You Have the Right To Remain Tasered?

[FPrice]

When I was a kid, I learned to "respect authority", even if I disagreed with it.

Len, you may have hit upon one of the big problems with today's society. The lack of respect for authority.

Of course, the opposite arguement is equally valid. That is, the lack of respect for the responsibility to exercise authority in a fair manner as demonstrated by some of those in positions of authority (see Massachusetts politicians).

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Are the police too trigger happy with tasers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvFULc-bglk


http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?111507/111507_cav_taser&Excessive%20Force%3F&Your_World&Taser%20chairman%20stands%20by%20devices%20despite%20Vancouver%20death&Your%20World&-1&&&&&


Again, I am not saying that this has not saved lives, all I am saying is that this is now being used as a primary tool well before all other rational options have been exhausted. What if that driver was from out of state and did not know what he was signing? Again, the officer should have warned that a non-signature would result in arrest.

I am just disturbed at the willingness to use this tool against someone. "less than lethal", "non-lethal", "will not harm": This is now a crutch for poor communication and improper handling of a situation.

Again: If you have to pull a taser, you should have your primary weapon drawn as a backup. If the threat is SO great that you have to incapacitate someone, then you better be able to drop them if the "less than lethal" alternative backfires.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Len, your logical, reasoned, and experienced-based arguments are lost on a couple of know-it-alls that are self-appointed experts on police use of force, Utah state criminal law, and medical effects of tasers.

It does not take a "know it all" or "expert on police use of force" to realize that the video, if it is as it appears (and is not a spliced section omitting selective parts) shows that the officer chose not to attempt to resolve the situation by explaining what would happen to the driver if he chose not to sign, and telling him he was being given one more chance to sign the citation. It also does not take a "know it all" to observe (once again, subject to the aforementioned matter of untampered video) that the officer told the second officer on the scene that he issued a warning before using the Taser when he did no such thing.

None of these conclusions or observations even touch on the "use of force" issue - in fact, the use of the Taser doesn't bother me - the "jump instantly to arrest without attempt to de-escalate" action, and making an untruthful statement that would, absent the video, be used to claim the citizen was warned when such was not the case, is troubling.

Saying that any non-LEO who does not feel the situation was handled well is some sort of unqualified self appointed expert is no different than asserting that nobody without a medical degree is qualified to recognize malpractice.

But it is NOT up to the officer to ignore the laws, so he has to do what he is paid to do.

Yup. It looks like he was required to get a signed citation or a prisoner. I don't think any of the cops I know would jump right to arrest without trying a bit of verbal persuasion on the signature issue first.

 

[ASG]

When I was a kid, I learned to "respect authority", even if I disagreed with it.

I think authorities should only be respected as long as they are doing right. To have respect for authority no matter how what is dangerous to liberty. I have respect for cops who do their jobs and do not get a thuggish attitude, but those who go over the line or try to be thugs, I have no respect for. Same with politicans and all other authorities, if they do their jobs right and follow the Constitution, I respect them, otherwise, I have none for them.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Like many of you I've reviewed this youtube tape repeatedly and have my own conclusions. These are based on my 21 years on the job of which I spent 4 years as a detective. I am currently a Patrol Sgt.

Officer: What you are going to do...
Driver: If you are going to give me a ticket, you are going to tell me why...
Officer: For Speeding
Driver: Second of all, we are going to look for the 40 MPH sign
Officer: Well, you are going to sign this first
Driver: No I am not, I am not going to sign anything officer
Wife: No, there were no signs that we passed....(inaudible)
Officer: OK...hop right out of the car

[Officer Turns back to the car and the driver follows]

[They reach the cruiser, Officer places the clipboard on the hood and turns to the driver who is now POINTING down the highway looking for the 40 MPH sign]

Officer: Turn around an put your hands behind you back

[Driver pointing, down the road, officer moves side to]

Driver: No, now I.... [Still pointing down the road]

[Officer withdraws taser, Driver still not realizing what was happening]

Officer: TURN AROUND and put your hands behind behind your back!

Driver: What the HELL is wrong with you! [Sees the taser being pointed and backs away, then turns to and starts to WALK away]

Officer: Turn around. TURN AROUND!

Driver: What the HECK is wrong with you!

