I watched the video, and it appears that the cop was blocking the sign with his car. There may have been another sign before, but that isn't shown in the video. I find that highly suspicious...there's a lot of road there; if the LEO happened to pull over there, it's an amazing coincidence.
I suppose it all comes down to what you think is reasonable or not, where you draw the lines, what standard of proof or judgment is required, and who's required to meet it. In the case of law enforcement, all burdens rightly fall on them.
I think it's at least plausible that the LEO was parked in front of the sign that told him to slow down.
I'm a little bit different than others on this thread because when I see a rude contest between a citizen and an LEO, I have expectations of the LEO...I don't have expectations of the citizen.
The LEO has been given a gun, and a monopoly on the use of force; the citizen hasn't. When asked why he was tased, the LEO responded, "Because you were under arrest. You weren't following my instructions."
He wasn't told he was being arrested until after he was handcuffed and tasered.
I have higher expectations of Law Enforcement than that...and I believe I have rights upon which I can rely, not subject to the agreement of every cop with an attitude. He doesn't meet my expectations of professionalism, and if it were up to me, that would change...either because he was retrained or fired.
What bothers me even more than the responses by the authorities is the responses of the posters.
The LEO doesn't have my support in this case. Nor do the various apologists for what I consider to be unprofessional and outrageous behavior.
I believe a lot of folks on this thread think they are doing the right thing by presumptive support for LEOs. I would suggest to them that they are not doing favors to anyone. Virtually every PD staff is represented by a union which is very aggressive in defending them; there's virtually no civilian or outside supervision or accountability. The folks who investigate are generally part of the system.
Combine that with a job that's challenging at best, and human nature...and you're creating a situation ripe for abuse. Many of us are self-controlled, but many are not; they stop what they're doing when someone or something forces them to. There's effectively nothing here to restrain the bad apples. That's not right for anyone involved; it's not fair for anyone involved. It's corrosive and corrupting.
As for the settlement...I think everyone has to judge that for themselves. I can tell you that no one gives away free money. There's at least some smoke there.
Sometimes defendants will settle because it costs less. In my experience and judgment, government bodies are less inclined to do so. It's politically embarassing, and it creates a nuisance factor...you've provided an incentive for others to file lawsuits.
IMO, they believed they had some exposure there...as they said, when they admitted it was "a close call."
And again...I take what the Attorney General's office says with a grain of salt. They're the attorneys for the state, in this case the LEO and his dept. They're lawyering, which means acting as advocates for their clients. I do not expect objectivity of them.
“They chose NOT to go on with the court case because there were improprieties on the part of the officer.”
Sheila Jackson Lee assaulted a Federal Officer on live TV.
Charges were dropped. Was that because of the improprieties on the part of the Officer?