Wait A Damn Minute! I thought it was a citizen's right not to sign a ticket.

What's all this crap about a cop having the right to taser or handcuff a person for not signing a ticket?

I was taught that you didn't have to sign a ticket. What's the damn problem? They have your address, your license number, they know where you live. You don't show up for trial or pay the ticket, then you get arrested.

Why are so mnay people saying the cops have a right to arrest you or taser you for not signing a ticket? "What's a cop supposed to do?" Serve the damn ticket and then be on your way, that's what the cop is supposed to do.

This really blows my mind.

:rofl:

:sarcasm: In case it's necessary.

Yelling "I'm 72 years old" 50 times like that matters to the cop...

I've been around before you were born sonny; you going to tell me what to do; blah blah blah ---

Guess you never met anyone like that...

I'm sure if it was a 20 year old male acting like that you would be fine with them gettting tased.

Do you honestly not see the difference between a 20 year old man and a 72 year old lady? Perhaps a physical difference? You didn't really think that out, did you?

But we just had an 89-year old guy shoot up a Holocaust museum and kill a guard, so I don't think it can automatically be assumed that 72-year olds are harmless. That being said, I think both parties acted badly on this one.

But the difference is that this 89 year old guy had a gun (the woman didn't) and it was clear that no matter how feisty this woman was, she didn't represent a threat to the LEO.

But I think we need to be careful not to minimize her behavior as 'feisty'. A young person would be described as 'uncooperative' or 'belligerent'. 'Feisty', at least to me, implies that she was being spunky or charmingly mischievous. I wouldn't assign any positive aspects to her behavior.

If you have to arrest a 72 year old woman who is resisting, you will probably have to resort to the same tactic you would use with a twenty year old. I guess he could have slammed her on the hood of the car. Tasing was probably the gentlest way for her to go down.

But regardless, your post is ageist and sexist, but I'm guessing you didn't really think about it. Your cultural blinders are on. The steryotype of the harmless old woman is just that.

Ageist and sexist my ass. If you're a cop, you know that the physical condition of the person you're dealing with affects how you deal with that person. A 20 year old man is almost definitely in far greater physical condition than that 72 year old woman. Regardless of how mouthy and pushy that woman was being, I'd have absolutely no problem getting her hands behind her back to cuff her, and I am not in shape to be a cop. If it was a 20 year old man, I'd have far greater hesitation trying to cuff him on my own and would not hesitate to use a taser if I thought I was in danger. The gentlest way for her to "go down", as you so ineloquently put it, would be for the cop to cuff her. If he couldn't have done that, he has no damn business being a cop. But you go on living in your fantasy world where everyone is the same and a 300 lb thug on PCP poses the exact same threat as an alzheimers addled senior citizen. To call you delusional would be kind.

regardless of who it was that was pulled over. But if it's ok for a twenty year old guy to be tased in that situation, then it's ok for a 78 year old woman. There would be no more justification for tasing the guy in that case than this woman. That's the problem I have, that it's considered justifiable in one case and not the other. Just because she's old and a woman doesn't mean she earns more sensitivity from cops than everyone else. What if the twenty year old male was about her size and weight? If you are big looking and work out a lot, should you get tased faster for it?

Truth is, a twenty year old guy wouldn't have acted like she did because he'd know his ass would get tased. She acted the way she did because she thought that as a 78 year old woman, she was entitled to do so and get away with it. And in all honesty, her getting tased definitely could have been the best way for her to go down. She was acting unpredictably, and maybe he thought that if he tried to grab her, she'd run back up to the highway again and endanger them. He was a bit of a loafer after all, and she looked a bit nimbler than him in all honesty. A lazy way out? Yeah. But then again, the granny did everything she could to justify his overreaction. He'd rather tase her than be embarrassed trying to chase around a granny.

In the end, I think they were both wrong and have no sympathy for whatever comes to either of them for their conduct.

then he's NO WAY NEAR in good enough physical shape to be a cop. That's the crux of the issue here. If he wasn't physically capable of restraining her, then he shouldn't be a cop. If he WAS physically capable of restraining her, then he shouldn't have tased her and therefore, shouldn't be a cop. And do you really not understand how the physical capabilities of the person in question should effect how a cop deals with him or her? Surely you understand this. If you don't, then I'm very glad you're not anywhere near a police force. You say "If you are big looking and work out a lot, should you get tased faster for it?", well, if you're big and work out a lot and THEN decide to throw around your force to a police officer, YES, you should get tased faster for it. You know that you can pose a greater risk to the cop, so you should definitely prepare for the cop to escalate force quicker in a situation, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE HAS TO DO. It seriously seems that common sense is the first casualty in these situations. I guess by the logic you display that a cop should treat a 5 year old girl in the same manner because age and gender have absolutely no bearing on how cops should respond, right? Right?

where she says "Give me the ticket. I'll sign it."

I wish the LEO hadn't been so deep into his own thing that he lost his ability to communicate (and listen) effectively.

didn't she just sign it when he asked her the first time, instead of being an asshole about it?

that the cop she was dealing with is a violent and aggressive asshole who was intent on showing his authority. Yes, it's clear that she should have signed it instead of being an asshole about it, but that doesn't mean the officer was in the right for tazing her.