[With NO warning, the taser is deployed]

Based on my training and experience this is what I would have done. From the point "Hop out of the car" and when the Motorist walks back to the front of the patrol car Insert the following:

"Sir you are required under Utah law to sign this summons and you have refused to do so therefore you are under arrest for that refusal -
turn around and put your hands behind your back". You tell him...you look him straight in the eye and you tell him... you use your voice of authority ....you don't need to threaten him with a taser.... It's recorded on your patrol cars recorder...he's already shown you he's gonna argue let him do it right in front of the tape regardless of what his mistaken belief is... you your bosses and any judge will know he must obey or anything else he does is resisting. If he then foolishly decides to walk away then he gets tasered or snatched up whatever the case may be.

If the officer had only done this it would have shot down a lawsuit or admin charges before they would have even got off the ground.

Again, the use of force was unnecessary if the Officer prevented the situation from being escalated in the first place. Without truly conveying the gravity of the situation had the driver NOT signed the ticket, then I think that would have been the better

To "dumb down" the law: The stop itself is the arrest and signing the citation is in effect bonding out and promising to appear rather being held for appearance.

Most common people would not understand that simply being pulled over for speeding is being arrested, apparently (neither did I until today). Thus, I am SURE this is not the first time this Officer gave a ticket to someone who was not in agreement with him.

Again, the lack of communication led to the breakdown of the situation.

 

[Jose]

Only a complete idiot claims ignorance of law to defend this a**h***'s behavior upon being stopped for a traffic violation.

To think that you can take control of the situation and demand that you be shown the speed limit sign, or to place conditions on what the officer will or will not do is the height of stupidity and immaturity.

Good luck to you guys. You're going to need it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Only a complete idiot claims ignorance of law to defend this a**h***'s behavior upon being stopped for a traffic violation.

The fact that the driver acted like an a**h*** is not proof that the officer did not.

Jose - what is your professional opinion of officer #1 telling officer #2 he warned the subject he was going to be tasered, when the tape tells a different story? Or is it not possible for persons not in the LEO business to understand when false statements made by officials to other officials are inappropriate?

 

[M1911]

No: But I fear that the majority of officers are in the same, shitty frame of mind, and would rather have a conflict than avoid one.

I've been stopped 1/2 a dozen times. I've been polite to them and they've been polite and business-like to me.

Could the officer have handled it better? Perhaps.

But the driver was an idiot for copping an attitude.

 

[Garys]

While I agree that a taser can still be lethal, it most certainly is
FAR less lethal than most other options, except for perhaps OC.
(I've never heard of anyone dying from OC, although I wonder if it
can cause allergic reactions with some? )

-Mike

I don't know of anyone who has died directly of either. Several years ago there was a case in Concord, NC where a suspect died after being maced with OC. Initially the OC was ruled as the cause of death, but after further investigation the cause was determined to be a combination of Positional Asphyxia and Excited Delirium. There's plenty of information about both on the web, so I won't go into what they are here.

OC, Tasers, Batons, etc., are more correctly called "Less Lethal" because most of the time they are not lethal, but like anything else, once in a while a combination of events causes a person to die when they should not have.

Of course the way not to get batoned, maced, or tased is to comply with the order of the officer. Even if the arrest is blatantly illegal, you aren't going to win it out in the street.

I haven't looked at the particular video here and don't plan to. After the media circus that was the Rodney King Case, I thought that most of us had learned not to judge anything based on a short snippet of (usually edited) video.

Gary

 

[kevin9]

IGWT, Your transcript is incomplete and misleading. It is missing the part where the officer first approaches the vehicle and tells the driver he was being pulled over for going too fast.

It is also missing the part where the officer answers the driver's question about signage the first time he asked. He indicated that they had just passed 1 sign, which is the one seen in the video, and that there was another one sign before that. To keep asking the same questions over and over after receiving the answer is a obvious act of belligerence.

Finally your description of the tasering is inaccurate. The officer did not pull the taser until the driver had disobeyed several commands. He did not fire until the driver had disobeyed additional commands, turned, saw that the officer was holding a taser, and deliberately turned his back and walked away from officer in a physical act of noncompliance.

That's it for me on this thread. I've got no interest in discussion with folks who misrepresent the truth.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The fact that the driver acted like an a**h*** is not proof that the officer did not.

Jose - what is your professional opinion of officer #1 telling officer #2 he warned the subject he was going to be tasered, when the tape tells a different story? Or is it not possible for persons not in the LEO business to understand when false statements made by officials to other officials are inappropriate?

