Is this really what tasers were meant for?

[H23gsr]

Cops enforce the law, they are CERTAINLY not above the law.

Well, at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to be.

Americans are letting this become a police state more everyday.

+1

 

[W.E.G.]

T-minus ___ to threadlock.

Speaking of threadlock - I wonder why the officer didn't just call in a roadblock?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

ilbob
"The police agency stated that all that is necessary is for the cop to note "refused to sign" on the citation. "


i missed that reference could you help me out?

 

[Coronach]

1. Not gun related. Closed.

2. A few points of interest...

If he's under arrest, he has to be read his rights. He wasn't read his rights, so it was an unlawful arrest, and he'll most certainly be cleared of anything (in fact he was, all except the speeding).

Utterly incorrect. Almost completely and totally devoid of correctness. Officers are only required to "read rights" if the person is 1. in custody and 2. being questioned.

In (I believe) almost every state, failure to sign a citation is arrestable, because the signature on the citation is an agreement by the defendant to appear at trial (or take care of the citation by mailing in a fine). The failure to sign means that the defendant has given no formal promise to attend trial (or take care of the citation by paying the fine), and therefor the officer is required to take the offender to the magistrate (via jail).

So, the driver is arrestable, and the Taser is an appropriate tool to complete an arrest, provided the driver is resisting or has given indication of an intent to resist arrest. Having not seen the video with sound (dialup for the weekend), it appears like this last point is, at best, highly questionable. There certainly are no physical danger cues.

Probably a bad Tasering. The only thing that could make it right is if there was a threat made on the part of the driver that I missed.

Mike