That was a local station under the Fox banner. Channel 7 has been around for decades (used to be CBS, IIRC) and hasn’t ever had any issues with its journalistic integrity as far as I’ve ever heard. So your prejudice is uncalled for.
Not prejudice… just curiosity. Every version I can find has the first few minutes (the part where it goes from a simple traffic stop to a cop screaming like a madman at an old woman) chopped up to all hell so there’s no way to tell what really happened. I don’t even really think it matters, as I said, I think the real mistake was resorting to threats. I was just curious what came before.
Sorry, I misunderstood then. But I think the pertinent part starts from where she steps out of the truck to the point where she’s tased – I thought that sequence was unedited in the OP’s link?
Yeah… as I said, it’s the part before that which is all cut up. Before she gets out of the truck. I was simply curious about it, since some in this thread seem to be arguing over ‘who started it’ (as if that really matters) I was just wondering if there was an uncut recording available.
Chalk me up as another who’d like to see the sequence totally uncut, and audio amplified, from the moment he stopped her. As someone mentioned, she’d still have had to face the music whether she signed the slip, or not, so for the officer to make such a big issue of it, I can only assume he’d had an urgent call from the station-house telling him there was a cup of coffee and a donut waiting for him.
I don’t think anyone has really talked about this aspect of the video, and I think it explains a lot of the different reactions people have to what the cop did.
I gather that police are *trained *to yell at uncooperative people as a way of asserting their authority, getting their attention, etc. But I suspect a lot of us, myself included, react to it very differently, seeing it as the sign of someone who’s not in control of his emotions.
So, people who react to the screaming the way I do are more inclined to think that the cop has simply lost it, and is overreacting. Others may not have the same gut reaction, and focus more on the legalities and practicalities of the situation, i.e., failure to sign the ticket leads to arrest, resisting arrest cannot be tolerated, tackling an older woman to get the cuffs on would be at least as dangerous as tasering, etc.
To me, the “screaming” tactic is a loser. I recall a video of a trooper stopping some guy who went off like a roman candle. The trooper never lost his composure. He continued to speak in a calm, measured tone, remaining firm, The situation was resolved without anyone using any physical force at all.
I often wonder about Marine drill sergeants yelling in the faces of recruits. I suppose it works with a bunch of 18-year-olds, but I think anyone even a bit more self-assured would be inclined to look at someone using that technique and say, “Sir, do you find that screaming your head off is really effective?”
Threatening to arrest the woman if she didn’t sign the ticket or get back in the car? Or giving her multiple warnings before hauling out the taser?
I don’t have a problem with that.
As someone else said, if that’s calm, that’s sad. If it’s how police are trained, it’s no wonder the number of taserings and other situations overescalated beyond the necessary are increasing. People do not respond positively to being screamed at like a dog that just crapped on the good rug. If someone is already upset? Screaming in their face that way is exactly the opposite of diffusing an already tense and angry situation. It shouldn’t take a masters in psychology to understand that if you want someone to respect you, you’re going to get a lot further toward that goal by treating them with a modicum of respect. The woman sped in a construction zone. That was the wrong thing to do. She needs to pay the associated fine for doing so as a deterrent toward doing it again. She needs to be reminded that it’s a dangerous and reckless practice. But having done this bad act does not make her a bad person, an evil criminal, an asshole, a scumbag or idiot (favorite cop epithets, IME) and doesn’t give the cop the right to talk – or scream – at her any way he pleases while demanding that she only speak to him in dulcet, respectful tones. It just doesn’t work. Screaming in that fashion is disproportionate.
In every case I’ve seen of them, they get knocked down on constitutional grounds. If I can say “fuck you” to a 95 year old nun, I can say it to a cop, so long as I’m otherwise following lawful commands.
To me, it’s irrelevant. The fact that tasers have led or contributed to the deaths of suspects is sufficient to say that their use needs to be more tightly controlled than it currently is. The problem I have with discounting the Amnesty numbers because there were other contributing factors is that cops don’t have an omniscient ability to predict if those factors are present before using the Taser. Anyone could have a disease, or be on drugs (legal or otherwise) that will cause their body to shut down after having their nervous system overloaded with electricity. Taser itself markets their devices as less-lethal weapons. Not non-lethal. And I think if you’re pulling out a device that has some potential for lethality, then there needs to be a physical reason to do so. Belligerence should not be a reason to face attack by a “less lethal” weapon. No one should face potential death for having a crappy attitude. Tasers should only be used when there is a clear, direct threat of physical harm to the officer or suspect himself, if the suspect is not immediately subdued. Nothing less. Not to quell a disruption, not to end a confrontation because the cop is tired of talking, not to get someone to leave somewhere, not to make someone stop walking away at a time when they are not under arrest, not because someone won’t stand up when they’re ordered to.
