Tasered for Speeding in Utah

[luke warm]

you don't have to sign, but signing doesn't indicate guilt...

 

Having been arrested for resisting arrest for not signing a ticket (and spending overnight in jail), you gotta sign.

 

If the officer was placing the guy under arrest, and if the guy then put his hand in his pocket, he should have been tasered. People should know better than that.

 

And I have no love for cops, believe me.

i didn't know that, thanks... in any case, when a cop gives a person a lawful order it must be obeyed

[geller]

I don't know the law in Utah, but in almost every state the citation form has the words "not an admission of guilt" somewhere near the signature line. Signing is merely an acknowledgment that you received the citation and agree to appear in court to defend yourself (or pay a fine by mail). Not signing is an arrestable offense.

 

Looking at the video it appeared to me that the cop overreacted.

 

But I just heard a TV news report from the US (they broadcast excerpts from foreign news shows in Japan) saying that so far this year 175 cops have died in the line of duty (almost all shot), up from 140 last year (and there's still a month to go in 2007). So generally speaking, you can't blame cops for being a bit jumpy.

 

The obvious solution seems to get handguns out of the hands of the public, but this doesn't seem possible in the present poltical climate.... Too bad.

[blackshoe]

The obvious solution

... is not necessarily the best solution.

[mikeh]

The obvious solution

... is not necessarily the best solution.

and the best solution for the thousands of gun related deaths (and injuries), annually, is....?

 

Oh, I forgot... guns don't kill people, people kill people..... except, of course, that it is far easier for most people to kill someone with a handgun than it is with most other weapons...heck, it is so easy that it is child's play.... as some parents learn every year.

[blackshoe]

That some parents are too stupid to keep their guns away from their kids - or teach the kids how to properly handle them and to respect what they can do - does not imply that the rest of the population should be denied their rights.

 

This is a complex issue - and from the tone of your post, Mike, I doubt anything I can say will affect your opinion. And vice versa. B)

[inquiry]

Well, mike is wrong about what kills people... It is not guns, and it is not people, it is bullets. A comedian had a skit about making bullets cost $10,000 a piece and then see what happens to drive-by shootings and the like. But really, the us needs some kind of enforcable and reasonable gun ownership laws.

[mikeh]

That some parents are too stupid to keep their guns away from their kids - or teach the kids how to properly handle them and to respect what they can do - does not imply that the rest of the population should be denied their rights.

 

This is a complex issue - and from the tone of your post, Mike, I doubt anything I can say will affect your opinion. And vice versa.  B)

Well, it really comes down to whose rights are we speaking of?

 

In most of the world, the concept of individual rights, while recognized to varying degrees, is tempered by a much greater regard for societal interests than is popular in the US. I like to think that we Canadians have a society that is every bit as free, in meaningful ways, than the US...

 

And the truth is that any balancing of individual rights against societal rights is a complex matter. Not only is there a continuum or spectrum of opinion, rather than two distinct camps, but many members of one camp hold views on specific issues that seem at odds with the main theme of their camp.

 

Thus proponents of the supremacy of individual rights are often strong advocates of a harsh penal justice system, including heavily armed police, mandatory jail terms, limited parole, and the death penalty...all of which require a strong government presence and role. They are usually anti-abortion: they claim the right to tell a woman what to do. They are often proponents of amendments to the constitution to ban flag-burning (which surely is a matter of freedom of individual expression), banning certain political parties, supporting the Patriot Act and its invasion of civil liberties, and so on. While proponents of societal interests will argue that a woman has the right to choose: that society's interest in the unborn child is trumped by individual freedom, and so on.

 

Furthermore, it is always possible to engage in pushing an opponent's argument to conclusions that are unfair.

 

Thus, and I stress that I am merely doing this to show how it could be done, not because I for one moment think Blackshoe feels this way:

 

My opinion is that the rights of the people killed or wounded by privately owned handguns in the US should trump the rights of the (far greater) number of perfectly innocent and responsible gun owners: take away their handguns and what have they lost, in comparision to the restoration of life and health to the victims of stolen, carelessly stored, or owned-by-irrational-people handguns. Society's interest in preserving these lives, in reducing the human and economic cost of these shootings outwieghs the selfish interests of gun owners..

 

And I'd argue that presumably those who disagree view their right to own a handgun as far more important than the lives of the thousands who die every year as a result of inadequate gun laws. Don't take away the handgun I never use, just so a few thousand people I don't know and don't want to know can go on living: what have they ever done for me? Besides, I'm sure that it is their fault if they get killed.

 

Of course, the truth is far more complex than that, and the arguments of the gun owners are neither as heartless nor as foolish as this would suggest. And only the most naive would expect a strong gun law to have a significant immediate impact.... but only the most naive of gun owners can really 'blame' careless gun owners for the death of innocent children... is any one really arguing that careless parenting is not now nor ever will be a fact of life? And is the therefore inevitable loss of innocent life (the children are often too young to be morally at fault) really a fair price to pay for anyone to own a handgun?

