Speeding Ticket Taser Settles Out Of Court.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
OK 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.

Telling him he was under arrest might have helped. Or telling him that he would be unless he signed the ticket and explaining that wasn't an admission of guilt, might have been better "verbal communications" which the State of Utah thought the officer obviously needed improvement in.

Even if he had gotten in the van and drove away, so what? The officer had already given him the ticket which was the whole point anyway. Maybe it wouldn't have satisfied the control freak with the taser, but the State of Utah would have been $40 grand richer and Mr. Motorist would still have had to pay his speeding ticket.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Telling him he was under arrest might have helped. Or telling him that he would be unless he signed the ticket and explaining that wasn't an admission of guilt, might have been better "verbal communications" which the State of Utah thought the officer obviously needed improvement in.

Even if he had gotten in the van and drove away, so wh ...[text shortened]... have been $40 grand richer and Mr. Motorist would still have had to pay his speeding ticket.

The officer did tell him he was under arrest for not signing the ticket. Maybe you need to turn the volume up. Also, it clearly states in the box where you sign the speeding ticket that signing is not an admission of guilt. Maybe the officer should have confirmed that the moron behind the wheel could in fact read.

Originally posted by dryhump
The officer did tell him he was under arrest for not signing the ticket. Maybe you need to turn the volume up. Also, it clearly states in the box where you sign the speeding ticket that signing is not an admission of guilt. Maybe the officer should have confirmed that the moron behind the wheel could in fact read.

No, he doesn't. After the guy says "I'm not signing anything" the cop says "Step out of the car". The next thing the cop says is "Put your hands behind your back" as he's pulling out the taser. The guy says "What the hell is wrong with you" and starts to walk away. The cop then hits him with the taser.

I suggest YOU actually listen to the vid rather than making it up as you go along.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he doesn't. After the guy says "I'm not signing anything" the cop says "Step out of the car". The next thing the cop says is "Put your hands behind your back" as he's pulling out the taser. The guy says "What the hell is wrong with you" and starts to walk away. The cop then hits him with the taser.

I suggest YOU actually listen to the vid rather than making it up as you go along.

You're right, I apologize. I got it confused with another video I watched. Nothing funnier than watching idiots with big mouths get what they deserve.

Originally posted by dryhump
You're right, I apologize. I got it confused with another video I watched. Nothing funnier than watching idiots with big mouths get what they deserve.

When a policeman orders you to get out of the car and is talking to you, you don't get in a hissy fit and start to walk away.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
When a policeman orders you to get out of the car and is talking to you, you don't get in a hissy fit and start to walk away.

If he orders you to get out of the car and your in a position to walk away then clearly either your doing something strange or the cop is hallucinating since being in a car clearly indicates you in a sitting position. Which is quite difficult to walk in.... Certainly for me anyway...😀

Originally posted by Mexico
If he orders you to get out of the car and your in a position to walk away then clearly either your doing something strange or the cop is hallucinating since being in a car clearly indicates you in a sitting position. Which is quite difficult to walk in.... Certainly for me anyway...😀

I was refering to him talking to the driver after he got out of the car. Sorry if the timeline confused you. Next time I will spell it out for you.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I was refering to him talking to the driver after he got out of the car. Sorry if the timeline confused you. Next time I will spell it out for you.

In case your apparently dim wits cant keep up with modern english, thats called sarcasam, it was generally ment as a lighthearted comment on your poor phrasing of the sentance.

Lighten up, I have little interest in getting involved in this circular and slightly pointless debate and was simply trying to, in a reasonably inoffensive way, comment on a poorly constructed post, which if taken out of context lead to a humourous mental image.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Yes that video is hilarious. It amazes me that there are many people who think the woman was mistreated in some way.

The reason I posted it is because it is instructive about the difference in the drivers and the policeman.

Originally posted by Mexico
In case your apparently dim wits cant keep up with modern english, thats called sarcasam, it was generally ment as a lighthearted comment on your poor phrasing of the sentance.

Lighten up, I have little interest in getting involved in this circular and slightly pointless debate and was simply trying to, in a reasonably inoffensive way, comment on a poorly constructed post, which if taken out of context lead to a humourous mental image.

I'm sorry, it didn't sound either sarcastic or light hearted. It sounded like you were dead serious.

Now that I know you were joking, I will have a good hearty laugh at how witty you are.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I'm sorry, it didn't sound either sarcastic or light hearted. It sounded like you were dead serious.

Now that I know you were joking, I will have a good hearty laugh at how witty you are.

Nice to see you've got a sense of humour after all. Using sarcasam against me after apparently not getting it, very clever. Once more Using sarcasam in on the subject of my sense of humour, very clever indeed.

What's with all your passive agression?, you really should calm down a little, it not like anything you post here has any relevance to anybodys life in the real world beyond a place to express opinions.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
When a policeman orders you to get out of the car and is talking to you, you don't get in a hissy fit and start to walk away.

You are free to walk away from a policeman unless he puts you under arrest or has some other reason to restrain you generally that he has probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are free to walk away from a policeman unless he puts you under arrest or has some other reason to restrain you generally that he has probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Try it sometime and get back to us on how that works out for you.

Originally posted by Mexico
In case your apparently dim wits cant keep up with modern english, thats called sarcasam, it was generally ment as a lighthearted comment on your poor phrasing of the sentance.

Lighten up, I have little interest in getting involved in this circular and slightly pointless debate and was simply trying to, in a reasonably inoffensive way, comment on a poorly constructed post, which if taken out of context lead to a humourous mental image.

*can't
*English
*sarcasm
*meant
*sentence

EDIT - Your last sentence could probably use some edittttttttttting (Happy, Noodles?! 😠), but I'm not going to try to figure out the best way to express your awkwardly written point.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Try it sometime and get back to us on how that works out for you.

It's the law. When policemen break it, they should be held accountable like any other criminal.