Bingo. We didn’t see their entire interaction in that video, and I’d really like to. But what we do see is a woman who is actually not getting any angrier, in any visible or audible way, even after she’s been pulled out of her car after she’s agreed to sign the ticket. She may be cursing, but she’s not getting louder. She’s standing stock still most of the time and when she’s not, her movements aren’t aggressive or attacking. The cop, on the other hand, is in her face, getting louder and louder, shoving her around, and finally Tasering her while still getting louder and louder.
The difference is, he has authority and the power of arrest on his side. The responsibility to keep the situation calm and resolved peacefully falls far more on the cop’s head than the woman’s. When she was already riled up, he took exactly the opposite tack than he should have, and then either didn’t have the presence of mind or the strength of training or the basic freakin’ common sense to recognize that the woman was not going to accede to his demands so long as he was yelling in her face.
There’s a lot to be said for, when recognizing that what you’re doing isn’t working, trying something different. That never happened. The ability of this cop to try something different – that is, trying something other than an aggressive response - is, to me, called into question. He wins absolutely zero points on the matter of thinking on his feet and responding properly to his surroundings and the situation here.
To me, it’s not his emotional response that’s at issue. It seems that he’s angry with the woman, but that’s immaterial. He can be angry all the livelong day, if that’s what floats his personal boat. It’s the problem of what emotional response his behavior (i.e. the yelling) provokes in the woman, and is likely to provoke in other belligerent individuals. Being the loudest isn’t always the answer to a problem, and yelling louder and louder and louder and then going for a weapon cannot be what cops, even in Texas, are trained to do. Because not only does it make no sense, there are very few situations in which it is likely to work.
Exactly. Think about the show “Cops.” When being filmed for that show, the officers rarely went into “drill instructor breaking a green recruit” mode, and instead had a tendency to talk to people using what I call the “principal lecturing a first grader” voice. Firm, authoritative, commanding, short words, simple sentences, clear orders. They only got louder when the person they were dealing with got louder. And in most cases, it got results.
And it makes sense. No matter what you’ve just done, the role of the police officer on the street is not the same as the drill instructor, nor the prison guard. Their demeanor and temperament should not the same, either.
And then she went on camera and insisted the officers report was all lies and she was not combative or argumentative. Until the dash cam video was released. This lady feels her age gives her the privilege to do what she dam well pleases. She was probably pissed that the officer didn’t smile and say “Well you just slow down a bit Ma’am” and give her a warning. From there she made it worse.
I try to be extra patient with older folks at work but there’s a limit. Being old is not a license to shit on others with immunity.
I do wonder if the officer could have just let her go and issued a summons later.
Well, you might look over the ground rules for the SDMB, including the general policies on insults.
We are not so heavy-handed that we forbid every negative statement that could conceivably be uttered. Making negative remarks about pedophiles, terrorists, Nazis, and even boomers, will not garner negative attention from the staff. We would pretty much have to shut down the forum if no one could describe liberals/conservatives/Republican/Democrats/lbertarians/Libertarians as loony. On the other hand, we have drawn the line at making it personal.
In answer to your direct question: had you phrased it in such a way that it was clearly a remark about the general body of internet users and not so directly a remark against posters in this thread, I’d have let it slide. On the gray area between those positions, it would depend on how closely I thought you were skating near the line.
[ /Modding ]
Loud or not she continued to be non cooperative and refused to follow lawful instructions from the officer. We can’t realistically expect officers to handle every situation perfectly and give a pass to people stupid and belligerent enough get in a pissing match with a cop. She was wrong. She was speeding and she knew it. Sign the ticket pay a small fine and get over it. Instead she got nasty because she thought being 72 earned her a pass.
The cop wasn’t perfect but he was well within the guidelines of appropriate response to the situation.
How do you feel about dear ole granny lying through her teeth on camera, and being willing to ruin the officers career. Gosh that’s so endearing in the elderly.
That* may* have been an error in judgment on his part but we really don’t know what might have happened had he tried a softer approach. It doesn’t change the fact that he was right and giving her repeated opportunities to comply. She refused.
You’re setting unrealistic expectations for a human officer and excusing granny far too much IMO.
