Exactly. Looking over my posts on this, Freepers might get idea I approve of what the cop did. I don't, I just think it was legal, and that a guy who behaves the way this suspect did ought to be glad that all he got was tasered.
Some years ago I took over a prosecutor's position that had been basically vacant for several months. Among the stack of cases waiting for me to review were a number of resisting arrest cases. I found out, after I got through the entire backlog, that one officer had filed half of the all the resisting arrest cases on the docket.
Videos existed for these cases, and they were, technically, good cases. The arrest was valid, the suspects did resist arrest, and the officer, although sometimes harsh in his tone, did not do anything that violated the suspect's rights.
But the guy just came across as an arrogant, belligerent, jerk, and a number of suspects, especially good ole boys who had had three or four too many, when told "You are under arrest, put your hands on hood of the car" decided that they would rather ball up their fists and fight than do what he said.
Nine times out ten, another officer, one with good people skills, would not have had trouble arresting the same suspect, for the same thing, at the same time.
well said
When you are a hammer, every problem is a nail.
You referred to the driver as a ‘suspect’. He was a kid who got caught speeding. It is not a criminal offense. The ‘investigation’ was over. He was being issued a ticket. I think that the use of ‘suspect’ reveals your taint.
With the driver and the car and the refusal to sign recorded on tape, why couldn’t the cop have just got back in his car and driven away?
He wanted to break this guy. He wanted obedience. The cop should be fired.