Utah trooper tasers speeder - EMS call?

[caffder]

Here is the link to the incident that has been in the news. I read a report that that is UHP Policy that EMS is called if someone gets tasered. :eek:

Is that the policy in your service area?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc

Here is another video of a different incident but shows the reaction of tasering from a closer view point.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=02pSff8dI1M

[EFD840]

Yep. Someone get zapped, we get called.

There's even a new statewide protocol for taser calls.

[mcaldwell]

Interesting video. Funny how the officer's description of events to the second trooper was not "exactly" accurate. Shows the automatic tendancy to defend your actions, even when justified. ;)



But as for the policy, yes it is becoming common to call EMS immediately. The Taser is getting a bit of a bad rep, due to several high-profile Taser deaths. They get used a lot (you can argue the validity separately), and it is important to remember that they are a "Less-Lethal" tool, not a "Non-Lethal" tool. Automatic Medical protocols are certainly warranted.

(Post Script: for potential Cardiac emergencies, not just barb removal.)

[WFDjr1]

It used to be, until the PD realized that all we did was yank the electrodes out the same way that they did.

I still think that we should be called out though, at least to obtain a 12 lead.

[edge1317]

Yep. Someone get zapped, we get called.

There's even a new statewide protocol for taser calls.

Statewide for Alabama? Is it in effect yet? Reasons for asking is I'm in Alabama and I've only been called upon once because they were unable to remove the barb. I'm fairly sure they've used it quite a few more times than this once. Is this something I should contact the PD about?

Also, can you tell me where I can get the info on this so I can provide it to the chief of PD and FD.

[wischief]

Most taser deaths can be attributed to E.D. (Excited Dilerium). The tasers have very little to do with it. The people most likely would have died in custody anyway. It's too bad something that keeps someone from getting shot gets such a bad reputation.

[mcaldwell]

Most taser deaths can be attributed to E.D. (Excited Dilerium). The tasers have very little to do with it. The people most likely would have died in custody anyway.

I don't buy that for a minute. There have been over 200 TASER deaths in North America since 2001. E.D. is still a "Debated" disorder, and is not recognized in any major medical library.

Are you trying to say that most of those 200 folks would have died spontaneously in custody regardeless?

After all, you can't possibly tell me that something that puts out 50,000 volts, and penetrates 2 inches of clothing, isn't going to negatively affect some susceptible percentage of the population. Those in an already excited or intoxicated state are just that much closer to the tipping point.



It's too bad something that keeps someone from getting shot gets such a bad reputation.

I agree 100%!

But the issue here is new technology and our learning curve. Our law enforcement agencies (and more specifically; TASER) need to drop this BS sales pitch that their weapon is harmeless and publicize it more accurately as the "Less Lethal" option that it is.

The beanbag and rubber bullet manufacturers went through EXACTLY the same thing until they finally admitted that "**** Happens" in these violent interactions, and some folks will get hurt.

Once we classify the tool correctly, and of course continue to give the LEO's the training to make the right decisions about when this tool is NEEDED and WARRANTED, it will become a very valuable and predictable piece of kit.


If they ignore the situation, there is a very real possibility that public pressure will force law makers and legislators to restrict or even prohibit the use of these things all together. As your comment suggests, that is definitely "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

:)

[jonnyirons2]

You guys are whining like a bunch of cops. Take it to the cop boards! :-)

[RspctFrmCalgary]

But the issue here is new technology and our learning curve. Our law enforcement agencies (and more specifically; TASER) need to drop this BS sales pitch that their weapon is harmeless and publicize it more accurately as the "Less Lethal" option that it is.

The beanbag and rubber bullet manufacturers went through EXACTLY the same thing until they finally admitted that "**** Happens" in these violent interactions, and some folks will get hurt.

Once we classify the tool correctly, and of course continue to give the LEO's the training to make the right decisions about when this tool is NEEDED and WARRANTED, it will become a very valuable and predictable piece of kit.


If they ignore the situation, there is a very real possibility that public pressure will force law makers and legislators to restrict or even prohibit the use of these things all together. As your comment suggests, that is definitely "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

:)

Marty, ya wanna tell that to said "law makers and legislators", as well as the media and politicians who have all been mouthing off as this whole thing unfolds?

Education. Sounds like the sensible approach to me, instead of all the chaotic, reactive crap happening now. Last I heard, the BC Chiefs voted to continue using them. Definitely mixed reactions from Police Departments and politicians throughout the various parts of the country though.

The only description I heard on the news didn't even come close to what you suggested. Rather, they tried to justify their continued taser use by the "numbers". Well there are blank blank # of incidents per year where we used tasers, resulting in blank blank # of injuries type of spin.

[EFD840]

Statewide for Alabama? Is it in effect yet? Reasons for asking is I'm in Alabama and I've only been called upon once because they were unable to remove the barb. I'm fairly sure they've used it quite a few more times than this once. Is this something I should contact the PD about?

Also, can you tell me where I can get the info on this so I can provide it to the chief of PD and FD.

There's no statewide requirement for EMS to be dispatched, that's up to the LE agency. Ours and several in our area have a policy that mandate an evaulation by EMS.

Apparently, similar policies are common enough that Public Health has added a taser section to the state protocols. That's the 'statewide protocol' I mentioned. You can find the latest version on their website. (http://www.adph.org/ems/Default.asp?id=811) I'm surprised you didn't cover it in your last refresher or protocols update class.

Where are you located in Alabama?

[MemphisE34a]

The guy should not have been tasered to begin with - at least not yet.

He may not have been eagerly complying with the officers instructions, but he was not a threat to the officer, the public, or himself either. His attitude was no worse than the officers.

Amazing what happens to scrawny, short guys when you give them a badge, a ticket book, and a gun.

[BryanLoader]

Theres been some real major problems lately in Canada with Tasers. I thought that Tasers were supposed to be a weapon or aid to an officer if he was in danger or thought the individual posed a danger to others. In this video, its definitely not the case, there was simply an arguement about whether the guy should sign. The officer out and out lied to the other officer, in the last section of the tape he says the guy is jumping around, here and there when in fact the guy just turned his back on him and started to walk away. The Taser came out almost immediately. Then he told the guys wife,
" Do what I say or you are under arrrest" Not sure what possible grounds he has there. I think the cops should definitely have every resource available to protect themselves and the public, but using the Taser as a better form of STOP just doesn't fill the bill.
There didn't seem to be any form of threat or danger to anyone in this video. I cannot see where use of the Taser was justified in the least. Especially in the USA, if somebody wins a wrongful death, or injury suit because of impetuous or haphazard use of the Taser, its only going to deprive police of a necessary adjunct to their law enforcement duties. Maybe there needs to be a more stringent set of requirements and in the case of this officer, a reinforcement that a badge does not make you God whose every word must be obeyed. I think a little maturity and common sense could have defised this whole situation.
By the way, its been awhile, but anytime I ever got a speeding ticket, I was asked to sit in the back of a police car and my excessive speed was clearly and politely pointed out on the radar read out by the officer writing the ticket

[Raughammer1]

"Maybe there needs to be a more stringent set of requirements and in the case of this officer, a reinforcement that a badge does not make you God whose every word must be obeyed. I think a little maturity and common sense could have defised this whole situation."

Ya think!?

You are right on target here Bryan.

[BLSboy]

The guy should not have been tasered to begin with - at least not yet.

He may not have been eagerly complying with the officers instructions, but he was not a threat to the officer, the public, or himself either. His attitude was no worse than the officers.

Amazing what happens to scrawny, short guys when you give them a badge, a ticket book, and a gun.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle. After the Officer told him to stop. You better by God listen to an Officer when he tells you to do something.

[caffder]

Heres another video that shows the tasering from a closer view point.:cool:



http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=02pSff8dI1M

[caffder]

I posted it above

[BLSboy]

Heres another video that shows the tasering from a closer view point.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=02pSff8dI1M

Dude, you should say Here is a low life piece of scum getting Tazered on Cops, and screaming like a litte beeyotch
These vids are unrelated, other then the fact there is a tazer deployed.

[Weruj1]

we are not called here ...........it is our medical directors thought that if they tazed them ........they cam remove them (the barbs). Obviously if they are having s/s of a problem then we are called and will treat them.

[jerry4184]

He refused to comply with the officer's instructions. Then, he turns around, starts walking away, and has his hand in his pocket. That seems more than justifiable for a tasering. He was also justifiable in telling the wife to stay in the car, I believe, because he was in the process of arresting the husband, and she could be cited if she tries to intervene.

I wonder what George will say in regards to this, I'm kind of interested.

As far as taser's being a less lethal, versus non lethal weapon, no death has ever been ruled the result of a taser. Autopsies have concluded in every case, it was a preexisting problem, that was in no way caused by taser use. As sad as it is, they probably were deaths that would have occured anyway, and you just wouldn't have heard about them, because people die in custody, but the death doesn't always make the news. Claiming your brother/uncle/whatever died from sudden cardiac arrest, caused by the already questioned new taser technology, virtually guarantees your spot in the six o'clock news, and a mention everywhere the taser debate comes up.

[MemphisE34a]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle. After the Officer told him to stop. You better by God listen to an Officer when he tells you to do something.
You must have been watching a different video. You saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle?? Really?? Are you sure?? You might want to watch it again. I OBJECT your honor, speculation.

The officer was overzealous and wrong and he knew it. Thats why his explanation of the events to the other trooper did not match what happened. He tried to make the events sound as if he was justified in what he did.

He was not. I am just glad the entire event was recorded. Hopefully it doesn't go missing and the Plaintiff will be able to use it in court.

[Tooanfrom]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle. After the Officer told him to stop. You better by God listen to an Officer when he tells you to do something.


We could certainly do with that type of police action over here. Only one small problem --to supply that amount of Tazers would require a constant delivery of 40 ft container's full of them:D Eventually the message would catch on--but I would want shares in the Tazer company!

[MemphisE34a]

As far as taser's being a less lethal, versus non lethal weapon, no death has ever been ruled the result of a taser. Autopsies have concluded in every case, it was a preexisting problem, that was in no way caused by taser use.
I do not doubt what you are saying, they very well may have been ruled that way, but I am calling bull****.

