Tasered for Speeding in Utah

[jonottawa]

Here's an interesting video of a guy getting tasered in Utah for speeding and not signing the ticket (and arguably for disobeying an officer.)

 

 

If you have a short attention span, fast forward to 2 minutes in.

 

The story is here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21921393/

[matmat]

when i see someone shot/tasered in the back... as they are moving away...

[jonottawa]

Do I know how to pick them or what?

 

Voting so far:

 

One vote for totally driver.

 

One vote for about equal.

 

One vote for totally police officer.

 

;)

 

(As usual, I haven't voted.)

[Winstonm]

It appears the disagreement leading up to the event was about equal in fault, the driver for simply not signing the citation, and the patrolman for not stressing that signing a citation is not admitting guilt.

 

However, the extreme use of the Taser was uncalled for, and according to the article, was against Utah state patrol policy.

 

Under patrol policy, troopers can use a Taser if someone is a threat to themselves or others and other means of control are unreasonable, Roden said.

 

I don't see if any way how the driver could have been construed as "a threat to themselves or others".

[blackshoe]

I have not looked at the video, nor read the article, but I would make one comment based on what I've read here:

 

IMO, the police are as much subject to the law as anyone else. If the officer in question in this incident was found to have gone over the line, he should be prosecuted for assault.

 

OTOH, even if 90% of the citizenry of the United States agrees with me, I'll be very surprised if it happens.

[inquiry]

I am going to disagree with Winston. The fellow made several threatening, or at least potentially threatening manuevers, in addition to refusing repeatedly to follow legal and lawfully given instructions of an officer of the law.

 

Lets start with the taillights on teh car. They are on from the beginning of the tape until 1.55. I assume the car is turned off at this point. The officer has the drivers license and registration. Note it took a minute and half to get those from the driver, but that is probably about normal. All the time the officer is standing precariously close to the highway.

 

The officer went away and the tape must have been edited. Around 2.00 the officer comes back and he has done all his checks and written a ticket that he says he is going to give the guy, and he wants the fellow to sign. Note at this time, the tail lights come back on on the car. The driver has started the vehicle, which puts the officer at some extra risk. Is the guy going to drive away, thrusing the officer into the highway? This was not a wise move by Mr. Driver. Note again how close the officer stands to the vehicle to protect himself from the traffic.

 

The driver is arugmentative.. "first of all you are going to tell my why (you are giving me a ticket).." The tape makes it clear of the "why", (the officer tells him at the very beginning, "How you doing, you were going kind of fast can I get your liscences and registration", stuff we can't understand, then "there is a sign right there that says 40 MPH ..you pasted one about 1/2 mile earlier". and no doubt about it the ticket also will say for speeding. At the "I am not signing anything", you can see the officer put the pen up and make up his mind to arrest the driver. Also note, at the order to hope out of the car, the tail lights go off again (at 2.22). Arrest is an option in this case. Bozo has turned an easy speeding ticket into a major ordeal.

 

When the driver gets out of his car, he has his right hand inside his cargo pants pocket and tries to get the officer to look away by pointing down the highway with his other hand. The officer has every right to wonder what the driver might have in his cargo pants.... a gun? a knife? Such moves around a police officer is not a good idea when they are placing you under arrest. The driver also points down the highway -- the officer might easily intrupt this action as trying to distract the officer so that whatever is in the pants pocket can be extracted and potentially used against the officer. The officer is calm and ask the fellow to turn around and put his hands behind his back and is removing the handcuffs from his utility belt. As the officer is saying this and turns towards the guy, the officers voice becomes more stressed and force-full, as the officer sees the hand in the pocket and the other hand pointing down the street. The officer immediately draws his weapon (taser).

 

The officer actions to protect himself was as he was was trained and he repeated his order for the driver to turn around and place his hands behind his back. Even as the driver is walking away from the officer and defying his order, watch how the drivers right hand is fiddling with his right pocket, all the while specifically NOT following the specific instructions of an officer in the process of trying to arrest him (and he had been told he was to turn around and place his hands behind his back twice -- once very forcably with a drawn and pointed weapon, and to turn around two more times). It is clear he was being placed under arrest and it is equally clear that he was 1) not obeying the officer, and 2) behaving in an argumentatively threating manner (take another look at the hands in and on the right pocket). There is also something on his belt on that side underneath his right arm, you can see it in a couple of frames, but not real clearly. At 2:36 with his back to the officer is maybe the best view.

