To be honest, no. As a law, it’s nonsensical. What purpose does it serve?
Why does the cop keep getting blamed for escalation? Is there some reasonable explanation for the old lady refusing to sign the damn ticket? It should be quite obvious that the cop was doing exactly what the law required him to do and she chose to make a big deal out of it on the side of the road. She wasn’t in NJ and those laws didn’t apply to her. If she didn’t like the law, she could have gone through the channels to get try to get it change, but instead she decided to challenge an LEO and, in every state, that’s just an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Sucks, but at least you had the opportunity to go to court and straightened it all out. And, by the way, an arrest warrant is issued by the court, not the cops. They are legally required to comply with them as well.
He didn’t, she escalated it by refusing to sign the ticket. She escalated it again by resisting arrest. At no point did the officer taunt her or otherwise escalate the situation.
He gave her the ticket and would have left if she signed it. As has been explained repeatedly, the signature is a necessary acknowledgement of the ticket and a promissory to appear in court. The signature is her bail. She was warned that she would be arrested and she clearly articulated her position by refusing the ticket and ASKING to go to jai. She was told to submit to handcuffs and she resisted. She was repeatedly told she would be tased and she resisted. He tried to handcuff her and she pulled away.
People who don’t follow the traffic rules cause accidents. This woman endangered the construction workers. 2 years ago we had a granny pass a semi on a curve which caused an ugly accident with an oncoming semi. It would have been useful if she were pulled over earlier and arrested for an inability to follow the rules.
I question the judgment of people like this woman who resist arrest in spite of being repeatedlly told the consequences. It’s a form of road-rage. The judge should pull her license until she completes a road-rage course
- I already pointed out that it’s a ridiculous rule, considering she’s on tape. A process server’s word is enough to prove in court you were served but a police officer’s word and a video tape of you receiving it is not enough to prove you received a ticket? Absurd.
- It’s not clear that she understood the consequences. It’s also not clear to me that the officer was required to take her in at this point, only that he was allowed to do so.
First of all, if there is a law in Texas that if you don’t sign a ticket you go to jail, that is a bullshit law. I’m glad they’ve already incarcerated all the dangerous people in Texas, and still have enough room left over in the jails for speeders.
Second, the lady offered to sign the ticket. Right after she gets out of the truck, she says “give it to me and I’ll sign it.” The cop refuses and shoves her. The cop had a chance to deescalate the situation and did not take it. Don’t get me wrong, I think everything he did was within the law and within department policy, I just think he’s a shitty cop. If I were caught on video in my job acting like that, I would not be in trouble, but I probably would be sent back to verbal judo training. Sometimes resolving a situation peacefully requires letting your ego be bruised a little bit. This cop needs to learn that lesson.
Law enforcement arrests people who are caught breaking laws. It’s the default. But, you’re half right, it doesn’t make sense to haul people in for lesser offenses like traffic violations. So, for lesser offenses, the TX legislature created an option for the accused - sign a statement indicating your agreement to appear in court and you won’t be hauled in. She chose not avail herslef of the option and was left with the default. You guys are like the lady that blames the jury for tearing apart her family by sending her husband to jail instead of blaming the husband for committing the damn crime.
Ah, so you reserve the right to taunt me. No, sorry, I do not think you have that right here in this forum. And an argument is not “illogical” just because “whole bean” disagrees with it.
I suppose it’s used as ultimate proof that you received the citation. I would expect that not every citation issued in Texas is videotaped and I guess it reduces the instances of people going in and saying, “But it wasn’t me, your honor!” as well as corrupt cops issuing citations that aren’t valid, as someone mentioned above.
I was correcting a misunderstanding of the relevant laws. The poster I responded to understood.
No. I’m not offering anything as as an ultimate can’t touch me argument. I’m merely pointing out that if anyone at any time can declare a law null and void, then there isn’t much point having a discussion about whether a cop behaved appropriately. Don’t you agree? How can any cop ever defend any action if all one has to do is assert that the law in question is bad and therefore not to be followed/ How would that fly if I were to burgle your house? Should I be able to claim that I should not be arrested because burglary laws are wrong?
Actually the law (basically) says, if you sign the ticket you don’t go to jail. This has been covered. You either haven’t read the whole thread or read it and chose to ignore it.
I actualy agree with this, but more by way of best practice as opposed to a standard. I think what he did was lawful and acceptable. I think it would have been better had he pursued the path you suggest. Since I have no serious qualms with the way he handled it, I won’t armchair his decision though.
How would you like to get arrested for failure to appear in court because an officer wrote up a bunch of bullshit tickets? I had an officer write a ticket just to be an asshole and he never submitted it. The case was dismissed but in the process I found out this wasn’t the first time the officer did this. He could just as easily have let me go and THEN write a ticket which would have escalated down the road if I got pulled over for anything. I would have an outstanding warrant for my arrest without my knowledge. Rest assured, I have a signed letter from the judge in my car in case I get pulled over.
So yes, it’s a big honkin deal to have the ticket signed.
Cops should be able to use good judgement to ensure the optimal possible outcome of each individual situation. Now I understand they’re only human and they’re gonna fuck up now and then, but this guy fucked up BAD in my opinion. I’m sure the law has its uses but it should not have been applied in this case. There was absolutely no way she was getting away scot-free seeing as she was on video, and the cop knew that. He needlessly escalated the situation into something very, very dangerous and potentially deadly.
And not that it’s ultra-relevant but is it SOP in Texas for officers to go to the driver’s side on highway stops? Most cops are going to the passenger side on busy highway stops these days.
I’d ask for the tape, which in this case would prove it was a legit ticket.
Did I write that? No. See my post on those pesky “archaic” laws for an example of what I mean.
I’ll wait on a ruling. I don’t think I’ve crossed a line.
Never said it was. I’ve done more than just “disagree.” And it ain’t just me, pal.
I imagine it serves as a, “I have notified you of the infraction I’ve accused you of and told you to show up at court and whatever other legal bullshit I’m supposed to say.”
If you don’t like it, may I suggest you not drive in Texas. I could go either way on the law, but that silly bitch in the video chose to refuse to sign. And she knew that the result of refusing to sign means she gets to go to see a judge now.
Sign or see a judge, if she didn’t want to see a judge, why didn’t she sign?
Ah, ad populum. So by that standard you’re wrong too. Woohoo!
cause on the tape, you’ll probably be able to read the ticket, as it appeared when it was given to the speeder - bulletproof.
Nope, but way to focus on the throwaway line. Bonus points for the Latin.
So out of one side of your mouth, you’re saying cops should be respected and obeyed at all times, no matter what, and out of the other, you’re saying that they’re the type of people who would make up elaborate schemes to ticket people for stuff they didn’t do— schemes that include pulling them over for stuff they really did do. And I’m illogical. Gotcha.
Anybody wanna take a stab at why a process server’s word is worth more than a police officer’s + a camera’s?
By the way, I think it’s a good law off-camera. On-camera it’s silly.