[QUOTE=Blalron]
So if a cop asks me to show him my ID and I refuse, can he zap me with a taser for THAT?
[/QUOTE]
In some circumstances, absolutely. If he askes for your ID, and you refuse, and he warns you to give him your ID or be arrested, and you refuse, and as he moves to arrest you and you resist him, he has every right to zap you in order to detain you. I’m still waiting to hear about your magical “other ways” for the cop to have handled the situation.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
So if a cop asks me to show him my ID and I refuse, can he zap me with a taser for THAT?
[/QUOTE]
I think that you aren’t required to show your ID unless you are placed under arrest, and they can’t arrest you solely for refusing to show your license. That’s if you’re just walking around, though, if you are in a vehicle you are required to show your license and they can arrest you if you don’t. But if a cop comes up to you and says “Let me see your ID”, you have a right to say no, and walk away. If he requests that you stop, though, and you resist or flee, he’s justified in tazing you.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
In some circumstances, absolutely. If he askes for your ID, and you refuse, and he warns you to give him your ID or be arrested, and you refuse, and as he moves to arrest you and you resist him, he has every right to zap you in order to detain you. I’m still waiting to hear about your magical “other ways” for the cop to have handled the situation.
[/QUOTE]
LOL. Here I am falling into my own trap. What drives me bonkers is people like the OP who seem to think this woman was zapped for driving on a suspended license. She wasn’t, she was zapped for refusing to obey the officer. In my scenario above, of course you wouldn’t have been zapped for refusing to show ID, you would have been zapped for resisting arrest. The point is that just because something mundane was what got the officer interested in you, the reason zapping you would be justified is if you esacelated the situation. For a great example of this, see the recent IHOP thread. The officer did NOT shoot because someone skipped out on a pancake check, he shot because someone was attempting to run him down in a car. The “blame the cops” just can’t wrap their brains around common sense.
[QUOTE=Blanche]
I think that you aren’t required to show your ID unless you are placed under arrest, and they can’t arrest you solely for refusing to show your license. That’s if you’re just walking around, though,
[/QUOTE]
Blanche,
I’m pretty sure a recent Supreme Court decision reversed this. You used to be 100% correct, police could not compel you to produce ID for walking down the street, but I don’t believe that is true anymore. Maybe someone more knowledgable than I can clarify this point.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Blanche,
I’m pretty sure a recent Supreme Court decision reversed this. You used to be 100% correct, police could not compel you to produce ID for walking down the street, but I don’t believe that is true anymore. Maybe someone more knowledgable than I can clarify this point.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the Hiibel case, from Nevada. The Supreme Court ruled that Nevada’s “stop and identify” statue was not a violation of citizens’ constitutional rights.
As far as i know, though, these “stop and identify” statutes merely require that you identify yourself to the officer. I don’t believe that you are actually required to produce written or photographic identification.
What ID you are required to provide depends, of course, on the circumstances of your contact with the officer. If you’re driving and get pulled over, the officer obviously can ask for your license and registration, to ensure that you are legally operating the vehicle. But Hiibel was outside his truck when the officer approached him and asked him to identify himself. He refused even to give his name.
If i understand the current law correctly, he was obliged to give his name, but not any actual identification. According to this Wikipedia entry:
I’ll be interested to see if the resident lawyers agree with that interpretation.
[QUOTE=Blanche]
I have an account with a background check company. I looked up the name, found the offense listed in the article, the child abuse arrest, and a possession of tobacco offense from 1999.
[/QUOTE]
A few questions.
Does your account with that company forbid you giving that information out publicly? Is it only for your personal use? Check you agreement.
Your account seems to provide you with arrest records. Does it also provide you information as to the disposition of the cases? In other words, when Victoria Goodwin(that was her name, correct?) was arrested for the current incident, are you able to ascertain whether she was convicted? As to the child abuse, was she convicted?
If it doesn’t provide you with a follow up, what good is it?
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
I agree with Shodan.
:eek:
Wait, let me take another hit off these smelling salts. 
[/QUOTE]
Pass them along to me - I agree with Hentor. Double :eek:
It’s like the late misunderstanding that LAPD had with good ol’ Rodney King.
Two other guys in the car with Mr. King. Both just as black as he was. Nobody laid a finger on either of them - because they didn’t violently resist arrest after driving a hundred miles an hour while drunk.
I really wish people could not over-react to every single thing the police do. This seems so straightforward and common-sensical, that it’s really hard to remember that sometimes complaints about the police are justified.
Too much temptation to say “more whining” even if it is something like Louima.
And that’s bad for everybody - citizens, creeps, and cops alike.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=samclem]
A few questions.
Does your account with that company forbid you giving that information out publicly? Is it only for your personal use? Check you agreement.
