| Author | Message | ||
     G234146 |
Getting tazered beats getting shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIedW4HG5gE | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Pwnzor, I can see how your experiences could cause cynicism. Your remedy, though, kills the patient. You had officers that broke the law. They should be punished. If you pursue charges, they will be. If you followed the direction you espouse, you should simply get their badge number, let them go, and send them a nasty letter. Who am I? Just another guy with an opinion. | ||
| Buellerandy |
Sorry for my ignorance but wtf is the negative side to having a "fortified residence?" And what are the circumstances to label a dwelling as such. I wasn't aware they could regulate the number of firearms you are in possession of as long as they're legal. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
Andy, usually its metal bars or grates over the doors and windows. There is no state law in Wisconsin that regulates how many firearms you may have, BUT that may not stop municipalities from having a limit. | ||
| Cowboy |
Damn I dont think I could stand that place,I know I have alarge family but we have over 100 fire arms .sons daughters son in laws daughter in laws and grand children.You need different guns for different game + your fun guns and home protection. will most likely be some under the Christmas tree as well this year. | ||
| Paw |
Here is my 2 cents. The guy in the durrango should have signed and went on his way...BUT the cop pulled the trigger way to fast the guy showed no aggression towards the cop or showed any real sign of running away. This cop needs to be re-tased to understand when and where to pull the trigger. Not to mention he is one of the most dumbest cops i ever seen approach a car he walked up and turn square against the the vehicles window he could have easily been shot himself. What i saw was a young hot shot cop with a tazer itchy finger i think he gets off on it. (Message edited by paw on December 01, 2007) | ||
| Pwnzor |
It is a felony in this state to maintain a "fortified residence". The definition of that being: 1) Reinforced door frames with more than one dead bolt or other barring mechanism. 2) Bars on your windows that only open from the inside. 3) Mounted firearms at the portals. 4) Booby traps, pitfalls, or perimeter alarms. 5) Guard towers, searchlights and electrified barriers. The list goes on, but those are at the top of it. F'ing ridiculous, I say. I didn't have any of those things, my guns were all inside a safe which has two 3/4" bolts into 6" of concrete. The gun in my car was, as I mentioned, breech-locked, unloaded, and stowed properly. By the way, they still got me for "unlawful possession of a firearm in a public place", a felony in this state. I'm appealing that, I'll win, but until then, all my firearms have to go to my brother. So it's not over, and this has been going on since MAY of LAST YEAR. There is no law here limiting the number of firearms I can have. The Brady Act is expired, therefore my guns which are mostly classified as "war relics" or "antiques" and were protected under federal law, were legal no matter the circumstances. Badge numbers, you say? I got a lot more than that. I have these bastards by the short-and-curlies. When I get done with them, they'll never get a job as a security guard at a mall. Side note: my costs, thus far: ~$32,500.00 Like I said, most people couldn't afford to do anything but roll over. Yeah, I'm bitter. This is not the first time that cops have tried to f*ck me. If I ever assemble the disjointed effort to which I have endeavored half-heartedly for the last 15 years, it would be a book. One day, it will be. Enough! I'm going to wash my bike so I can ride tomorrow. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Enough! I'm going to wash my bike so I can ride tomorrow. Now you are pissing me off!!  | ||
| Brumbear |
I'll tell ya what come round my neighborhood where my kids play and get cheeky you would be extatic to be tasered. I live in the real world where we need cops and tasers and mace and enything that can keep them us and especially our kids safe. I think people who are bored with little problems worry about crap like this. | ||
| Buellerthanyou |
"Whut we ha-uve heah...is a failyuh to communicate." Idiot driver wanted to control the situation. This obviously can't be allowed by an LEO. To defuse the situation, the officer should have quickly explained (communicated) to the driver that regardless of whether the driver thought he was guilty of speeding or not, by law he had to sign the citation and further that signing the citation is not an admission of guilt. Don't know 'bout Utah, but it says that in big letters on tickets in Texas. I oughta know, I've had the pleasure of reading it myself a few times.  Also, that refusal to sign would mean a trip to the stripey hole. Had the officer explained this, any reasonable person would quickly sign and be on their way (and could fight it in court, if they felt justified). This driver was obviously unaware of these things (or else was not a reasonable person), or he wouldn't have acted as he did. If it turned out that the driver was unreasonable, he probably doesn't need to be on the road anyway...tase away! I know, I know, easy to be an armchair quarterback and hindsight is 20/20, but the officer failed to control the situation until it had gotten out of hand to a point where he was forced to escalate use of force to regain control. If I was his boss, he would have gotten a good dressing down for this traffic stop (anybody ever read Starship Troopers?). Anyway, enough rambling. Everybody in the video was in the wrong and no good came of it. The End HellBuelly J "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of the perfect stoppie is no virtue." --Buelly Goldwater | ||
| Jayvee |
Whether it's an admission of guilt or not, and whether any reasonable person would just sign or not, having the right to use force to make somebody sign an infraction is complete B.S. They should just allow the cop to note "refused to sign" or some less lethal alternative. We used to have that for personnel performance reviews, some employees didn't like their rating and refused to sign. They need a better 'out' than tasering a guy for refusing to sign, that just doesn't sound constitutional to me. | ||
| Pwnzor |
tasering a guy for refusing to sign, that just doesn't sound constitutional to me. Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. | ||
| Johntman |
