It is important. But you’re wrong. Refusing to exit the vehicle when ordered – regardless of if she was being arrested or not – is resisting an officer without violence.
If a person is being arrested, and the officer says “put your hands behind your back”, and that person refuses, that person is “resisting”.
One does not need to be Resisting an Officer with Violence, to be Resisting an Officer. But you are right, there is a difference. The former is a felony. The latter, a misdemeanor.
What??? Really?? She said it’s unlawful to use radar while the officer is moving. I don’t know if thats true. What you said doesn’t make sense. The officer also stated she had a brake light out. Where are getting your opinion?
Define batshit crazy. Question: say I get pulled over, officer asks me to step out, I say no. He tasers me, then and there. Only asks me once. I refuse/resist to leave my car, he tasers me.
Okay? Does it matter how many times he asks me to comply? Shouldn’t one refusal be enough for me to get zapped? I’m that woman, but instead of asking me 4-5 times, he asks me once. Justified?
She wasn’t coming out of that car, so why bother asking her more than once? You saw her attitude and we don’t want to waste time, when over crimes are being comitted. So let’s save even more time and let her have it, once she rolled her eyes; and you know she did.
Step out of the car.
No, go fuck yourself.
Zap.
Okay?
Well if that’s your nonprofessional, unqualified estimation, then it must be true.
What exactly are you basing this estimation on?
It wasn’t supposed to make sense.
Bear_Nenno, I readily admit I don’t know proper procedure, and will defer to those who know better.
I thought D_0dds was making a joke. But just to make it clear, it’s not true. It’s a bunch of crap she probably heard from her friends or read on the internet or something.
Um…
What?
Walk me through this again.
How exactly was the stop unlawful?
Ah, I was whooshed…
I thought italicizing every use of unlawful would be a giveaway, in addition to the absolute absurdity. I have to try harder to show sarcasm without the use of smileys, I guess.
In this case you’re wrong. The officer opens the door and reaches to pull her out after she refuses his verbal command. She pulls away and says “don’t touch me” When she resisted the officer’s lawful contact by pulling away from him she escalated the physical confrontation. At this point the officer can expect further physical resistance and you admit, doesn’t have to wait to be struck before halting any chance of physical injury to himself.
When she pulled away that constitutes a credible threat of violence. They can reasonbly expect her to resist further.
This is complete guess work on your part. Granted she’s not as physically strong as them but she can kick, bite, or claw. There’s a significant chance that in trying to physically remove her and cuff her the officers could have been injured and her as well. He made a judgement call that a taser might prevent other injuries.
My question makes perfect sense. Does the potential risk of injury to her and the officers, from a physical wrestling match with this lady seem better or worse than the actual results from the decision to tase her? The officers weren’t injured and her injuries were minimal from what evidence we have. Considering the potential risk to all parties from a wrestling match it appears the taser was the better choice of the two. If you want to wiegh just potential risk then imagine the worst case results from either scenario. Somebody dies. I remind you that it wasn’t the officers that escalated the situation that required such a choice by the police.
Does anybody really think waiting a minute or two would have improved this womans attitude? If there’s little chance it would have then why advocate waiting?
You’re the one not making sense. Nobody is suggesting any such thing. The truth is that an officer is at risk the moment he contacts an offender even at a traffic stop, He has no way of knowing who this woman is or how far she will take it. She on the other hand knows her license is suspended. She says to the person on the phone she is being arrested before the officer says she’s under arrest. She knew what was coming. Up to that point the officer had been nonthreatening and professional. Until she physically pulled away and resisited she had no reason to feel she was in any physical danger from this officer.
As you said, if the officer feels phyically threatened he is justified in useing a taser.
Well duh!! 
We get a variety of opinion here on SDMB and sometimes I miss the jokes. Just to be clear, was she wrong is saying that officers aren’t allowed to use radar when moveing? It makes sense that radar might be less reliable when used in a moving vehicle but less reliable doesn’t mean unlawful. The difference was 35 to 51.
The more I watch this video the more I think she knew from the start that her suspended license would probably get her arrested and was looking to puch the officers into some technical violation she could use against them. Note the “sue your ass” comment toward the end.
One point and this may well be an urban legend, but it’s well known that once a cop opens your door during a traffic stop, you’re being arrested. So her saying, “I’m being arrested…” may not be because she KNEW her license was suspended, but because of “knowledge” of what that open door meant.
At least in CA “moving” radar systems that can determine the speed of another vehicle near a moving patrol car have been in use for quite a while.
Ever heard of guidelines? Police review procedure on a regular basis and draw up procedural guidelines. That is happening now concerning tasers because of controversy caused by numeroous incidents. For example. Do you tase someone threatening to commit suicide in order to save their lives? Several warnings are probably in those guidelines. I do think if you actually said “No! Go Fuck yourself” most officers would be sorely tempted to not bother with any further warnings. Procedural guidelines would suggest they give you a couple of more. Then it’s your ass, punk.
I was using them in the sense that the former is passive, while the latter is active, a distinction that seems borne out in Bear_Nenno’s felony/misdemeanor comment.
On the fact that upwards of 100 people (estimates vary) are reported to have been killed by tasers. If you have evidence that the use of limited physical force to take suspects passively resisting arrest into custody results in anywhere near that number of deaths, on a per incident basis (since physical force is far, far more common than taser use), I would be happy to re-evaluate that estimation.
hadn’t heard that. I was pulled over a lot late at night in rural areas to check for alcohol. It was to be expected where I’m from. You’ll note that she asked quickly why she was pulled over. She says she’s being arrested without asking why. I’m betting she knew but maybe not.
It might be concievable that in some places, radar reading taken while in motion aren’t permissible evidence in court. I don’t know of a jurisdiction where that is the case but there’s a lot of jurisdictions so I guess you never know.
That doesn’t make it unlawful, though. That word suggests the cop would be committing a crime by using a radar gun.
PLease clairify. When she pulled away from an officer and said “don’t touch me” does that constitute resisting with violence? There’s also some discussion of her swinging at the second who reached in through the passenger door. The officers mention it as they pick her up. Even if it’s a very casual swing to wards off contact or to keep her cell phone, does that consitute physical resistance?
This may be a regional thing then. The first think I ask when the officer comes to my window is, “Is there a problem, Officer?” If he opens my door…there’s a problem and I’m most likely headed for the cruiser.
The difference would be lost in a big hurry if the brother arrives and is anywhere near as belligerent as she was. My point was not the scale of her offense but the fact that she is relaying situation information to an unknown third party who she intends to help her out of a situation that already has a foregone conclusion.
If the brother showed up and had a weapon. Even messier saw an officer with a weapon drawn on his sister and chose to hit the officer with his car to “defend” his sister. With her summoning assistance she pretty much assured that they would move quickly. In any kind of fight situation half a second is an eternity, a minute would be totally unacceptable. If her brother was 2 minutes away they have about 90 seconds to resolve this without involving another probably belligerent individual.