You think it is mere coincidence that someone gets tasered and dies? You think that at the exact same moment, had the individual not been tasered they would have collapsed in sudden cardiac arrest.

You really couldn't be serious.

[BLSboy]

You must have been watching a different video. You saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle?? Really?? Are you sure?? You might want to watch it again. I OBJECT your honor, speculation.

The officer was overzealous and wrong and he knew it. Thats why his explanation of the events to the other trooper did not match what happened. He tried to make the events sound as if he was justified in what he did.

He was not. I am just glad the entire event was recorded. Hopefully it doesn't go missing and the Plaintiff will be able to use it in court.

Ok, allow me to rephrase. The suspect was told and I quote from the video to, "turn around, and put your hands behind your back" twice, and to "turn around" twice as well.
So he was attempting to elude, evade, or escape a law enforcement officer.

NOT signing the ticket is a jailable offense. Whether this moron knew it or not is irrelavent, since, Ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse.

[mcaldwell]

Well we've hijacked this one real good. ;) :D


I realize there are a lot of regional differences, so I didn't want to crucify the Officer, but here in Canada there is no legal requirement for the driver to sign the ticket, and he can even refuse to accept it. It doesn't nullify anything, and he will be convicted in absentia, with a bench warrant issued to effect any punitive action ordered by the court.

Being an a$$hole is not grounds for arrest either. The officer must have grounds to suspect that the driver will; A. Continue the offence, or; B. Find another justification (i.e. suspected intoxication, or other criminal act, etc.).

The Officer may or may not have had just cause to ask the individual to get out of the vehicle, but that single point aside, once the driver began to refuse orders outside the car, the PO was probably technically in the right to do what he did. There is no doubt however that he was not following the standard model of tactical communications, and he clearly helped create the situation. The law is not "Do whatever I say or else get Tasered".

As for the wife, once the incident escalated, he was correct in his actions and orders towards her. She was a potential threat, pregnant or not. I have seen the fury of a panicked wife or girlfriend more times than I can count, and you never turn your back on them.


Lesson here:

1. Review communications and response training with the LEO (and possible disciplinary and/or civil action if he did attempt an arrest without cause).

2. Lesson learned by the driver to shut up and listen, and appeal the citation after the fact.

;) :D

[BLSboy]

Well we've hijacked this one real good. ;) :D
Tis what we do best!

The Officer may or may not have had just cause to ask the individual to get out of the vehicle, but that single point aside, once the driver began to refuse orders outside the car, the PO was probably technically in the right to do what he did. There is no doubt however that he was not following the standard model of tactical communications, and he clearly helped create the situation. The law is not "Do whatever I say or else get Tasered".
He did. Refusing to sign is an arrestable offense. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, getting a ticket is arrestable. Signing it means you promise to either A) Pay it, or B) Show up in court at the appointed date and time. You are basically arraigned and RORed on the side of the road.
Since the driver refused after several requests, the Officer asks him to step out of the vehicle, then tells him to place his hands behind his back, as he is under arrest. The subject refused to do so, and began to make the movements to either flee on foot or get into his vehicle and flee. The officer, rather then engaging in a scuffle, knowing that the subjects wife was there, and could pose a threat, instead choose to Taze the subject, thusy neutralizing him, and the potential of escaping.
The Tazer is there for reducing the "hands on" combat police officers have to deal with. Instead of wrestling with a subject, they Taze him. Very simple. Very easy.
The law is "Do this, or you will be arrested" If you choose to be arrested, be advised, it could go VERY bad on you.

As for the wife, once the incident escalated, he was correct in his actions and orders towards her. She was a potential threat, pregnant or not. I have seen the fury of a panicked wife or girlfriend more times than I can count, and you never turn your back on them.

Agreed.

[fflynn17]

I have to write a paper on the controversial use of tasers for an English Class (yes, I am back in college at age 45!) During my research, I found out that police officers in Australia are not authorized to carry weapons, but they have recently begun testing tasers.

I was amazed that they didn't carry weapons in Australia.

Edited to add: From what I read, every time the taser is used in Australia, EMS is called.

[k3twpfire]

If the police officer felt that this person was such a threat, Why did he walk with his back AWAY from the speeder after he asked him to exit the vehicle?

What a totally unneccesary use of the tazer. Granted the driver was acting like a jerk, but come on.

[BLSboy]

If the police officer felt that this person was such a threat, Why did he walk with his back AWAY from the speeder after he asked him to exit the vehicle?

What a totally unneccesary use of the tazer. Granted the driver was acting like a jerk, but come on.

You don't get it, do you. The officer gave a lawful command, then the subject attempted to walk away. Rather then engaging in a physical altercation, which was contraindicated, due to the fact the Officer was outnumbered.

AT THE TIME, the subject was not a threat, when he stepped out of the vehicle. When he resisted the Officers LAWFUL commands, he then made it necessary to upgrade to "hands on", which can be the use of hands, baton, pepper spray, or Tazer. The officer chose to quickly end it using the Tazer.
I have seen men Tazed for less.
I have seen Officers wait patiently with alot of backup.
When you are by yourself, you can not take chances. If you open the can of whup ass, you get the WHOLE can. :cool:

[emt161]

Here is the link to the incident that has been in the news. I read a report that that is UHP Policy that EMS is called if someone gets tasered. :eek:

Is that the policy in your service area?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc

Here is another video of a different incident but shows the reaction of tasering from a closer view point.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=02pSff8dI1M

Whether or not the PD calls after deploying a Taser is up to them. If we are called, state protocol says to treat the barbs as impaled objects, cut the wires 12" from the patient, monitor, IV, and transport. It also says to consider immobilization if it appears that the patient fell without protecting themselves.

[Gellner]

great video

[Tooanfrom]

I have to write a paper on the controversial use of tasers for an English Class (yes, I am back in college at age 45!) During my research, I found out that police officers in Australia are not authorized to carry weapons, but they have recently begun testing tasers.

I was amazed that they didn't carry weapons in Australia.

Edited to add: From what I read, every time the taser is used in Australia, EMS is called.

My Friend--Aussie cops carry arms(Glocks I believe)--NZ cops do not(but all cars seem to have a little "hidey hole" where surprise,surprise is a "bang stick"). All the tree huggers, God Botherers and save the Whale crowd jump up and down when a lowlife gets shot with real ammo--then perform like trained seals when Tazers are used!:confused:

[BLSboy]

Whether or not the PD calls after deploying a Taser is up to them. If we are called, state protocol says to treat the barbs as impaled objects, cut the wires 12" from the patient, monitor, IV, and transport. It also says to consider immobilization if it appears that the patient fell without protecting themselves.

That.
Is.
REEEEETARDED.

[emt161]

That.
Is.
REEEEETARDED.

I didn't say I liked it.

[BLSboy]

I didn't say I liked it.

Hey Bro, not saying you are wrong, or attacking you at all.

I know we all deal with fracked up sh!t like that.

[k3twpfire]

You don't get it, do you.

Oh, I get it. I really do. It sure seems that the officer was quick to deploy the tazer. I probably would be by the way the driver was acting, however, as public safety professionals we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. He sure seemed proud in the video that he tazed this guy. I never once heard anything like, "Obey, or you will be tazed". This was all over a $95 speeding ticket, c'mon on. Now I do not know the laws in Utah, but in Illinois if you refuse to sign they write "refused to sign" and send you on your way.

There is fault to go around with both the driver and the officer. Actually, they are both in the wrong here.

P.S.
Also, when the subject was down was he tazed a second time? It kind of looks like it but I cannot tell. If he was tazed a second time, he deserved that one if he hadn't figured it out the first time. ;)

[BLSboy]

Oh, I get it. I really do. It sure seems that the officer was quick to deploy the tazer. I probably would be by the way the driver was acting, however, as public safety professionals we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. He sure seemed proud in the video that he tazed this guy. I never once heard anything like, "Obey, or you will be tazed". This was all over a $95 speeding ticket, c'mon on. Now I do not know the laws in Utah, but in Illinois if you refuse to sign they write "refused to sign" and send you on your way.

There is fault to go around with both the driver and the officer. Actually, they are both in the wrong here.

P.S.
Also, when the subject was down was he tazed a second time? It kind of looks like it but I cannot tell. If he was tazed a second time, he deserved that one if he hadn't figured it out the first time. ;)

I don't know how many Highway Patrolmen, or Traffic Cops that you know, but they are often alone, and help is quite some time away.
You need to nip the situation in the bud, and right away. The subject refused to cooperate. The Trooper removed his Tazer, and instructed him to comply. The subject continued to refuse even though the Trooper instructed him he was under arrest. That constitutes resisting arrest. Him turning away could be him trying to get back into his vehicle. I think the Tazer pointed at him was a warning. His reaction sure seemed like he knew what was up.
It not "just" about the ticket. Its the LAW. You sign it to acknowlage receipt of it. It is a legal document promising action. The Trooper was doing his job.
It looks like the subject "took the ride" or was tazed for the full 5 seconds.

[bfdpipeman]

Heh... where I come from if we were called every time someone got tased our call numbers would double!!!! If we get there and the barbs are still in we have to leave them in place til we get to the hospital. (If its in it stays in kinda policy) I don't think EMS needs to be called every time, but that's just MHO.

[Dickey]

I can't ignore this. Being a former law enforcement officer myself, I gotta make some things clear.

The officer was totally justified to use the taser with several reasons, at least according to Wisconsin law. Here, you are not required to sign a citation. In states that require it, if you refuse, it is an arrestable offense in most states that require a signature no matter what the citation is for.

When the subject refused the officer's commands to put his hands behind his back and turned his back on the officer, that alone is also an arrestable offense. It appeared the subject was going to walk away, get back in his vehicle and drive away, plus he was digging in his lower right pocket, reaching for a weapon??

