Regarding the Austin Police TASER vs. Motorist video...
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:45 am
http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386
Often on this forum I read posts about what is "legal" and what is "right" and what is "permitted", etc... in certain situations. And many times it has been said that a person can do what is "legal" or "defensible" but still end up being arrested and spending a lot of money on lawyers.
I think this video is an example of a similar scenario.
In a perfect world that video would never have happened. It turns out the driver had a valid license and insurance, so this incident could have gone down as a simple, quick traffic stop with everyone on their way in minutes. Instead it ended with a man in jail and an officer suspended.
The officer was legally justified in everything he said and did. There was sufficient probable cause for the traffic stop. The officer is not obligated to conduct a verbal debate on the side of the road regarding a driver's ID, and the officer was legally justified in ordering the driver out of the vehicle when he did. There are good reasons for doing so, both officer safety reasons and strategic reasons regarding the ID'ing of an uncooperative subject in a car with passengers.
The officer is not unlike a legally armed CHL holding citizen who carries a concealed handgun into a business with a "technically incorrect" 30.06 sign posted on the door. Both broke no laws.
However, the officer ended up suspended for his legally performed actions. Just like a CHL holder can end up in jail for doing certain things that may end up being legally defensible in the end.
The lesson that the officer could learn from that situation is that there was another way to handle the situation that would have resulted in no problems for the officer.
Like the CHL holder who is legally vindicated for a use of force and then civilly sued, the officer was legally cleared and then reprimanded (suspended) for a department policy issue.
The lesson that the driver could learn from that situation is that even though he may feel that he is within his rights to argue with the police, and even though he may not have been charged with any crime related to the argument, that he could have resolved the traffic stop without having to be tased and arrested.
Like the CHL holder who asserts his right to carry after drinking and gets arrested for carrying while intoxicated, he may eventually prevail in court despite the officer's opinion that he was intoxicated, the CHL holder will still go to jail. Just like the driver went to jail and was later released and not charged with anything but the initial traffic violations. He won the war but lost the battle.
I'm sure that both the officer and driver wish that they had both acted differently on that day. Common sense was not the prevailing force on that day for either party.
Often on this forum I read posts about what is "legal" and what is "right" and what is "permitted", etc... in certain situations. And many times it has been said that a person can do what is "legal" or "defensible" but still end up being arrested and spending a lot of money on lawyers.
I think this video is an example of a similar scenario.
In a perfect world that video would never have happened. It turns out the driver had a valid license and insurance, so this incident could have gone down as a simple, quick traffic stop with everyone on their way in minutes. Instead it ended with a man in jail and an officer suspended.
The officer was legally justified in everything he said and did. There was sufficient probable cause for the traffic stop. The officer is not obligated to conduct a verbal debate on the side of the road regarding a driver's ID, and the officer was legally justified in ordering the driver out of the vehicle when he did. There are good reasons for doing so, both officer safety reasons and strategic reasons regarding the ID'ing of an uncooperative subject in a car with passengers.
The officer is not unlike a legally armed CHL holding citizen who carries a concealed handgun into a business with a "technically incorrect" 30.06 sign posted on the door. Both broke no laws.
However, the officer ended up suspended for his legally performed actions. Just like a CHL holder can end up in jail for doing certain things that may end up being legally defensible in the end.
The lesson that the officer could learn from that situation is that there was another way to handle the situation that would have resulted in no problems for the officer.
Like the CHL holder who is legally vindicated for a use of force and then civilly sued, the officer was legally cleared and then reprimanded (suspended) for a department policy issue.
The lesson that the driver could learn from that situation is that even though he may feel that he is within his rights to argue with the police, and even though he may not have been charged with any crime related to the argument, that he could have resolved the traffic stop without having to be tased and arrested.
Like the CHL holder who asserts his right to carry after drinking and gets arrested for carrying while intoxicated, he may eventually prevail in court despite the officer's opinion that he was intoxicated, the CHL holder will still go to jail. Just like the driver went to jail and was later released and not charged with anything but the initial traffic violations. He won the war but lost the battle.
I'm sure that both the officer and driver wish that they had both acted differently on that day. Common sense was not the prevailing force on that day for either party.
When one person fails to act like an adult, it's an embarrassing situation. When two people fail to act like adults, it's a disaster.
This cat was obviously having a bad day!! 