This cop wasn't a fucking professional. He should lose his badge.

For those not bright enough to get it, here's an example to elucidate the point:

1. If a cop is facing an armed suspect who dares the cop to shoot him, well, he has every right to shoot him.
2. If that suspect disarms himself (i.e., puts down the gun), the cop does NOT have the right to shoot him.

The cop doesn't get to decide to shoot the unarmed suspect anyway, simply because the suspect was "mouthy" or "uncooperative" earlier.

The cops ego does not trump the rule of law or the use of proportional force.

QED.

When a big huge cop with a gun and a taser gives a 72 year old short female an electric shock because she is mouthing off and will not behave, that is excessive force.

That you are even defending his action is pathetic enough.

A trained law enforcement office that resorts to using a taser to control an elderly person should not only turn in his badge, gun and taser, he should hang his head in shame. His instructors should hang their heads in shame, his co-workers and bosses, should hang their head in shame.

That by signing it, you're agreeing to appear before the court and it basically replaces you getting arrested. That said, even if she initially refused to sign the ticket, she sure as hell shouldn't have been tased. And that officer shouldn't be working as a cop.

And if you don't, a warrant will be issued. It is nothing but a formality - but authoritarians are BIG on formalities.

and where I live not signing it means you go to jail.

They are releasing you on your own recognizance

not tased.

a ticket... not the excessive force by the officer.

signed a ticket. If it went to court and they hadn't signed it, that made the case look a whole lot worse for them because there was an immediate perception they were just pains in the ass (which they usually were). I can't imagine why that cop felt he had to taser the woman. Being cranky doesn't warrant what can sometimes prove to be lethal force.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the officer *always* has the discretion of issuing a citation or placing the alleged miscreant under arrest.

If you're not surly, and the officer is more mature, he'll just write "refused" on the line and turn in the ticket.

then cop has the right to arrest you and take you in if he so chooses.
Resist the arrest? Meet Mt. Taser... or Mr T. For short. He pities the fool that doesn't comply.

The signature is merely an acknowlegment of receiving the ticket. It is not admission.
An officer usually can write "Refusal to Sign" or something else on the signature line as well.
Of course, laws vary by state so you'll have to look into it more personally.

All I can say is, Why not sign it?. Is it really worth agetting arested and taken in.

They claimed he did it to protect the victim, who was walking around and almost went into oncoming traffic. Basically, it seemed like, this lady is nuts, taser her now!

I felt they weren't telling the whole story. Wasn't there any other way he could have handled it?

Scuba

like signing the ticket and avoiding the whole mess?

Also they don't have much training in conflict resolution either, right?

Of course it goes both ways. Of course she could have handled it better too, but I ask you this: Of the two of them, which one of those people is constantly in conflict promoting situations? My guess is that the Police officer is. If this is correct, it is his (or her) responsibility to be fully trained in conflict resolution and not only trained at it, but good at it too. That is doubly true when dealing with the elderly.

I have a friend who just retired from being a police officer. We have spoken many times at length about situations similar to this one. It is my guess he would have bent over backwards to avoid what happened. I practically guarantee you that if he was handling that situation both of them would have walked away with their dignity intact. That is what good Police Officers do from his perspective. It's just not worth it for them to be jerks over such a trivial matter. Of course there are other Policemen who demand submission.

I wasn't there, and only saw the recording, but I bet he could have done a better job. Just my opinion.

Scuba

:headbang:
rocktivity

that laws vary by state. Also, why not sign it? What are you gaining by being a dumbass about it?

When you get a speeding ticket, you are arrested and released on your own recognizance.

When you sign, you are just signing that (1) you agree you were handed a ticket and (2) that you are being released.

No signature, no release.

Signing a ticket DOES NOT indicate guilt - never has and never will

So folks, just sign it.

Contrary to what people have been reporting, you must be "immediately taken before a magistrate" by the officer. Not to jail.

If the officer instead takes you to jail, then he is in violation of the law. If a magistrate is not available ... the law makes no provision for that. So he has to set you free.



Sec. 543.002. PERSON ARRESTED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE. (a) A person arrested for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before a magistrate if:

(1) the person is arrested on a charge of failure to stop in the event of an accident causing damage to property; or

(2) the person demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate or refuses to make a written promise to appear in court as provided by this subchapter.

(b) The person must be taken before a magistrate who:

(1) has jurisdiction of the offense;

(2) is in the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed; and

(3) is nearest or most accessible to the place of arrest.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

that being taken to jail is a deviation of the process of being taken before a magistrate. Indeed all arrests in Texas have the requirement to deliver the arrestee to a magistrate - and the magistrate is at the jail - taking you to jail is taking you to the magistrate. The magistrate then has a hearing to set the bond amount. The larger cities in Texas do have a magistrate assigned to the jail, but first you are processed through jail intake; frequently a many hours long process, but generally it is the next morning that you appear before the magistrate and have bond set. If you get booked into Lew Sterrett (Dallas Jail) for instance see:

http://www.dallassheriffsoffice.com/intro/main/detentions/technical_services/intake/intake.html




You'll normally get released on personal recognizance after about 10 hours in jail in Dallas County for a traffic offense.

when you mail it in.

Sign ze papers old woman!!

:grr: