Posted on 11/22/2007 7:37:13 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The civilian refused a direct order from a police officer toturn around and stop. What was the cop supposed to do? Let him drive away?
Your point was you thought this fellow would run over a construction worker and keep going.
What’s more: how do you know that the cop wasn’t lying about the sign? Or that it was visible? And didn’t the fellow admit to travelling above the speed limit?
Are you a Revenuer, too? Look, that’s a sad fact, that is dragging down respect for the police, among conservatives no less. Arbitrary speed limits, infested w/ Revenue Agents. The real give-away is when you get a ticket for ‘failure to obey a road sign’ rather than speeding. No points, but $50 if paid w/in 24 hrs.
He told the second cop that he had warned the driver: ‘turn around right now or I tase you.’ He gave no such warning.
“Still though... he seems awfully excited... I’d like to see what transpired before this to get him so worked up.”
I’ve seen the whole tape. As I recall she refused to exit the vehicle and when they tried to pull she wrapped her arms around the steering wheel. She was quite hysterical and would have required a significant amount of physical force to comply.
“The civilian refused a direct order from a police officer toturn around and stop. What was the cop supposed to do? Let him drive away?”
No, he turned around. The cop gave confusing directions and failed to handle the situation properly.
Can’t have us lowly citizens expecting professional conduct from our civil servants though.
“Just watch, maybe in a few moments I’ll make the latest “expert” on this story start whining also.”
Thats cool, you must be so proud of your self. How many jackbooted thug schools did it take to teach you that?
If it makes you feel like the Man is holding you down, it's not my fault. You brought it upon yourself, much like the driver in this case.
It’s the “I-can-ignore-cops-with-impunity-because-I-heard-as-much-on-FR-rule.” Its corollary is “I-can-mouth-off-as-much-as-I-want-because-you-are-just-a-revenue-agent-rule.”
“If it makes you feel like the Man is holding you down, it’s not my fault. You brought it upon yourself, much like the driver in this case.”
Newsflash, being rude and making idiotic statements is not a positive personality trait. I’m sure a shrink would say you are compensating for something in which you feel inadequate.
I’m done with ya.
"My work here is done (until I think better off it and start whining that you pointed out that I didn't read the article again tomorrow)."
Multiple posters have stated they did not hear what you claim was said by the trooper. AFAIK, you are the only one who is making such a claim.
Hey... I think we have another officer who's a candidate for sensitivity training.
Here's a newsflash for you, tough guy: We ALL have to put up with annoying people we may not like. This 'cop' should never have said, "Hop out of the car". What he should have said is, "Sir... it doesn't matter whether you sign it or not..see you in court.. Have a Nice Day".... END OF STORY.
Instead... he became angry, and insulted... so, he decided to be the BIG man and show this punk a lesson. That is NOT the kind of mentality we need patrolling the highways with a gun (and Taser).
I see what you’re saying, about whether we should have that sort of “mentality” patrolling our highways. The rest, not really . . . because I don’t put up with annoying people, either (witness some of my comments on this thread—LOL).
Yes... I would like to hear your response the the ACTUAL transcript. (thank you, Ken H, for letting me plagiarize).
I’d also like an answer to my previous question: Just what was the compelling threat to society that warranted arresting this guy to begin with??
Well then, I hope you are independently wealthy... cause most of us, in the business world, face them every day. You have to pick you battles....
And, this cop picked the WRONG one.
I think you're right. And since I made a list of the things the driver did to escalate the situation, it's fair to say that the cop could've handled things more professionally. FR is full of people flying off the handle and screaming "power-drunk psycho-cop". No, I think he's a rookie who didn't know how to handle the traffic stop properly.
Whenever I've been stopped, the officer always said to me real business-like, "The reason I pulled you over is...." If a person starts arguing the ticket right off the bat, the way to handle it is to tell him, "We'll get to that in a minute. First off, I need your license/registration, then I'm going to step back to my car for a few minutes. When I come back, we can talk about this more." Instead, the officer sidles up to the guy's car and says, "You were going kinda fast." He should not have engaged the driver's and wife's arguing at that point, because now they're controlling the situation.