 

Look, I don't like the thought of an officer using a taser without good reason, but I like even less the thought that officers are out on the streets alone and are exposed to all types of risk. They never know when they pull someone over what kind of reception they will get. The starting of the vehicle, the refusal to sign for a ticket, the mannerisms after he got out of the vehicle (hands in and near pocket, the action that could be interpreted by the officer as an attempt to distract him, the repeated refusal to obey the officer). You guys that think it is the officer fault, what was the officer to do. Let the guy walk back and get into his car and drive away? Takle him and fight on the streets? Break a leg or two with a baton? The taser is a non-lethal (yes i saw the two recent deaths) method of gaining control. This is exactly the kind of situation the officer are taught to use the taser. Could he have warned the driver "I will taser you if..."? Sure the driver was a good four steps from his car door. Perhaps there was time for yet one more warning, but you know what, a taser or gun pointed at me and four forceful orders to put my hands behind my back would be 3 more than I would need. But at this point after failure to follow direct orders and walking away in defience of these lawful orders, the officer did what he was no doubt doubt trained to do.

 

Fault, driver. Clear.

[jdonn]

I was the (first?) vote for 100% officer's fault. Then I watched the video. I would like to multiply my vote by a million. Wow.

[pclayton]

Living in Utah is punishment enough ;)

[Winstonm]

I did not watch this video as closely as did Ben, but I would like to point out to Ben that brakelights do not need an engaged engine to work.

 

At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest - that seems a overly-quick response to me.

 

Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.

 

I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.

 

The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.

 

The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.

[macaw]

Living in Utah is punishment enough ;)

tee hee

[JoAnneM]

When you have watched a few of the funeral processions for law enforcement officers who were killed during "routine traffic stops" it is easier to understand what happened on this video. The number has been skyrocketing, especially in California.

[gwnn]

I happen to think that disobedience to an officer in itself is reason for the blame ranging from about equal to 100% driver. Of course, the officer should know better etc etc etc, but the primary cause is still the guy refusing to sign anything. So mostly driver.

[sceptic]

I did not watch this video as closely as did Ben, but I would like to point out to Ben that brakelights do not need an engaged engine to work.

 

- that seems a overly-quick response to me.

 

Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.

 

I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.

 

The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.

 

The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.

I find this post odd, odd in the fact, how much time does a police officer have to spend dealing with and non cooperative individual, I think the police officer was totally clear in what he wanted and dealt with the matter swiftly and efficeintly and no one was hurt (ok being tasered is probably no fun, but hardly excessive force was used.

 

At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest

 

I do not see how you can draw this conclusion, are you refering to the first time the man stated this or the umpteenth?

 

The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.

 

I do not like the insinuation you make here, the police officer has a duty to take charge of a situation, I hope if you ever need the police to handle a situation concerning a possible or perceived threat to you or your family, I hope that you get a police officer like this one, that takes control and handles it as efficeintly as he did

 

I think the police officer was faultless, he did a good job and you should be proud of how he handled himself doing what can only be described as a very difficult job

[jdonn]

I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal. He doesn't have to sign anything he doesn't want to, he would still get the ticket anyway. I wouldn't sign either if I hadn't been speeding. The police officer had no reason to ask him to leave the car to begin with, that's what caused a bad situation in the first place!

 

The driver was right at the side of the road when the officer nailed him. Has anyone thought what would have happened if he fell INTO the road and got run over by a speeding car? The taser is for when someone is out of control or a danger to the officer or someone else, not for when someone is a pain in the ass. Speaking as a person who thinks most lawsuits in this country are a joke, I would sue the pants off this officer if I was this guy. The officer reacted terribly to a situation that police are faced with all the time, turned a situation that was merely irritating into one that was dangerous by having the guy leave his car, tried to be all high and mighty king of the world by making ridiculous requests and pulling out a weapon when it wasn't even close to being needed and then using it, and he should pay the price.

[Winstonm]

Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.

 

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

 

[1eyedjack]

The policeman presumably took offence at being called "Bro" :)

[Winstonm]

Sceptic wrote:

 

QUOTE 

At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest 

 

 

 

I do not see how you can draw this conclusion, are you refering to the first time the man stated this or the umpteenth

 

Wayne, I'm simply referring to the same events that Ben wrote about.

 

At the "I am not signing anything", you can see the officer put the pen up and make up his mind to arrest the driver.

 

Sceptic wrote:

 

I think the police officer was faultless, he did a good job and you should be proud of how he handled himself doing what can only be described as a very difficult job

 

I'm unclear on whether you have read my earlier post on this subject, but I assigned the blame 50-50. Putting himself into a pickle by being argumentative was dumb on the part of the driver.

 

It will be interesting to see if the Utah patrol review board agrees that the officer's actions were faultless.

 

But to be clear, Tasering is not simply an "unpleasant" experience, but an extremely painful one that is not safe and has caused deaths. From my veiwing of the video, it seemed excessive and unwarranted.

