To Protect and to Serve II

#7,957
#7,957
Matt2496 said:
After watching the video, I think both sides were in the wrong.
Click to expand...


The only thing the officer ARGUABLY (and it is a weak argument) did wrong was at first telling her she was under arrest for refusing the take the ticket. It happens more than you think, and typically the thing to do is to submit the ticket without signature and let the traffic court deals with it. If its serious, the local prosecutor can charge her for unlawfully resisting the officer in the execution of his duties (sometime loosely referred to as "resisting arrest" even though at that point it does not involve arrest.)

From there, however, his actions are absolutely consistent with the law as she ran from the officer once she understood he was placing her under arrest, leading to a vehicle pursuit. Approaching her with gun drawn is fine under the circumstances. Attempting to take her into custody is absolutely justified. She then physically resists being handcuffed, easily justifying use of the taser.

It looks bad because its an old lady. But other than the contention that he could have just sent the citation in without her signature, officer acted properly every other stpe of the way, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blake25p, Orangeslice13, Carl Pickens and 1 other person
#7,958
#7,958
lawgator1 said:
The only thing the officer ARGUABLY (and it is a weak argument) did wrong was at first telling her she was under arrest for refusing the take the ticket. It happens more than you think, and typically the thing to do is to submit the ticket without signature and let the traffic court deals with it. If its serious, the local prosecutor can charge her for unlawfully resisting the officer in the execution of his duties (sometime loosely referred to as "resisting arrest" even though at that point it does not involve arrest.)

From there, however, his actions are absolutely consistent with the law as she ran from the officer once she understood he was placing her under arrest, leading to a vehicle pursuit. Approaching her with gun drawn is fine under the circumstances. Attempting to take her into custody is absolutely justified. She then physically resists being handcuffed, easily justifying use of the taser.

It looks bad because its an old lady. But other than the contention that he could have just sent the citation in without her signature, officer acted properly every other stpe of the way, imo.
Click to expand...
Yep.

The only thing I disagree with is arresting the policy of taking them into custody for a traffic citation. I had almost an identical situation a couple of weeks ago. A lady (using that term loosely) absolutely dog cussed me and called me a liar after I pulled her over for driving 70+ mph in a 45, in rush hour traffic, and cutting people off. After I came back with the citation, she refused to sign it. I simply wrote REFUSED TO SIGN on the citation and explained that there are departments (1 in the next couple over) who would take her to jail for refusing to sign and let her on her way....

I sincerely hope she contests the ticket (which she swore she would) and we get to watch the video in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#7,962
#7,962
ob79 said:
Yep.

The only thing I disagree with is arresting the policy of taking them into custody for a traffic citation. I had almost an identical situation a couple of weeks ago. A lady (using that term loosely) absolutely dog cussed me and called me a liar after I pulled her over for driving 70+ mph in a 45, in rush hour traffic, and cutting people off. After I came back with the citation, she refused to sign it. I simply wrote REFUSED TO SIGN on the citation and explained that there are departments (1 in the next couple over) who would take her to jail for refusing to sign and let her on her way....

I sincerely hope she contests the ticket (which she swore she would) and we get to watch the video in court.
Click to expand...


That is my only criticism and I don't know if there is a statute or ordinance there that deals with it.

But what this lady did was pretty bad in response to a ticket. Her remedy is to contest it, not curse the officer then refuse repeated lawful commands, including fleeing when told she is under arrest, then physically resisting arrest. His error in not just indicating refused to sign may be a counseling or even a training issue, but it is VERY minor compared to her placing herself, the officer, and others in danger, especially when she took off in her SUV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#7,974
#7,974
Matt2496 said:
After watching the video, I think both sides were in the wrong.
Click to expand...
A busted tail light... Relax.

When are these cops going to spend as much time and effort going after killers and thieves instead of this weak nonsense? The cop escalated the situation by not just giving her a verbal. IDGAF if it has been 6 months. You don't waste time on this sort of nonsense.
 
#7,975
#7,975
lawgator1 said:
The only thing the officer ARGUABLY (and it is a weak argument) did wrong was at first telling her she was under arrest for refusing the take the ticket. It happens more than you think, and typically the thing to do is to submit the ticket without signature and let the traffic court deals with it. If its serious, the local prosecutor can charge her for unlawfully resisting the officer in the execution of his duties (sometime loosely referred to as "resisting arrest" even though at that point it does not involve arrest.)

From there, however, his actions are absolutely consistent with the law as she ran from the officer once she understood he was placing her under arrest, leading to a vehicle pursuit. Approaching her with gun drawn is fine under the circumstances. Attempting to take her into custody is absolutely justified. She then physically resists being handcuffed, easily justifying use of the taser.

It looks bad because its an old lady. But other than the contention that he could have just sent the citation in without her signature, officer acted properly every other stpe of the way, imo.
Click to expand...

No, he did not act properly, but he did act legally. There is a distinct and significant difference between the two. Under this hellish system, everything he did was within the law. But the simple question that you ignore is was his actions even necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, tennvols77, VolFaninFla and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top