There is a thing called the Force Continuum.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/The%20Force%20Continuum%20Conu ndrum.pdf
There are several levels of force that can be escalated or deescalated when the situation requires it. The first level is mere presence. A lot of the times the presence of an officer takes care of the problem. The second level is verbal commands, third is physical contact and controls, fourth is the use of an impact weapon (baton, taser, OC spray) and finally is the use of deadly force. This continuum can start at any level and be upgraded or downgraded depending on the threat of the situation.

The basis of him being mildly resistive by not signing the citation alone does not warrant the taser. The fact that the subject did not obey verbal commands, made a threatening gesture to turn around and walk away as well as reaching in his pocket is grounds for the taser. I think this officer was completely justified. If he didn't stop him, he would have got back in and drove away and created a pursuit situation.

Now, officer safety training would tell you not to turn your back. I wouldn't have done that. His initial approach to the vehicle was not correct either. His handling of the female coming out of the vehicle was good too.

As far as creating an EMS call after a taser...as a rule.....no. If the officer feels there is a medical need for it they will call for an ambulance or transport to the hospital for evaluation.

[BLSboy]

Dickey;
thanks for weighing in on a LEO point of view.

[caffder]

I am here in California where every 10 years we grow by another 5 million people that can be documented. In addition, we have 12 to 20 million that are undocumented. We have not built a new jail in northern California in 20 years. I am not sure about Southern California but you see the car chases every week on television and lately the wildfires. In addition, we have the 3 strikes law, which is the 3rd felony you will spend the rest of your life in jail. There is one rural county that has been in the paper lately that is about 100 miles east of San Francisco that has a jail that was built in 1960 has beds for 56 inmates. The county has a population for about 50,000 and they say the population doubles on the weekends. Due to the 7 million people that live 50 miles away.

There is many Hispanics that have no driver’s license, no residence, no money and are not English speaking. The jails here in Cali release people all the time for over crowding. This is also the State that you can get a prescription over the phone to purchase medical marijuana from the Cannabis clubs or have 30 plants in your back yard if you have room for it. We were on a call two years ago because this guy’s medical marijuana caught on fire by the bamboo he was using to shelter it from his neighbors. The chief call the cops because the plants were 20 ft high and we were getting higher than the plants during our attack on the fire. The cops showed for about 15 minutes to check the paper work and rolled.

In Cali you don’t have to sign the ticket because there are procedures in place because there is no room to put you if you are arrested. There are people here that can not write their name, have no last name and can not even speak the language. There are so many real crimes in this state that law enforcement doesn’t have time for such low level offences as the one in Utah.

[Dickey]

Dickey;
thanks for weighing in on a LEO point of view.

Hey, free of charge!!

We hate it when law enforcement officers pick apart our job becuase they have no understanding of it.

We should do the same.

[BLSboy]

Hey, free of charge!!

We hate it when law enforcement officers pick apart our job becuase they have no understanding of it.

We should do the same.

I tried to hold my own against them, since some of my bestest good friends are LEOs, but my understanding of the law just aint there.

[cozmosis]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. I saw him attempting to get back in his vehicle. After the Officer told him to stop. You better by God listen to an Officer when he tells you to do something.

The driver is obviously short on brains. Police have guns and tasers and handcuffs. You generally do as they tell you to, even when it makes little or no sense. He did not. Does that mean he should be tasered? No, I don't think so.

[edge1317]

I'm surprised you didn't cover it in your last refresher or protocols update class.

Where are you located in Alabama?

I haven't taken a refresher class in Alabama yet. I moved from Wisconsin down here and used my national registry to get my Alabama license.

I'm located in northwest Alabama.

[BryanLoader]

I realise that police officers in US are in a tough situation as theres so many nutjobs with guns and they never know what they could face. Sadly in Canada, it seems to be getting the case here as well, we have lost 2 fine officers in the last few weeks.
One thing that I think will eventually happen is that there will be a definitive court case laying a death on Taser use, probably a few million pay out for wrongful death, then police force management will start second guessing line officers on use. Maybe now would be a good time for some proactive ideas on just when to use Tasers, and training for personnel. I don't see anything in that video that could be possibly construed as threatening to anyone. Using statements like " Well he didn't obey immediately so he was open game to get Tasered" is eventually going to get an officer somewhere hung out to dry and possibly a restrictive set of rules on Taser use that could result in an officer or civilian bystander losing their life. Theres a whole lot of questions and political investigations going on in Canada right now over Taser use and its definitely going to have a negative impact on officer judgement on when to use Tasers.

[jerry4184]

One thing I will say, one of the main problems I can find with the video, was his declaration at the end that he told the guy he'd be tased, when in the video, he clearly doesn't say it. I've heard of a lot of places requiring a subject to be verbally warned of a tasing, even if it's .5 seconds before you fire it, just to cover your butt. It didn't happen here, but I'm not sure what UHP's protocols are on that.

[the1141man]

In Cali you don’t have to sign the ticket because there are procedures in place because there is no room to put you if you are arrested. There are people here that can not write their name, have no last name and can not even speak the language. There are so many real crimes in this state that law enforcement doesn’t have time for such low level offences as the one in Utah.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, aaaaaaannnnnnddddddd you guessed it, WRONG!

Refusal to sign a ticket means you go forthwith to a magistrate to decide the issue right now (yes, you can do that, even at 1AM, but expect to wait till normal court hours to see Da Judge, and guess where you wait...)
If a person cannot sign their name, they may make their "mark" to signify that they will appear in court as directed.

Also, quite a number of good arrests come from traffic stops for, you guessed it, "low level offences"... a simple expired registration has yielded a carful of people with felony warrants, a missed turn signal or illegal turn is often how you nail deuces (LEO slang for DUI drivers).

As for the video, haven't watched it... but I am familiar with the concept of "badge-heaviness" that some of you have brought forth (and was cautioned very strongly against during my Police Academy days--wow, that was almost a decade ago now! lol). Basically, though, your best bet in dealing with law enforcement, even if the cop is a "badge-heavy pr!ick", is to obey all instructions given, and take up the issue with a supervisor later. The roadside is not the place to argue law, semantics, or the officer's parentage, and sets you up to be on the losing end of a conflict.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Some of you guys crack me up.

Some of you who are talking about what bad people these cops were for using non-deadly force on an uncooperative suspect resisting arrest are the same ones applauding the guy who executed two unarmed burglars in another thread.

Priceless.

[MemphisE34a]

Some of you guys crack me up.

Some of you who are talking about what bad people these cops were for using non-deadly force on an uncooperative suspect resisting arrest are the same ones applauding the guy who executed two unarmed burglars in another thread.

Priceless.

You know George, I actually thought about that last night. I guess it just goes to show I feel about a guy who defends his neighbors property from some thieving bastards and my opinion of a a scrawny bastard who probably got picked on alot as a kid and now "defends" the highways of Utah from serious perpetrators going 10 miles over with his big fancy badge, gun, and TASER.

Speculation I know, but I bet I am close.

I will admit the guy was not very smart, but his bad attitude was brought on by the brash, your a piece of **** on MY highway attitude of the Trooper.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You know George, I actually thought about that last night. I guess it just goes to show I feel about a guy who defends his neighbors property from some thieving bastards and my opinion of a a scrawny bastard who probably got picked on alot as a kid and now "defends" the highways of Utah from serious perpetrators going 10 miles over with his big fancy badge, gun, and TASER.

Speculation I know, but I bet I am close.

I will admit the guy was not very smart, but his bad attitude was brought on by the brash, your a piece of **** on MY highway attitude of the Trooper.

Regardless of whether the arrest is being made by a trooper you like or a troooper you don't like, it is against the law not to comply. The officer is permitted to use force to overcome the resistance. It's called constructive force. The officer can use greater force than is being used against him.

I suspect that the attitudes being projected against this trooper are reflective of the posters' general attitude against police officers.

[MemphisE34a]

I suspect that the attitudes being projected against this trooper are reflective of the posters' general attitude against police officers.
If that was directed at me, you are correct.

Bottom line, George has a vast amount of experience in law enforcement. If you say he he correct and justified in his actions, so be it. It just seemed a little over the top for the situation the officer was presented with. I would only ask George, why would you speculate that the Trooper exaggerated the story to the other officer?? He clearly tells a different tale than the one he just experienced.

One more question. Any idea why a State would still carry laws legally authorizing the use of deadly force against a police officer abusing his power and using excessive force?? Wonder why that would have to be put in the books to begin with?

[BryanLoader]

Well call me old fashioned, and at my age, I have a right to be. I was always brought up to respect the law as well as the Law Enforcement Officer. George, I respect your posts alot, but considering your experience, do you really think that anyone seeing this video, will increase his respect for a police officer? Oh, I'm sure that if he or she is stopped next time, the viewer will be extra careful to sign a ticket or stand up straight or walk straight if the officer decides its necessary, but do you think that they will respect the law more, pass this respect onto their children, even call if a police officer is in trouble? I know this may sound idealistic, but I think with a large segment of the population, a little respect, a little compromise, a little discusiion can go a long way. While the officer may well have been in his rights, the question of his story changing brings that into question as well. I just think that LE might be shooting themselves big time with the Taser situation as well as attitude. And further, no I don't have any grudge against police anywhere, its been about 15 years since I even had a speeding ticket, my great grandfather was one of the original RNWMP in 1873, and my cousin has retired as inspector of RCMP, my son is presently in training to be a police officer and I will stand proud as punch when he graduates.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

If that was directed at me, you are correct.

Bottom line, George has a vast amount of experience in law enforcement. If you say he he correct and justified in his actions, so be it. It just seemed a little over the top for the situation the officer was presented with. I would only ask George, why would you speculate that the Trooper exaggerated the story to the other officer?? He clearly tells a different tale than the one he just experienced.

One more question. Any idea why a State would still carry laws legally authorizing the use of deadly force against a police officer abusing his power and using excessive force?? Wonder why that would have to be put in the books to begin with?

You know, after all these years on this board, I am completely surprised that you are admitting to me anti-law enforcment. I also am taking it as a threat your advocacy of the laws that you think give you the right to shoot a police officer doing his job. That's very nice.