+1 To you and ASG

Utah Traffic Code #41-6a-209. Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.
(1) A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a:
(a) peace officer;
(b) firefighter;
(c) flagger at a highway construction or maintenance site using devices
Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

When drivers sign traffic tickets, they are not necessarily admitting guilt but merely acknowledging they will show up at court or to pay the ticket.

In the event that a motorist refuses to sign, a trooper can simply write "refuses to sign" on the citation, which is then given to the driver, or they can chose to arrest the motorist.

I'll just say this and leave it alone. As a Trooper or officer, your mouth can be your best friend or your worst enemy. Even though the trooper might have been within the law doing what he did, his mouth was his own worst enemy in this situation IMO. Tact goes a long way, and can get you out of situations like this more often then not. I'll give a little bit and explain things. I won't sit there forever, but if it means that I can keep someone calm and avoid an officer safety situation, I'm perfectly fine with calmly explaining that if the person doesn't sign, he could go to jail and "sir, I see your wife is in the car with you and you're probably going home to be with your family. I would like to let you continue home to be with your family but if you're not going to sign this citation, I will have to place you under arrest and at that point, your family will have to come get you from the county jail. Sir, which option do you choose today?"

It's respectful and gets the point across. At this point, if the person chooses to go to jail, then he goes to jail being handcuffed swiftly and without any room to be moving around. Sometimes we have to put some pride aside and think about this from an officer safety perspective.

I think to avoid a confrontation, it would have been better to explain the situation before the problem escalated. Once the driver was ordered out of the car by the Officer, any hope for rational discourse went out the window. That is the Officer's responsibility and his alone. He knew, from the license check, if the person had any prior warrants or had an arrest record.

What is so wrong about telling someone what is going to happen IF they refuse???


http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/

Thank you for your concern regarding the use of a taser by a Utah Highway Patrol Trooper in the Uintah Basin. The Department of Public Safety appreciates your comments, concerns and most of all your patience. Right now we are taking all appropriate measures to investigate and review the circumstances. We can assure you that we are doing everything possible to look into this incident in a fair and impartial manner. A proper investigation takes time and we would ask for your patience. The purpose of this process is to determine if the Trooper acted appropriately.

The deployment of any taser by our Troopers is a serious matter. Every Trooper who works for the Highway Patrol and carries a taser is required to complete a certification course on the use of this non-lethal weapon. We continually train our officers on use of force issues and more specifically the use of a taser. We appreciate the public awareness on this issue and are committed to answering the questions and concerns of the public we are dedicated to protecting.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

That's it for me on this thread. I've got no interest in discussion with folks who misrepresent the truth.

Shame: I would think that a non-violent solution is the best course of action, no?

Let's have the others see if they believe I misinterpreted the facts.

BTW: On the Utah Highway Patrol's site they state that:

Every Trooper who works for the Highway Patrol and carries a taser is required to complete a certification course on the use of this non-lethal weapon.

Apparently, they believe this is a non-lethal weapon: Well, I believe I have cited several cases where a taser has caused ventricular fibrillation.

Just a few more words could have prevented this situation. Would you not agree with that statement? Or is it better to smash someone in the mouth for being a "Punk"?

If there is a Lawyer who can weigh in here, that would be great!

 

[JonJ]

 

[Jose]

Jose - what is your professional opinion of officer #1 telling officer #2 he warned the subject he was going to be tasered, when the tape tells a different story? Or is it not possible for persons not in the LEO business to understand when false statements made by officials to other officials are inappropriate?

What does that have to do with anything that happened before? How is this little snippet relevant to the actions of one mouthy punk who resisted arrest?

And who here can recollect EVERYTHING they did and said during an altercation when the adrenalin was flowing freely? There is a good reason why most lawyers advice their clients to say the minimum necessary then STFU until counsel arrives after a righteous shooting.

 

[Jose]

Apparently, they believe this is a non-lethal weapon: Well, I believe I have cited several cases where a taser has caused ventricular fibrillation.

So sue them.

 

[Garys]

Society is too quick to adopt these methods, and I believe a lot of people are sustaining injuries due to their usage. How do you know that the person you are not tasing:
1) Has a heart condition
2) Has a pacemaker
3) Is Pregnant
4) Suffers from seizures

Yup, you know what you are talking about

Then maybe those people shouldn't get into positions where they are going to get tased. Any of what you note applies equally to OC, a baton, or just getting into a wrestling match with a police officer or officers.

