Woman Tassered

[missioncontrol]

woman refuses to hang up cell phone and get out of car.......


Story

and

Video

[DYNAGOD]

RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!

well she sure got out quick when that taser hit her...worked like a charm..
how stupid do you have to be..
she deserved every last volt..

[ChadTower]

DAMMIT.  I want to see this, but my work machine won't let me install Quicktime.  This may be my new favorite thing ever.

[Dartful Dodger]

Tasers are very dangerous, that is why the people of Illinois are grateful that Blowguyvitch is protecting us from other citizens trying to defend themselves with a taser.

Sat Jun 4 2005

FOID now required to purchase Stun Gun

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law on Friday legislation that will impose a criminal background check and 24-hour waiting period on people who buy stun guns and Tasers, the same restrictions already in place for gun purchases.

This law was the result of two people being tasered to death by the Chicago Police.

[Shape D.]

Same here I can't watch it, and I can't download it on my work computer. Or else i'd end up having the  IT  guys tasing me.

[monkeybomb]

Wow!  I just wtached the good parts like ten times.  I love seeing someone who has it coming get it.  I very rarely think it is funny when people get hurt.  I am a very empathetic person...but this is fantastic.

[ChadTower]

The chick seems to represent so many things that deserve to be tasered:  haughty model, indignant cell phone user, speeder, SUV driver.  I cannot wait to view this again and again.

[Jabba]

Man, she like moaned for 5 minutes of that clip. She got tassered twice!!! Not once but twice!

[ChadTower]

big girls don't cry they take all of it

     - lil kim

[JB]

Tasers are very dangerous, that is why the people of Illinois are grateful that Blowguyvitch is protecting us from other citizens trying to defend themselves with a taser.

Sat Jun 4 2005

FOID now required to purchase Stun Gun

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law on Friday legislation that will impose a criminal background check and 24-hour waiting period on people who buy stun guns and Tasers, the same restrictions already in place for gun purchases.

This law was the result of two people being tasered to death by the Chicago Police.

Hah. Cops abuse things, so they restrict the civilians. Way to go!

[DrewKaree]

This law was the result of two people being tasered to death by the Chicago Police.

Hah. Cops abuse things, so they restrict the civilians. Way to go!

Where in DD's post did you read that the police abused the use of tasers?  People read into stories what they want, so they make assumptions based on their own guesses.  Way to go! 

You haven't the faintest clue based on what was said of ANYTHING that happened that contributed to the deaths.  How old were the people who died?  How many times were they tasered?  Were there any issues that the taser exacerbated, causing the death?  Were there problems with their taser guns?  Good questions to ask.  You can thank me later for helping you through the logic process.

[AceTKK]

From watching the video it looks to me like the second blast was not necessary.  Then again, I wasn't there and it's not my call to make.

-Ace-

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where in DD's post did you read that the police abused the use of tasers?

Instead of being all hoity-toity about the "logic" process, why don't you enlighten us about the facts then? I'm curious myself, but since you're acting like you sat on the jury, I'll just wait for you to point me to the "tuth". When you ridicule without providing any further evidence, you aren't doing yourself any justice. Jus' sayin'.

Were you being tasered as you typed? 'Cuz it does seem kinda' spastic.

DD Wrote:

This law was the result of two people being tasered to death by the Chicago Police.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I can see where JB's inference came from. Whether or not he is correct, why is it up to JB to clarify DD's statement? I think you've got it all backwards dude.


mrC

[DrewKaree]

It's a pretty simple process.  Google.  Read the story.  Try it sometime.  Is he in your fanclub and that's why you're all in knots over my "ridicule"?  It's bad enough he didn't run through the basic steps, but you fall all over yourself to tell us you believe the same thing after reading DD's words yet my point still remains - and is correct about his post - that DD said nothing about abuse.  You read into it exactly what he did. 

Where did DD say the cops abused the use of the taser?  He didn't.  Point it out, instead of feigning ignorance.  You can't, because it isn't there.  The convolutions normally gone through might make this SEEM like it's pretty "straight forward", but just because you can infer whatever you wish, say whatever you wish, the words don't exist in his post and the stories don't say it either.  Demonstrate your ability to stop your knee from jerking by linking us to your "abuse" story instead of trying to read between the lines of every story.

Since you see things that don't exist as being "straight forward", let me put this down in as clear a fashion as I can for you:

It wasn't stated to be abuse, either by DD or the reports.  Next.

[JB]

This law was the result of two people being tasered to death by the Chicago Police.

Hah. Cops abuse things, so they restrict the civilians. Way to go!

Where in DD's post did you read that the police abused the use of tasers?  People read into stories what they want, so they make assumptions based on their own guesses.  Way to go! 

You haven't the faintest clue based on what was said of ANYTHING that happened that contributed to the deaths.  How old were the people who died?  How many times were they tasered?  Were there any issues that the taser exacerbated, causing the death?  Were there problems with their taser guns?  Good questions to ask.  You can thank me later for helping you through the logic process.

Here's what I see.
Cops kill 2 people with tasers. Law is passed restricting availability of tasers to civilians, which wasn't even the problem.

[crashwg]

That was friggin cool!  She so had that comming!

On a not so related note, has anyone else seen the video of the bull being tazered with what I assume is a special "live stock" tazer?  It falls over and looks like rigamortise has set in long ago it is so stiff!  I was amazed.  Here, take a look!

[TOK]

How do you suppose the aftermath would have been if the cop was white?