I watched the video twice. Here is what I see. I see a punk ass kid who got caught speeding and wants to be in control of the situation. He refused to initially produce his credentials. He then wants to adjuducate the summons in the middle of the road.

Apparently in UT, there is a law that you must sign the summons. When he didn't, the officer rightly removed him from his vehicle and took him to a place of security for him and safety for him-between the two vehicles. The mutt did not simply refuse to comply with the officers instructions. He began to walk back to his vehicle. At this point, this became an officer safety issue. The officer had not had a chance to search the area of the driver's immediate control for weapons, so he must assume that there was a threat in that area. I commanded that the mutt stop and turn around about five times. In order to stop the threat, he used non-lethal force. He used it only to subdue the man and then secured the man.

You all fail to note that the officer had two additional safety issues that he would have been justified in using even greater force with and did not. He faced a threat from the wife (as some of you pointed out). As he was talking to the wife, the mutt again refused to follow instructions and came up to the officer at the side of the car. He would have been justified at that point to hit him again.

The officer used no disrespectful langauge. His "attitude" probably came from dealing with a punk ass. He did not swear at the mutt and he did not use excessive force. In fact he used no force at all once he was in custody.

I saw nothing in the video that was a deviation from the training received in the Academy.

Bryan makes a great point about talking to someone with respect. I can tell you that approach works well with most people. That approach did not work with this mutt.

But there is a small segment of anti-law enforcement people on this forum who believe the police are never right. Bob, you are now added to that list (by your own admission).

The officer is in charge. Period. You have no constitutional right to refuse to follow his directions. Period. If you have a problem with the officer, there are avenues in which to pursue it. But the officer is right when he does not allwo for debate out there on the street.

[doughesson]

As I learned about escalation of force,first you establish physical presence.This can be accomplish by even a rent a cop like I was just by being there.
Then you issue your command"Do what I say now."
THEN you can get more physical by a laying on of hand on the subject who is not complying.Use of a baton usually occurs at this level of force.
If you cannot gain control of the situation and cuff the suspect,if your department has them (and my company never allowed us to even own one at home),use of Taser or stun gun may or may not be authorized.
If that does not accomplish the desired respone of a complying suspect getting handcuffed,or a weapon of any sort is produced by the suspect,then deadly force is usually authorized in accordance with your department's directives.
If you remove Tasers and stun guns from the succession of events,then you go from hand to hand to gun fire with no intermediate level.How is that a good thing?
Note I made no mention of pepper spray because I never went through that training when I went armed guard and I am not sure if it falls under the hand to hand section or stun guns usage.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

As I learned about escalation of force,first you establish physical presence.This can be accomplish by even a rent a cop like I was just by being there.
Then you issue your command"Do what I say now."
THEN you can get more physical by a laying on of hand on the subject who is not complying.Use of a baton usually occurs at this level of force.
If you cannot gain control of the situation and cuff the suspect,if your department has them (and my company never allowed us to even own one at home),use of Taser or stun gun may or may not be authorized.
If that does not accomplish the desired respone of a complying suspect getting handcuffed,or a weapon of any sort is produced by the suspect,then deadly force is usually authorized in accordance with your department's directives.
If you remove Tasers and stun guns from the succession of events,then you go from hand to hand to gun fire with no intermediate level.How is that a good thing?
Note I made no mention of pepper spray because I never went through that training when I went armed guard and I am not sure if it falls under the hand to hand section or stun guns usage.

In NJ, we had no "intermediate level". Stun guns and Tasers are not authorized in NJ for LEO. I had to go from an ASP to my handgun.

As far as the force continuum, you are correct, except that there is no requirement to go through all the stages of the continuum if the encounter escalates faster than that.

[WaterbryVTfire]

My take on this is simple. When an armed assailant tells you, "Gimme yer money" and brandishes a gun, knife, and before long a tazer. Are you going to argue with him? I am going to guess probably not. So it seems that if a law enforcement officer tells you to do something, why not follow that request? Regardless of whether you feel the LEO is right or wrong.
Yes, I know some LEO abuse the fact they have a non-lethal way to stop a person. But, how many times is it NOT abused?

[jasper45]

We did an informal survey at work today. All of us have been stopped by police for traffic violations at some point; some received tickets, some didn't from the encounter(s).
We all had one thing in common though, none of us have ever been tasered in any of those stops. The other thing in common with all of these stops, is that if we didn't respect the actual officer, we respected the position of the officer.

If the ass-hat in the video had complied with the troopers orders, he would have been on his way in a few minutes.
Maybe the trooper should have shot him instead. He did refuse to stop after being told to; that seems to be the barometer for some to use lethal force.

I don't know why people fail to see how tough the job of the police are. They have a crap job, because even normal citizens hate them when they get a speeding ticket. They never get there fast enough when we need them, they never catch the bad guys, and so on. Heck, even firemen hate them, and we depend on them everyday for our safety.
People need to realize that the police have a bull eye on their back. People will try to kill them just for kicks. The police need to be in charge of as many aspects of a traffic stop, or investigation as possible, for their own safety.

I will almost always give them the benefit of the doubt. I give the benefit of the doubt in this stop, to the trooper.

[LVFD301]

The guy should not have been tasered to begin with - at least not yet.

He may not have been eagerly complying with the officers instructions, but he was not a threat to the officer, the public, or himself either. His attitude was no worse than the officers.

Amazing what happens to scrawny, short guys when you give them a badge, a ticket book, and a gun.

Reminds me of the old joke - what do young boys and cops have in common? They both want to be firefighters.

With E34A it appears we have the one exception, the guy who probably
got turned down by the cops....

[gunnyv]

My Reserve unit's Sgt Major is a Utah State Trooper. I have heard him say before that he covers hundreds of miles of highway by himself. I wish I could remember how many miles he said he put on his cruiser, I believe it was in the 120K/yr range. He has also said he rarely has another Trooper within 100 miles of him.

And no, it wasn't him on the video.:D

[MemphisE34a]

LVFD - that was good, I actually laughed. I can assure you that I have never applied for any LEO job. I did not ever, nor currently wish to ever be a LEO.

George,

I do not think the police are always wrong. Unfortunately, many of my dealings with police while making fire/ems calls is negative. I see the "because I am the police and I say" attitude every day - almost never directed at me, but it pisses me off just the same anyway.

I get tired of being told that "police advise no cars available" for a situation that I need them for at the southwest corner of an intersection when I can see 2-3 cars sitting at the 7/11 on the northeast corner of the same damn intersection.

I have also been on the receiving end of the traffic stop and had to listen to the lecture/sermon being handed out by Barney. Give me a ticket or let me go, but save the sermon for Sunday.

Having said that, I do realize that there must be good officers out there somewhere - I am sure they are even here, I just haven't seen them yet.

As far as my question to you about a state law that would allow the justifiable shooting of a police officer, here it is:

Tennessee Code Annotated - TCA 39-11-611 - Self Defense (in part)

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:



(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:




(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and




(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8; 2007, ch. 210, § 1.]

It would appear that because I am the police and I say so is not quite good enough here. Oh, and by the way, thats not a threat, just the law.

Would anyone actually live to be able to try this defense?? Most likely not, but I will ask again, wonder why something like that would ever not only be introduced into state law, but pass as well?? I am just curious what your thoughts are on that.

Oh, and to finally answer the question, we are not called out on Taser calls as they are deemed to much of a liability and not a single MPD officer has one. They would be dished out like candy and the city knows it.

George I am big enough to agree to disagree. I am not going to add you to any "list." I did not threaten you and do not wish you any ill will.

[Dickey]

Here is some comic relief of this issue. This was video of my taser training when they first came out to our area. Of course, I knew the instructor from way back so trash talking got me to do the full 5 second "ride the lightening" from him. "It gives you bragging rights" he told me.:rolleyes:

Anyway, it hurts. It hurts real bad. For LEO's that have been hit with them, it gives them a higher respect for the power of that tool. Yes, it is a great tool that gives the LEO another option before deadly force. A lot of people tazed would have been shot and killed if not for the taser.

Gotta have good sound for this one, I really scream like a little school girl. The guys on my sides held me up otherwise I would have done the "dolphin" and went down.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dickey+be ing+tasered&search=Search

[BLSboy]

Gotta have good sound for this one, I really scream like a little school girl. The guys on my sides held me up otherwise I would have done the "dolphin" and went down.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dickey+be ing+tasered&search=Search

Bull$hiiiiit!

Turn your volume DOWN people, for the love of GOD!

He really does scream like a little school girl!

Bro it looks like you went 10 rounds with Holyfield afterwards too!

[BKDRAFT]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Weruj1]

I just watched the video ................I am all for a LEO defending himself, I thought he was a we bit hasty with the zap it gun.:confused:

[Weruj1]

scream he does ................yet I dont think I blame him. Also nice to put a grmaced face with a name.:D

[RFxplr326]

YouTube war over the Speeding Ticket Taser video...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lInn6JHacLI&watch_response
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FehrK6guTrs&watch_response
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bcVGYaEh6S0&watch_response


http://youtube.com/watch?v=2IT2lGqrP-c&feature=related
I think that guy's on drugs... or something rather.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=MZEx47BFmVw&feature=related


These people... need a life...
:rolleyes:

[caffder]

Maybe the Utah Highway Patrol should post their response on you tube too.:confused:

Instead here it is http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/

[caffder]

I found this on another site, it is titled " A toopers take on the the Utah Taser Incident" It contains interesting prospectives.


0.0 – We can see the cop pull off the shoulder in front of a 40mph sign. As soon as the man with his family drives past it, the cop lights him up and pulls him over.

Its hard to tell whether this is the second speed limit posting this cop has watched him pass. The audio is a bit muffled because of the traffic whizzing by. If there was a previous stop sign I can understand why he gave him a ticket. In fact, that’s pretty fair that he let him go after passing one stop sign and then pulled him over after passing a second. If this was the first sign the guy passed, then it’s a little dirty. I could understand why the guy would argue the traffic stop right from the onset. I’ve done a few of this myself, but I’ve never given out tickets. I just like to scare people and remind them to drive safe on the roads my wife and kids drive on.

