# Taser Use Justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161 "2005-06-06T17:46:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/121 "2005-06-08T05:30:06Z")
err drug dealer, I don’t know where armed robber came from ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/122 "2005-06-08T05:47:19Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > OK, you are not a policeman and you have never tried to subdue an unwilling person. Yet, in your opinion, use of the taser in this particular situation was uncalled for. Correct. What’s your point? If the best rebuttal you can come up with is “But you’re not a cop,” that’s simply asinine. Surely on this board we’re past such transparent argument-from-authority fallacies? Explain to me why the police officers could not have simply waited another minute or two. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/123 "2005-06-08T06:21:52Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Then she didn’t need subduing she needed convincing, correct? Wrong. Cops are not there to chat a suspect into handcuffs, or trick them into the back of the police car. He asked her to get out of the car. She refused. So the Taser comes out. He asks her a couple more times, and THEN issues a specific warning that the Taser will be used. > [@](#): > > Its not as though she were violent or posed a immediate danger to the officer. She was resisting without violence. The officer subdued her without violence. > [@](#): > > Nothing he could have done better? How about wait more than 15 seconds before pulling his taser on someone? Drawing the Taser is a display of the next level of force the officer intends to use. This display, along with his specific verbal warning, should have been sufficient enough to make a person cooperate. Or at least, make a prudent person aware that her actions are going to have a specific consequence and maybe - if she’d like to avoid that consequence - she should cooperate. > [@](#): > > Honestly if Flordia’s “textbook” is to electrocute someone without at least a legitimate effort in cajoling then that book needs to be re-written. I believe the issue here is not what’s written, but your opinion of what constitutes “legitimate effort”. I believe he made a legitimate effort. He asked her to get out of the car. Chance 1 to cooperate but she refused. He drew his taser and asked her again. Chance 2… she refused. He asked her a couple more times… Chances 3 and 4 Then he specifically warned her about being tasered… Final chance. She still refused to cooperate. Then she was Tased. Maybe he should have asked in his “friendly voice”?? An officer should use a command voice to show authority and confidence and show that he is serious. His job should not be to ask nicely, plead, beg, convince etc. If that’s not polite, well it’s just too bad. > [@](#): > > I have no problem with cops having tasers but I want them used against beligerent suspects not a woman on her cell phone. This women was hostile with an attitude from the begining. Sometimes even a woman on her cell phone can be beligerant. > [@](#): > > I also find it odd that after all of your warnings and arguments about how the taser is so much better than physical contact that you believe this offer could not have done any better. He requested that the woman get off of her phone and when she refused the very first thing he did was remove the physical barrier between them. You mean the car door? When your objective is to remove a person from a vehicle, the logical first step is to open the door. Is it not? > [@](#): > > Then he tried to reach in and wrestle her out of the car a mere 10 seconds after her first refusal. He never intended to wrestle her out of the car. He put his hands on her to use a level of force known as “Touch”. Touch is still in the verbal/_non physical_ part of the force matrix. It’s expected effect is that now you have placed your hands on a person so they should realize you are serious and should comply. She pushed him away and still refused to cooperate. It would have been nice if all he had to do was grab her wrist and walk her out of the vehicle. But she didn’t want to cooperate. So he went to the next level. After several warnings, he used his Taser. When one is armed with a Taser there is no point in wrestling with suspects. From an administrative view, I’d be pissed if an officer wrestled with a suspect and got injured when he clearly could have used a Taser instead. Now the department has to waste money on his medical bills and might be without an officer for a couple of days. Not to mention the medical bills of the suspect and the defense of the resulting lawsuit. That negates the whole purpose of the Taser. It’s a force multiplier, and it keeps officers and suspects out of harm’s way. And also great reduces departmental liability. > [@](#): > > Whats next? If an officer stops me on the street and asks me for ID and I say no I don’t want to. Can he whip out his taser and shock me until I will? I don’t think that’s next. An officer cannot stop a person on the street for no good reason. You are always free to go unless he has reason to believe a crime was committed, is being committed or is about to be committed. Terry v Ohio. So you’re under no threat from officers randomly stopping you for no reason and asking for your ID. > [@](#): > > She did not raise her voice until after she was tased. She was most definitely yelling. She was inside her vehicle, the officer(and mic) were back near the police car, and I could _still_ hear her yelling. > [@](#): > > She sounded perfectly calm and rational to me albeit noncompliant with the officers request. In my opinion she sounded aggravated and irrational. Also, I would think that a person who is noncompliant with an officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duty is -almost by definition- not being rational. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/124 "2005-06-08T06:41:06Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Explain to me why the police officers could not have simply waited another minute or two. Suspect could be stalling for accomplices to arrive. She quite possibly could have called a friend or brother to come to her aide. This doesn’t necessarily mean the people would arrive and do a drive by or something, though that’s possible. What most likely would happen is her friends live right down the street and now they’re all on their way to give their two cents to the situation. Yelling, screaming and being confronational. Should the officer then give all those people adequate time to calm down and explain to them why they unfortunately have to take their friend to jail. I’m sure everyone would see it their way eventually, right? This is not a made up hypothetical. This kind of stuff happends all the time. All it does is add more provocation and problems to the situation. Allowing her to stall for more time gives her oppurtunity to plan an escape. Albeit it probably wouldn’t be very effective, but it could cause injury to the officers, the public or herself. For instance, after 2 mins of the cops trying to talk her out of the car, she decides it’s a good idea to put it in Drive and take off. Now there’s a pursuit – never a safe thing. Or while the officers are waiting or allowing her to stall, people from the neighborhood start coming out of their houses to see what’s going on. They might not like cops either and all hell breaks loose. Now the cops need to call MORE cops. … why not avoid any of these possibilities and just nonviolently subdue her with a Taser and get it all over with?? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/125 "2005-06-08T06:48:02Z")
Rule of thumb is this: As soon as you say the word “arrest” or as soon as you pull out handcuffs, you need to complete that arrest as quickly as possible. There’s no more talking once cuffs come out. This is so basic a principal, it’s taught at the academy. An officer should never let a suspect start “talking her way out of” an arrest. No sense and listening to anything or explaining anything once you’ve made the decision to arrest that person. The officer made the decision to arrest her when he discovered her license had been suspended. He asked her to get out of the car and she refused. He told her she was under arrest and she needs to exit the vehicle, she refused. What more does he need to tell her? What should he talk to her about? At that point he needs to affect the arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/126 "2005-06-08T07:05:22Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > How about he just slaps her instead? Justified force? Justified? Probably not. Effective? Not at all. Pointless? You betcha. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/127 "2005-06-08T12:30:00Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > She was resisting without violence. The officer subdued her without violence. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. I think using a device that pumps 50,000 volts and painfully incapacitates a person to be using violence. The taser is not some Star Trekesque phasor set on stun. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/128 "2005-06-08T12:51:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Tasers are in response to physical confrontation. Correct. Problem is, there was no physical confrontation involved here, just a mouthy pain in the ass who didn’t want to get out of her car. > [@](#): > > I would imagine you’ve never had to deal with someone in a street brawl. Ditto. This wasn’t a street brawl. In fact, it in no way, shape or form resembled a street brawl. No violence, threats of violence, or even implications of violence occurred until the cop lost his temper and tasered the mouthy pain in the ass. > [@drachillix](#): > > Because its not your job, we didn’t really expect you to understand it, just listen to those who have. Listen? No problem. Defer? Not a chance. > [@](#): > > So when you do it its tasering, when a BIG MEAN policeman does it its shooting. Not at all. When I said “shooting,” I meant with a gun. Plus, you can dispense with the overly dramatic nonsense about “a BIG MEAN policeman,” since I have said nothing remotely disparaging of police officers in general, or even roughly equivalent language with respect to the particular cop in question. > [@](#): > > In your view, punching her in the face would be better? Nope. Roughly equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/129 "2005-06-08T12:55:31Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Then she didn’t need subduing she needed convincing, correct? Its not as though she were violent or posed a immediate danger to the officer. > Nothing he could have done better? How about wait more than 15 seconds before pulling his taser on someone? Honestly if Flordia’s “textbook” is to electrocute someone without at least a legitimate effort in cajoling then that book needs to be re-written. I have no problem with cops having tasers but I want them used against beligerent suspects not a woman on her cell phone. I agree that the officer could have tried a minute or two longer to talk her out of her car. I doubt he would have been successful. If pointing a taser at someone and warning them isn’t enough motivation to cooperate do you really think two more minutes of conversation would have done it. {see TX reference below}I’ll say it again. I wouldn’t be surprised if this woman was looking for an excuse to sue. In doing some reading about tasers I see there have been several deaths linked to them. There are also reports of officers useing bad judgement in useing them. This has caused a revised look at the guidelines of when to use them but consider this; > [@](#): > > "He said Fort Worth officers have used the department’s 549 Tasers 180 times since they were issued in 2001. He said that 223 times, all an officer had to do was show someone the Taser to persuade them to back down. > > “Those are all times when we’ve been able to minimize the potential of injury to the suspect and officer doing their job,” he said. “If we don’t have that