View Full Version : Cop Tazoring
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
Check out the videos in the sidebar too.
----
Granted I don't live in Utah, nor do I live in the United States, but Ontario and Canadian law states it clearly to do what your freakin' told by the police.
A police officer's goal is to protect his/her life over the lives of others.
In my eyes, and from my knowlege of laws in my part of the world, the cop was in the right.
Buddy CLAIMS he was going to point to the sign, but you can say you are and have the wife flop you a pistol out the window.
I think this is just another attempt at a little whinney baby wanting to get his way out of breaking the law.
---
Also, if you watch the first 10 seconds of the video, you SEE THAT BUDDY ENTERED THE 40MPH ZONE...
I HAVE speeding tickets, they don't cost THAT much unless you were doing an insane speed...shut up and pay dumbass...
Over here this is called "excesive violance" and probally the policeman would be suspended.
A few days ago I've seen an article related to this on the news. It was about a man at a Canadian airfield. They tazered him because he was behaving madly. Poorly he died because of a hartstroke after the tazer.
I think police in for example USA is having quit more respect then the police over here because of use of this kind of weapons and willing to use them. But on the other hand: a little bit more talking instead of using non-lethal can make a difrence too.
LMAO- wonder what they give yoy for jaywalking?
MZ that guy looked awefully like you in that pic lol. :lol:
Spec_Operator
26-11-07, 04:56 PM
Seriously, even in SWAT4 i wouldnt have used my less lethal equipment in this situation, and i use my ll equipment (if lucy isnt around and i'm allowed to use it) very often in SWAT4...
But however, that was really too much. A taser can be lethal, and i dont think that guy was a very dangerous threat. Maybe pepperspray would have been okay if the officer would have thought the guy would jump in his car and start crashing other vehicles, but a taser is just too much. Well, even pepper would have been to much, the officer should be able to arrest him without if he really needs to. I think a weapon like the taser should only be used in situations when the officer has to use force to save someone/himself, but lethal force is not really needed.
Over here, afaik, only police special forces like the SEK get tasers, other officers only pepperspray or cs gas and their 9mm of course. And i think thats for a reason.
Well, I just have to say that guy is STUPID for walking away and not listening to the officer. If he would've pulled a tazer on me I would've just obeyed him. DUH!! And it's the law that you MUST obey the officer if he pulls you over and gives you a ticket that you refuse to sign they can arrest you in some areas. For example where this was, in Utah, US.
Spec_Operator
27-11-07, 01:26 PM
Well, I just have to say that guy is STUPID for walking away and not listening to the officer. If he would've pulled a tazer on me I would've just obeyed him. DUH!! And it's the law that you MUST obey the officer if he pulls you over and gives you a ticket that you refuse to sign they can arrest you in some areas. For example where this was, in Utah, US.
Maybe, but the Taser could have killed the guy. If not the taser itself, then maybe the guy would have been hitting the ground too hard and would be hurt. Thats just not worth these few dollars.
Ghost MacRoth
27-11-07, 04:52 PM
Well the driver deserved it. Cops in the states are in danger of getting shot at every traffic stop, and when someone is beligerent and non compliant, they should count themselves lucky not to have their heads ventalated. When a cop says stop, you stop or pay the consequences.
Nicoleise
27-11-07, 05:01 PM
That was SO uncalled for ! I've never seen a dumb cop like that. Even our police students are smarter than that :S
Especially with this alledged suspect being absolutely right!
I obviously don't know how the regulations in Utah are, though I've been there, I never got pulled over. But if the rules are anything like they are here, the speeder had these rights :
1) He has a right to know the speed he was driving
2) He has a right to see proof of the speed he was driving (That may be a danish thing)
3) He has a right to either deny or confirm the officers report, hence pledging guilty or non-guilty.
4) He can choose not to sign the ticket, if he does not agree with the officer. It will then be submitted to a court hearing, and the speeder can voice his opinion there.
5) He has a right to have his rights quoted to him upon arrest, as well as to know the excact time of his arrest.