0.39 – The officer gets out of his cruiser, walks right up to the car and sticks his head in the window.

“This is really important to understand what happens later. When ever I approach a vehicle, I always follow my protocol for how to approach. I don’t know what’s in this car. It could be a nice family of three or it could be a drug smuggler with a loaded gun in his center console. Obviously this cop isn’t nervous about approaching this vehicle. You can see him lean into the window with his hands on the door frame.”

0.50 – The cop becomes agitated and demands his license and registration right now.

“I don’t know what the exact protocol in Utah is, but in MD we always do two things when we pull someone over. We identify ourselves with our title and name (Officer Jones for example) and we tell them EXACTLY WHY WE PULLED THEM OVER. Saying speeding or going a little fast isn’t exact. Saying 57 in a 40mph zone is exact. Based on the responses of the driver, it appears that this officer didn’t do either”

2.08 – The officer returns and issues the driver a ticket

“This is another major protocol difference between Utah and MD. In MD we tell them exactly what the ticket says. We explain to them that by signing it, it’s not an admission of guilt. It just acknowledges that I pulled them over and that they will deal with it one way or another. I explain to them their rights should they want to appeal it (I could honestly care less, I get paid either way) and then I ask them to sign. I’ve never had a problem like this. I have had a few people who demanded to see where the sign was. I have no problem helping them get out of their car and safely walk over to view the sign in question. I would never want a member of the public to think that I’m just making tickets up for no reason or that I’m “just making my quota.” If I pull you over it’s because you broke the law, not because I need two more traffic stops to get my raise.”

2.22 – The driver refuses to sign the ticket

“This part confuses me a little. If I was in the same position and this driver refused, I would have repeated my whole “this is not an admission of guilt” statement and then cautioned him. In MD if you do night sign your ticket on sight, you are arrested and taken to a local police station to be formally charged. I would have said this to the driver while he was sitting in the car. I understand why he called him out. If it was a person I was concerned would flee the scene, I would have done the same. But the officer’s actions up to this point don’t warrant it. This also raises questions for what happens next.”

2.25 - The driver walks out of the car and points towards the sign. The officer draws his taser.

“There are too many things that went wrong here to count. I’ll try and point out the major ones. First off, the officer turned his back to the driver as he exited the car and walked back toward his cruiser. That’s probably the quickest way to get killed in the line of duty. You NEVER turn your back on someone. You can see him somewhat looking back as the man approaches him and points toward the 40mph from the beginning of the video. In the same situation, I would have allowed the man to walk back to my cruiser first, and then approached him. Then again I would have never been in this position in the first place. I suppose here that the officer could argue that the man became threatening. Imagine an officer turning around to find a man walking toward him with one hand pointing at something and the other near his hip. That would make me really nervous. But there are several problems here. 1. He wasn’t nervous before when he approached the vehicle and stuck his head in and 2. he turned his back to the driver. That’s the officers own fault. The next thing the officer does is reach for his taser. He immediately becomes incredibly threatening. I can’t see any reason from the video why he would elevate to that level of force in such a narrow amount of time. This officer went from sticking his head into the family SUV to taking a defensive position from a would be attacker in just a few seconds. I never point a weapon (taser, mace or firearm) at a person unless I am planning on using it. He could have just unhooked it and just kept it pointed down in his hand. But even that in my honest opinion would have been excessive.”


2.34 As the driver walks back towards his car he tasers him.
“The driver is obviously surprised and scared by the officer’s actions. Nothing he’s done up to this point warrants someone to point a weapon at him. You can see that he almost goes into a nervous shock. He keeps repeating what the heck is wrong with you, and slowly walks back towards his car (safety). This is where being a calm and collected officer comes into play. I’ll take you through what should have been the dialogue that could have easily diffused the situation.

From the point where the driver starts walking back towards his car:

“Sir, stop”
“Sir, Stop where you are right now!”
“Freeze”
“Freeze or I will taser you”
“freeze or I will taser you”

You’ll note that the officer here never said any of that. He simply kept telling the man to turn around. Again not the best police work here. This is another confusing point for me. I understand why he tasered him, but only to a point. The driver is clearly moving back to his car. This is dangerous. Is the man going to flee the scene? Is he going to run into the street? At this point, I have to stop him. If I try to approach him, things might get violent really quickly. You can see how close to the road they are. Any physical altercation could easily end up in the traffic lanes. So tasering him prevents either of these, sort of. If you look at when and where the officer tasers the driver you can see that he falls right along the side of the traffic lane (or possibly in the lane, I can’t be sure). This is extremely dangerous. This guy could have easily rolled around in pain right into traffic. Why did he wait until he was closer to the traffic lane to fire his taser? Why not right away? Just bad police work.”

There is point where the officer is yelling at the driver’s obviously pregnant wife. I’m willing to bet that this officer has never had to deal with a pregnant woman before, because I would have never spoken to her like that. The first time I watched the video I half expected this idiot to taser her too. He never calls her ma’am either, which to me is very disrespectful.


3.30 – The driver is placed under arrest.

“Again, bad bad police work. The officer says he’s placing the driver under arrest because he didn’t follow his instructions. Again, I don’t know the laws in Utah off the top of my head, but I’m willing to bet that failing to follow the instructions of an officer are not an arrestable offense. The officer fails to read the driver his Miranda rights. Bad police work. Just arrest him, read him his rights and put him in the back of the cruiser. Instead, he goes over to talk to wife while the driver gets up cuffed and approaches the officer. Is this officer asking to be attacked by someone? This is probably the second quickest way to get killed. He cuffed the driver and DIDN’T SEARCH HIM FOR WEAPONS. THEN LEFT HIM ALONE. You can debate that part all you want, but the man was easily able to get up on his feet and stand right behind the officer. This officer is very lucky to be alive”

5.20 - The driver asks repeatedly to have his rights read. The officer responds with “I want you to follow my instructions and do as you’re told.”

“this sort of talk makes my blood boil. We as officers have been hired by the people to serve them and protect them. This man asked for his rights to be read and the officer clearly decided not to. It really shows an inferiority complex on the part of the officer. He didn’t want to be told what to do by this driver, so he just decided not to listen. I suppose its good he didn’t in the long run. Now nothing this man said will be admissible in either the traffic charge against him or in the officer’s defense in the likely civil suit to follow.”


6.30 – The officer says “this is not the place to argue it.”

“He’s absolutely right. On the highway, I issue the citation and you sign it. Period. That’s why I’m sworn in as an officer. I have been vested this power by my state to issue citations when necessary. Once I write it, there is no debating it. You either acknowledge it in my presences by signing it or I take you down to the station to be formally charged. But this driver doesn’t seem to have a clue what’s going on. He doesn’t know why he was tasered. He doesn’t know what speed he was cited for driving. And now, he doesn’t know why he’s being arrested. That’s not his fault. Bad police work.”

8.00 – The officer explains to the drivers wife why he arrested her.

“Everything he says here is contradicted by the video. I’ll just leave it at that. I just hope it adds a few zero’s to their civil suit”

9.20 – The officer discusses the taser incident with his sergeant/senior officer.

“Again, there are multiple contradictions with what he told his senior officer and what actually happened. Apart from his inappropriate taser deployment, giving a false statement to a senior officer can get you fired really quickly. He said the man was jumping all over the place (and pointed to the spot where he actually fired the taser) and said at that point he pulled the taser. Not true. He also said that he warned the driver that he would fire a taser. Not true. Finally, the biggest thing that keys me into this officers personality is his “Oh, he’s completely in charge” comment at 9.20. This is the sort of ******* cop that I hate working with. He might as well as shouted RESPECT MA AUTHORATA while hitting him with the taser. Its clear to me that this officer had an inferiority complex with this man. He felt stupid and belittled. The thing is, you can’t let this driver get to you. You do your job, he signs the ticket and you move on with your life. You can see throughout the latter portion of the video where the officer won’t listen to what anyone says, because he feels he’s in charge. He won’t read the driver his Miranda rights because he’s in charge. He won’t discuss it further with his wife because the driver thought he was in charge.”

The bottom line is that this was just bad police work. What it highlights is what can happen when you give someone a non-lethal weapon. I’m trained to only pull out a taser in a situation where either I would normally use my firearm or the suspect is an immediate danger to themselves or other people (including me.) That is obviously not the case in this video. I’m glad that this video got posted online. Not because I want to see a cop fired or justice served. I think as a nation we need to have a dialogue about the proper use of non-lethal weapons. What if this driver had a heart condition and died on scene. Things would be looking very different right now.

What I want to say to anyone reading this is that not all cops are out to force you into submission and violate your civil rights. Some of us are Democrats (you’d understand that more if you know a bunch of cops), ACLU members or just plain nice folk serving in a noble position. The bottom line is that this officer made several bad choices. So did the driver, but I’m more than willing to excuse him. He’s the one who was tasered for very little reason. He’s not the one who’s pulled over hundreds of people on the side of the road. He’s not the one trained in how to issue citations and make arrests. He’s not trained in the use of force. He’s just a driver who was speeding, got scared when an officer pulled a weapon on him and made the mistake of walking away.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

LVFD - that was good, I actually laughed. I can assure you that I have never applied for any LEO job. I did not ever, nor currently wish to ever be a LEO.

George,

I do not think the police are always wrong. Unfortunately, many of my dealings with police while making fire/ems calls is negative. I see the "because I am the police and I say" attitude every day - almost never directed at me, but it pisses me off just the same anyway.

I get tired of being told that "police advise no cars available" for a situation that I need them for at the southwest corner of an intersection when I can see 2-3 cars sitting at the 7/11 on the northeast corner of the same damn intersection.

I have also been on the receiving end of the traffic stop and had to listen to the lecture/sermon being handed out by Barney. Give me a ticket or let me go, but save the sermon for Sunday.

Having said that, I do realize that there must be good officers out there somewhere - I am sure they are even here, I just haven't seen them yet.

As far as my question to you about a state law that would allow the justifiable shooting of a police officer, here it is:

Tennessee Code Annotated - TCA 39-11-611 - Self Defense (in part)

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:



(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:




(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and




(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8; 2007, ch. 210, § 1.]

