke any other law and regardless of whether you're then charged with obstruction of justice. Wow. posted by LordSludge at 4:49 AM on June 4, 2005
As commented on above this is an example of needless escalation of violence in a contentious situation. The use of the tazer by the police officer seems to show that the officer had little understanding of the situation and how to control it. He paniced and shot an unresisting member of the public unnecessarily. It would be nice to think that this kind of action would be censured in an organisation whose motto is 'to protect and serve'.
Letting her calm down for a few minutes would have helped the situation. It may have also helped the police officer not to sink to her expectations. Maybe he has been watching too much news/propaganda/cops/America's most stupid car chases.
Having studied de-escalation of confrontational situations a little myself, I would say that this officer did not exhibit much in the way of intelligence in dealing with the situation. The outcomes are mostly negative, with the short term benefit that the woman complied with the request to exit the vehicle. As this incident is publicised respect for the police is diminshed whilst fear of violence increases, possibly leading to quicker escalations in the future. The officer is a liabilty to the force.
If there is no training on removing resistant people from vehicles included in police training I would be very supprised.
If there is no training on remaining calm in fraught situations I would be very supprised. Not meeting someone's verbal violence with physical violence would seem an obvious way of keeping a situation managable.
In this case, assuming:
The woman's hands were both visible and empty, except for the mobile phone
The engine of the vehicle had been switched off
Her seatbelt is not buckled
The officers should be able to talk her out of the car, remaining calm and persistent. One could be stood directly in front of the vehicle, blocking it's exit. This would not pose a great threat to his well-being as he would be able to move sideways or over the bonnet, should she resist arrest by attempting to flee in the vehicle
Subscribe
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:13 PM on June 3, 2005