 

And so on. Blackshoe, I agree that it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds, but I do realize that there are two sides to the issue.

[blackshoe]

And so on. Blackshoe, I agree that it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds, but I do realize that there are two sides to the issue.

Do you think that I don't realize that? :)

 

There's no such thng as "group rights". The members of a group have the same rights as every other individual, i.e., their individual rights. The group certainly acquires no new rights just because it's a group.

 

If you believe groups have rights extra to individual rights, how so? And do different groups acquire different group rights?

 

No, I don't believe it. B)

[mike777]

With the seemingly endless debate over countries splitting apart I wonder if that makes people want to own guns more or less?

 

Just in my lifetime the number of countries that have split apart is huge.

Even in Canada or the UK they talk about it as a real issue, today. Take a look at Europe or Asia or Africa the last 60 years.

 

I do not know how much home invasion is an issue in other countries, I never seem to hear anything about it anyplace else except here in the USA.

 

In any event will all the future high tech weapons coming I bet guns are only for the old fogeys, soon. :)

[mike777]

And so on. Blackshoe, I agree that it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds, but I do realize that there are two sides to the issue.

Do you think that I don't realize that? :)

 

There's no such thng as "group rights". The members of a group have the same rights as every other individual, i.e., their individual rights. The group certainly acquires no new rights just because it's a group.

 

If you believe groups have rights extra to individual rights, how so? And do different groups acquire different group rights?

 

No, I don't believe it. B)

Yes, in law there are rights that belong to a group, example the state, that do not belong to an individual in law that is.............

 

See the formal Justice system as just one small example.

 

There is a whole group of rights that belong to the Military that individual nonmilitary citizens do not have. In fact they have their own justice system of rights....outside of the civilian one.

[jonottawa]

I'm a former member of the NRA. I've never owned a gun. I fired an M-16 in ROTC, but that's it.

 

I've lived in Texas for 6 years and haven't seen anyone with a gun who wasn't a cop/security guard. (Okay, Austin isn't really Texas, but still.) Yeah, I probably missed a few concealed weapons, but it's not like this is the Wild West or something.

 

Cars, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more people than handguns ever thought about killing. We gonna ban those too?

 

I'd argue that the real purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make the federal government think twice before it did anything that wasn't in the public interest or that interfered with 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' That purpose has long since been rendered obsolete by the military-industrial complex and the pansification of most Americans.

 

If you want strict gun laws, repeal the 2nd amendment, don't ignore it. We've gone way too far down the 'if you don't like a law, ignore it' path for my taste.

 

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." - Noah Webster

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...es_Constitution

 

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/lib...p?document=1782

[mike777]

"Cars, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more people than handguns ever thought about killing. We gonna ban those too?"

 

Yes...that is a good start but granted only a start. :)

 

"I've lived in Texas for 6 years and haven't seen anyone with a gun who wasn't a cop/security guard"

 

Heck I have seen people with their own personal jet fighters and working tanks and much much more......let alone 300 millions guns, etc....B)

[dicklont]

40 Mph? On a road like that? Is there loose cattle running around or something?

Getting a speed ticket there would really feel like a rip off.

 

I like to play by the traffic rules and always watch my speed because I believe it is safest for me and for others. But can we expect some rational rules to play by?

[mike777]

With all the abuse of children and innocents going on in the home...when can we see cameras from Homeland security in the home to protect those who need it? Some rights must be more important than others.

If guns kill, I hate to to see all the crime in homes but......????

 

If Homeland security cannot protect the home why bother with that name?

[Winstonm]

However, UHP officials on Friday announced Gardner's actions were justified when he shocked Jared Massey twice during the Sept. 14 incident in Uintah County.

 

Gardner's actions "were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances," UHP Superintendent

[jtfanclub]

However, UHP officials on Friday announced Gardner's actions were justified when he shocked Jared Massey twice during the Sept. 14 incident in Uintah County.

 

Gardner's actions "were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances," UHP Superintendent

Twice?

 

Did I miss something?

[Gerben42]

Cars, alcohol and cigarettes each kill way more people than handguns ever thought about killing. We gonna ban those too?

 

I think the punishment for drunk driving are still way too mild. Drunk driving = deliberately endangering other people's lives for your own convenience of not drinking before driving or calling a taxi.

 

No need to ban alcohol itself. Just hold people responsible for their actions while under influence of it.

 

Cigarettes the same. If you want to kill yourself by smoking go ahead, but you should be forced to make very sure you don't harm someone else. And your health insurance doesn't have to pay for any damage you voluntarily caused to yourself.

 

Cars: To drive a car you need to take a test. What is also important, you don't get into a car with the intention to harm anyone.

