tonorator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I watched the video. He could have cuffed her easily if he tried. It appears he was screaming before she was. He lost his temper because someone wasn't obeying his orders on a traffic stop. As for all this "She got what she deserved" stuff... it's not the cops job to deliver punishment. If he was in the right and had video of it, he could have easily let her go on her way and had her picked up and prosecuted later without putting society at risk. This guy is an idiot. uh, it's the cops job to control the situation. a traffic cop is still a cop, someone who puts their life on the line daily to protect people like you. everytime they walk up to a vehicle on the highway they have no idea what they are about to face. old lady or not, this is someone who broke the law and then resisted arrest. cops have procedures to control these situations to protect their safety and everyone else's and it looks to me like he followed those procedures, as the other officer stated. you don't don't handle law breakers by easily letting them go on their way and then picking them up later. you also don't apply situational judgement in every case. you follow procedure. the only idiot in this case was the lady who thought she was above the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 uh, it's the cops job to control the situation. a traffic cop is still a cop, someone who puts their life on the line daily to protect people like you. everytime they walk up to a vehicle on the highway they have no idea what they are about to face. old lady or not, this is someone who broke the law and then resisted arrest. cops have procedures to control these situations to protect their safety and everyone else's and it looks to me like he followed those procedures, as the other officer stated. you don't don't handle law breakers by easily letting them go on their way and then picking them up later. you also don't apply situational judgement in every case. you follow procedure. the only idiot in this case was the lady who thought she was above the law. Why do you hate the Framers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I watched the video. He could have cuffed her easily if he tried. It appears he was screaming before she was. He lost his temper because someone wasn't obeying his orders on a traffic stop. As for all this "She got what she deserved" stuff... it's not the cops job to deliver punishment. If he was in the right and had video of it, he could have easily let her go on her way and had her picked up and prosecuted later without putting society at risk. This guy is an idiot. I want to taze you so bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Did you notice how many of them are being shut down after Georgia law was changed to make it so revenue production was banned from consideration of using them, such as justifications and requirements of a longer yellow light in those intersections. So many jurisdictions are shutting them down once negative revenue is coming from them. It's not the longer yellow lights, but the state assembly passed the law that said they had to wait a full second after the light turned red before the shutter could open. That reduced "violators" by close to 90% at some intersections, and made the cameras unprofitable to operate for the county/city jurisdictions. Which is a beautiful thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It's not the longer yellow lights, but the state assembly passed the law that said they had to wait a full second after the light turned red before the shutter could open. That reduced "violators" by close to 90% at some intersections, and made the cameras unprofitable to operate for the county/city jurisdictions. Which is a beautiful thing... Amen to that. I absolutely love the urban-legend-which-was-actually-true about the guy that sent in a photo of the 20-whatever bucks it was for his fine in to the jurisdiction, since of course, they had just provided him with a photo of him breaking the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why do you hate the Framers? need i remind you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 uh, it's the cops job to control the situation. a traffic cop is still a cop, someone who puts their life on the line daily to protect people like you. everytime they walk up to a vehicle on the highway they have no idea what they are about to face. old lady or not, this is someone who broke the law and then resisted arrest. cops have procedures to control these situations to protect their safety and everyone else's and it looks to me like he followed those procedures, as the other officer stated. you don't don't handle law breakers by easily letting them go on their way and then picking them up later. you also don't apply situational judgement in every case. you follow procedure. the only idiot in this case was the lady who thought she was above the law. FAIL. You do realize that the only difference between the rights of a cop and the rights of a regular citizen is the cop can issue citations/arrests for misdemeanors, right? Protect and serve, NOT "control". Both these individuals were El Guapos and she got her punishment via tazing, and the cop probably deserves some disciplinary action as well as he could have cuffed her and arrested her without the tazer. Also, she hadn't necessarily broke the law. That hasn't been adjudicated yet. You "freedom-loving conservatives" sure are willing to step all over other people's rights an awful lot. She should never have been pulled out of the car, and he showed her as little respect as she showed him. This isn't a police state (yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 FAIL. You do realize that the only difference between the rights of a cop and the rights of a regular citizen is the cop can issue citations/arrests for misdemeanors, right? Protect and serve, NOT "control". Both these individuals were El Guapos and she got her punishment via tazing, and the cop probably deserves some disciplinary action as well as he could have cuffed her and arrested her without the tazer. Also, she hadn't necessarily broke the law. That hasn't been adjudicated yet. You "freedom-loving conservatives" sure are willing to step all over other people's rights an awful lot. She should never have been pulled out of the car, and he showed her as little respect as she showed him. This isn't a police state (yet). While it appears I'm "on the cop's side" here... this I 100% agree with, although I could see where the cop got a hair up his butt and went the easy way out, which also happened to be the safest given the location of where it went down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 FAIL. You do realize that the only difference between the rights of a cop and the rights of a regular citizen is the cop can issue citations/arrests for misdemeanors, right? Protect and serve, NOT "control". Both these individuals were El Guapos and she got her punishment via tazing, and the cop probably deserves some disciplinary action as well as he could have cuffed her and arrested her without the tazer. Also, she hadn't necessarily broke the law. That hasn't been adjudicated yet. You "freedom-loving conservatives" sure are willing to step all over other people's rights an awful lot. She should never have been pulled out of the car, and he showed her as little respect as she showed him. This isn't a police state (yet). as i understand, she was being put under arrest for refusal to comply, which i believe is the law in texas. he was taking her out of the car to arrest her. once that process initiates, you bet your ass that the rights of the cop supercedes the rights of the person being arrested. from that point, they comply, period. let the courts, lawyers, etc. figure it out later but what you don't do is resist. we have a system setup today that protects the individual against wrong play as evidenced by the whole thing being on dashcam and shown on the news. and hey, if the cop didn't follow procedure, then i agee, discipline him. that's the beauty of having every move the cop makes on camera and right there out in the open. i'm assuming tazing is used to avoid a physical altercation and if that's the case, i'm all for it. if my son is the cop in that case, i don't want him engaging in every conflict, be it with a crazy young punk or an obnoxious old lady. and that tazing here was not "punishment". the cop is not administering justice. he is indeed CONTROLLING the situation so it does not escalate. completely cool with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Granny should've done what we all have had to do to get out of the ticket. Does she think she's too good to suck dick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Good God, Nick. Are you contending that ALL she did was 1) sped and 2) mouthed off? If that's the case, I highly recommend you watch the FULL video. And, FWIW: From: http://www.speedingticketcentral.com/speed...an-legends.html I watched the full video. I saw nothing that suggested she should have been subjected to potentially life threatening violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I watched the full video. I saw nothing that suggested she should have been subjected to potentially life threatening violence. Alright, that's your opinion. So, how do you respond to point #2, then? Actually, nevermind. I think I know what the answer will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I watched the full video. I saw nothing that suggested she should have been subjected to potentially life threatening violence. celebrities are tazing themselves on reality shows ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 the cop's only options were: 1) get her to sign the ticket, or 2) arrest her it is absurd to suggest he simply have a tow truck come and impound her vehicle. what, is she just going to let let the guy tow her car without getting in HIS face? is the cop just supposed to let the tow truck driver do the cop's job and restrain her? that is ridiculous. it is also absurd to suggest he simply drive away and then summons her later. first of all, you'd have all kinds of service issues in court. and you'd basically be encouraging people to break the law and resist arrest. no way is that an option. so if she's not going to sign the ticket, his only option is to take her into custody. I am sure that is what his police handbook or whatever says, and I'm sure it also says, if they resist, warn them of tazing. then warn them 5 more times. then if they still resist, taze them. so, I am certain he could have handled it better, but it seems pretty clear the cop went by the book. the book is the same whether the perp is a 25 year-old man or a 72 year-old woman, and that is where I think the cop might have used his better judgment and come up with a better way of dealing with the problem. but at the same time, it's kind of hard to blame someone for doing something the way they are supposed to. it's not a question of this being an appropriate "punishment" for speeding. it's about, when a cop says you have to do something, you do it. whether you're innocent or guilty, whether your suspected crime was major or minor, when a cop orders you to do something you have a duty to listen. and if you don't, he is authorized to