I could not find any statistics on the number of people who have died in custody of positional asphyxia (and yes, I have head of it, thanks) I humbly suggest however, that the officer probably did not need to use a restraint technique that carried this level of danger.
You are certainly correct that police are choosing a safer method of restraint - safer for them, not for the public.
Tasers have their uses. It is apparent however that they are frequently over-used, when other techniques such as “talking” could be used (cf Robert Dziekanski). Tasers are also frequently used improperly, as “come along” devices, or simply used when an officer is pissed at a suspect and wants to teach them a lesson.
In this case, it is of course easy to play armchair quarterback (cop) and we were not in the officer’s shoes. I really do feel however that training has slipped recently, and officers are far too quick to taser a suspect when other techniques would be far, far safer for everyone involved.
I think the problem that some of us have with this scenario is that, while when explained, the reasons for this incident all make logical sense - speed and refuse to sign the ticket, you go to jail; refuse to obey officer intent on arresting you, get tasered – the outcome (tasering & jailing foul-mouthed granny) seems to be disproportionate to the purpose of the enforcement (controlling speeding).
To make a possibly bad analogy, it is as if the cop caught some kid jaywalking, and when the kid mouths off and tries to run, shoots him in the leg and arrests him for attempting to flee the scene of the crime and resisting arrest.
I’ve never written anything remotely close to, “cops should be respected and obeyed at all times, no matter what.” At this point, you’ve stooped to dishonesty.
Could the same person tell me the jurisidctions in which process servers serve criminal warrants?
Yes, but an argument can be “illogical” AND whole bean disagree with it. It’s both!
whole bean, you have reduced him to dismissing the law as “archaic” and asserting the officer should be selectively applying it. It’s the sweet smell of Win and you should take that and go in peace. You know you’re never going to get him to agree with you.
Of course I’m not going to agree. I disagree! And I have no problem with my argument being reduced to what you say. You said all this like it’s somehow a bad thing or makes me look bad. It’s not and it doesn’t.
You’re stipulating gross malice and manipulation of the system, which an officer who just didn’t give a shit could accomplish just as easily right now with or without this law. I do not think most states have this law. I’m sure not all states have this law.
It’s a promise to appear in court. They’re required to give you notice of the date you’re supposed to appear in court, and in return you make a written promise to appear on that date as a condition of going on your way. It’s supposed to cut down on people who fail to appear in court claiming they didn’t know that they were supposed to. Ironically, speeding is one of only two traffic offenses that aren’t arrestable if the person makes a written promise to appear, so if she had signed the ticket she couldn’t have been arrested, but because she refused she had to be arrested.
Relevant code:
TEX. TRANS. CODE § 543.005. PROMISE TO APPEAR; RELEASE. To secure
release, the person arrested must make a written promise to appear
in court by signing the written notice prepared by the arresting
officer. The signature may be obtained on a duplicate form or on an
electronic device capable of creating a copy of the signed notice.
The arresting officer shall retain the paper or electronic original
of the notice and deliver the copy of the notice to the person
arrested. The officer shall then promptly release the person from
custody.
Other jurisdictions seem to get by without this. It serves no useful purpose over the much simpler, and less-likely-to-result-in-a-confrontation, system of saying “Here’s your ticket. If you sign the part that says you want to fight it, then you’ll get a court date. If not, you have to pay it in thirty days no matter what.” Then the person being cited can tear the ticket up if they like. They still have to pay it.
Apparently, you do not grasp a basic concept: a traffic stop is an arrest. You are not free to leave at any time. State laws allow the officer to release someone on their own recognizance, but they have to have signed a written promise to appear before a magistrate. If they refuse to sign that promise, the officer has no choice but to take them before the magistrate right then and there.
During the time when I was a deputy sheriff, I only had one person refuse to sign a ticket. I explained what was going to happen if he didn’t. He continued to refuse and I went to cuff him. We didn’t have tasers back then, so when he fought back, I maced him. He continued to fight me until I drilled him in the solar plexus with the butt of my nightstick. I then cuffed him, called a wrecker for his car, took him to jail and charged him with speeding and aggravated assault on a peace officer. His hippopotamus mouth overloaded his hummingbird ass and got him in a lot more trouble than he was already in.
You’re making this hard to walk away from: 1. I have never sought to win by popular vote, if that’s all you took from my posts, you’ve not read them very well. 2. we’re talking about a Texas cop , enforcing a Texas law, so you’re arguement regarding this cops conduct will be analyzed in that context, as it has been (and shown to be illogical). Were we speaking of someother state, you would have a point, as we’re not, you don’t.
I’m not defending it, just throwing it out there. Most everybody here has asked a cop or state trooper while getting a ticket “what happens to people who don’t sign it?” and heard “we have no choice but to arrest them,” so even if it is silly or archaic very few people make that their particular windmill to tilt at.