[Dartful Dodger]

Cops kill 2 people with tasers. Law is passed restricting availability of tasers to civilians, which wasn't even the problem.

To add to that, in Illinois it's always been illegal to carry a taser, so now you need a gun card and a background check to buy a tool for home use only, that is only effective at short distances, and against a single home invader that is wearing light clothing, plus you only get one shot.

The people that died weren't old; they had existing heart conditions that the police officers had no way to know about.  The reason it became a big deal is that those two people died within one week of each other.  It wasn't the officers fault those people died, but I

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How do you suppose the aftermath would have been if the cop was white?

The cop that tassered her *was* white. The cop that came in later (after she was tassered) was black.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's a pretty simple process.  Google.  Read the story.  Try it sometime.  Is he in your fanclub and that's why you're all in knots over my "ridicule"?

It has nothing to do with that. JB's "mr.C FanClub" membership had lapsed months ago, he's behind on his dues. It has everything to do with you jumping down people's throats for not having "the faintest clue" about the story, all while *not* providing any clues at all. Let alone faint ones. It's kinda' funny really. What? Doesn't Glenn Beck have a link about it somewhere for you to parrot?

It wasn't stated to be abuse, either by DD or the reports.  Next.

So where's the proof? Link? Are we supposed to just take your word now? I've taken the time to actually email contacts for stories I've put forth (just ask ChadTower), the least you could do (unless you're feigning outrage again) is provide a link backing up your claim.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Leave me out of this one, thanks.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Leave me out of this one, thanks.

Fine. Your fanclub membership is revoked now too. Sorry no refunds, even though you paid through 2006.


mrC

[ChadTower]

Then give me my boot back.

[Dartful Dodger]

So where's the proof? Link? Are we supposed to just take your word now?

I was on vacation in Vegas when I heard about these two events.

[Stingray]

No one should be outraged about Illinois taser laws, because it's a useless home defense tool.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I could give somebody a pretty nasty knock on the noggin with one if you let me have a good swing with it.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, the video certainly, IMHO, doesn't support the case that cops *don't* abuse the use of tasers.

I mean, haven't we all seen the fairly popular video where the white dude, after being pulled over in his van for speeding, screams obscenities at the trooper for like 10 mins, tears the ticket up, throws it in the cops face...who then proceeds to write the guy another ticket for littering?

It demonstrates that cops don't always HAVE to resort to force immediately. This guy (in the taser video) tells her he's going to taser her three times, but only in a span of about 10-20secs. It's pretty clear she didn't even understand what a taser WAS. She thought it was a gun. So she freaks out. He could have just easily said, "I am going to zap you with 50,000 volts if you don't move now."

To me, the cop in this video uses it too quickly (ie: timeframe)...sure he tells her to exit the vehicle, but it's apparent she is afraid, so she makes a phone call. Might she be exploiting the fear held by the black community, the fear of overzealous white officers? Maybe. But it's not like there isn't precedent for her to fear excessive force. Especially NOW...I'm mean, she gets tasered TWICE for giving the cop some sh!t. Was he EVER in danger? Don't think so.

Did see deserve to be arrested? Yes. Did she give the cop reason to be frustrated? Yes. Did she deserve to be tasered TWICE? Not in my opinion.

I'm all for the use of tasers, in fact, the video is funny to watch. I just think this cop could have handled the situation a little better, all without the need to use such force.

I wouldn't be surprised if she gets a hefty payout from her lawsuit.

EDIT: Look at the damn thing. No wonder she thought he was going to shoot her.



mrC

[Stingray]

Woo! That's cool!

<stormtrooper voice>THERE'S ONE, SET FOR STUN!</stormtrooper voice>

-S

[monkeybomb]

I think there needs to be a point where someone gets tased.  To me she hit it.

She was completely defiant in every way.  It's easy for us to say he wasn't in danger.  But the first thing she does is open the door.  To a cop that is a threat.  Then she doesn't close it when he asks.  That sets the tone.  Then she does her thing with the attitude (not taserable to me).  But when she is sitting there on the phone, what should the guy have done?  Should he set a precident for arrests at the convinence of crimminals.  She also has a lit cigarette.  Should he wait for that to end up in his eye?

I think it is so easy to say what cops should do, but so hard to be a cop!!  There are jobs open in Los Angeles that our city can't fill.  Your welcome to apply. 

I also think there is nothing to discuss in term of race here.  But I believe in attitude profiling (TM).  Let me assure you this atitude crosses race without hesitation.   If you worked in south central Los Angeles (like I do) you would know where this was going and where it comes from.  She was NEVER going to simply do what she was supossed to.  The officer also claims that the women swung at the other cop.  I can't confirm or deny that, but this woman has no credability, because she lies right on the video. 

As for the paper guy, I haven't seen it.  But if that cop felt in danger then hit that guy too!

[ChadTower]

Everyone driving without a license should be tasered, even if they cooperate.

[Stingray]

Everyone driving without a license should be tasered, even if they cooperate.

Add driving with no insurance to that list as well.

-S

[ChadTower]

Drunk drivers should be tasered every 15 minutes until they sober up, and THEN arrested.

[Stingray]

Drunk drivers should be tasered every 15 minutes until they sober up, and THEN arrested.

They're likely to puke before they sober up. Not that I have a problem with that, I just don't want to get any on me.

-S

[ChadTower]

Is puke a conductor?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think it is so easy to say what cops should do, but so hard to be a cop!!  There are jobs open in Los Angeles that our city can't fill.  Your welcome to apply.