It would appear that because I am the police and I say so is not quite good enough here. Oh, and by the way, thats not a threat, just the law.

Would anyone actually live to be able to try this defense?? Most likely not, but I will ask again, wonder why something like that would ever not only be introduced into state law, but pass as well?? I am just curious what your thoughts are on that.

Oh, and to finally answer the question, we are not called out on Taser calls as they are deemed to much of a liability and not a single MPD officer has one. They would be handed out like candy and the city knows it.

George I am big enough to agree to disagree. I am not going to add you to any "list." I did not threaten you and do not wish you any ill will.

I know you didn't threaten me. Unless you have a thing against insurance investigators. I took it as a tacit threat to law enforcement officers in general. I have no idea of the legislative history or intent of that law, but it is so full of contradictions that it would never be able to be used as a defense.

The only "list" I added you to is the list of openly anti-LEO people onn this forum. I stated that your posts may indicate you are anti-LEO. You replied:
If that was directed at me, you are correct.

I do not have a modicum of respect for people who are anti-LEO.

[the1141man]

Apparently in UT, there is a law that you must sign the summons. When he didn't, the officer rightly removed him from his vehicle and took him to a place of security for him and safety for him-between the two vehicles.

Call me anal, but this one little point gets me. Between two vehicles on the shoulder of a busy highway/freeway is probably the least safe place to be...unless you like the idea of having your legs crushed to Jell-O. You should be well off the shoulder in the embankment, parallel to the cruiser and at least partially facing oncoming traffic so you can keep an eye on the idiot who will eventually plow into your cruiser if you keep it parked there long enough...
I agree with the "synopsis" on page 4 that this represents "bad police work".


I found this on another site, it is titled " A toopers take on the the Utah Taser Incident" It contains interesting prospectives.

....

“Again, bad bad police work. The officer says he’s placing the driver under arrest because he didn’t follow his instructions. Again, I don’t know the laws in Utah off the top of my head, but I’m willing to bet that failing to follow the instructions of an officer are not an arrestable offense. The officer fails to read the driver his Miranda rights. Bad police work. Just arrest him, read him his rights and put him in the back of the cruiser.
...
“this sort of talk makes my blood boil. We as officers have been hired by the people to serve them and protect them. This man asked for his rights to be read and the officer clearly decided not to. It really shows an inferiority complex on the part of the officer. He didn’t want to be told what to do by this driver, so he just decided not to listen. I suppose its good he didn’t in the long run. Now nothing this man said will be admissible in either the traffic charge against him or in the officer’s defense in the likely civil suit to follow.”
...


Actually, almost all of this is bad info.
1) Utah most likely has a statue similar to California's 148PC--Interfering with a Peace Officer in Performance of Duty. Basically, that means if a cop gives you a lawful order to do something, and you refuse it (such as not giving your driver lic/registration when requested at a traffic stop), you are then interfering with his/her ability to perform their duty, so you get arrest for 148. Isn't a big deal...a number of people have "rap sheets" with 148PC on them, simply cause they were a loudmouth drunk kid one night in college.
The law is very broad and vague, and deliberately so...again, basically it boils down to an officer giving you a legal order, and you refusing to obey it.
2) Miranda--either the person who wrote the little missive about Miranda is really not a cop, or is a cop in need of some remedial education about exactly what Miranda is and what it means.
The requirement for Miranda exists only when two conditions are met:
1) a suspect is in custody for a crime
2) they are being questioned about said crime
If someone is being questioned, but not "in custody", Miranda does not apply. Likewise, if they are in custody, but not being questioned, Miranda again does not apply.
Any statements that a suspect makes concurrent with or after their arrest, that are not responses to questions that the officer asks pertaining to the crime for which they're in custody, are considered "spontaneous statements", which are fully admissible in any court of law.

Further, Miranda doesn't apply to civil law, only criminal law. :rolleyes:

Anyways, sorry to disrupt the pro-LEO/anti-LEO argument with the facts...do go on without me. ;)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Call me anal, but this one little point gets me. Between two vehicles on the shoulder of a busy highway/freeway is probably the least safe place to be...unless you like the idea of having your legs crushed to Jell-O. You should be well off the shoulder in the embankment, parallel to the cruiser and at least partially facing oncoming traffic so you can keep an eye on the idiot who will eventually plow into your cruiser if you keep it parked there long enough...
I agree with the "synopsis" on page 4 that this represents "bad police work".



Actually, almost all of this is bad info.
1) Utah most likely has a statue similar to California's 148PC--Interfering with a Peace Officer in Performance of Duty. Basically, that means if a cop gives you a lawful order to do something, and you refuse it (such as not giving your driver lic/registration when requested at a traffic stop), you are then interfering with his/her ability to perform their duty, so you get arrest for 148. Isn't a big deal...a number of people have "rap sheets" with 148PC on them, simply cause they were a loudmouth drunk kid one night in college.
The law is very broad and vague, and deliberately so...again, basically it boils down to an officer giving you a legal order, and you refusing to obey it.
2) Miranda--either the person who wrote the little missive about Miranda is really not a cop, or is a cop in need of some remedial education about exactly what Miranda is and what it means.
The requirement for Miranda exists only when two conditions are met:
1) a suspect is in custody for a crime
2) they are being questioned about said crime
If someone is being questioned, but not "in custody", Miranda does not apply. Likewise, if they are in custody, but not being questioned, Miranda again does not apply.
Any statements that a suspect makes concurrent with or after their arrest, that are not responses to questions that the officer asks pertaining to the crime for which they're in custody, are considered "spontaneous statements", which are fully admissible in any court of law.

Further, Miranda doesn't apply to civil law, only criminal law. :rolleyes:

Anyways, sorry to disrupt the pro-LEO/anti-LEO argument with the facts...do go on without me. ;)

Your assessment of the Miranda rule is dead on.

I also agree with you that, IMHO, the person who wrote that little diddy is probably a defense attorney and not a cop. I am not going to get into the whole thing, because it doesn't belong on a FF board. It would take me hours to go over the whole thing.

However, I do not agree in any way that "bad police work" was involved here. Where would a safer location be? In front of both cars? Behind both cars? In the lane of traffic? On the other side of the guardrail?

The location between the two cars provides the most protection from the traffic as well as affords the most protection from an officer safety standpoint should things go bad.

[MemphisE34a]

I do not have a modicum of respect for people who are anti-LEO.
I could say the same about people who are always pro-police. Whether you like it or not George there are either far more, or at least far more exposed bad cops than bad firefighters. At least in terms of violating the very laws they are supposed to be upholding everyone else to.

Despite this, I will publicly grant you the entitlement of your opinion and still not form my overall opinion of you based solely on this single issue that you are wrong about.


Daaaaanng (thats hillbilly for "Gee Wolly")

That almost sounds like something you wrote.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I could say the same about people who are always pro-police. Whether you like it or not George there are either far more, or at least far more exposed bad cops than bad firefighters. At least in terms of violating the very laws they are supposed to be upholding everyone else to.

Despite this, I will publicly grant you the entitlement of your opinion and still not form my overall opinion of you based solely on this single issue that you are wrong about.


Daaaaanng (thats hillbilly for "Gee Wolly")

That almost sounds like something you wrote.


You're not speaking to me. If you were to make a search (don't worry, I know you won't), I have spoken out against bad cops and stupid police work on here more than once.

Your point about bad police is flawed. If fire fighters had the multi-layered approach to internal affairs that police have, the score would be even up, I'm sure.

[MemphisE34a]

You're not speaking to me. If you were to make a search (don't worry, I know you won't), I have spoken out against bad cops and stupid police work on here more than once.
Fair enough. I'll take you at your word because you are correct, I do not care enough to spend any amount of time trying to find the where you actually did it.

If fire fighters had the multi-layered approach to internal affairs that police have, the score would be even up, I'm sure.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Firefighters are not so normally and casually exposed to great amounts of money or drugs. Lets face it, cops that go corrupt normally do so because of the almighty dollar. I watch "The Shield", I know how it works!!;)

[turbo1]

Not sure if this has been posted but it was tasering at YVR (vancouver airport) of a Polish immigrant. Fire/EMS were not called till well after the incident. I will Never second guess the actions of the police only the lack of actions afterwards. And I know video only tells part of the story. Didn't want to start a new thread.

P.S. video might be viewed as graphic for some. Very touchy topic north of the border right now. I say give the PD the tools they need to do their job safest as possible but there has gotta be guidelines


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nx0Cx3uMk&feature=related

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Firefighters are not so normally and casually exposed to great amounts of money or drugs. Lets face it, cops that go corrupt normally do so because of the almighty dollar. I watch "The Shield", I know how it works!!;)

Actually, cops go bad for a whole host of reasons. But if you want to get technical about it, I'll bet a study of police firings and suspensions would show you that the most cops go down for lying or falsifying reports. It has been my experience that a cop will lie about something that might get him a reprimand or a couple of days off, and then end up getting fired for lying about it. Very stupid.

[mcaldwell]

Not sure if this has been posted but it was tasering at YVR (vancouver airport) of a Polish immigrant. Fire/EMS were not called till well after the incident. I will Never second guess the actions of the police only the lack of actions afterwards. And I know video only tells part of the story. Didn't want to start a new thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nx0Cx3uMk&feature=related


I have seen the YVR video a few times now, and I don't see what all the hype is about. Considering he was throwing furniture and equipment, and seemed to be trying to break the glass of the waiting area, he was definitely a candidate for force if I have ever seen one. If he didn't get the TASER, he was certainly going to see the business end of a few batons. In a perfect scenario (and how the RCMP and the Manufacturer would have planned), the TASER would have resulted in lesser injury during the arrest, and no long term injury.

Unfortunately the result was tragic (and certainly unintended), but as I stated in my second post, that is a secondary issue.