I'd have to review the energy released by Tasers to be sure, but I do know what amount of energy a defibrillator or pacemaker uses. They are vastly different from each other in amperage and duration and I'd better that a taser is different than either of them.

Gary

 

[unclestevie45]

An X-26 TASER has 50,000 volts but very low amperage. The actual amps escape me now.

A TASER deployment, while dramatic to watch, lasts 5 seconds, and then it is over. Compare this to an OC deployment or a baton strike.

A TASER is a very important tool in the LE arsenal. In fact, it can and has saved lives. There is someone walking around in my city now that I would have had to shoot if I had not had a TASER with me that day.

THe point has come up about not knowing Utah laws or the use of force spectrum they have. I don't know anything about their laws. I do know a bit about the law here, and in MA the use of force spectrum puts TASER's at the same level as baton strikes. That is to say, TASER's or batons are used after OC or when the suspect is fighting. Many states put TASER's on the same level as OC, and I would expect that is the case in Utah.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How is this little snippet relevant to the actions of one mouthy punk who resisted arrest?

It's certainly relevant to the credibility of the officer who gave a story that paints himself in a more favorable light than the video camera does.

And I agree the driver was a first class jerk.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

I am sorry, but in this case, the Officer was wrong. There should have been an explanation, none was given, and the driver of the car was upset. Rather than explain the reason for signing the citation and what would happen if he did not comply, the Officer chose to go the physical route. And you mean to tell me, with a Wife and baby in the car, and the fact that the Officer has access to the record of the driver, there was no other alternative? The video was not chopped and apparently the Officer cannot put a complete sentence together. A poor representative for a noble profession!

Again, I am very surprised that people think this is the right way to have handled this situation. It is just a shame, because people are too quick to dispense the ultimate justice in these situations. My only hope is that the Officer looses his job and is an example for what can happen when the law is abused. Unfortunately, what more than likely will happen is a settlement out of court, and the Officer will be free to go to harass the next couple he encounters.

Again, tasers are dangerous and have killed people. It only takes ~100mA to stop a heart. The resistance of a person with dry skin is ~100,000 ohms: The problem is that wet skin is around 1,000 ohms, and the inside of your body is even lower, thus making any high voltage potentially lethal, depending on the amperage.

BTW, even a standard 9V battery can kill you. Don't believe me? It's happened in the Navy. And I've seen that story before, so I think it is actually true.

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html

The actual event is slightly different than described above, and even more deserving of a Darwin award. This sailor stuck the sharpened ends of the probes through his thumbs intentionally. You see, he had just taken a course that taught a critical concept called "internal resistance."

Internal resistance is resistance to electrical power flow that exists inside any power source. It causes the terminal voltage to drop when load (current) increases. You can demonstrate this concept, if you're careful, by monitoring your car battery's terminal voltage, while someone starts up the engine. The reading will be ~13 volts while the engine is off, but during the period where the starter is cranking it will drop to 8-9 volts. The voltage drop is due to the internal resistance of the battery.

This sailor, like all other electricians in training, had already been through a safety class in which one of the excercises is to measure your body's resistance by simply holding the probes between your fingertips. (Most people read 500Kohms to 2Mohms.) Evidently, adding information from the internal resistance class, this sailor wanted to determine his own body's "internal resistance.". So he intentionally pushed the sharpened probe tips through the skin to elimate the rather high skin resistance and get only the "internal resistance". This, of course, caused his death.

How, you might ask, with only a 9V battery? Easy. One of the "rules of thumb" that the Navy teaches is the 1-10-100 rule of current. This rule states that 1mA of current through the human body can be felt, 10mA of current is sufficient to make muscles contract to the point where you cannot let go of a power source, and 100mA is sufficient to stop the heart. Let's look at Ohm's law. Ohm's law (for DC systems - I will not discuss AC here) is written as E=IR, where E is voltage in volts, I is current in Amps, and R is resistance in Ohms.

When we did the experiment in the electrical safety class to determine our body's resistance, we found a resistance of 500K Ohms. Using 9V and 500K Ohms in the equation, we come up with a current of 18 microAmps, below the "feel" threshold of 1mA. However, removing the insulation of skin from our curious sailor here, the resistance through the very good conducting electrolytes of the body is sharply lower. Around 100 ohms, in fact, resulting in a current of 90mA - sufficient to stop our sailor's heart and kill him.

As my electrical safety instructor said, "The reason we now have to teach the electrical safety course to all electricians at least twice per year is because some joe was bright enough to be the one person in the world who could figure out how to kill himself with a 9V battery."