Agreed. But I won't be applying in L.A., can't stand the place. I know enough about what a cop goes through since I have a few buddies that are cops....in Detroit. So, it might not be South Central, but it sure ain't DisneyLand.

My original point is derived from the slew of articles in the Palm Beach Post, which seem to support that idea that cops are using tasers all too frequently, and often without merit.

Now, I know this flies in the face of the idea that if cops ran around tasing people for just about any reason, like our resident toughguy and "keyboard commando" ChadTower suggests, we'd somehow have nothing short of a Utopia, right?

To me, however, it points to the proclivity for the abuse of power, since, as cops are given "less lethal" means to arrest people, they seem to be using them *more often*...again, as the Palm Beach Post's investigation seems to suggest, that's exactly what seems to be happening in their area. I'm not sure it speaks for all cities, but I know we had a girl killed by an errant gas canister fired by police here in Boston, after the Sox won the World Series. There was no reason to fire it, yet they did and someone died because of it.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Bottom line for me (from the PB Post):

"Police chiefs are moving with urgency to develop countywide standards on the use of Taser stun guns."

Uh....yeah, that's probably a good idea. I support that.

[ChadTower]

She was NOT killed by an errant gas cannister.

[monkeybomb]

Mr C - I'm sure detroit cops are very familiar with the problems of south central. 

I was more talking about the video than all that reading required for the entire report.  I'm sure you're right about the increase use of non leathal means.  But some of that may come with an increase of people like this one.

And most importantly - Would you put a link to dictionary.com in your sig, if you are going to continue being a vocabulry show off.  for real

[ChadTower]

If I'm a cop, and a person is not cooperating, and reaching around their car like she was, I'm going to taser them every time.  All it takes is one loony with a pistol to end your day way quicker than you wanted it ended.

[CCM]

haven't we all seen the fairly popular video where the white dude, after being pulled over in his van for speeding, screams obscenities at the trooper for like 10 mins, tears the ticket up, throws it in the cops face...who then proceeds to write the guy another ticket for littering?

and haven't we all seen the videos where the officer approaches a car he's just pulled over and gets shot by the driver?  Or the videos where the suspect pulls over, then speeds off, nearly running the officer over?

, but it's apparent she is afraid, so she makes a phone call. Might she be exploiting the fear held by the black community, the fear of overzealous white officers?

You say it was apparent she was afriad, I heard no fear in her voice only defiance and indifference towards what the officer was telling her to do.

Was he EVER in danger? Don't think so.

Easy for you to say while you're sitting in front of your computer.  How is the officer supposed to know that she doesn't have a weapon, or that she isn't going to put her SUV in gear and try to speed off, possibly  injuring the officer?



The bottom line is, if you are pulled over, do what the officer tells you to do , and everything will be fine.  The officer is well within his rights to use force if a subject is resisting. 

[dek]

It demonstrates that cops don't always HAVE to resort to force immediately. This guy (in the taser video) tells her he's going to taser her three times, but only in a span of about 10-20secs. It's pretty clear she didn't even understand what a taser WAS. She thought it was a gun. So she freaks out. He could have just easily said, "I am going to zap you with 50,000 volts if you don't move now."

To me, the cop in this video uses it too quickly (ie: timeframe)...sure he tells her to exit the vehicle, but it's apparent she is afraid, so she makes a phone call. Might she be exploiting the fear held by the black community, the fear of overzealous white officers? Maybe. But it's not like there isn't precedent for her to fear excessive force. Especially NOW...I'm mean, she gets tasered TWICE for giving the cop some sh!t. Was he EVER in danger? Don't think so.


mrC

Immediately? Break down the video

He pulls her over for speeding and malfunctioning brake lights. IMMEDIATELY *SHE* is beligerant and hostile towards the officer. First thing she does is open her door, which you are never supposed to do. He asks her to close her door, she doesn't, and the first thing out of her mouth is "What are you pulling me over for?" He says "For speeding, close your door please" then she says? "But you were driving" his response "Yeah I was driving, close the door" she says "I don't have to close my door!"

[Dartful Dodger]

Anybody who posts a reply that can't fit in a 800x600 monitor with normal sized text should be tasered.

In the nuts.

[monkeybomb]

In the nuts.

Dude that's harsh....just the right one.

[DrewKaree]

What? Doesn't Glenn Beck have a link about it somewhere for you to parrot?

I'll look, and if he does, I'll certainly pass it along to you.  Glad to see you're starting to look for his opinion on issues too, it's a refreshing bit of sense I see you starting to adopt!

So where's the proof? Link? Are we supposed to just take your word now? I've taken the time to actually email contacts for stories I've put forth (just ask ChadTower), the least you could do (unless you're feigning outrage again) is provide a link backing up your claim.

My claim is a negative.  There was no abuse.  You are the one claiming abuse.  The burden of proof showing abuse by the cops lies with you.  Again, I say - NEXT!

I'm quite sure you can fool many with trying to make the burden of proof that there was no abuse by the cops my responsibility.  The statement was, and still is - DD's post never said a word about abuse.

The challenge still lies with you.  POINT TO WHERE DD SAID THE COPS ABUSED THE TASER!

Are you purposefully being ignorant, or can't figure out how to get on the winning side?  Demonstrate where DD said there was taser abuse by the cops.  Find your news story where it states the cops abused the use of tasers in the story.  I'll even help you out.  Try entering several key words into Google - the stories litter page after page.  Try these terms, shamelessly stolen from DD's post - "taser""Chicago""death" - I even put them into quotes for you so you can cut and paste.

The charge of abuse is agreed to by you, therefore the burden to demonstrate the words in DD's post or reports lie with you.  I know you're used to just throwing out baseless claims - as you did yet again with your reply to my specific points refuting your argument - but the correct point has been made by me, and your baseless charges need to be backed up with proof, unless it's just another example of you needing fix-a-flat to stop the hot air from escaping. 

Either delete all your posts agreeing with the abuse assessment, or try to follow the debate process and back up your charges.  People can read DD's post, read my factual dissection of it re: charges of abuse, and agree that I'm right, or look for information that abuse DID happen.  Telling me it's my responsibility to prove they DIDN'T abuse the tasers is simply ignorance of the presentation I made.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.  We're all stocked up here.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anybody who posts a reply that can't fit in a 800x600 monitor with normal sized text should be tasered.

In the nuts.

Anyone that still has a monitor set at 800x600, should be tasered. In the nuts.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

[DrewKaree]

Show us the news reports or DD's words speaking of abuse, which is what was being "ridiculed". 

It's the only reason you have an issue with me, because it is the basis for said "ridicule".  I made a correct point.  You've countered with the "inference" gambit.

NEXT!


(this could go on all weekend I may have to pause for stretches to clear my head of the senseless babble you're spouting....heading to the auction may just do it)

Have I said it yet?

NEXT!

[Jabba]

Up here in Canaeda we don't use dem dare tasers, we open the back door and let the beaver out.....Yikes, run away, run away, its the scary beaver, aaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Stops em dead every time 

[ChadTower]

Anyone that still has a monitor set at 800x600, should be tasered. In the nuts.   

There are many laptops still out there that can't do more than that.  It is still the standard for web design.  It is a reasonable resolution.

[Zakk]

:whew: had to do a lot of scrolling on that last post, it was longer than the video!!


My $.02

[danny_galaga]

i dunno why shes complaining. its america, the option would have been to be shot 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I've had this taser video on my HD for a while now...certainly goes a long way to showing how much one of these damn things actually hurts....plus it's pretty hilarious to watch.

http://www.finkmedia.com/vault/Taser_Volunteers.mpeg (Video)

[danny_galaga]

I've had this taser video on my HD for a while now...certainly goes a long way to showing how much one of these damn things actually hurts....plus it's pretty hilarious to watch.

http://www.finkmedia.com/vault/Taser_Volunteers.mpeg (Video)

hey, has the guy in your avatar been tasered? if so, maybe id rather be shot 

[Tailgunner]

Geez guys, get a room already.


As to the video, the only thing I think the cop should've done differently was inform her she was under arrest for driving on a suspended license when he came back to the vehicle. There's a chance she might have complied without being tasered had she known she was being arrested.

[JB]

Show us the news reports or DD's words speaking of abuse, which is what was being "ridiculed". 

Actually, I believe I originally said it was abuse.

Which was admittedly not an appropriate use of the word, as no actual abuse took place.
I was struck by the idiocy of the law, and spoke unduly harshly.

[ChadTower]

As to the video, the only thing I think the cop should've done differently was inform her she was under arrest for driving on a suspended license when he came back to the vehicle. There's a chance she might have complied without being tasered had she known she was being arrested.

He DID inform her, to the point that she yelled it into the phone.  Watch it again.

[Zakk]

If the guy on the other end of the phone had any sense he was screaming "put the damn phone down and get the ___ out of the car!"

[Tailgunner]

He DID inform her, to the point that she yelled it into the phone.  Watch it again.

Watched it several times to make sure, and my original comment still stands.

Watching the timecodes at the upper right:

Officer approaches the vehicle after learning her license is suspended.  7:54:52

Officer removes handcuffs and opens car door. 7:55:06

Officer tasers suspect. 7:55:28

Suspect communicates her predicament to every dog in the neighborhood. 7:55:30 through 7:59:10

Officer informs suspect why she's being arrested. 7:59:32


I find it insteresting if you listen to the training sargent's commentary of the arrest segment,  he says the officer told her why she's being arrested when he first pulled out the cuffs. I think the video indicates otherwise. 

[Zakk]

Hmm, I watched it again :snicker: and I do think you're technically right, he did not say "I AM ARRESTING YOU", however, the woman had no doubt in her mind what was up.  She's yelling "they're arresting me, they're tying to arrest me", so it's not like she was completely in the dark about what was going on, I think she was just a difficult person, and doesn't like being told what to do, especially by the pole-eece.

However, you were right about the time stamp, and perhaps he should have stated that she was under arrest.  I've been arrested before, but each time I was too drunk to remember 'when' they told me I was under arrest, but I was completely aware that I was being arrested, let me tell you (even when I was 4 times over the legal limit!)

[Tailgunner]

I agree, she even told the person on the phone "He's arresting me!"

Part of the problem as I see it is she thinks it's for speeding/no seatbelt/cracked windshield/busted taillight and is a bogus arrest since she's under the assumption he can't legally use a radar gun while driving. 


Driving on a suspended license is an guaranteed ride in a police car, and she changed her tune rather quickly when he told her why she was being arrested. I just think she might have done so without being tasered had he said so up front.

That said, I do think her 'tude earned her a tasering on general principal.

[DrewKaree]

I agree, she even told the person on the phone "He's arresting me!"

