Trooper Caught On Tape Tasering Motorist

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 At least in Missouri if a cop flags you down and tries to pull you over and you run, it's resisting arrest. The logic is that while the cop may not have intended to arrest you initially, at the point or moment that you run, the cop is trying to arrest you and every moment following that is another moment that you are resisting this.

You can, of course, provide evidence for this?

[mark3748]

Quote by: Zeebadee You can, of course, provide evidence for this?

I have proof that it is incorrect...

Section 575-145 Signal or direction of sheriff or deput

Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 575 Offenses Against the Administration of Justice Section 575.145 August 28, 2007 Signal or direction of sheriff or deputy sheriff, duty to stop, motor vehicle operators and riders of animals--violation, penalty. 575.145. It shall be the duty of the operator or driver of any vehicle or the rider of any animal traveling on the highways of this state to stop on signal of any sheriff or deputy sheriff and to obey any other reasonable signal or direction of such sheriff or deputy sheriff given in directing the movement of traffic on the highways. Any person who willfully fails or refuses to obey such signals or directions or who willfully resists or opposes a sheriff or deputy sheriff in the proper discharge of his or her duties shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished as provided by law for such offenses. (L. 2002 H.B. 1270 and H.B. 2032)

It's a standard evasion law...

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Clearly this is determined on whether the person ends up arrested or not. If they end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop intended to arrest them. If they do not end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop did not intend to arrest them. You are initially right in stating that the cop decides initially whether or not and when he is placing someone under arrest, but incorrect in assuming that his interpretation is the final say in the matter. I can understand having a problem with discretion fundamentally, but this is how the system works which is what I was arguing. Not how it SHOULD work.

This is an absolutely idiotic response. There are many levels of interactions with authorities. There's something before "detaining", I don't recall technically what that's called, but it has something to do with any interaction between an officer and a "citizen" (note the quotes, an "officer" is a "citizen", no real difference between the two, there is no real "sovereign" authority held in the hands of a police "officer". in this country the "citizen" is the "sovereign"). The next step is for the officer to detain the "citizen". After that comes "arrest". However, "arrest", under the US Constitution, requires either a warrant or "probable cause". Even detaining a "citizen" requires "reasionable, articulable, suspicion" of an "arrestable crime" being completed. Unless an "officer" can cite a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of an "arrestable" offense being commited, even a detention is unauthorized.

Now, go ahead and tell me about how the system works that arguing with a tax collector about a traffic offense justifies deadly force.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: mark3748 I have proof that it is incorrect... Section 575-145 Signal or direction of sheriff or deput It's a standard evasion law...

Thank you, Mark, for providing factual evidence. I would hope that anyone who would wish to disagree with you woudl provide similar evidence to support their case.

A "Class A Misdemeanor" is rarely an "arrestable offense". However, if such is the case, I would assume that whoever opposes such a supposition will be able to provide the appropriate statute to support their position.

In addition, the statute you referenced refers to a "sheriff or deputy sheriff". Anyone wishing to apply this issue to the "state police" must cite the appropriate statute that extends this to such an "officer". In virtually every state in this country the "sheriff", being an elected office, is the "supreme law enforcement officer". Powers and rights delegated to the "sheriff" do not, necessarily, apply to other "law enforcement officers", whether local, state or federal, unless so granted by properly enacted statute or "deputization". It is unlikely that a state statute can grant such authorization, however, that may be up to the courts to determine.

As anyone can see, reading and interpreting such laws and regulations can be quite complex. And, can very from state to state. It is unlikely that federal law, in itself without Constitutional authorization, can overide these state and local statutes.

It's really best to leave people alone. Unless, of course, you are a County Sheriff, and have clear authorization to f*ck with citizens, under statute.

Keith

[shawmutt]

A bit off topic, but to address your asinine "tax collector" comments.

After sitting though a couple hours of traffic court, and listening to the charges and excuses, I am one person who is grateful for the "tax collectors" on the road--especially as a person who travels most of his miles on the road on a motorcycle. The fines are high because the wallet is the most effective teaching tool. For what it's worth, I got pulled over for 60 in a 35, and I personally don't think the $160 ticket is that much. Racetrack fees are much higher

As far as getting pulled over for speeding, the person has no one to blame but themselves.

Now back onto the topic of unnecessary tasings...

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: mark3748 I have proof that it is incorrect... Section 575-145 Signal or direction of sheriff or deput It's a standard evasion law...

I guess IQ's did drop sharply while I was away.

Section 575-150 Resisting or interfering with arrest--p

Quote by: Section 575.150 575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:

5. Resisting or interfering with an arrest for a felony is a class D felony. Resisting an arrest, detention or stop by fleeing in such a manner that the person fleeing creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to any person is a class D felony; otherwise, resisting or interfering with an arrest, detention or stop in violation of subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection 1 of this section is a class A misdemeanor.

Gee, look at that. You're wrong. And it provides consistency with the other law that you idiotically decided to try to apply to all local police when it specifically only applied to Sheriffs or Sheriffs Deputies.

