Originally posted by smw6869Funny ! and too true
Wah!..Wah!..Wah!... mommy told me never take any s**t from a powice officer. She told me always to set them up so i can collect on a lawsuit. And..and..and now i'm heading for the nearest Micky D's to get a nice freakin HOT cup of coffee. Maybe i can spill it on my dic, but first i need to pick up my Workers Comp Check from my lawyer for faking an injury at ...[text shortened]... should i care, i don't pay taxes. Yippie..Yippie..Yippie what a wonderful day!!!!
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Another moron heard from.
Wah!..Wah!..Wah!... mommy told me never take any s**t from a powice officer. She told me always to set them up so i can collect on a lawsuit. And..and..and now i'm heading for the nearest Micky D's to get a nice freakin HOT cup of coffee. Maybe i can spill it on my dic, but first i need to pick up my Workers Comp Check from my lawyer for faking an injury at ...[text shortened]... should i care, i don't pay taxes. Yippie..Yippie..Yippie what a wonderful day!!!!
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can clearly see the forty mile an hour sign in the veryfirst part of the video. The cop stops right in front of it so A-hole can drive by him and get a speeding ticket.
How do you know the sign was "plain to see"? Where did you get that information?
Originally posted by dryhumpDon't bother, arguing with whatsisname is a waste. We've all been down this road before on this story, I'm ignoring the thread now, don't need the aggravation.
You can clearly see the forty mile an hour sign in the veryfirst part of the video. The cop stops right in front of it so A-hole can drive by him and get a speeding ticket.
Originally posted by no1marauderComplete BS.
The officer used a taser on a guy because he wouldn't sign a traffic citation. A taser is supposed to be used for self-defense or for controlling someone who is a some type of a threat, not a guy who's a bit pissed off about a ticket and is walking back to his car. The officer should have been fired and $40,000 sounds like the State of Utah got off light.
The officer acted appropriately. The individual at first refused to hand over his license and registration, was argumentative, refused to sign the ticket, and refused to obey the officer's instructions.
When the officier asked him to place his hands behind his head, prepartory to placing him under arrest, the individual walked away. That by itself rendered the tasering completely justified.
You don't get to decide when you are going to obey a police officer and when not. If you have a problem with an officer arresting you FOR ANY REASON, you go with him anyway and explain it to a judge.
If you walk away, you are resisting arrest and risk that the officer will use force to restrain you.
Originally posted by spruce112358Nooooo, he tasered him for refusing to sign the ticket and having a bad attitude, whatzhisface says so...over and over and over
Complete BS.
The officer acted appropriately. The individual at first refused to hand over his license and registration, was argumentative, refused to sign the ticket, and refused to obey the officer's instructions.
When the officier asked him to place his hands behind his head, prepartory to placing him under arrest, the individual walked away. T ...[text shortened]... walk away, you are resisting arrest and risk that the officer will use force to restrain you.
Originally posted by spruce112358It seems hard for certain idiots to understand, but no an officer is not justified in using ANY force he pleases to effectuate an arrest. He must use reasonable force under the circumstances. A taser is to be used only in self-defense to subdue a threat. That was obviously not the case here as the subject did absolutely nothing that threatened the officer or anyone else. And that is why the State of Utah paid the $40,000; even the State official said it was a "close case" and when your lawyer says that, that's tantamount to an admission.
Complete BS.
The officer acted appropriately. The individual at first refused to hand over his license and registration, was argumentative, refused to sign the ticket, and refused to obey the officer's instructions.
When the officier asked him to place his hands behind his head, prepartory to placing him under arrest, the individual walked away. T ...[text shortened]... walk away, you are resisting arrest and risk that the officer will use force to restrain you.
So you clowns can continue to think that in the good ole USA a police officer can do whatever he pleases to you if you don't cooperate 100% with any demands that he makes of you. But that isn't the law.
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease supply your source for this law.
It seems hard for certain idiots to understand, but no an officer is not justified in using ANY force he pleases to effectuate an arrest. He must use reasonable force under the circumstances. A taser is to be used only in self-defense to subdue a threat. That was obviously not the case here as the subject did absolutely nothing that threatened the office ...[text shortened]... if you don't cooperate 100% with any demands that he makes of you. But that isn't the law.
GRANNY.
3 edits
Originally posted by smw6869Utah Code
Please supply your source for this law.
GRANNY.
“76-2-403. Force in arrest.
Any person is justified in using any force, except deadly force, which
he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect an arrest or to
defend himself or another from bodily harm while making an arrest.”
The force used must be "reasonable" which is an objective, not subjective, standard.
See also Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1,8 (1985): To determine the constitutionality of a seizure,
"[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion."
United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 462 U. S. 703 (1983); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 440 U. S. 654 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 428 U. S. 555 (1976). We have described "the balancing of competing interests" as "the key principle of the Fourth Amendment." Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 452 U. S. 700, n. 12 (1981). See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 387 U. S. 536-537 (1967).Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 422 U. S. 895 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 28-29 (1968).
Originally posted by no1marauderSounds good, the officer did use reasonable force to arrest the idiot.
Utah Code
“76-2-403. Force in arrest.
Any person is justified in using any force, except deadly force, which
he [b]reasonably believes to be necessary to effect an arrest or to
defend himself or another from bodily harm while making an arrest.”
The force used must be "reasonable" which is an objective, not subjective, standard.
See also Garner v. Tennessee[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOK tell us how the officer should have tried to stop him from totally blowing him off and getting in his van and driving away. 40 grand is probabley less than the trial would have cost , it was good riddance money. The state would have won anyway, but it would be more expensive in the end.
Sure that's why the State of Utah paid 40 grand to settle the claim. They apparently didn't want to wager that a jury would agree with right wing lunatics like yourself.