Part of the problem as I see it is she thinks it's for speeding/no seatbelt/cracked windshield/busted taillight and is a bogus arrest since she's under the assumption he can't legally use a radar gun while driving. 

Driving on a suspended license is an guaranteed ride in a police car, and she changed her tune rather quickly when he told her why she was being arrested. I just think she might have done so without being tasered had he said so up front.

Do you believe she somehow didn't know her license was suspended?  I've had mine suspended twice, and in both cases, not only was ample warning given to me PRIOR to the court case that would result in my suspension, but the suspensions triggered such a flurry of paperwork that you'd have to be a blind fool not to realize it was coming or had happened.

I'm guessing she was fully aware of the fact her license was suspended before Ossifer Frenly was, and has no respect for authoritah!  Cartman woulda wacked her too.

[missioncontrol]

Eh............

She deserved it...........

Respect the authoritah............

[Tailgunner]

Do you believe she somehow didn't know her license was suspended?  I've had mine suspended twice, and in both cases, not only was ample warning given to me PRIOR to the court case that would result in my suspension, but the suspensions triggered such a flurry of paperwork that you'd have to be a blind fool not to realize it was coming or had happened.

I'm guessing she was fully aware of the fact her license was suspended before Ossifer Frenly was, and has no respect for authoritah!  Cartman woulda wacked her too.

She knew it, but she didn't know he knew it. Otherwise she'd have admitted as such when he asked for it when he first pulled her over.

On a side note, I had mine suspended in the mid 80's. My job at the time required me to travel all over the county fixing the mistakes our company's installers had made. My boss hired a driver/helper for me, who  turned out to have a suspended license as well. We found this out after getting stopped, I admitted my license was suspended while my driver didn't. He got to spend the night in jail, where the officer told me the system had no record of my license being suspended.

[AlanS17]

Is puke a conductor?

You better believe it!

And IMO she got what she deserved.

[missioncontrol]

Slideshow of 74 year old man getting tasered:


http://www.local10.com/slideshowarchive/index.html

(link half way down)

[dek]

I'd love to see the video of that. You try and pick a fight with the police, 99.9% of the time you are going to lose.

[btoddkelley]

There was absolutely no reason to use that level of force. It TRAFFIC fo gods sake. If he had stopped a felon I could completely support his use of force when the suspect failed to comply. I
      am as conservative as you can get when it comes to the law (In fact i would like to be the guy that flips the swich on capital cases!) but i believe the current traffic system is nothing more than a revenue system that abuses the public. Ploicy makers recognise they can use the police to enforce laws that raise revenue, rather than actually reducing crime.
     Then a cop with an attitude comes along and doesn't like it when someone doesn't jump instantly at his command so he tasers them. The classic little ---tallywhacker--- who got beat up when he was a kid. He should be tasered then fired.

Todd

[Zakk]

http://www.local10.com/slideshowarchive/index.html

Todd, go to that link and watch the slideshow of "drunk driver jumps curb and runs down man in front yard"  before you make any claims about how unimportant traffic duty is.

[btoddkelley]

I am not talking about drunk driving. (which is not an infraction) i am talking about general traffic laws.(infractions) Actually, i would be ok with the enforcement of traffic laws as long as the money went anywhere but to government. American hart asscoiation, Cancer society, take you pick.
When traffic laws can be used to subsidise the tax base, it create bad incentives.

Todd

[Zakk]

I got 30 days in jail for driving under suspension, plus add 2 years license suspension and $1000 fine.  Seems like it's a pretty serious offence.  You have to also agree that since her license was revoked, it was done so for a reason.  The courts were trying to say that she should not have been on the road.  Failure to comply with such a court order is contempt.  She wasn't a victim in all of this by any stretch.

As for giving the money to charity, who decides what charity is most needy?  I don't think that you have put too much thought into this line of reasoning

[danny_galaga]

Part of the problem as I see it is she thinks it's for speeding/no seatbelt/cracked windshield/busted taillight and is a bogus arrest since she's under the assumption he can't legally use a radar gun while driving.

[Tailgunner]

Part of the problem as I see it is she thinks it's for speeding/no seatbelt/cracked windshield/busted taillight and is a bogus arrest since she's under the assumption he can't legally use a radar gun while driving. 

is this true? in australia they have radar-mounted cars and they certainly CAN book you while they are driving. they can clock you standing still, following you OR heading towards you. i was pretty sure they use american equipment...

They can here as well. She however claimed he couldn't when he first told her why he had pulled her over.

[btoddkelley]

I got 30 days in jail for driving under suspension, plus add 2 years license suspension and $1000 fine.

[HaRuMaN]

They should have tasered her still she stopped all that ---smurfing--- moaning, lol.

[jbox]

Study after study shows that is safer to drive 10 miles over the speed limit than the speed limit. (check to DOT data)

My understanding of physics, minute amount of common sense, and personal driving experiences would suggest otherwise. 

Could you please provide a link to these studies you have read, since I am afraid I find it difficult to believe this is true but for very specific circumstances (ie. 2am on a freeway)? 

[Shape D.]

Bottom line for me (from the PB Post)

this is a way better quote:

Eighty-seven women of child-bearing years were shocked, including three women who, after being shocked, said they were pregnant.

Those are mighty naughty tasers, getting women pregnant and whatnot.