Your account seems to provide you with arrest records. Does it also provide you information as to the disposition of the cases? In other words, when Victoria Goodwin(that was her name, correct?) was arrested for the current incident, are you able to ascertain whether she was convicted? As to the child abuse, was she convicted?
If it doesn’t provide you with a follow up, what good is it?
[/QUOTE]
It provides whatever public records are bought or given to the company that compiles the database. Not all records have dispositions, not all have arrest dates, but most have both. The disposition on the child abuse was Nolle Prosse, which means that the state chose not to prosecute without saying she was innocent. That’s the same she got for all three charges on the arrest where she got tazed.
These are all public records that are available to anyone willing to pay a small fee for the paperwork. If I am to use these background checks for employment purposes, I have to get a signed release from the person who I am doing the check on, and notify the applicant and the background check company if I decline employment because of their records. Anybody can go to any of several background check companies, give their credit card number, and run checks on people.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I would also second or third the WTF? response to the idea of calling in a sergeant. Why would this be a good plan? Why is someone going to comply with a sergeant who isn’t complying with a regular officer? How many sgts does a police force typically have available? How long would it take for a sgt to arrive at such a scene? Are sgts somehow more compelling or skilled at negotiations? Why not just make all the police officers sgts? Why should someone have to be negotiated out of their car for a traffic stop? Should they be negotiated into handing over their license and registration?
Really, if police officers have no ability to arrest someone on their own (e.g., when pressed on the matter they have to wait for a sergeant), there is really no point to having police officers in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, to defuse a potentially difficult situation, sometimes people respond better to the presence of a Sgt. in that they’re arrogant enough to believe that their standing as a citizen requires not only this police officer that they originally enountered, but his or her boss to undo whatever crap they got themselves into.
Cops know this, and when applicable, call in the help. Could have been though that the Sgt. was the closest car to him as well, who knows.
The tasing this bird took was better than the tune up she had coming. It’s simple, really. If a police officer directs you out of your vehicle, you get out of your vehicle. Period. No fights, no arguments, no pleading, just get out, find out what the issue is, and deal with. If you’re being an unreasonable pain in the ass, we’re going to treat you that way.
If you feel uncomfortable having an officer stop you (i.e. unmarked vehicle, late at night, deserted road etc.) continue at a safe (even slow) speed to a well lit place where there are witnesses, a gas station, or even the police station if you’re close. If you have a cell phone, dial 911, give the operator your location. Odds are that whoever answers the phone, will either know you’re being pursued, or know how to send the call to the correct agency as loong as you know where you are. Moreover, if you’re running from one cop that you’re not sure is a cop, if you don’t stop, there will be a LOT more cops there in a hurry.
This cop did the right thing. There are some bad apples, but this guy doesn’t seem to be one of them.
[QUOTE=JustAnotherGeek]
OTOH, I do think the second taser shot was possibly out of line. Granted, she was still non-complient, but I would be willing to bet that officer #2 could have very easily just restrained her arms. I don’t think that this was so out of line to warrant any disciplinary action, just someone older and wiser should tell the arresting officer that there was another option that would have solved the problem without wasting anymore charges from the taser. OTOOH, I’m not going to second guess this officer’s decision.
[/QUOTE]
My speakers are on the friz right now but didn’t the officer say something about put your hands where I can see them before the second tasering? If so she may still be trying to aquire/conceal a weapon of some kind, making the approach of the second officer an unneeded safety risk until compliance was achieved from the subject via taser.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
It’s like the late misunderstanding that LAPD had with good ol’ Rodney King.
Two other guys in the car with Mr. King. Both just as black as he was. Nobody laid a finger on either of them - because they didn’t violently resist arrest after driving a hundred miles an hour while drunk.
I really wish people could not over-react to every single thing the police do. This seems so straightforward and common-sensical, that it’s really hard to remember that sometimes complaints about the police are justified.
Too much temptation to say “more whining” even if it is something like Louima.
And that’s bad for everybody - citizens, creeps, and cops alike.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Uh, have you SEEN the Rodney King video? These guys were fully intent on beating the crap out of the guy. There’s no possible way that he could have been a threat well before the beating stopped. I’m a big supporter of the cops in many ways, but they were overboard there.
As for the current issue, can’t we just agree that the woman was a complete asshole, and that just maybe the cop was a little too quick on the draw? I don’t see how they could have known her license was expired prior to seeing it, and I find it hard to believe that this particular babe would have shown it to them without raising twenty kinds of hell about it, so at that point they had to be pulling her over for a tail-light and speeding (they noticed the windshield after getting to the car, or so it seems to me). Yes, she was being an obnoxious bitch, but if she had to give directions, there’s just no way she could have gotten armed support in another thirty seconds. Had they let her have a few moments longer to finish her call, she MIGHT have calmed down a little. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give someone a minute to comply unless they’re clearly threatening immediate violence (as in holding or reaching for a weapon). With a cigarette in one hand and a cell phone in the other, she clearing WASN’T going for a concealed weapon, so that concept is a little weak in this particular case. If I’d been that cop’s supervisor, I would have backed him in public (he was within the law), but had a few words with him in private on maybe being a little less eager. I have to agree with someone above that he was probably to some extent influenced by the fact that she had to be royally pissing him off. Because she really was being an asshole.