 

Big difference

 

Guns are designed to kill whatever is in front of them when the user chooses to. These weapons shall not be handed out lightly. A good rule is if you want one, you're probably not the right person to have one.

 

A good police officer will not want to have a gun but will see the necessity to have one and will use it only as a last resort. This responsibility requires thorough training. Without this training, no gun.

[mike777]

I do not know about your country but here in the USA our prisons are overflowing, our Justice system is overflowing and this has been true for decades and decades.

We seldom talk about this in public but basically, we, have chosen to ignore alot of crime andbe very selective on who we put in prison and in the justice system and we still cannot handle all the cases we do choose to enforce.

 

Just for a tiny example see all the Calif cases where people serve 81 minutes in jail for a sentence of 30 days. :)

 

In my tiny usa town I estimate the each prosecutor handle around 20,000 cases a year. There is no way we have prisons or courts for a tiny fraction of these cases.

Yes this sounds like we let them go as fast as the police arrest them or we tell the police do not bother.

 

Now you want to enforce even more laws....:)

 

btw as a side note, how many illegal aliens are in your country? What do you do with them? arrest them, ignore them or do the humane thing and give them free education and health care and a driver license?

[Gerben42]

Now you want to enforce even more laws....smile.gif

 

I prefer to have different laws. Laws that save people's lives rather than laws that complicate people's lives. If I would be president of the USA, I would:

 

Go tough on gun control and use the US army to fight crime in the country the tough way and disarm the organized crime and gangs.

 

No one would ever elect me, I'm afraid.

 

how many illegal aliens are in your country? What do you do with them?

 

It is estimated in Germany about 1 million (total population: 82 million). What happens to them? They send them back when they are discovered, usually. This is a big problem everywhere I guess.

[mikeh]

I do not know about your country but here in the USA are prisons are overflowing, our Justice system is overflowing and this has been true for decades and decades.

We seldom talk about this in public but basically, we, have chosen to ignore alot of crime andbe very selective on who we put in prison and in the justice system and we still cannot handle all the cases we do choose to enforce.

 

Just for a tiny example see all the Calif cases where people serve 81 minutes in jail for a sentence of 30 days. :)

 

In my tiny usa town I estimate the each prosecutor handle around 20,000 cases a year. There is no way we have prisons or courts for a tiny fraction of these cases.

Yes this sounds like we let them go as fast as the police arrest them or we tell the police do not bother.

 

Now you want to enforce even more laws....:)

 

btw as a side note, how many illegal aliens are in your country? What do you do with them? arrest them, ignore them or do the humane thing and give them free education and health care and a driver license?

One reason for the overflow in the prison system is the tendency in the US to imprison a lot of offenders who, in other jurisdictions, would receive either no prison term at all or a much reduced term. Add to this the relative unavailability of parole, and the result is far longer prison terms than in most countries... and so far more people in prison at any given time.

 

Then factor in:

 

1) economic inequality

2) the existence of a near-permanent underclass, where unless one is remarkably gifted athletically, the most attractive role model is the local thug/gang member

3) refusal to afford treatment or diversion as alternatives to incarceration for drug-related crime

4) the war on drugs as a whole... criminalizing conduct that to many (especially younger) people seems morally indistinguishable from drinking alcohol and arguably safer than smoking tobacco

5) a relentless consumerism attitude in the media, so that young people grow up thinking that ownership of certain objects is equivalent to success, or warrants 'respect'

 

Now, the USA is hardly the only country in the western world struggling with these issues, but it seems to me, as an outsider, that there are elements in the basic American approach to life that makes it politically infeasible to address these issues as they should be addressed. The US philosophy, which perhaps is more of a mythos than a reality, stresses individual responsibility, and frowns upon the notion that the state should help rather than punish.

 

Allievate the enormous and rapidly growing gulf between rich and poor, inculcate the attitude that prevention may be more effective than punishment, and provide meaningful re-education to young offenders (plus meaningful help after the education) and maybe, over decades, the US prison population will diminish.

 

Other western countries, all of which share many of the same problems, have much lower incarceration rates without higher crime rates, but in societies where there is a significant belief in the neccessity of governmental intervention in the causes and treatment of social ills, not merely the after-the-fact punishment of offenders.

 

BTW, if you believe that tough prison sentencing helps to reduce crime rates, as some prominent US politicians announce when bragging of their record or attacking a more liberal opponent: read Freakonomics... the authors make a convincing case that most of the drop in crime rates experienced in the 1990s in major US cities arose as a result of Roe v Wade in 1972 :P

[mike777]

"It is estimated in Germany about 1 million (total population: 82 million). What happens to them? They send them back when they are discovered, usually. This is a big problem everywhere I guess."

 

1) Is it really that hard to discover 1 million people or do you basically turn a blind eye?

2) We have 12 million out of 300 million. The Republicans(not Bush) seem basically trying to commit political suicide on the issue while the Democrats ignore it. :P