[hyiu]

I have to say.... that woman DESERVES to be tasered....
She WANTED a scene right from the very beginning....

if she closed the car door, sit there, and hands on the steering wheel, and not b!tching about the officier, she would have just got ticket(s)....
be ploite and ask for a chance and maybe if she's lucky, she could get off with just got a warning.... (ok... I think she'll get 1 ticket.... but not tickets...)

generally, I think if you're within 10 mph of speed limit....
cops would not pull you over.... but if you're over... too bad....

[DrewKaree]

i am not saying officers should not stop people who are driving unsafely. it might suprise you to learn that if safety was the real reason for traffic laws then officers would ticket everyone who DRIVES the SPEED LIMIT. Study after study shows that is safer to drive 10 miles over the speed limit than the speed limit. (check to DOT data)

How would you define "driving unsafely"?  My definition includes someone who, knowing their priveledge to operate a motor vehicle has been suspended, decides to violate yet another law - effectively telling the officer pulling her over that she feels certain laws don't apply to her, perhaps giving him reason to think that she may feel she doesn't have to listen to him, causing the need for force to be used in order to gain control of the situation.

Maybe your definition of "driving unsafely" is different, but the entire time my license was suspended (both times), I was a bicycle-riding, bus-taking law-following member of society because I effed up royally, and had a fear of being taken to jail if I ever got caught thinking the laws pertaining to the priveledge of driving a motor vehicle didn't apply to me.

The chicken-egg thing you're speaking of doesn't apply to someone who willfully violates yet another motor vehicle law, and in essence, you're telling us all that it's alright to drive with a suspended license.  What if her license WAS suspended for a DUI/OUI/Whatever-your-state-calls-it-UI?  Does your stance still apply? 

I've got to go with Zakk on this one - you seem to have jumped in the boat without checking to see if there were oars in it first!



Hey, is there a setting on the tasers, because when Peale tasered the little woman, he musta had it set a bit high, it done turned all the young 'uns hair red!

[danny_galaga]

The chicken-egg thing you're speaking of

 

mmmm, tassered chicken eggs (",). time for lunch!

[danny_galaga]

Study after study shows that is safer to drive 10 miles over the speed limit than the speed limit. (check to DOT data)

My understanding of physics, minute amount of common sense, and personal driving experiences would suggest otherwise.

[danny_galaga]

Study after study shows that is safer to drive 10 miles over the speed limit than the speed limit. (check to DOT data)

My understanding of physics, minute amount of common sense, and personal driving experiences would suggest otherwise.

[JB]

My only guess is: Eveyrone around you is speeding. If you go the speed limit, someone's gonna ride your bumper untill you stop, then plow through it.

[xar256]

I personally think the speed limits are set at x amount under what the actual roadway is rated at, partially to safely account for those that feel driving 10 or 15 over the limit is ok. <Yes roadways have rated limits>.

If you're stupid enough to try to play up being a big brute with attitude with a cop in hopes he'll let you off because he's scared of a confrontation like this woman did...You reap what you sew...

And she deserved every juicy volt.   

I've got no sympathy at all for this kind of stupidity.  I'm beginning to think this non-lethal force is a bad idea...We seem to be actually trying to save the weak links in the gene pool with this technology...

Xar256

[jbox]

My only guess is: Eveyrone around you is speeding. If you go the speed limit, someone's gonna ride your bumper untill you stop, then plow through it.

Yes, I can see the title of the report now: "Reduced rear-end collisions found when drivers go faster than the cars behind them." Anyone got a contact number for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution?

Personally I've never been a fan of the peer pressure excuse, but p = mv^2 and canBeStupid(x) == isHuman(x) seem like two fairly constant laws around where I live (especially when x is the identity function).

[btoddkelley]

Study after study shows that is safer to drive 10 miles over the speed limit than the speed limit. (check to DOT data)

My understanding of physics, minute amount of common sense, and personal driving experiences would suggest otherwise.

[ChadTower]

The study is inherently skewed (aren't they all).  These are stats related to an individual driving 5-10mph over the speed limit, given that everyone is driving 5-10mph over the speed limit.  If you were to change the average speed of the average driver to the speed limit, and then repeat the study, you would find THAT to be safer.

All this study proves is that it is safer to drive at the average speed of those around you than it is to drive below it.  Get everyone to drive the speed limit, and that becomes the safest speed.

[btoddkelley]

I agree with your conclusion, it is SAFER to drive the average speed. If you read a little further you see that increasiing or decreasing speed limits do not cause drivers to change speed. Speed limits should be set to the average, not attempt to set one. this is why it is such a csh cow for government. Limits are set below the average making >50% of drivers subject to the speed limit tax.


Todd

[ChadTower]

I agree with your conclusion, it is SAFER to drive the average speed. If you read a little further you see that increasiing or decreasing speed limits do not cause drivers to change speed. Speed limits should be set to the average, not attempt to set one. this is why it is such a csh cow for government. Limits are set below the average making >50% of drivers subject to the speed limit tax.

The problem with that theory is that people do drive according to the speed limit.  They drive within the range for whatever they consider an acceptable fine if they get pulled over.  If someone is willing to pay a $150 fine, they are driving 80.  If they are willing to pay a $300 fine, they are driving 95.  If you raise the speed limit, the average speeds will go up accordingly.  The only thing stopping most people from going 85 on average is that they don't want to get hit with that $250 fine.  Raise the speed limit to 75 and reduce the fine, and they're going 85 all day long.

[RayB]

The problem with that theory is that people do drive according to the speed limit.

[btoddkelley]

I agree with your conclusion, it is SAFER to drive the average speed. If you read a little further you see that increasiing or decreasing speed limits do not cause drivers to change speed. Speed limits should be set to the average, not attempt to set one. this is why it is such a csh cow for government. Limits are set below the average making >50% of drivers subject to the speed limit tax.

The problem with that theory is that people do drive according to the speed limit.

[ChadTower]

The autobahn has no speed limit, making it unsuitable for comparison here.

[patrickl]

Actually the autobahn has a "soft" speed limit. If you drive over 130 you are to blame for any damage resulting from a crash you are involved in (even when it's not your fault) and I think the insurance companies give you grief if you drive over 130 (because of the higher bill of course). So you may not get a fine from the police, but you will be in financial trouble when you are in an accident.

I think it's more that speed limits will cap the higher speeds driven, but it has little effect on the average speed. People who drive fast will drive up to the speed they are willing to pay the fine for, but there is a much larger percentage of people who just drive at the "speed they feel safe at" and this is largely determined by the road itself (width, surface, visibility and such) and the perceived skill level of the driver. The much larger group of "safe drivers" will have a much bigger weight determining the average speed.

You see this on the autobahn too. There are only a few "low flyers" driving around at 200km/h (125mph) or faster. The majority drives at speeds somewhere around 130km/h (80mph).

[ChadTower]

So you may not get a fine from the police, but you will be in financial trouble when you are in an accident.

Uhm, if you get into an accident at 130mph, you won't care about fines.  You'll be dead.

[shmokes]

I'm not going to read that.

[patrickl]

So you may not get a fine from the police, but you will be in financial trouble when you are in an accident.

Uhm, if you get into an accident at 130mph, you won't care about fines.

[shmokes]

Chad, he's using the metric system.

[Zakk]

I actually got into an accident many years ago doing 120MPH in a VW bug!!  Nice souped up show bug.  We went off the road and hit a tree, flipped 4 times and left the ground 3 times.  We were pretty badly smashed up, but we sure didn't die (if we had hit the tree a bit differently we would have though).  The pictures I have are pretty cool, all the blood splattered around the interior, and the big lengthwise impression the tree made.  I learned a lot of things about driving 120mph that night (like find out first if the road turns into gravel at any point! 

Still, always wear your seltbelts kids, and DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

[DrewKaree]

Todd,

Why does the speed limit have anything to do with the fact that this woman was willfully violating motor vehicle laws by driving after her priveledge to operate a motor vehicle was suspended?

You've taken this from "too much force was used" to a study of how speed limits do or don't affect us.

Do you feel she was correct in operating a motor vehicle after her priveledge to do so was suspended?  She could drive anywhere from 1mph to 200mph, but she would have been doing so on a suspended license - breaking the law, in addition to the rest of the violations she was originally pulled over for.  The speed limit has nothing to do with her being tasered.

Sum ones been usin' der scattergun!

[jbox]

Why does the speed limit have anything to do with the fact that this woman was willfully violating motor vehicle laws by driving after her priveledge to operate a motor vehicle was suspended?

No, I'll be fair and say that I was goading him on in that regard. At the very least he was right to post the study he was referring to, though you are correct that us dissecting that study is probably OT for this particular thread. 

As for me, anyone who has to help cut these:

Out of this:

And then have to tell them:

About this:

Can pretty much use one of these:

On me anytime I refuse to respond to a reasonable request to perform any particular action which does not require me to risk breaking any laws, risk anyone else, risk property, etc...

I can't watch the video, but based on the other comments on this thread it sounds as though this woman was stupid. Cops don't let you off if you're being a jerk, so knowing full well she was breaking the law it would have been in her best interests to bat her eyelids and be sweet as pie, in the hopes that they would let her go before finding out more about her. 

Even in this tiny little rat-hole we call a city people still stab each other over the stupidest things. As a cop in a country with wide spread gun ownership and gun use I would very much not consider *anyone* to be "safe" when enclosed in a ready-made escape vehicle filled with who-knows-what.

EDIT: Sorry, 'disect' has two esses.

[btoddkelley]

Excellent question Drew. i will admit that the topic changed as we progress. Like i said before, i am as tuff on crime as you can get. i think being shot should be the hazzard of commiting a felony a felony. (Kansas use to have a fleeting felons law, if you committed a felony you could be LEGALLY shot!) .

[Tailgunner]

     i dont view traffic as something law enforcement should put very much emphasis on. In most cities it is always at the top of the priority list in the form of "reduce traffic accidents" which translates to "write more tickets". it is heavely enforced for no other reason than it generates revenue. The police  (mayor, city council depending on your form of governement) take advantage of the law abiding citizen rather than use policing resources to catch real criminals.

I don't quite agree with your premise here. Okay, traffic enforcement doesn't rate up there with catching serial killers, but that doesn't mean it's not worth bothering with. Without it you'd be surprised how quickly the transportation system breaks down into complete anarchy when people know the cops have better things to do.

Now if you want to argue about government using traffic enforcement to generate revenue, I'd mention my pet peeve, @#$^ red light cameras. Not that I've ever been ticketed by one, but the concept irks me to no end.

[ChadTower]

Chad, he's using the metric system.

mph is not metric, and he even did translate it to 200kmh.  How many Canadians have you ever met who don't know how to do that?

[fredster]

"...And for what it's worth Shmokes, I always have thought your comments were short-sighted and simplistic.  So I agree with you yet again!"

- Fredster

[RayB]

mph is not metric, and he even did translate it to 200kmh.

[Shape D.]

     i dont view traffic as something law enforcement should put very much emphasis on.