do what he needs to to make you comply. most jurisdictions have come to the conclusion that tazing people is a better, and yes safer, policy than manhandling them. if those are the only two options you leave a cop with, I don't think you have much of a gripe over how he deals with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Alright, that's your opinion. So, how do you respond to point #2, then? Actually, nevermind. I think I know what the answer will be. Er, if Texas law states that she should be arrested (patently and utterly ridiculous, BTW), then he should have done so. The use of weapons on people should be reserved to extreme circumstances. If a cop can't cuff a 72 year old grannie without tazing her he shouldn't be on the job. Frankly I am amazed at the amount of people here that think it's perfectly fine for police to be using escalated violence on people. This is not some dangerous criminal that needs to be caught immediately and using extreme measures. It's over a speeding violation by an old lady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Frankly I am amazed at the amount of people here that think it's perfectly fine for police to be using escalated violence on people. This is not some dangerous criminal that needs to be caught immediately and using extreme measures. It's over a speeding violation by an old lady. you don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Frankly I am amazed at the amount of people here that think it's perfectly fine for police to be using escalated violence on people. This is not some dangerous criminal that needs to be caught immediately and using extreme measures. It's over a speeding violation by an old lady. at that point, it doesn't matter how old she is or what she was accused of doing. the only thing that matters is she was resisting arrest. and you are saying, in essence, people should be allowed to successfully resist arrest if they are old ladies who were just speeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Er, if Texas law states that she should be arrested (patently and utterly ridiculous, BTW), then he should have done so. The use of weapons on people should be reserved to extreme circumstances. If a cop can't cuff a 72 year old grannie without tazing her he shouldn't be on the job. Frankly I am amazed at the amount of people here that think it's perfectly fine for police to be using escalated violence on people. This is not some dangerous criminal that needs to be caught immediately and using extreme measures. It's over a speeding violation by an old lady. I said nevermind, I already knew where you were going. you don't get it. ..... dead horse Edited June 11, 2009 by darin3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulzale Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If the cop starts using his judgement vs. following procedures is when lawsuits happen. That lady could have easily removed his gun and shot him if he tried to physically restrain her and had the mentality that she is a 72 year old woman, what could she possibly do to hurt me. I mean a 5 year old can pull the trigger as easily as a 72 year old. I give cops a lot of credit for what they do, every situation has to be looked at as life threatening or you can make a terrible mistake. That is a lot of pressure. Again, I think he was justified in what he did, but it was a lose lose type deal, however neither was hurt and both are still walking around today, so I think the right choice was made! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 it's not a question of this being an appropriate "punishment" for speeding. it's about, when a cop says you have to do something, you do it. whether you're innocent or guilty, whether your suspected crime was major or minor, when a cop orders you to do something you have a duty to listen. and if you don't, he is authorized to do what he needs to to make you comply. most jurisdictions have come to the conclusion that tazing people is a better, and yes safer, policy than manhandling them. if those are the only two options you leave a cop with, I don't think you have much of a gripe over how he deals with you. So if the cop tells you to reach over and stick a pen in your buddies eye you have to do it? Just trying to see where you're drawing the line here Az. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 So if the cop tells you to reach over and stick a pen in your buddies eye you have to do it? Just trying to see where you're drawing the line here Az. are you serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 you don't get it. My sentiments exactly, but in reverse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 So if the cop tells you to reach over and stick a pen in your buddies eye you have to do it? Just trying to see where you're drawing the line here Az. It depends on if the cop is spitting tobacco or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 are you serious? You're the one who wrote it, not me. it's about, when a cop says you have to do something, you do it. whether you're innocent or guilty, whether your suspected crime was major or minor, when a cop orders you to do something you have a duty to listen. This is obviously beyond the scope of the initial thread, but I am just a bit curious as to where the line is drawn. I also know that your intent is not what I'm making of it here, but I think it an interesting question. Where do we as a citizen have the right to say "hell no"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Where do we as a citizen have the right to say "hell no"? When he starts using the word pork as a verb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.