Sorry but a traffic stop is an ARREST. There is no excessive bail or bond on a traffic stop. Instead of placing you in cuffs and taking you to jail to do your time or post your cash bond for your court appearance you are allowed to sign essentially a signature bond. by signing the ticket you are saying you acknowledge your court date. doesn't sound excessive to me. And tasers have not been deemed cruel and unusual punishment for a person resisting arrest. So... I don't see any 8th amendment rights being violated. | ||
| Bad_karma |
These are the early warning signs of the new bold world that we will comply with, I don't want to go. An over taxed subject. Joe | ||
| Birdy |
Here's how you should deal with a cop! Shut-up sign the ticket and get out of there, like this guy did!  | ||
| Blake |
Regardless of whether the tazer use was justified or not, it seems like a woeful misrepresentation to assert that the guy was tazered "for refusing to sign." Sometimes I wish that BadWeB could have a taze by keyboard capability. ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The signature is the only proof that the officer isn't just mailing tickets to random passing cars. Automatic speed/red light systems require a photo that is clear in order to write a citation. The purpose of the arrest is to provide correct and certifiable determination of identity in the event of refusal to sign the ticket. It's the law. Don't like the law, find and vote for a candidate to change the law in your state. They could always require all citizens to implant GPS capable RFID chips. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Sorry but a traffic stop is an ARREST You couldn't be more wrong. When was the last time you were read your Miranda rights at a traffic stop? Handcuffed? Placed in the back of the patrol car? Tasering isn't cruel or unusual punishment for an infraction? That's an interesting point of view. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Sometimes I wish that BadWeB could have a taze by keyboard capability. : You stumbled onto the core issue for me - power and the natural inclination to misuse authority. I don't care who you are, if you've given power, whether it be in a law enforcement capacity or as a web master, you will use that power. Like the old adage, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Power granted by society to government must be dispensed judiciously, cautiously and with forethought. | ||
| Mm128 |
Pwnzor, MIRANDA has nothing to do with the fact that a person "UNDER ARREST".... Miranda IS the "WARNING" of the right to REMAIN SILENT You CAN be UNDER ARREST and NOT read Miranda. As long as the OFFICER is NOT asking questions that incrimnate the offender or any questions related to the incident MIRANDA does NOT have to read. For example... If you DONT sign a traffic ticket YOUR UNDER ARREST... No Miranda is neccessary. There is NO need for questions as the officer KNOWS what just happened and should NOT have to ask any further questions RELATED to the event. -Matt. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Too much Law and Order. | ||
| Court |
What happens when folks gain power over others has been well documented. Some of the prior conversation wanders a bit afield from civil and criminal procedures which vary from state to state. In theory, with some latitude for who's theory you accept, you are "under arrest" at anytime you are not free to leave. That, admittedly narrow, definition would seem to include a traffic stop. For the purposes of the instant thread of course, all this is splitting hairs and barely related to the topic. I enjoy buying and studying law books and participating in some professional groups. I am always fascinated by differing views of the law. My knowledge tends to be in contract and labor issues so I find these sorts of civil, criminal and constitutional questions interesting. | ||
| Johntman |
Thank you Matt! I hardly ever read Miranda rights as I hardly ever question people about the crime committed, but you as an investigator read it to them all the time before you question them. I think he needs to review Miranda and when it is used. funny at the bottom of my citation book it says signature of arresting officer... I guess they need to change that since I didn't arrest anyone. (Message edited by johntman on December 02, 2007) | ||
| Court |
good reading | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Once you're read your rights NEVER open your mouth unless your lawyer tells you to. Explaining yourself to the Police only gives them more information to give to the DA. It never gets you " off the hook". | ||
| Old_man |
To the original question: If you were the officer, what would you have done in that situation? | ||
| Johntman |
The original question was... Do you think this guy has a case with a good lawyer? Short answer NO! | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
If you were the officer, what would you have done in that situation? I guess whatever I was trained to do. As far as I can tell, the Officer looks as though he didn't do anything wrong. The driver was being confrontational throughout the entire incident. He's lucky he didn't fall into the rode and get run over by passing traffic. | ||
| Pwnzor |
You guys read way too much into what I said. I said, "when was the last time you were read your Miranda rights at a traffic stop?" My point being, you are read your rights AFTER you are arrested. He said "a traffic stop is an arrest". He was and is incorrect. I don't need to review anything. I am intimately familiar with the legal system here in California. I have lawyers to shield me from the likes of you. Unfortunately, he was not in the car with me when I got shaken down by the thugs in green. It's ok, because in the end, it all comes out in the wash, and I'm the one that's clean. What's really funny is reading my original arrest report, and the amended one that they had to file after we subpoena'd the video from the patrol cars and the audio tapes from the search of my home. Talk about a work of fiction, they thought they were going to get away with all kinds of crap. ...wrong. This was not my first rodeo. | ||
| Johntman |
No a traffic stop is an ARREST... I did not read miranda at the window of the vehicle because I did not question the Violator. I told him what he did wrong and you sign the citation in which your signature is your bail and release from the arrest. you are not read your rights every time you are arrested.. you are read your rights after an arrest and during a cusodial interrogation. Hince the reason for not reading Miranda at traffic stops. (Message edited by johntman on December 02, 2007) |