I’ve been screamed at by cops during a routine pull over. I decided it wasn’t smart to be less cooperative because he was rude or unnecessarily loud. I said, “yes sir, no disrespect intended” because I thought that was best FOR ME.
Yelling is not my preferred style but in can be effective when you need to get someone’s attention and let them know you’re in charge, losing patience, and consequences are about to get worse not better. The tactic didn’t work in this case but he was still right, she was still wrong and he’s not required to spend the next twenty minutes trying to politely persuade an uncooperative civilian who resists arrest.
Comments like this truly indicate your bias. So, what do you do for a living? And does the public appreciate your contribution to society?
Once again, I’ll ask for a cite, seeing as how we’re in GD. Nobody has yet come up with a link that disputes the Wake Forest study that I posted earlier. There have been no deaths attributed directly to the taser.
And yet you, and others, keep insisting that tasers are killing people when what’s actually happening is that they aren’t. If you keep insisting that the deaths AI attributes to tasers were *caused *by the tasers, then you have to admit that they were *caused *by drug abuse, heart conditions, brain disorders, etc. in accordance with coroners’ reports of those deaths. There’s no conclusive proof that it was the electrical shock that caused their bodies to shut down and that the arrest event was physically more than their already compromised bodies could handle. Further, AI’s death list includes individuals who died well after the taser event but while still in custody. That’s not how death from electric shocks work.
I would say that’s a wise business decision. A billy club has the potential for lethality. It’s not designed or intended to be lethal, but it certainly can be. Using a billy club or a taser is not considered lethal force, and there’s no reason why it should be. As far as actual studies indicate to date.
I agree with you if you are saying that tasers shouldn’t be used to punish a crappy attitude. Tasers should be employed for the purposes on enforcing compliance in order to reduce risk of injury to both the arresting officer and arrestee. Once compliance has been achieved, the taser should be off-limits.
Well, and this is where I disagree with you. I feel that officers have every right and the responsibility to ensure that arrests (for whatever reason) are carried out in a reasonably safe and expedient manner. Since law enforcement agencies, by and large, accept the taser as safe and there is no conclusive evidence that it’s not, I don’t see a problem with it being used in the manner it was used in this video. As for expedience, it should be obvious that there is no shortage of opportunities to enforce the law and I don’t see any reason to expect an officer to spend an extraordinate amount of time dealing with unnecessary non-compliance with lawful orders if he has the tools available to force compliance in a more timely manner. I don’t care if the initial offense was minor, non-compliance is a much more serious offense and should not be taken lightly. Yes, I think people should get the book thrown at them (very steep fines and jail time) for resisting arrest every time because as you note it puts people (officers included) at unnecessary risk to life and limb.
To those who think the officer did the right thing, would you support him if he had wacked her with a billy club instead of a taser?
FYI, I haven’t viewed the video and am therefore not qualified to weigh in on a particular side.
This sounds a lot like the argument the tobacco companies used to use: that cigarettes have never actually killed anybody (they haven’t.)
But in case you really don’t know that tasers have killed people, here is an article that describes a Chicago coroner listing eletrocution as the primary cause of death when someone was killed by a taser. And it wasn’t an isolated incident.
I mean, you realize that electricity has been used for over a century as a method of execution, right? Arguing that tasers aren’t what’s killing these people seems naive at best, and extremely disingenuous at worst. You do not come off as naive.
Cook County Medical Examiner rules taser as primary cause of death.
Regardless, I believe that the cop was justified on tasering grandma.
You telling me there has never, ever, been an instance where a cop has made an arrest, just to get back to the station and finish their shift?
Sounds like you are the one living in the Utopia Land mentioned upthread.
(Have you never heard of “traffic cop snooker”, where officers compete against each other to pull over a red car, then one of the colours, as a way to make their job more interesting? I know you prefer pool over there, so your cops probably play some variation.’)
IANA cop, but I could almost guarantee this never happens. Arrests mean all kinds of hassle and paperwork. They are not a means to finish your work on schedule.
Missed the edit window.
As to indicating my bias, I’d prefer to call it adding some pertinent humour.
With regard to your questions, my personal life has fuck-all to do with this thread, so keep your queries on topic.
I will say tho’, “the public” doesn’t even know I exist and is unlikely to, unless I began bullying the elderly.
Not anymore - why do you think the paperwork has increased, if not to keep a proper track on what the officers are doing on their time? - but it doesn’t mean the culture has disappeared. It’d be easy to establish in any particular officer’s case though, by checking their arrests in relationship to when their shift ended.