When pulling the guy out of the car, he should've said something more professional than, "Why don't you hop on out of there?" While the guy was out of the car and started acting up, the cop would've done better to explain to him that he's arrestable for not signing the ticket and disorderly conduct and said, "Look, just be cool. Let's keep this on the level of a traffic ticket instead of an arrest. If you really disagree with the ticket, traffic court is the place to argue it."
The cop could've said and done more things to diffuse the situation. ("If you be cool and listen for a minute, XYZ will happen. If you don't calm down, XYZ can happen.") Even if it didn't work, it would cover him later.
Most of the posters here have a fetish for screaming about power-drunk psycho-cops. I've seen cops that fit this category, this one doesn't qualify. His main problem is that he lost control of the situation because he engaged in extraneous conversation that he shouldn't have and he should've done better at explaining consequences ("you're arrestable if you don't sign", "get your hands away from your pockets", "stay cool or you can be arrested for disorderly conduct", etc). That's hard to do when you have a rambler who won't shut up long enough to take a breath (and for all his talk after-the-fact about being scared for his wife and kid, he sure did everything he could to escalate the situation), but the cop showed a pretty poor effort. That's a rookie being allowed to solo too soon or a veteran who's getting apathetic or burned-out. If the cop were half as psycho as people on this thread are screaming about, he would've thrown the guy to the ground when he got up after being cuffed and the guy's wife would've hit the ground hard when she came out of the car.
Both parties screwed up, so people shouldn't make this to be more than what it is. I consider the use of SWAT teams to serve routine warrants, DUI and license checkpoints in direct violation of the 4th amendment, cops pulling over people at random, cops wrongfully confiscating legally carried firearms and refusing to give them back, and harassment of citizens legally carrying firearms to be much bigger issues. Funny how those threads get 10 hits and this one gets 400.
Not so. Snipped from the article:
"... Trooper John Gardner - a 14-year UHP veteran..."
Hi.
I am reading all the posts and see that the same closed-minded individuals have surrounded you again.
Here are their rules:
I can make personal attacks, you can’t.
I can call into play hypothetical situations, and ancient history, you can’t.
Law, procedure, common courtesy, and common sense only apply where it benefits my side of the argument, not yours.
I wonder what would happen if they could hear the parts of the conversation between the officer and driver that are partially obscured by the traffic noise.
I have been trying to filter the noise out, and parts of it are pretty damning.
The most damning evidence though, is visual, and subject to interpretation, and that is why there seems to be so much difference of opinion.
The officer says, “turn around and put your hands behind your back”, and the driver looks back at the officer, with a look on his face (IMHO) that says “SCREW YOU”, and starts heading back to his vehicle.
The indication given by this act is that the driver is going to get in his vehicle and drive off, because he does not want, nor will accept being given a ticket.
He has the right to feel he did nothing wrong. The place to deal with that is in the courtroom, not on the side of the road. The officer made that exact statement and it is on tape.
IMHO, during the traffic noise, the officer told the driver he would take him to jail if he didn’t sign, and I very clearly heard the driver respond “NO YOU WON’T”.
I also heard him say something to his wife about “I’ll get us out of this.”
So, bottom line really is that the officer said, “Turn around and put your hands behind your back”, and the driver ignored the officer, and headed back towards his vehicle.
This is on the tape, and is glaringly obvious. Those who don’t see that, have chosen not to.
Those who believe the driver has a right to say, or do anything he wants while under arrest, and that believe the officer is required to explain, over and over, and over, why the driver is under arrest, do not understand the laws.
The UTAH code that states the driver who does not sign the ticket, has that option, is clear.
What is not being made clear is that the officer also has an option, based on the behavior of said driver.
“The posted speed limit was 65 with a 40 MPH zone approaching as the officer pulled over.”
“There you go again being hypothetical.”
How do you know that the posted speed limit on that section of highway, prior to the construction zone where we saw the 40mph sign in the video, was 65?
How do you know that the driver’s vehicle was doing 68mph?
That speed seems kinda funny for a response, doesn’t it?
Seems like the driver might have thought or seen the speed limit was 70 and so he told the officer 68.
What if the driver was really doing 80? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.