6) His vehicle cannot be appointed to another driver, without the drivers approval. If the driver does not approve another person to drive his/her car from the scene, the car can be locked and the keys given to the driver, or if it poses any danger to traffic, it can be towed, on the expence of the legal system or the driver, depending on who's right.
Now, what happened here was pretty much a dim contrast. He wasn't told what he was driving, he didn't get presented with any evidence of the claim, he wasn't allowed to not sign the ticket, he never heard his rights, despite asking for them clearly, alot of times, he never was told of the time, he was arrested and basically he was threated as though he was high on drugs, and should be considered unstable, although he was perfectly clear, and showed rationel behaviour.
Shame on the cop. And shame on the second cop too. The way they started that conversation when the second officer arrives isn't excactly helping the feeling of being treated fair. They were like "Oh, you tasered him? Was it good?"
In my opinion, totally out of line there.
//Nicoleise
O'Neill
27-11-07, 05:07 PM
Cops in the states are in danger of getting shot at every traffic stop, and when someone is beligerent and non compliant, they should count themselves lucky not to have their heads ventalated. When a cop says stop, you stop or pay the consequences.
That is very much true. This week, a world news program here in the states is featuring a segment called "Officer Down" and it looks at why so many US police officers are gunned down. This year alone, about 170 officers were killed in the line of duty.
That is very much true. This week, a world news program here in the states is featuring a segment called "Officer Down" and it looks at why so many US police officers are gunned down. This year alone, about 170 officers were killed in the line of duty.
EXACTLY!
FYI:
Canada and the US Supreme Courts are looking at banning tazors from the belts of police officers.
Why? Too many whinny babies
What does it mean? More people gonna get SHOT!
Ghost MacRoth
27-11-07, 05:21 PM
What does it mean? More people gonna get SHOT!
As long as it's just the stoopid people, who cares!! :D
Spec_Operator
27-11-07, 07:43 PM
EXACTLY!
FYI:
Canada and the US Supreme Courts are looking at banning tazors from the belts of police officers.
Why? Too many whinny babies
What does it mean? More people gonna get SHOT!
Thats the problem with the american weapon laws. I dont understand why so many people are able to run around with guns... About whinny babies: The taser can be lethal. So its not okay to use it on someone who isnt a threat. That guy was not going to pull out a gun or anything. But now we're at the weapon law topic again... Well, i better give up before i start. Imo only people who NEED a gun and who can proof that they are able to HANDLE a gun correctly should be able to buy one, and only a few of them who have a serious reason should be allowed to carry the gun out of their house, like its over here. I dont know about many officers being shot here - i remember a case few months ago, officer killed with a head shot, was everywhere in the TV and they were searching for the killer like crazy.
Tasers can save lifes - but they should only be used to save lifes. If a gun is too much but talking or "normal" force is not enough, thats when a taser should be used. But well, like i said, i give up, thats my last post in this thread i guess.
O'Neill
27-11-07, 08:09 PM
Thats the problem with the american weapon laws. I dont understand why so many people are able to run around with guns... About whinny babies: The taser can be lethal. So its not okay to use it on someone who isnt a threat. That guy was not going to pull out a gun or anything. But now we're at the weapon law topic again... Well, i better give up before i start. Imo only people who NEED a gun and who can proof that they are able to HANDLE a gun correctly should be able to buy one, and only a few of them who have a serious reason should be allowed to carry the gun out of their house, like its over here. I dont know about many officers being shot here - i remember a case few months ago, officer killed with a head shot, was everywhere in the TV and they were searching for the killer like crazy.
Gun control in the United States is indeed an issue but the NRA (National Rifle Association) is against it, probably claiming that gun control "infringes" on their right to bare arms. The NRA has ties to the American legislative system (for example, lobbyists) so little is being done on the issue of gun control. About the officer you mentioned: Whenever police officers or federal agents in the United States (or anywhere for that matter) are wounded or killed, there is always a big manhunt for the suspect.
That was SO uncalled for ! I've never seen a dumb cop like that. Even our police students are smarter than that :S
Dumb? Just because you don't agree with the officers actions doesn't make him dumb.
Especially with this alledged suspect being absolutely right!
Was the suspect right to speed, and not obey the officer of the law?