[turbo1]

I have seen the YVR video a few times now, and I don't see what all the hype is about. Considering he was throwing furniture and equipment, and seemed to be trying to break the glass of the waiting area, he was definitely a candidate for force if I have ever seen one. If he didn't get the TASER, he was certainly going to see the business end of a few batons. In a perfect scenario (and how the RCMP and the Manufacturer would have planned), the TASER would have resulted in lesser injury during the arrest, and no long term injury.

Unfortunately the result was tragic (and certainly unintended), but as I stated in my second post, that is a secondary issue.

Mcaldwell, with all due respect i've seen the results of a taser victims, Probably not as much of you in Panorama BC, but i've seen my share Downtown Vancouver so i can understand your position, however, i'm posting on experience. No help called after arrest, taser before other options. Now once again in the right hands very useful weapon for PD. This case. Stand up and say I ****ed up. Cops **** up too!!! Muppets lets here ye.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

So what would be your plan of action Turbo ? Let him run wild breaking things? Knock him over the head? What exactly were the police supposed to do?

[turbo1]

So what would be your plan of action Turbo ? Let him run wild breaking things? Knock him over the head? What exactly were the police supposed to do?

He's not a threat, get an interpreputer, someone polish, try to reason, get family, someone that can communicate, does he have a bomb? does he have hostages? whats your plan hero??

[turbo1]

YVR failed him. He was alone for 10 hrs looking for family. The RCMP did there job Yes., could it have been done better, absolutley. The man was killed due to lack of communication. Plain and simple. Any other questions MIKEYLIKESIT??

[turbo1]

Sorry about taking this thread in another direction......:o

[RspctFrmCalgary]

YVR failed him. He was alone for 10 hrs looking for family. The RCMP did there job Yes., could it have been done better, absolutley. The man was killed due to lack of communication. Plain and simple.

I was just about to say the same thing. I only just heard today that he was left alone there for 10 hours. TEN HOURS and no interpreter there to talk to him, to let him know what was going on?! :eek: :confused:

I finally watched the video earlier tonight for the first time. I didn't really see any of the TV coverage. Maybe it's my computer, but I found it very dark and hard to see it all clearly. In light of that, I think I'll hold off on saying any more at this time.


No worries, Turbo ... I helped hijack the thread too.

But isn't it all related anyway? There's been what, 3 taser related deaths in Canada and 4 in the States in recent weeks? The resulting major political hoopla all across our country regarding whether or not our police forces should be continuing to use them or not makes it worth bringing to the table as part of this discussion, in my opinion.

[turbo1]

I was just about to say the same thing. I only just heard today that he was left alone there for 10 hours. TEN HOURS and no interpreter there to talk to him, to let him know what was going on?! :eek: :confused:

I finally watched the video earlier tonight for the first time. I didn't really see any of the TV coverage. Maybe it's my computer, but I found it very dark and hard to see it all clearly. In light of that, I think I'll hold off on saying any more at this time.


No worries, Turbo ... I helped hijack the thread too.

But isn't it all related anyway? There's been what, 3 taser related deaths in Canada and 4 in the States in recent weeks? The resulting major political hoopla all across our country regarding whether or not our police forces should continuing to use them or not makes it worth bringing to the table as part of this discussion, in my opinion.

Yeah I agree RspctFrmCalgary, But I think if our police are wrong in this case or any other case they should fess up and take the hit. Public distrust of police in canada right now is directly a result of PD holding back info. IE (YVR TAPE) You hold back it looks like your hiding!! Now i'm pro PD but if you mess up fess up........

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

How is it the fault of the police that he was left alone at the airport? Typical "blame everyone except who desreves to be blamed"... The officers did what they thought was best. If you think it was ok thay he acted like an idiot (language barrier or not thats what he did) and be allowed to run like a wild man through an airport, then we will have to agree to disagree.

[turbo1]

, then we will have to agree to disagree.


Fair enough, we will see when the coroners inquest is released. 4 armed police officers against an unarmed man did what was best. Man the RCMP might recruit you for their jury!!!

[mcaldwell]

No help called after arrest, taser before other options. Now once again in the right hands very useful weapon for PD. This case. Stand up and say I ****ed up. Cops **** up too!

This is the point I made earlier. I work every day with the RCMP, and they are taught that the TASER is completely safe. They are taught to use it in violent or potentially violent confrontations as a substitution for swarming, OC, and Batons.

The idea to allow the police to maintain a safe distance and stay out of the reach of the suspect until they have been immobilized. And in a perfect world that would work. As I said before, the TASER "should" be a 15 second pain stimulus with no lasting effects. Better than a beating, and better than the lasting irritation of spray (not to mention cross contamination and area exposure) but that is where the safety debate comes in. The TASER in my opinion, and obviously many others, may not actually be as safe as they claim, and we need to address that issue more in-depth.

Unfortunately, the Police in the street are not the ones who should be left responsible for the scientific evaluation of the device. They are end-users of a product, not the R&D team.


And of course the YVR incident was a gaff by the airport authority. But I still think that the RCMP in that scenario were completely in line with thier protocols and thier training. Rather than hanging a few officers out to dry for doing exactly what they were trained to do, we should be looking to fix the root cause.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Fair enough, we will see when the coroners inquest is released. 4 armed police officers against an unarmed man did what was best. Man the RCMP might recruit you for their jury!!!

Spare me your self-righteous bull****. Tasers are a lot less lethal then a gun...Or a chokehold. Have you ever tried to restrain someone that didnt want to be restrained? Four on one sometimes isnt even enough. I find it incredible that the airport couldnt figure out he was Polish since he was from Poland. The airport screwed up...Not the cops.

[turbo1]

But I still think that the RCMP in that scenario were completely in line with thier protocols and thier training. Rather than hanging a few officers out to dry for doing exactly what they were trained to do, we should be looking to fix the root cause.

Exactly, **** went wrong. Lots of agencies to blame but ALL are guilty. Fix things so it doesnt happen again. When you outnumber a suspect 4 to 1 who is not armed taseing seems a little extreme. At least to most people. I have RCMP in my blood line and muni cops as well. All agree this was a cluster**** and an innocent man died. This went sideways. I've watch city cops take down numerous suspects with force and no taser, no problem. Maybe protocol is to blame. Don't know. Just want it fixed. And the ONLY reason we are talking about it is someone taped it!!!! Otherwise......sweep....swep.. ..carpet here............

[turbo1]

Spare me your self-righteous bull****. Tasers are a lot less lethal then a gun...Or a chokehold. Have you ever tried to restrain someone that didnt want to be restrained? Four on one sometimes isnt even enough. I find it incredible that the airport couldnt figure out he was Polish since he was from Poland. The airport screwed up...Not the cops.


Wow, didn't take long to get rude eh!...Well im not an insecure little punk so i'll just stick with my previous comment that things could have been handled alot better by ALL agencies.

[turbo1]

Tasers are a lot less lethal then a gun...Or a chokehold.


Thanks for the update Mikey. Had no idea, thought a 9mm to the head was less lethal....this place is a welath of knowledge i swear!!!:rolleyes:

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I actually have spent some time in BC. Vancouver is a nice place. I dont see why this incident "drags the whole province through the mud". The big dog comment has me "beeked off" (whatever that means) but I will tell you that there have been times where a taser would have helped out .... Our cops had them taken away until one man put three police officers in the hospital. But you go on with your hand wringing. The rest of us wont hold it against the people of British Columbia.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Thanks for the update Mikey. Had no idea, thought a 9mm to the head was less lethal....this place is a welath of knowledge i swear!!!:rolleyes:
So you didnt answer me Turbo the great... How would you suggest the police have handled the situation as it had presented itself ?

[BLSboy]

Exactly, **** went wrong. Lots of agencies to blame but ALL are guilty. Fix things so it doesnt happen again. When you outnumber a suspect 4 to 1 who is not armed taseing seems a little extreme. At least to most people. I have RCMP in my blood line and muni cops as well. All agree this was a cluster**** and an innocent man died. This went sideways. I've watch city cops take down numerous suspects with force and no taser, no problem. Maybe protocol is to blame. Don't know. Just want it fixed. And the ONLY reason we are talking about it is someone taped it!!!! Otherwise......sweep....swep.. ..carpet here............

It is quite obvious that you have not had ANY experience with trying to subdue a subject, let alone an aggravated one, or one under the infulence of a controlled substance. Get back to us when you have. Kay? Thanks.

[turbo1]

I actually have spent some time in BC. Vancouver is a nice place. I dont see why this incident "drags the whole province through the mud". The big dog comment has me "beeked off" (whatever that means) but I will tell you that there have been times where a taser would have helped out .... Our cops had them taken away until one man put three police officers in the hospital. But you go on with your hand wringing. The rest of us wont hold it against the people of British Columbia.


I quess officers saftey before tasering a guy to death. Makes sense. You views are loud and clear Brother..............

[turbo1]

It is quite obvious that you have not had ANY experience with trying to subdue a subject, let alone an aggravated one, or one under the infulence of a controlled substance. Get back to us when you have. Kay? Thanks.


Guess i'm getting back to you now Bro. Been doing this job FULL TIME and have been involved in incidents for 14 yrs. Anything else BasicLifeSupport Boy. Sorry just saw you are 20 yrs old and I bow down to your experience. Please guide me!!!:rolleyes:I have boots older than you kid.

[BLSboy]

Guess i'm getting back to you know Bro. many times and all personnal had it done no problem.

Really? Got that "golden tongue"? Or they just roll over and give up? Or are all the Public Safety Professionals up there so big and strong and manly that they are able to easily subdue suspects?

For those of us in the real world, we have difficulty dealing with people who don't want to go with us. EMS or PD. Any time I have had to physically subdue or restrain a person, it has been with a MINIMUM of 4 people, many times police officers who do so on a fairly regular basis, but without the benefit of a Tazer. And every time, some one brings up, the Tazer, and how effective it's useage would have been in that particular incident.
From the scrawniest little guys, to the NFL sized linebackers, if they don't want to go, then it takes either superior personnel, or an extra kick (Tazer)

And guess what? If some MUTT don't wanna come with, and he has to, I would take the "risk" of Tazing him any day, then trying to go hands on with him. Fcuk his safety, my partner and I are going home at the end of the tour. He is optional.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I quess officers saftey before tasering a guy to death. Makes sense. ..............
Yes it does make sense. Although you are being sarcastic and have lost all credibility because of it.