Next time, try and know what you're talking about. That goes for both Mark and Keith.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 It all depends on what happens but it is a potentially dangerous situation. Most people don't like being arrested and their entire attitude and demeanor can shift abruptly when informed of such.

How does it depend on what happens? Either you define "arrest" as physical confinement via handcuffs, jail cells, and the like, or you define it as simply telling someone that they're under arrest.

One can argue that any time a cop interacts with a "civilian" is a potentially dangerous situation.

It's not my logic, it's the state's logic. When a cop pulls you over, he is restricting your travel temporarily. If you run from that, the situation now transforms into a clearly arrestable offense, where as a traffic stop probably will not be, and in the act of avoiding this cop you are evading arrest by placing yourself in a situation where you would be arrested and then running. I'm debating the legality of the move, not whether or not it should be this way.

Actually, a cop technically doesn't pull anyone over. It's not like he throws a grappling hook onto your car and physically pulls it off the road with his own vehicle. He signals that he wants you to pull over, and then you choose to comply -- or not.

Thank you for pointing out that your intention is to debate what the law says, not what it should say (if anything). I stand corrected.

No, the court system usually applying a "responsible person" test or the equivalent.

I've always had a problem with such a "test". How is "responsible person" defined?

Why would it be reasonable to assume that simply by being in a jurisdiction you are under arrest?

Why wouldn't it be, if you start with the premise that a cop can de facto arrest a person for any reason? After all, if anyone argues with him, they'll be arrested too.

At least in this case this man committed an arrestable offense first, not signing the ticket, the cop went to arrest him and then clearly took it way too far. It goes something like this... -Criminal Act is committed -Officer becomes aware of Criminal Act -Officer attempts to place the suspect under arrest. Clearly this is determined on whether the person ends up arrested or not. If they end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop intended to arrest them. If they do not end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop did not intend to arrest them.

Notice what you say there. Basically you seem to imply that, if the cop wants to arrest you, you will be put in jail, regardless of whether you've actually done anything illegal.

You are initially right in stating that the cop decides initially whether or not and when he is placing someone under arrest, but incorrect in assuming that his interpretation is the final say in the matter.

The thing is, his interpretation pretty much is the final say in the matter. All too often, cops can "spin" things their way and get away with it.

I can understand having a problem with discretion fundamentally, but this is how the system works which is what I was arguing. Not how it SHOULD work.

Fair enough. I've been arguing over how it should work.

- Rob

[Chaossaber314]

How does it depend on what happens? Either you define "arrest" as physical confinement via handcuffs, jail cells, and the like, or you define it as simply telling someone that they're under arrest. One can argue that any time a cop interacts with a "civilian" is a potentially dangerous situation.

I can agree with that though I don't think it's quite as simple as I think you're making it. I might just be misreading your point though.

Actually, a cop technically doesn't pull anyone over. It's not like he throws a grappling hook onto your car and physically pulls it off the road with his own vehicle. He signals that he wants you to pull over, and then you choose to comply -- or not.

Yeah well... Figure of speech. lol.

I've always had a problem with such a "test". How is "responsible person" defined?

I'm sorry I misspoke. I meant "reasonable" person. Essentially it means what a judge or jury of your peers finds reasonable. Though there's a more long winded explanation.

Why wouldn't it be, if you start with the premise that a cop can de facto arrest a person for any reason?

Because they can't de facto arrest any person for any reason. There is in fact oversight.

After all, if anyone argues with him, they'll be arrested too.

Heh. People argue with the cops all the time and don't get arrested.

Notice what you say there. Basically you seem to imply that, if the cop wants to arrest you, you will be put in jail, regardless of whether you've actually done anything illegal.

Somewhat, they just better damn well make sure they are doing so legally otherwise they will be in serious trouble with their superiors and can be sued pretty heavily.

The thing is, his interpretation pretty much is the final say in the matter. All too often, cops can "spin" things their way and get away with it.

In some cases, though I think this is sensationalized. For the most part, most cops obey laws and do what they are supposed to and don't even have to worry about an issue of spin. Sure sometimes cops get away with things they've done wrong, just like everyone else. All I'm saying is this is rare.

Thanks for debating this without throwing around gross generalizations and insulting remarks rooted in vitriolic irrational hatred and bias like some others that will remain anonymous.

[ruksak]

Quote by: shawmutt Yeah, I'm owned. Why didn't you just put "pwned" and show even more maturity? It was a repost by an actual cop on a police forum, showing that it is an actual sentiment held by officers.

Awww it was a joke. Jokin yer ass. Don't get all pissy. You f*cked up bro. No biggie.

Quote by: Shawmutt Let us know how your next traffic stop goes, whether you're the one using the radar gun or not

I don't get pulled over. Because I don't speed and/or drive like a jackass with no regard for others, going 60 in a 35, ya know, like some other people *wink wink *nudge nudge.

I got a warning for a 35 in a 30. But that was just because I had a black guy in my Jeep at 3am in Greenwood Indiana.