I obviously don't know how the regulations in Utah are, though I've been there, I never got pulled over. But if the rules are anything like they are here, the speeder had these rights :
1) He has a right to know the speed he was driving
2) He has a right to see proof of the speed he was driving (That may be a danish thing)
3) He has a right to either deny or confirm the officers report, hence pledging guilty or non-guilty.
4) He can choose not to sign the ticket, if he does not agree with the officer. It will then be submitted to a court hearing, and the speeder can voice his opinion there.
5) He has a right to have his rights quoted to him upon arrest, as well as to know the excact time of his arrest.
6) His vehicle cannot be appointed to another driver, without the drivers approval. If the driver does not approve another person to drive his/her car from the scene, the car can be locked and the keys given to the driver, or if it poses any danger to traffic, it can be towed, on the expence of the legal system or the driver, depending on who's right.
Now, what happened here was pretty much a dim contrast. He wasn't told what he was driving, he didn't get presented with any evidence of the claim, he wasn't allowed to not sign the ticket, he never heard his rights, despite asking for them clearly, alot of times.
Let me explain, the Green is what you are correct on as to my knowledge. The Red is to my knowledge incorrect.
I do agree after watching it again that he did NEVER read him his rights, and he asked the suspect how fast he was going and went with that. The suspect said he thought he was going 62 MPH. With that said if you are going 20+ MPH then the current speed limit then you will most likely get a ticket.
He can disagree with the officer, however, we have a court system for that, the shoulder of the road isn't a place to do so. Signing the ticket does NOT make you guilty, just says that, in most cases, you will pay the fine or if needed appear in court. If you don't pay the fine or appear in court then you get a warrant.
Unfortunately the times I have gotten pulled over the officer did know how fast I was going, and I couldn't protest as he was correct :( However, even if we did, to my knowledge there is no way that they can show us the radar with the speed they got us at. Also, one thing this officer might have been doing was "Pacing" the suspect's car, as the officer was in front of him. For those that don't know, "Pacing" is where you go a certain speed to see how fast the person in front/behind of you might be going, or use distance between objects(Signs, poles, etc..), best example I could think of.
The last thing I have to say is, although I might not agree that the officer did the correct thing when pulling over this vehicle, and not answering the suspect, the officer is in authority over "us" and if I am asked by an officer to stop, and not move any further, I am going to obey the officer and go from there.
This is not an argument against anyone, just a friendly discussion. ;)
IrishKnight
28-11-07, 01:09 PM
lol about gun control.... Right to bear arms FTW!!! but you must have permit of course lol! ok well in my honest opinion the officer did what he should have. Would you rather him have beat the guy with a nightstick? i think not!
Spec_Operator
28-11-07, 02:57 PM
lol about gun control.... Right to bear arms FTW!!! but you must have permit of course lol! ok well in my honest opinion the officer did what he should have. Would you rather him have beat the guy with a nightstick? i think not!
Rather just arresting him, without any weapon. That guy didnt want to fight, he just wanted to talk. So either spend the two minutes to talk to him, or arrest him if you have to, but using a gun that can be lethal is just not worth it. It is a fact that a taser could kill the suspect, and he wasnt enough of a threat for this risk. What if the guy would have died?
And civilians should not run around with guns, if they dont need them. That counts for hunters with a license, but only in the area they are allowed to use their rifle. And a rifle is not a pistol or smg, its a rifle. Security Services should be allowed to have guns of course, like the police or the military, and maybe some people who have to fear about their life.
Only a few people here are allowed to go out of their house with a gun. You need the "small" license for having one - that includes that you can proof that you are able to use it correctly and that you can store it correctly, means in some safe of a special security level. "big" license allows you to go on the streets with a gun, but only some people are allowed to do that, and the license runs out after some time.
If you want to defend yourself, get a less lethal weapon.
... I did it again...
Lol, this movie clearly opened up a discusion. Haha.
Violance like a tazer should be only used when there is an immidiate danger in my opinion. For example when the suspect is clearly intoxicated or behaves in a strange way.
This guy was none of the above but he only refused to sign the ticket. Why is that a big problem?:s Over here you can get the ticket or just rip it apart in front of the officer. The fine will be posted to you anyway because of your license registration.