[turbo1]

Really? Got that "golden tongue"? Or they just roll over and give up? Or are all the Public Safety Professionals up there so big and strong and manly that they are able to easily subdue suspects?

For those of us in the real world, we have difficulty dealing with people who don't want to go with us. EMS or PD. Any time I have had to physically subdue or restrain a person, it has been with a MINIMUM of 4 people, many times police officers who do so on a fairly regular basis, but without the benefit of a Tazer. And every time, some one brings up, the Tazer, and how effective it's useage would have been in that particular incident.
From the scrawniest little guys, to the NFL sized linebackers, if they don't want to go, then it takes either superior personnel, or an extra kick (Tazer)

And guess what? If some MUTT don't wanna come with, and he has to, I would take the "risk" of Tazing him any day, then trying to go hands on with him. Fcuk his safety, my partner and I are going home at the end of the tour. He is optional.


Hey sorry son, things are way different up here in Canada, I can't even compare to your many yrs of experience in this field. Please pass along any knowledge you have to us lowly firefighters of local18 we need all the help we can get. Address it to nobody ****ing cares......

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

PS 14 years aint ****.

[turbo1]

PS 14 years aint ****.

Myabe not to you. but still is about 12 more than you Brother

[BLSboy]

Hey sorry son, things are way different up here in Canada, I can't even compare to your many yrs of experience in this field. Please pass along any knowledge you have to us lowly firefighters of local18 we need all the help we can get. Address it to nobody ****ing cares......

Never claimed to be the all mighty, knows it all, Fire.EMS.PD God. Tried to engage in a civil debate with another firefighter. Obviously, your skin is too thin to take the back and forth banter, so you resort to childish attacks. I am sure that you are not like the majority of your fellow firefighters, and are mocked by them.

And to what address should I direct my inquiries? Is that Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, or Dr Nobody Fcuking Cares?

Too bad, I give it less then 10 hours before this thread gets locked......:rolleyes:

[turbo1]

Never claimed to be the all mighty, knows it all, Fire.EMS.PD God. Tried to engage in a civil debate with another firefighter. Obviously, your skin is too thin to take the back and forth banter, so you resort to childish attacks. I am sure that you are not like the majority of your fellow firefighters, and are mocked by them.

And to what address should I direct my inquiries? Is that Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, or Dr Nobody Fcuking Cares?

Too bad, I give it less then 10 hours before this thread gets locked......:rolleyes:

20 yr old know it all..Mom's basement comfy??....nuff said. you punks come and go.....later

PS hows Halo3?? just keep the volume down so you can here your pager!!

[BLSboy]

Oh come on, don't go!
Whats wrong, some one hurt your feelings? So you take your little hat and go home to mommy?

Man you must be a JOY at the firehouse. Even the Probies pick on you?

[turbo1]

Oh come on, don't go!
Whats wrong, some one hurt your feelings? So you take your little hat and go home to mommy?

Man you must be a JOY at the firehouse. Even the Probies pick on you?

Dude i've been called alot worse by alot better.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Myabe not to you. but still is about 12 more than you Brother


So you started in 1973 ?

[BLSboy]

Seeing as how this is a family forum, I have to play nice. I don't wanna get booted.

[turbo1]

Seeing as how this is a family forum, I have to play nice. I don't wanna get booted.

OK truce. Was fun though!!! Whatta do you guys run?/ vollie? composite?

[BLSboy]

That it was. Most fun I have had on here since HotTrotter was around:eek: :D :cool:

[turbo1]

That it was. Most fun I have had on here since HotTrotter was around:eek: :D :cool:

LOL...little tension is always good as long as its civil

[BLSboy]

This is our firehouse, we try to keep it as close to the real thing as possible.
And it just ain't a firehouse without a little drama. :cool:

[turbo1]

This is our firehouse, we try to keep it as close to the real thing as possible.
And it just ain't a firehouse without a little drama. :cool:


Drama keeps things interesting. Me IAFF 18. 800 members, 20 stations.

[BLSboy]

That it does. Me vollie. 38 Members, One station.

One day IAFF....just a matter of when, not if.

[turbo1]

That it does. Me vollie. 38 Members, One station.

One day IAFF....just a matter of when, not if.

Good move guys. Best thing that can happen, great union. Hope to see u on board really soon bro.

[turbo1]

P.S. sorry for any "tude" given.

[BLSboy]

I read the writeup for your dept in this months FireRescue. If it weren't for the fact that I LOVE the beach, warm weather, and the furthest North I would go is South Jersey, i would try to get on with yall. Sounds like you guys got one squared away dept.

[turbo1]

I read the writeup for your dept in this months FireRescue. If it weren't for the fact that I LOVE the beach, warm weather, and the furthest North I would go is South Jersey, i would try to get on with yall. Sounds like you guys got one squared away dept.

Its ok. but we have our problems like any other fd....but overall not bad

[BryanLoader]

This whole Tasering problem is going to get worse unless some proactive action is taken. As MC Caldwell says, its getting a s***load of scrutiny in Canada right now. A couple of things from the YVR incident. Mikey, airport probably didn't know he was from Poland by the time the incident happened. How in hell customs and immigration just let him sit in limbo for 10 hrs, I can't imagine. It says on news report he was travelling for 28 hrs. Most flights from Poland to North America transfer through major European hub, i.e Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfort so staff wouldn't necessarily know he was Polish. Also, I'm amazed that nobody could find either a Russian or Ukrainian speaker in the area. Its not identical to Polish, but nearly all Polish people can understand enough to defuse this situation. I know as I speak Russian and I can understand several of his words.
What I could see in the video was the police directing the man to the right, he opens his arms in a kind of " Ok Ok I'll follow", then they sort of surround him, some talk and then Taser. At no time did he appear to threaten the officers or anyone else. The throwing of a chair and something else was from frustration, not excusable, but seemed to have calmed down by the time the police arrived. Even with language problem, I think that some hand gestures, sign language could have calmed the man down. Thats something I didn't see from any official throughout the video. There seemed to be a civillian try to talk to him at the beginning but thats it.
Overall, the airport authority/management should bear the majority of the blame for leaving someone stuck in this situation for 10 hrs. Unfortunately, its going to be the RCMP who get the biggest share of blame because theirs was the action that resulted in this tragedy. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again, better guidelines for using Tasers need to be in place and I agree with MCCaldwell that maybe the whole safety issue behind Tasers needs to be looked at. I'm sure this will end up in a civil lawsuit, hopefully against YVR who really dropped the ball, but I'm afraid the RCMP is going to get a lot of blame as well. If this keeps up, Tasers and their like will be banned or so restricted that they will become useless.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Turbo, you can't come on here and completely disrespect a senior member with a ton more experience than you have and then try to walk away from it. You owe Mikey a huge apology.

Answer me a quesiton, if you would...where did you get all of your law enforcement experience? You sure are a freakin' expert.

[BryanLoader]

What I'm trying to say is that in both the Tasering incidents discussed here, they could have been handled much differently with some communication, respect, and dialogue. In my experience in the fire service, we usually debriefed and discussed actions at an emergency and tried to improve areas that were deficient. On here, it seems that a lot of people are trying to justify something that could have been handled better and safer. Now, because of the publicity, quite likely an over reaction will result. Its probably going to be messy, expensive and over reactive.

[the1141man]

Your assessment of the Miranda rule is dead on.
Thanks. I had some good CJ professors in college. :)
I also agree with you that, IMHO, the person who wrote that little diddy is probably a defense attorney and not a cop. I am not going to get into the whole thing, because it doesn't belong on a FF board. It would take me hours to go over the whole thing.

However, I do not agree in any way that "bad police work" was involved here. Where would a safer location be? In front of both cars? Behind both cars? In the lane of traffic? On the other side of the guardrail?

The location between the two cars provides the most protection from the traffic as well as affords the most protection from an officer safety standpoint should things go bad.

I wouldn't say "bad police work", but probably "bad officer safety tactics"... the RTO who taught the Vehicle Stops and Traffic Enforcement learning domain at my academy was a senior CHP Officer. The reason he said not between the cars is because there is an ever-increasing likelihood, minute to minute that you're on the roadside, that some distracted motorist will plow into the back of the patrol car, and no matter which way you turn your wheels, the primary vector of force will be straight ahead or slightly angled outwards towards the shoulder. Therefore, standing between the two vehicles not only limits your rearward vision (have to look over the roof, and possibly lit lightbar if your agency protocols call for overhead reds to remain on during a stop) to see a potential idiot motorist incoming, but puts you in the direct path the vehicle will travel when struck, as well. Further, when struck, your own vehicle hits you, then crushes you against the vehicle that you stopped. Bad juju.
One need only watch a couple vids of dash cam footage of motorists plowing into stopped police vehicles to know that this is exactly how the vehicle will travel when struck, almost each and every time.

The place he recommended was parallel to the cruiser, but well off the shoulder. This way you can watch oncoming traffic as well as the vehicle you stopped, and are well out of the "line of fire" when your cruiser eventually gets hit by the drunk-dialing, suspended-license idiot with your name on his bumper... :)

[jasper45]

Myabe not to you. but still is about 12 more than you Brother

Sure you want to stick with this statement? My money's on Mikey.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

No apology necessary. I actually a little ashamed at myself for being caught up in a good ol internet flamefest. I try to avoid them. However that dosent mean I agree with Turbo. The police were caught in a bad situation. I am sure they didnt wake up that morning thinking "gee it would be fun to taser someone and have them die today".

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I am curious if the man had a Polish passport. Do you need a passport to enter Canada from Europe? I was a bit surprised when the customs agent in Victoria wanted to see my fire department ID.

[jasper45]

The police were caught in a bad situation. I am sure they didnt wake up that morning thinking "gee it would be fun to taser someone and have them die today".


The police are almost always caught up in a bad situation, and they don't always have the time it may take to bring an interpreter in. When you couple that fact with an airport, it always will take on a different level.
How are the