 

But we are each influenced by our personal biases - which filters out that which does not fit our viewpoint and emphasizes that which does fit. I see the argument in favor of the patrolman's actions - but from my bias it appeared he was quick to made an arrest decision and quick to use force in a non-violent confrontation.

[luke warm]

I happen to think that disobedience to an officer in itself is reason for the blame ranging from about equal to 100% driver. Of course, the officer should know better etc etc etc, but the primary cause is still the guy refusing to sign anything. So mostly driver.

yep, i tend to agree with this

I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal.

you don't have to sign, but signing doesn't indicate guilt... however you do have to obey a lawful order from a policeman... it goes back to that other thread, imo... if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences... all the driver had to do was obey whatever orders were given, period... the place to argue is in court

[jkljkl]

if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...

 

And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?

 

ciao stefan

[luke warm]

if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...

 

And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?

 

ciao stefan

yes, in a perfect world we'd all like to see the punishment fit the crime... but you sound as if you agree in principle that there should be some consequence, now it's only a matter of degree... how much simpler would it have been if the driver had just handed over the papers, signed the ticket and gone?

[jdonn]

if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...

 

And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?

 

ciao stefan

yes, in a perfect world we'd all like to see the punishment fit the crime... but you sound as if you agree in principle that there should be some consequence, now it's only a matter of degree... how much simpler would it have been if the driver had just handed over the papers, signed the ticket and gone?

The goal isn't to be as simple as possible. It's to not kill anyone or ridiculously infringe on their rights as a human. By your argument the police officer could have shot him and it would be ok. You haven't found a single counter to the assertion that the punishment was excessive, even if some was deserved.

 

You're right though, I'm reminded of the other thread. Apparently these days you non-violently protest authority, get ready to have no rights.

 

I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal.

you don't have to sign, ....

Then why did the officer make him leave the car!!!!!

[blackshoe]

Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.

 

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

 

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

[Winstonm]

Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.

 

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

 

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

To be clear, I've watched 3 youtube presentations of the use of Tasering - one by UCLA security on a student in the school library; another on a questioner during a Kerry political rally; and now this one with the speeder.

 

In each case I've viewed, the one who was tasered was complicit in the event - mostly loud and uncooperative but none were violent. In this admitedly small sample, the Taser's use is apparently one of a control mechanism, much like the use of handcuffs might be.

 

I think this is a dangerous precedent to establish for the use of a Taser; especially as the Taser has been shown to be a dangerous weapon that can bring about death - regardless of co-morbidities.

 

I am not challenging the patrolman's right to stop or right to make an arrest - his actions were within his rights. I do question his decision to withdraw and fire a Taser, though, in what appeared to be a non-violent confrontation. Again, my POV is that the force used was mismatched to the threat involved - although the patrolman may have a different perspective, and I would certainly be willing to hear his side. He may have seen things from his perspective that did not show up in the video, and his experience may have warned him of possible violence - these things we don't know.

[jkljkl]

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

Hello,

 

1) Comparison use/people killed: Why does it matter? I think the problem is more the increased use of such devices in situations where it is not necessary. The percantage of people killed is likely to be the same over the years. But if you are going to use those weapons 500.000 times more every year (fictional number) the death toll will be higher.

 

2) Correlation ill people/people killed: Would you feel relieved if you hear that mostly people with a weak heart and/or diabetes are killed?

 

The police officer had no idea if the man had a hearth disease or not, but accepted the possibility that the guy could be killed.

 

I am not saying that I have a problem or not with the actual case, but somehow I have the sensation that the stock exchange value of a human life has dropped a lot in the last few years. And it is amazing how fast we get used to it.

 

ciao stefan

 

PS

A more palpable example is the video of the polish guy killed at the Vancouver airport on the 14th October

[barmar]

I think a more useful way to look at the Taser death statistics is to try to determine what the death toll might have been WITHOUT Tasers. Let's say 500,000 people were tasered, and 10 of them died. But it's possible that without tasers, 250,000 of them would have been shot with guns, and 100 of them would have died. There would have been fewer shootings because police officers know that guns are very dangerous and should only be used in the most extreme circumstances; but that same reason is why there would be more overall deaths. The use of Tasers reduces the death rate by 90% in my example.

 

You can't look at one statistic in a vacuum, you need the entire context.

 

And I think the reference to ill people may be pointing out that many of them might have died anyway. If the officer didn't have a Taser, he would have had to subdue the subject with physical force; if he has a weak heart, a fight like this could cause an attack. So it would be useful to compare the statistics of death by Taser on people with heart conditions with the statistics of death by wrestling to the ground on people with heart conditions. If they're similar, then the Taser is no more dangerous, but it's probably more effective and safer for the officer.