Also good for me to see how US police handles things since I am going in January to the states. Probally I will rent a car in weekend for some sightseeing.:cool:
Nicoleise
28-11-07, 03:25 PM
Dumb? Just because you don't agree with the officers actions doesn't make him dumb.
I base that statement on his actions, not on if I agree with him or not. :)
Was the suspect right to speed, and not obey the officer of the law?
Let me explain, the Green is what you are correct on as to my knowledge. The Red is to my knowledge incorrect.
I do agree after watching it again that he did NEVER read him his rights, and he asked the suspect how fast he was going and went with that. The suspect said he thought he was going 62 MPH. With that said if you are going 20+ MPH then the current speed limit then you will most likely get a ticket.
He can disagree with the officer, however, we have a court system for that, the shoulder of the road isn't a place to do so. Signing the ticket does NOT make you guilty, just says that, in most cases, you will pay the fine or if needed appear in court. If you don't pay the fine or appear in court then you get a warrant.
Unfortunately the times I have gotten pulled over the officer did know how fast I was going, and I couldn't protest as he was correct :( However, even if we did, to my knowledge there is no way that they can show us the radar with the speed they got us at. Also, one thing this officer might have been doing was "Pacing" the suspect's car, as the officer was in front of him. For those that don't know, "Pacing" is where you go a certain speed to see how fast the person in front/behind of you might be going, or use distance between objects(Signs, poles, etc..), best example I could think of.
The last thing I have to say is, although I might not agree that the officer did the correct thing when pulling over this vehicle, and not answering the suspect, the officer is in authority over "us" and if I am asked by an officer to stop, and not move any further, I am going to obey the officer and go from there.
This is not an argument against anyone, just a friendly discussion. ;)
Please notice that I said the laws in Denmark are like that. :)
And no, of course he shouldn't disobey the officer, but that whole situation would never have occured if the police officer would deal with the situation in a level headed manner, and threat the speeder like an equal human, instead of a cracked up high drugpimp.
He has a right to know excactly what he's charged with. That means, that he has a right to know, excactly how fast he was driving. In Denmark he also has a right to see proof of the claim, if he wants to. Those proofs could be video recordings of a video patrol car, or the measurement with the PolicePilot (time vs distance device, kinda like a stopwatch), or on a laser.
When he says he was travelling at 62 mph (Which I must admit, i didnt hear, when I saw the video), that's him making a confessment that he violated the speedlimit, and that he was 22 mph over the limit.
So far it's going great for the officer. But when asked by the speeder, what he did wrong and how fast he was going, he could've simply replyed that he had just been told by the speeder, that he was travelling at 62 mph.
When the speeder claims to not having seen the sign, the officer could have replyed to that too.
When the suspect turns to realize the officer is holding a tazer at him, I'm assuming he'd be fairly shocked. I guess that's the reason for his reaction. A warning would be in place here, in my opinion like "Stop right now, or I'll taze you"
But at the end of the day - I wasn't there. I don't know. All I know is, that officer would be unemployed tomorrow if that happened here.
//Nicoleise
Ghost MacRoth
28-11-07, 04:26 PM
Rather just arresting him, without any weapon. That guy didnt want to fight, he just wanted to talk. So either spend the two minutes to talk to him, or arrest him if you have to, but using a gun that can be lethal is just not worth it. It is a fact that a taser could kill the suspect, and he wasnt enough of a threat for this risk. What if the guy would have died?...
The guy didn't want to fight? How do you know? I've seen many similar videos that go from 'innocent civilian' to 'cop killer' in no time at all. 2 minutes could be all that was needed for the driver to be in a position to be masked by the truck, draw a weapon, turn and fire.
What if the guy would have died?? What if the cop got shot?? What if a jet airliner fell on them both?? What if....?? That's a pretty broad based statement, and will never be satisfied. The guy disobeyed a DIRECT INSTRUCTION from an on duty law officer. The best thing about the whole thing is, you can bet that geezer will stop dead in his tracks the next time a cop calls him to halt!!
And civilians should not run around with guns, if they dont need them. ...
