YouTube Video Shows Man Tasered After Refusing to Sign Ticket

Fox News ^ | November 21, 2007 | Sara Bonisteel

[org.whodat]

A tool that will soon be taken away, 54 people have died by police in the USA after being shot with one.

[brytlea]

That’s how it seemed to me. I think he is typical of his generation, heck I teach kids, and I can tell you, the current crop thinks that anyone in *authority* has to explain why they want them to do anything before they do it. That’s what I see in this guy.
If he had been in trouble with the law before he would have known that he was only making the situation worse. I would have complied, but then again, I’m of a generation whose default position is respect for authority.

I also suspect that once he realized he was going to get arrested, he was concerned about leaving his wife and child. Any man worth is salt would be.
susie

[kjam22]

Yep... you're right. Of course, the guy says there wasn't a sign and is willing to go back and look with the cop.

I've had more than my share of tickets (most many years ago when I was younger and drove faster). I deserved almost all of them. A couple or three times I absolutely didn't deserve the ticket. But I always signed them. And I went to traffic court a couple of times when I was right... but the average citizen stands no chance in traffic court.

[mad_as_he$$]

You need to acquaint yourself with the motor vehicle statutes and the criminal statutes in your state. Almost every state has a provision to take you to a magistrate for a probable cause hearing. In Kalifornia it is 40302.c. Demand all of your rights all of the time.

[SGCOS]

"Either way, the driver was in fault at this point."

How was the driver at fault at that point?

read on

The driver refused to sign the ticket. From what I understand, he is within his rights to do that.

agreed.

The officer asked him to step out of the vehicle. He complied. So far, so good. Driver has done nothing wrong at this point.

yep.

Now, once the guy is outside the vehicle, the officer immediately pulls out his taser gun! Look at the video. The officer begins pulling out the taser gun at the exact same moment that he begins speaking the words "turn around put your hands behind your back".

Nope. the driver gets out of the car and starts walking towards, and pointing to 'something'. The officer orders: "Turn around, put your hands behind your back..." Driver keeps walking and then the officer pulls the taser. That split second. Isn't that a consideration? Why didn't the driver remove his right hand from his pocket?

Since the guy had done nothing wrong up until that point, what right did the officer have to draw and point his weapon at him?

Because the driver did not comply with a simple 'turn around and put your hands behind your back.' Seems protection for the driver and the trooper and all that stuff is being blown off in this forum.

I believe we're on the same side here. But where does the trooper draw the line on non-compliance? My bottom line is that the driver caused this to happen the way it did.

But, on the other hand, I think the video is non-accessible due to missing segments and video.

Sorry, but at this point we're all keyboard cowboys and all we have at this point are opinions based on a questionable video.

[ArmstedFragg]

54 people have died by police in the USA after being shot with one.

Got a link for that? Preferably one that doesn't involve Amnesty International, and doesn't confuse coincidence with causality.

[brytlea]

I wish you would ping me on that too.
susie

[ArmstedFragg]

In Kalifornia it is 40302.c.

My copy of the California Penal Code stops at 23000. It's the current edition, and I'm pretty sure the legislature hasn't adopted that many pieces of new emergency legislation. Got a number that's accurate? Probably something in the four hundred series.

[org.whodat]

Fox news, statement by the judge on there the other day!

[Hornitos]

A person is free to refuse to sign the traffic ticket; however, the police officer is free to place him/her under arrest and take him/her into custody.

And everyone enjoys the freedom and the free will to choose as they please.

[ArmstedFragg]

I went to traffic court a couple of times when I was right... but the average citizen stands no chance in traffic court.

Did you win, lose, or draw? I don't know what the answer is to a situation where a magistrate is trying to figure out who's telling the truth and the choice is between somebody who ostensibly has no reason to lie and someone else who has a motive to lie but is actually the one telling the truth. It's an age-old quandry. Unless he or she is a complete idiot, the average judge has seen enough B.S. that the nice uniform doesn't buffalo him/her. But they've also seen a lot of average citizens who were lying their asses off. I have a buddy who's contested five cites, won four of them and got a dismissal when the cop didn't show for the other one. They weren't 'he said, she said' cites, though, so he was able to take physical evidence into court.

[kjam22]

I won one for the reason you mentioned..... the cop didn't show. The two were just formalities. I'm not sure either time the judge even listened to what was said. It just cost me more because I had to pay for the court cost and the ticket.

Seriously, I'm not anti-cop. I've got a couple of friends my age that are cops. But I've talked to a couple or three real jerks too.

[ArmstedFragg]

I’ve done a lot of ride-alongs over the years. Most of the guys were just trying to do the job, but I’ve seen a couple of badge-heavy idiots, too. One of them was later ‘evicted’ from the force by his fellow officers who got fed up with coming to his rescue every time his attitude got him into a situation he could have avoided. I saw him pull over a senior citizen one night and the senior almost punched him out. I’d have testified for the senior on that occasion.

[Logical me]

The taser is here to stay because the alternatives, like a split skull and broken bones, etc. are much worse.

What's that got to do with it. The taser is dangerous to many heart patents with defibrillator or a pace maker. Fooling around with this type of deadly electrocution if foolish. One death for silly minor infractions is one death too much and an officer or civilian should be prosecuted for using without determining if not deadly. That can't be done. Stupid.

[Orange1998]

Your too modest. Do you think he could have been checking out the driver?

[tiger-one]

One theory is the strobes, “the moth to the flame”

[A CA Guy]

Stuff happens.

[CindyDawg]

I will but it will be a few weeks.

[Just another Joe]

Well, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The officer told him to get out of the vehicle but then also told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back.
The young man got out of the vehicle but didn't put his hands behind is back.

He started to walk back to the vehicle.

The officer was justified in what he did.

[joseph20]

"Nope. the driver gets out of the car and starts walking towards, and pointing to 'something'. The officer orders: "Turn around, put your hands behind your back..." Driver keeps walking and then the officer pulls the taser."

Watch the video again. This is the exact moment, 2:29 into the video. You can see the officer reaching for the taser on his left hip.



You can see from this picture that the driver was doing nothing wrong at this point. The last instruction he received was to "hop out of the car". So there he was, talking about the 40 mile an hour sign, which was a continuance of the discussion they were having before.

The officer hadn't even finished saying "turn around and put your hands behind your back" before he reached around for his weapon!