I already did. The officer should not have escalated the situation by having her get out of the car. He was on video giving her the ticket.
Yes, of that I have no doubt at all.
Do you have anything constructive to add? Anything? Or are you just enjoying sniping at me?
The tazing wasn’t a punishment. That might be what’s causing all the confusion here.
I think I’m just going to save this as a word doc. Speed + Get Caught = either 1. Agree to Appear in Court, or 2. Go to Jail. If no 1, then 2.
This gains no legal significance by repetition. Giving her the ticket was not the condition precedent to her release. Look at the Wookie! Look at the Wookie!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11233735&postcount=47
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11233754&postcount=50
It’s not really that much fun, actually. But I see that whole bean has tossed a few posers at you. Seeing what you do with them might be interesting.
Damnit whole bean, you promised to leave me alone.
There’s your strawman. I never said all speeders should be tased. I said the argument that she was a danger because she was speeding was dumb, because it was a response to me saying she shouldn’t have been tased because she wasn’t a danger.
See above.
See above.
Now, whole bean, “please” cut all this “please show me” nonsense out and honor your statement that you were going to leave me alone.
People often cite laws in situations like this as the ultimate can’t-touch-me argument. You realize that not all laws are correct, right? I mean, I don’t even have to cite the myriad of positively ghastly laws we’ve had in this country, do I? I honestly don’t give a shit if he was “legally” supposed to take her downtown for not signing the ticket. What he did was wrong, legal or illegal. He made a very dangerous situation out of nothing.
People may do so, but I don’t, and I didn’t.
However, if, in a discussion about whether a police officer performed his duties correctly, someone takes the position that adhering to legislative statute is the wrong thing to do, I’m not sure that leaves much to discuss. If a cop can be wrong for following the law, and right for not following it, the question becomes moot. If you get to decide which laws should be followed by LEO’s and which shouldn’t, then so can anyone else, and any question of propriety can simply be declared answered by fiat.
I’d be sure to wear a taser-proof bunny costume.
Hmm, I take it back then, my mistake for missing that.
Seems like a failure of the legislation though doesn’t it? To force Cops to escalate such a minor thing to an arrest and possible confrontation with mean old ladies? In New Jersey we don’t have to sign jack. Either we pay the ticket or show up in court or the fine goes up after the first couple of weeks, then your licence is suspended, then a warrant is issued for your arrest.
Which does suck if, like me, you were leaving town right after getting a ticket, left the money with mother to pay the fine whilst I was gone, came back and since I was attending school in NYC and living with my dad, had no car nor need of one and did not drive. Then A year later I get arrested while WALKING simply because some random cop decided to stop me and ask me for ID - I didn’t drive but I still had my drivers licence in my wallet. BAM! I came back as someone in need of arrest. I thought the cop was playing some sort of joke on me. Shock of my life, let me tell you.
I suppose I should count myself lucky that I wasn’t a cantankerous old sour puss. Or I might have been tazed. 
She is lying. I saw the video too, and she was spoiling for a fight.
No, she did.
She could have signed the ticket. She could have obeyed his directions. She could have submitted to arrest.
If you don’t think police should be able to arrest people who are openly breaking a law you won’t find a lot of thinking people on your side.
No, not nothing. Resisting arrest is not “nothing.”
But you’ve higlighted the futility of engaging you on this issue. Upthread, You repreatedly and incorrectly say all he had to do is drop the ticket in her window (this despite being disabused of the notion that there would be any legal consequence to such an action). Then you attack the very procedure at issue (arrest for violation of criminal statute is one of the most common elements of our criminal justice system). You haven’t just moved the goalposts, you’ve replaced them with umbrellas.
As for the strawman, if Brown Eyed Girl wasn’t clear at first that the danger that was among the factors that warranted the tasing was the danger posed during the resistance of arrest, she cleared that up later. Nonetheless, you persisted under your first, incorrect, conclusion.
In the spirit of the mercy rule, I will leave you alone. I can see you have been beat, even if you cannot.
I just don’t think having her sign a piece of paper in compliance with an archaic law is worth hauling her off for. Good day and see you in court. It’s all on tape.
Actually, what you said was:
You also said:
Then, you said:
Post #42.
So, you believe she was tasered to make her more polite, but you imply that the “pro-taser crowd” --not you-- believes she was “pushed/yelled at/shocked/hauled off to jail” because she was a threat. Although, you also admit that you don’t see any threat other than to officer’s ego. Again, you repeat the idea that the woman was no threat to anyone including herself and was roughed up for not signing a ticket.
You conveniently ignore all instances of her behavior that put other people and her own well-being at risk, including speeding through a construction zone, disregarding the officer’s instructions to stand off of the road in a safer zone, escalating her resistance to force some kind of contact between her and the officer in order for the officer to do his job and enforce the law.
Yes, I did point out that her speeding endangered her safety and that of other people as well. It seems to me you had continually brushed aside that offense in an attempt to make her appear unjustly persecuted by the officer or something. If that’s not the case, I have no idea why you would ignore the safety issues of speeding through a construction zone and continually state that she was simply a threat to his ego.
Only by your tortured reasoning. Let me make it clearer for you then. In no uncertain terms:
Speeding (particularly through a construction zone) should be punished by steep fines and, with regard to repeated offense, jail time and/or loss of driving privileges.
Separately, no court or peace officer should inflict tasering as a form of punishment. Rather, the use of tasers should be restricted to enforcing compliance with any and all reasonable and lawful commands made by any law enforcement official.
That any clearer?
Hey man, it’s your hole. Keep on digging if that’s your thing.
You either don’t get, or enjoy ignoring what I’ve said in this thread.
Well, if it makes you feel better telling yourself that, go for it. Not that I believe you, since you’ve said this before.
You responded to a post asking what the police officer ultimately accomplished by citing the law. Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say? Clarify, then.
Well you’re just doing what you just said you don’t and didn’t do, aren’t you?
Man I hate those “archaic” arrest laws. You know the ones that reference electronic records. I mean, they might have been relevant when Wyatt Earp was forcing people to ackowledge with a digital image signature created by by electronic stylus their willingness to appear and stand trial for the crime of which they were accused, but now a days, they’re just obsolete.
But is not signing it worth getting hauled off for?
She chose to not sign it and get hauled off to jail. She chose to be unresponsive, dismissive and antagonistic. If the rule is sign or I’ll take you to see a judge now, why is it the cop’s fault if she chose to go see a judge now?
I will honor my promise to 1. not present you with facts that derail your rant, and 2. direclty engage you in debate. I am holding on to my right to satarize your illogical argument.