But in the US they do, and the cops can't tell the armed from the unarmed, they must treat them ALL as armed for their own (and the public's) safety.
If you want to defend yourself, get a less lethal weapon..
''but using a gun that can be lethal is just not worth it. It is a fact that a taser could kill the suspect, and he wasnt enough of a threat for this risk.''
So a trained cop shouldn't use it, but untrained civvies should??
Spec_Operator
28-11-07, 04:47 PM
So a trained cop shouldn't use it, but untrained civvies should??
Both shouldnt use it, until there is a threat. And then both should use it.
Did I say any civilian should use it? And i was talking about tasers when talking about the officer, and "less lethal weapons" when talking about the civilian. CS-Spray is also a less lethal weapon. I didnt mean tasers, i've no idea if civilians are even allowed to have them - and i didnt say they should use them all the time - they should use them INSTEAD of a lethal weapon.
But in the US they do, and the cops can't tell the armed from the unarmed, they must treat them ALL as armed for their own (and the public's) safety.
I dont know how its in the states, but here the law says, afaik, that the only allowed way of self defense is the least violent way thats possible with the same effect. And just arresting him without taser would have been less violent but also effective.
What if the guy would have died?? What if the cop got shot?? What if a jet airliner fell on them both?? What if....??
If the guy would have died, that would have been... how does SWAT call it? Unauthorized use of deadly force?
If the officer got shot... well, by what? The guy would still need at least a second to get a weapon out of his car, and the officer would still have had enough of a chance to tase him. The situation in the video was just not dangerous enough. And like i said, the weapon laws are not strong enough anyway. What the police officer did was not okay imo, but i understand that it can be dangerous for an officer in the united states, yes.
If a jet airliner fell on them both - okay, then it would probably have been a bad pilot or it was a malfunction of the plane. The chance that this would happen is really really low, while the chance to kill or hurt a guy with a taser is much higher. And like i said, if its not the shock, the guy can be hitting the ground hard.
By the way, usualy i'm FOR tasers and stuff. This is the first discusion its the other way around in... In this situation it was just not okay to use a taser.
Ghost MacRoth
28-11-07, 04:53 PM
Gotta disagree Spec. The guy was clearly unco-operative, and deserved what he got. If he had died, well, tough. He shoulda listened to the officer. Anyway, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. ;)
:whs: everyone always seems to question what happens in these situations because they might not agree, or like what happened. I think that what is done is done, and nothing is going to change that.
You can always "Second Guess" someone. @Nico, I know you meant those was the rules in Denmark, however, some of those are similar to our laws in the US. Shamefully, I don't know all the rules but mainly just the ones I have broken, which isn't many so far in my life. I do of course, know about other laws, but what I mean is traffic laws, there are quite a few.
*Hits Post Reply before this becomes a book* :lol:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NqtxSM-73_E
This version tells the story a bit more indepth
Spec_Operator
09-12-07, 04:57 PM
No, it tells the story only from another perspective. Itsthe same video, just with a few comments.
I wont change my opinion, the guy wasnt enough of a threat.
Ghost MacRoth
09-12-07, 05:21 PM
Wont change anyones I don't think. I still say the cop was fully justified.
It shows the evidence for the cop...who..was in the right
FYI, several provinces in Canada and states in the US (including Utah) will be abolishing the tazor from police hands...others are attempting to do the same
Spec_Operator
09-12-07, 07:04 PM
I say nothing against tasers, just against this case.
IrishKnight
09-12-07, 07:19 PM
the man was an idiot for not listening to the cop, he could have asked later at the station. The cop was doing what he was instructed. Spec your opinion basically goes against what every U.S. (and other countries I'm sure) cop is instructed to do. In U.S.A. he was doing the right thing. Maybe not in Germany, or somewhere else, but here, you know to listen to the law.
Spec_Operator
09-12-07, 07:39 PM
Law has to be enforced, indeed. But a taser can be lethal, and thats too much for this situation. And the law enforcement here in germany works well, i dont see the need for tasers. Afaik here are less crimes, especialy against the police.
Ghost MacRoth
09-12-07, 07:43 PM
This is getting to be a circular thread, round and round we go....I'm bored now.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.