Lawprof Teaches Taser Relations
Orin posts this video of a man in Utah who was speeding. Not your typical perp committing DWB or DWH as would give rise to the compulsory need for force in New York (or New Jersey), but a nicely dressed white male who, even in his anger, spoke to the officer in full sentences and didn't curse once.
1. The officer rightfully felt "threatened" because the man put his hands in his pockets.
2. Disobeying a police officer is itself reason enough to taser (if not shoot) someone.
3. Refusal to sign a ticket gave rise to cause to arrest, and force is part of being arrested.
4. The driver was "resisiting arrest" and had to be stopped.
How do they explain these views. Consider these examples:
The driver did not submit to the police officer's lawful authority. He did not control his anger. He did not comply with any instructions. He tried to control the situation. He kept yapping and refusing to comply even after the officer pulled the taser out. Under these circumstances, tasering was a reasonable way to bring the driver under control.
Nobody likes a "yapper". And this one:
No one is saying that police should be able to taser you "just cuz." The guy in the video reached for his pocket. Should the cop wait to see if a gun is pulled out first? That would be brilliant. Let's draft a policy that requires a cop to allow a gun to be actually pulled on him before he can use a non-lethal device. No one got shot. No one suffered any long-term health effects. This is not one of the many bad examples of officers using tasers
As for me, this comment pretty much sums it up:
Actually, tasering people who annoy you for fun is one of the sacred privileges that comes with being a police officer. Despite the fact that for some people with certain health conditions, a tasering can be fatal.
What is most striking about the comments that expressed that tasering was reasonable is the effort put into justifying the police officer's conduct. This is important to criminal defense lawyers because we forget that not everyone views police conduct with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many people, even most, will contort all reason to find a way to approve of their cops. Remember, believing is seeing.
Trackbacks
-
12/11/2007 7:14 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Orin Kerr, GW criminal
-
12/11/2007 7:32 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Orin Kerr, GW criminal
-
12/11/2007 8:16 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Orin Kerr, GW criminal
-
12/19/2007 9:42 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
In an op-ed in
-
12/19/2007 9:42 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
In an op-ed in
-
1/11/2008 2:43 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Very funny stuff happening over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
-
1/11/2008 2:44 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Very funny stuff happening over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
-
1/11/2008 2:46 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Very funny stuff happening over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
-
1/12/2008 9:05 PM
Simple Justice wrote:
Very funny stuff happening over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
-
2/1/2008 7:00 AM
Simple Justice wrote:
From Jim Chen at MoneyLaw, one of the few, the proud, the brave, who admit that the grand, ivory towers could use the occasional scrubbing, brings us this video of Jesse, the Utah Law student.
#1 Kudos to you for reading Volokh comments and libertarian posts so I don't have to
#2 This video made me ill and this case is a perfect example of why cops scare me--too much power, too much testosterone--and many times--minimal brain power to support the rest of it.
#3 We visit Utah nearly every year since my husband is from round about those parts. The couple looked pretty darn Mormon to me. And, you know those Mormons--criminal types, each and every one of 'em. They may look clean cut, they may not drink alcohol, caffeine or smoke cigarettes--they may dress "modestly" per their religious mandates and attend church for at least 3 hours each week--many times more than that. But, it's all a ruse. They're hard core criminals, every one of 'em. The extra "modest" clothing that they wear is just so that they can conceal guns and drugs. All those kids in their families? Just another ruse to "fool" cops into thinking that they're just law abiding types. That what the kid in the car was--a decoy.
Those young Mormon couples with lotsa kids--hard.core.criminals.
Tony Soprano, step aside. You've met your match with Utah Mormons.
Not.
Reply to this
What I thought was most interesting about the video was the cop's response when the guy asked why he was being arrested - "Because you refused to follow m y instructions" or something like that. Guess refusing to sign the ticket is a huge threat
Reply to this
Hey Mark. Good to see your new posts at your blog, Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog.
The question of threatening conduct, like our good old friend, furtive gestures, appears to be all about whose side you take. The commenters who insisted that it was reasonable because he might have had a gun in his pocket only saw potential to justify the cops force. They never questioned the reasonableness of their own assumptions, like the missing bulge to suggest a weapon.
One person commented that you have to look at this from the perspective of a cop, who finds everything suspicious and a threat. True.
But another commented that you have to look at this from the perspective of a normal person who is stopped for speeding, who has no reason to suspect that putting his hands in his pocket, a perfectly normal thing to do, would be interpreted as a threat, or that talking to a police officer like a normal person who is not inclined to be docile and simply take orders would give rise to being tasered. Also true.
Who wins? Obviously, the one with the weapons.
Reply to this