option, sometimes deadly force is the only other.” It makes sense to me that officers would choose taser use over a physical confrontation. Why should they get kicked, punched, slapped, scratched by beligerant, uncooperative, and irrational fool. It’s not a perfect world. As with any procedure there are risks. Who should we protect first. Reasonable cooperative citizens? Our police officers who risk their lives to protect us? I think those two catagories come first. Some officers will use poor judgement in useing tasers. This officer did not. > [@](#): > > She did not raise her voice until after she was tased. She sounded perfectly calm and rational to me albeit noncompliant with the officers request. You need to watch the video again. She was beligerant form the start. I don’t consier it rational to be verbally combative and uncooperative with an officer who is trying to be decent with you. Especially since she likely knew her license was suspended. I think it’s very irrational to sit in your car when an officer has said you’re under arrest and is pointing a taser at you warning you very clearly that he’s about to use it. > [@](#): > > **drachillax** , I know it might sound crazy but there may be a difference between an armed robber and a traffic violater. Nice sarcasm, Seriously **tries** do you truly think this woman would have become cooperative if the officer had tried to talk her out of her car, or do you just think he should have tried just out of procedure? ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/130 "2005-06-08T13:15:52Z")
> [@treis](#): > > **drachillax** , I know it might sound crazy but there may be a difference between an armed robber and a traffic violater. I don’t agree with your assessment of the situation but I wanted to respond to this. Apparently, hindsight is 20/20. However, how many ‘routine traffic stops’ result in other offenses being brought to light? The cop pulls over the woman, and she, from what I can see in the video, is acting very strangely. Given that she refused to get off the phone and refused to remove herself from the vehicle, why wouldn’t an officer become very suspicious at that point? I don’t think any amount of talking would have gotten this women to cooperate- and I don’t think it’s in the best interest of officers to give time to a potential threat. As \*\*Bear\_Nenno \*\* has said, every extra second in a confrontation escalates the danger. I guess I don’t understand the argument here- and I’m one of those fuzzy liberals that are supposed to always be suspicious of the police! It looks as though everything he did was above board. The only real critique I’m seeing is that he could have been ‘more sensitive.’ I contend that no amount of sensitive was going to solve this problem. Also, I don’t think we need to conflate the tazer issue at large with this particular case’s merits- if you don’t like tazers, of course you won’t agree with what he did. But to paint this case as misuse of an approved method of law enforcement tools is, to me, wrong. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/131 "2005-06-08T13:16:46Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Correct. Problem is, there was no physical confrontation involved here, just a mouthy pain in the ass who didn’t want to get out of her car. > > Ditto. This wasn’t a street brawl. In fact, it in no way, shape or form resembled a street brawl. No violence, threats of violence, or even implications of violence occurred until the cop lost his temper and tasered the mouthy pain in the ass. You’re mistaken. When the officer attempted to arrest her and remove her from the car she resisted. That is a physical confrontation. When the second officer attempted to take her cell phone away she reportedly took a swing at him. When she refused to exit her car she escelated the situation to a physical confrontation, not the officer. The officers were not faced with any serious physical threat but why should they take any physical risk? Do you think they should be required to take a blow before they use a taser? > [@](#): > > Nope. Roughly equivalent. I ask again. Should they be required to take a blow before they use physical force? What do you suppose were their chance of some injury if they had physically forced her from the car? What were hers? Was that potential risk more or less than the actual results? ---
**Author:** ![mrrealtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@mrrealtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrrealtime)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/132 "2005-06-08T13:23:56Z")
As I saw it, the woman was clearly panicking. Given the fact that she was in a car and could have pulled a gun on the cops, its unfortunate but they had no other choice. Were she out in the open and easily cuff-able, they probably would have just done that. Before the taser though, she probably would have been shot dead, so I think she probably owes her life to that jolter thingie and the quick thinking cops. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/133 "2005-06-08T13:23:59Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > Yes indeedy. Consider it an incentive to privatize the road system, so problems like this can be prevented without infringing on anyone’s rights. If the roads are privatized would that not undercut your argument that all citizens have access to public roads? Would there even be any public roads? Would the owners of the roads have the right to bar access to emergency vehicles? To relief vehicles? To military vehicles? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/134 "2005-06-08T13:38:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Explain to me why the police officers could not have simply waited another minute or two. He **could** have. Given this womans attitude from the start there’s serious doubt in my mind that it would have accomplished anything. Seriously, if an officer pointing a taser at you and warning you repeatedly doesn’t motivate you to cooperate then I doubt if a dozen or so more warnings will help. One other point. When a police officer pulls you over you know who he is and she knew why she was pulled over. The officer doesn’t know who the person is or how good or bad the siruation might go. He has to judge by demeanor. Her’s was pretty hostile. Originally Posted by\*\* treis\*\* > [@](#): > > drachillax, I know it might sound crazy but there may be a difference between an armed robber and a traffic violater. The officer can’t always tell that the traffic violater isn’t a more serious threat. You correctly point out deaths associated with taser use. There are also incidents of officers being seriously injured or killed when a routine traffic stop escalates. Those of you complaining about the officer seem to assume that she was no threat at all. In reality the officer had no way of knowing that for sure. I reapeat. Who should be first in line to be protected? An officer trying to preform his duties without injury to himself or anyone else, or someone being placed under arrest and is uncooperative. The officer gets my vote. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/135 "2005-06-08T14:15:35Z")
Didn’t anyone hear the woman? This was an _unlawful_ traffic stop. She said it herself. It’s _unlawful_ to to stop a speeder on residential streets with other, noticable violations on the vehicle (broken windshield, non-working brake light). As this was an _unlawful_ stop, everything that followed was also _unlawful_. I’ve been punched and bruised. Bruises last some time, and are painful for quite awhile. I havent’ been tased (aside - when did _to tase_ become a verb?), but from what I’ve seen, the effects are much more transitory than a bruise, muscle strain or pull, or a knot on one’s skull from a nightstick. I did think one thing was missing, but I don’t know what proper procedure is. When he ordered the woman out of the car, I’m pretty certain he did not tell her she was being placed under arrest for driving with a suspended license. That may have simply been a measure to prevent her from escalating the situation by driving off, though. She didn’t know she was being arrested until after she was cuffed. For those saying she wasn’t belligerent; are we watching the same video? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/136 "2005-06-08T14:21:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’re mistaken. When the officer attempted to arrest her and remove her from the car she resisted. Wrong. She refused. She did not resist. There is a difference, and it is important. > [@](#): > > Do you think they should be required to take a blow before they use a taser? No. But they should be prohibited from using a taser before there is a credible threat of violence from the suspect. > [@](#): > > What do you suppose were their chance of some injury if they had physically forced her from the car? Low, and even lower if you mean “significant injury” as opposed to “some injury.” > [@](#): > > What were hers? Ditto. > [@](#): > > Was that potential risk more or less than the actual results? Your question is nonsensical. One weighs risks against risks, not risks against _post hoc_ results. In my estimation, the _risk_ of waiting a minute or two before pulling the mouthy pain in the ass out of her car and cuffing her is less than the _risk_ of hitting her with a taser when she has shown no inclination towards violence. > [@mrrealtime](#): > > Given the fact that she was in a car and could have pulled a gun on the cops, its unfortunate but they had no other choice. Well shit, let’s just pre-emptively taser everybody who gets pulled over for a traffic stop. It’s unfortunate, but we really have no choice because they’re in a car and could pull a gun on the cops. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/137 "2005-06-08T14:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > If the roads are privatized would that not undercut your argument that all citizens have access to public roads? ?? Not at all. If the roads are privatized then they are not public, and so the owners can decide who gets to drive on them. If the roads are public then everybody should be able to use them. > [@](#): > > Would there even be any public roads? I’m against them, personally. > [@](#): > > Would the owners of the roads have the right to bar access to emergency vehicles? To relief vehicles? To military vehicles? If they wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/138 "2005-06-08T14:28:28Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Wrong. She refused. She did not resist. There is a difference, and it is important. Can you elaborate on this? I am genuinely confused as to the difference between refusing arrest and resisting arrest. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/139 "2005-06-08T14:29:05Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Well shit, let’s just pre-emptively taser everybody who gets pulled over for a traffic stop. It’s unfortunate, but we really have no choice because they’re in a car and could pull a gun on the cops. If you changed the wording to be ‘everybody that gets pulled over for a traffic stop _and_ acts batshit crazy,’ you’d have my support on that. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/140 "2005-06-08T14:31:47Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > She didn’t know she was being arrested until after she was cuffed. No, she knew. If you listen to her, you can hear her say “OMG he’s arresting me (on the phone). Why are you arresting me!?” But you’re right the officer never said “you’re under arrest” to her or anything like that. But he doesn’t have to. And as I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t have to be arreting her to order her out of the vehicle. He has the authority to order any and all passengers to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop. If they refuse to exit, they are resisting an officer and not only will they be forceably removed, but now they’ll be arrested for resisting an officer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161.md?page=8)