     There are a lot of useful purposes for trafic enforcement though. Many people die in the U.S. every year in traffic accidents. Typically because someone wasn't driving the way they should be, Intoxicated, speeding, or flat out not paying attention. reducing the ammount of officers watching for traffic violations would result in more people breaking those laws, and in turn create more accidents.

     Not to mention they use it as a way to catch other criminals. a bank robber would most likley trying to get away from the bank as fast as possible. catching someone speeding may help out in catching a burglar, murderer, drug traffiker, or some wacked out drunk guy who shouldn't be on the road.

   The reason this lady was confronted quickly is because she had a habit of "acting like she's above the law".  She had to commit at least a few offenses to originally get her liscense revoked, step one of non-compliance of the law. she drove her car agian with a revoked liscence, step two of non compliance. she then refused to get out of the car for the police officer and put down her phone, third step of non compliance. she deserved what she got.

  Now if she were a law abiding citisen, she:

A) Wouldn't have had her liscence suspended in the first place.
B) Wouldn't have been drivin on a suspended liscence.
C) She wouldn't have ben speeding and woulldn't have pulled over.
D) Would have complied with the officers request to get out of the vehicle and put her phone down.

She had many oportunities to avoid this sort of a confrontation. And didn't care enough to follow the guidlines set for everyone that are in place for her and our saftey.
 
  ~~~~~*

[ChadTower]

Read Patrick's post again, or stop playing dumb.

From patrick's post:

You see this on the autobahn too. There are only a few "low flyers" driving around at 200km/h (125mph) or faster.

That is what I was responding to, the 130 amount was just coincedental.

[patrickl]

I thought my point would be obvious, but I guess I need to explain.

Even at 130mph it's not a certainty that you will die from an accident. The speed difference during impact is what matters most. Hit a wall straight on at 130mph and yes you will die. But there are in general no stationary objects on highways. Even if there is a wall there then diving into a wall at 80mph is just as lethal. The autobahn is probably the safest type of highway in the world. It's actually engineered make it possible to safely drive at those high speeds. Other drivers are more alert too. I feel safer driving there at 130mph than on dutch roads at 130km/h (80mph) or on US roads at 60mph.

Maybe even more off topic, but this is something that always bothers me at those oval races too. The commentators will say "Wow he survived a crash into the wall at 200mph and he hasn't even gotten a headache". Usually that's complete bollocks. In fact it's more like the car skidded along the wall at 200mph. That's not the same as a 200mph impact straight into a wall.

But chad, seriously. I mentioned 130kmh and financial consequences in one sentence. This sentence you reply to (the 130 is sure death so you won't care about the financial consequences). It's clear you made a mistake with km/h and mph. No problem, but it's very tiring to see you try to get out from under a mistake like that. Admit it or just don't respond and it will die out.

[Dartful Dodger]

The woman was on one of those gossip shows last night.  I saw the preview, but I didn't get the name of the show, it was going to air at midnight. 

Did anyone see it?

Did she deserve to get tased?

[Tailgunner]

Maybe even more off topic, but this is something that always bothers me at those oval races too. The commentators will say "Wow he survived a crash into the wall at 200mph and he hasn't even gotten a headache". Usually that's complete bollocks. In fact it's more like the car skidded along the wall at 200mph. That's not the same as a 200mph impact straight into a wall.

Angle of impact is everything. It wasn't that long ago that NASCAR lost 4 drivers in a couple of years. As far as drivers walking away from wicked crashes without a headache, that's an illusion based apon the drivers being interviewed as their walking out of the infield care center and are still amped on adrenalin. You want to see reality, interview them the next morning as they're struggling to get out of bed.

[Bones]

I would like to be tassered at high speed.

[DrewKaree]

I would like to be tassered at high speed.

I would like to volunteer for the applicator position

[DrewKaree]

Upon careful consideration, I would like to pay for the priveledge of applying the "treatment" to ya, Bones!

[Daniel270]

and odds were she was on the cell phone the whole time...

one of my biggest pet peeves happens to be people driving while using the phone.......  and NO, driving slower does NOT make it ok.....

[jbox]

Yeah, I bet her license was suspended because she ran over a puppy! 
Or a little girl maybe?   
Or a little girl who was *walking* a puppy!     

(obviously not a pit bull puppy though) 

[ChadTower]

You're all assuming a multicar accident.  A lot of high speed accidents are single car.  Driver loses control, driver hits the dirty shoulder/curb, driver flips over 4 times, driver is thrown from the car or killed inside it.  Passengers die a lot of times too.

[missioncontrol]

^

bumped so I can remember to watch it at work tonight

[ChadTower]

Oh, this one!  Yeah, this was a great one.

[DrewKaree]

He's got a few....didn't check any of 'em out, but he's a BIG fan of the taser and the ass hats it's used on.

http://www.czabe.com/mediaclips/index.shtml?a=showclip&id=405

http://www.czabe.com/mediaclips/index.shtml?a=showclip&id=390

and then he's got the "unofficial" way cops would like to take all runners down

http://www.czabe.com/mediaclips/index.shtml?a=showclip&id=399

[ChadTower]

That last one is brutal.

[Dartful Dodger]

They claim the "Texan Take Down" was an accident.  Sort of like how people in hand cuffs "accidentally" fall down the stairs in Chicago police stations.

[ChadTower]

I bet you are constipated a lot, Dartful.

[missioncontrol]

great videos Drew that last one was great