So, IMHO:
1) Police need more training in non-combative situations: Basically, how to control themselves in the face of civilians, and how to control the situation.

2) Unless someone can prove me, the doctors and case studies I have read wrong, passing current through someone’s body to disrupt the nervous system is NOT as safe as the manufacturer has let on. If they are, then civilians should be able to purchase these by the dozens and we should all hang up our firearms spurs, no?

 

[Jose]

I
passing current through someone’s body to disrupt the nervous system is NOT as safe as the manufacturer has let on. If they are, then civilians should be able to purchase these by the dozens and we should all hang up our firearms spurs, no?

Actually, outside of your state with its f***ed up weapon laws, taser sales are mostly unrestricted.

Rant on.....

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Actually, outside of your state with its f***ed up weapon laws, taser sales are mostly unrestricted.

Rant on.....

Hey now!
We finally agree on something!

If that is the case, then lookout... I am surprised someone has not suggested passing tasers out to everyone to combat crime, and then restrict firearms to LEOs and the Military.

 

[Jose]

It's certainly relevant to the credibility of the officer who gave a story that paints himself in a more favorable light than the video camera does.

Like I said, anyone who can keep straight every detail of what he did and said during a highly charged altercation has my admiration.

And it seems to me you are latching on a very minor point of the conversation that is not directly germane to the events as they unfolded on video to indict the trooper.

So what if he really did not warn the driver that he was about to ride the lightning? That's just as irrelevant as IGWT's rantings about all the things the trooper should have said and/or explained to sooth the frazzled nerves of our yuth driver.

Last time I checked cops where under no obligation to tell you a beatdown was coming if you did not comply with their lawful orders. That's as implied in common knowledge and common sense as knowing that "place your hands behind your back" is the same as "you are under arrest". And since the driver had a Utah license plate, he also presumably has a Utah driver license which means he SHOULD have known the meaning of both signing the summons and the consequences of refusing to do so.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

I am not asking the Officer to do anything but answer the questions posed to the driver and reiterate the punishment for non-compliance. At no time did the Officer state that the driver was under arrest nor did he tell him that he would be taken to jail if he did not sign the citation. You keep stating "ignorance of the law", but I believe any lawyer would be able to argue that, given the video, he was not under the assumption of being arrested.

"sir, I see your wife is in the car with you and you're probably going home to be with your family. I would like to let you continue home to be with your family but if you're not going to sign this citation, I will have to place you under arrest and at that point, your family will have to come get you from the county jail. Sir, which option do you choose today?"

Is that not a simple solution? Or is cracking someones skull open the only way to prove a point? As I did point out, their law does state that the driver did have the option to not sign the citation, and the officer had discretion as to whether or not to let the driver go. Apparently, maybe he was short for his quota for the month?

And once the driver was out of the vehicle, why was he pointing down the road? Yes, there was one sign that was passed right before he was pulled over. But you heard the wife in the car that "she did not see any". He was obviously not aware of the situation he was in, and IMHO, is the fault of the Officer.

Truthfully, even I was not aware that when you are pulled over, you are immediately under arrest. I have never seen that, and again, that may be a different State's laws that govern whether or not you are under arrest. That was never stated to the driver, nor was the punishment for non-compliance.

So, rather than take a few more seconds and state the facts calmly, keeping not only the Officer safe, but all occupants in the vehicle, you would rather escalate the situation out of control?

IMHO, this is very disturbing and I guess it has only really hit home since my Wife is now pregnant. Maybe a different look at the world and what is going on... Maybe a moment of clarity. But to me, this is going to be prime training material for what not to do when you pull someone over.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Interesting reaction from a local news investigation into the tasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ifEvD2PSd8&feature=related

Again, IMHO, the Officer is slated for a desk job after this.
And yes...there was a baby in the car crying as well as the pregnant wife who was out of control.

What a complete and UTTER MORON: That Officer was WRONG and he should have more common sense when assessing the occupants inside the vehicle. This burns me even more...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Agreed, but if this officer had simply said "Sir, if you do not sign the citation I will place you under arrest" the entire incident might have been avoided.

So what if he really did not warn the driver that he was about to ride the lightning?

Not the lack of warning, but making a false statement that he gave such a warning.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Canada's third Taser death sparks 8th concurrent probe

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071122192107.ylse68g3&show_article=1

Maybe Canada will get it right