In short, I don’t think anyone here was precisely exemplary in his or her behavior.
I’m sure this has already been addressed:
The driver din not get tazed for having a suspended liscense; I assure you.
I’m sure this has already been addressed:
The driver did not get tazed for having a suspended liscense; I assure you.
[QUOTE=control-z]
She had been mouthy and distrusting of the officer in part two of the video, but I don’t believe she was any danger to the officers, just an annoying melodramatic woman.
[/QUOTE]
If only the officers had your powers of clairvoyance.
emphasis added
To put things into a little perspective here. No, you don’t have to obey every order a cop gives you. If a cop gives you an illegal order you do not have to obey.
Having said that, if a cop says “Do this or be tasered”, and you don’t do it, then expect to be tasered, even if it is an illegal request. The cop in the vidoe made a request, she could have spoken to him reasonably or questioned the legality of his request at that point. Once he said “Do this or be tasered” the only options available are to comply or be tasered.
As a technical nitpick, assult is the threat or attempt to cause injury to someone. You don’t have to actually make contact with someone to be guilty of assault.
[QUOTE=control-z]
OOH, take her down, she SWATTED an officer! Have fun in your communist police state.
[/QUOTE]
Alex Jones? Is that you?
And yet here we find ourselves.
I can’t believe some of the people here are actually watching the same video I’m watching.
The cop showed admirable restraint before administering the well-deserved tasering.
Most cops absolutely hate car stops on the side of the road. They’re inherently dangerous - for starters the person being stopped is behind a 2000 pound weapon. They have no idea who the suspect is, no idea what weapons they might have in the car, no idea what mental state they might be in, whether they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, etc.
We hold police officers and other LEO to higher standards because of the greater rights we give them. In return, we allow them to use force when necessary to protect their safety and to carry out their duties. Particularly when up against snot-nosed fucktwads like this woman. ‘Call for the sergeant’? Are you kidding me? I don’t want any more of my tax dollars wasted on someone like her.
The cops acted in a completely appropriate manner. She was stopped for a legitimate reason, was being arrested for a legitimate reason, was belligerent and hostile, was refusing to comply, was asked FOUR times, could have just as easily been calling for a friend to come take out the cops, or could have been getting ready to speed away or grab a weapon under the seat - really, why is this incident even being debated?
Incidentally: she went on and on wailing well after the incident - am I the only one who thought it sounded fake and forced?
I’ll also say that I’d bet my next few paychecks that the cop is mightly happy to have had the video cam in his car running and working. Also BTW, the cops I’ve spoken too all say they like having the cameras in their cars.
She wasn’t tasered for driving with a suspended license. And the charges aren’t made until, IIRC, the prosecutor takes the accused before the court.
Another vote here for: The OP deliberately misstated the case.
askeptic: Why does it dismay you to defend a police officer’s actions? You surely don’t think all police officers are bad, do you?
[QUOTE=Oy!]
Had they let her have a few moments longer to finish her call, she MIGHT have calmed down a little.
[/quote]
Exactly how much leeway are cops expected to give assholes, anyway? They shouldn’t have to accomodate her whims.
No, it’s not. I’ve seen videos of what happened to corrections officers who were attacked by inmates who seemed occupied by their tasks but suddenly pounced when the officer’s attention strayed for a moment.
She could have dropped that cigarette and cell phone in an instant and grabbed a weapon tucked into the visor before the officer would even have time to react. He could be dead in a second for “letting her finish her phone call.”
Why should he have to take that risk? You’re asking him to put his life on the line to try to coax people to obey the law out of . . . what? Politeness?
I’m usually against the cops in these questionable use of force cases, like when that one shot a guy out of a tree and claimed they thought they were firing their taser, or when they killed that retard and lied about it until the videos came out, or any one of countless other cases where the cops mis-apply force. I think a lot of cops are genuinely evil, and a lot are petty thugs who were attracted to a dangerous, low-paying career because it gave them a chance to bully people around. There are a lot of good cops, but I think they’re outnumbered and it sucks that they usually will defend a bad cop.
I really don’t see what the uproar over this is about, though. Is it because the suspect was female? I’m pretty sure race wasn’t a factor in this one. She was defiantly resisting arrest and was given plenty of warning before she was tazed. That’s what tasers should be used for, the alternative would have been him having to risk grabbing for her to force her from the vehicle, and we know how ugly that can get.