To repeat what I said in a similar thread two years ago:
This is getting ridiculous. These things were introduced to be an alternative to deadly force, not to be some modern day cattle prod when people don't immediately respond to your commands.
Were these incidents where they would have shot the person if they didn't have the taser? I don't think so.
These fat, lazy cops no longer no how to take someone into custody without them.
My friend jokes that there should be a rule about hiring cops, anyone who wants to be one should not be considered.
========================
What's frightening today is more people now take the attitude of she had it coming. It's indicative of society being "Brought into line."
Does anyone here think this woman would have been shot before the era of the taser?
Regarding whether or not it is an arrestable matter if you refuse to sign a ticket in Texas, I have read it both ways. Some say it is, some, say it isn't. Could someone please post the actual TX law on this?
This is getting ridiculous. These things were introduced to be an alternative to deadly force, not to be some modern day cattle prod when people don't immediately respond to your commands.
Were these incidents where they would have shot the person if they didn't have the taser? I don't think so.
These fat, lazy cops no longer no how to take someone into custody without them.
My friend jokes that there should be a rule about hiring cops, anyone who wants to be one should not be considered.
========================
What's frightening today is more people now take the attitude of she had it coming. It's indicative of society being "Brought into line."
Does anyone here think this woman would have been shot before the era of the taser?
Regarding whether or not it is an arrestable matter if you refuse to sign a ticket in Texas, I have read it both ways. Some say it is, some, say it isn't. Could someone please post the actual TX law on this?
had to bring this back LOL
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzkd_m4ivmc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Jay, I always enjoy reading your posts on the law. You are one of my favorite posters. I really wish you would post more.
For those that think this lady "had it coming", is it ok for me to tase people who get pissy with me for the same reason or is this just something police should be able to do?
In the state of Texas, police can place a motorist under arrest for any misdemeanor violation.
Her initial refusal to sign the traffic ticket placed her in misdemeanor violation of Texas law.
The above became legal precedent in 2001 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that an Austin-area woman who had been arrested during an otherwise routine traffic stop (seatbelt violation) was without recourse when she filed a suit claiming the arrest was unwarranted.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
Last edited:
Moral of the story.....When in a traffic stop, do whatever it takes to end the encounter peacefully and as quickly as possible (without consenting to a search).
Any and all possible police misconduct can be better dealt with later.
Also not a bad idea to carry your own video camera (and or phone with easy audio/video capability) to immediately begin taping all your personal encounters with police.
Not that the latter idea would have helped the foul-mouthed granny here. Would have only further undermined her dishonest claims about the encounter.
Any and all possible police misconduct can be better dealt with later.
Also not a bad idea to carry your own video camera (and or phone with easy audio/video capability) to immediately begin taping all your personal encounters with police.
Not that the latter idea would have helped the foul-mouthed granny here. Would have only further undermined her dishonest claims about the encounter.
I think the city attorney would advise settling this for 50k right now, no hesitation.
A jury would certainly lean to the old lady ( I believe), over the cop. Most people have had some negative experience with Police at some time in their lives... like a ticket for speeding not much over the limit, no seatbelt fine, a petty citation for a "California" stop, or other minor BS stuff.
Bottomline is the cop zapped a little old lady ( a bitchy one, for sure), when he could have just cuffed her, I don't buy the argument about possibly breaking her arm, BTW.
If it was me, I'd just sign the ticket...and go to court and fight it.
side note:
Does everybody in Texas drive a pickup truck ? I'm surprised she wasn't driving at least an F-250 dualie !
A jury would certainly lean to the old lady ( I believe), over the cop. Most people have had some negative experience with Police at some time in their lives... like a ticket for speeding not much over the limit, no seatbelt fine, a petty citation for a "California" stop, or other minor BS stuff.
Bottomline is the cop zapped a little old lady ( a bitchy one, for sure), when he could have just cuffed her, I don't buy the argument about possibly breaking her arm, BTW.
If it was me, I'd just sign the ticket...and go to court and fight it.
side note:
Does everybody in Texas drive a pickup truck ? I'm surprised she wasn't driving at least an F-250 dualie !
Latest coverage from this morning's Austin American-Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/06/12/0612tasered.html
TRAVIS COUNTY
District attorney's office plans to investigate Taser case
Deputy constable's use of force on 72-year-old woman could go to grand jury.
By Claire Osborn
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Travis County district attorney's office will review an incident in which a deputy constable used a Taser on a 72-year-old woman during a May traffic stop.
"I have talked with Constable McCain, and he is completing his investigation and will present it to our office," Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said, referring to Precinct 3 Constable Richard McCain. "We will review it, as we do other matters involving use of force, for possible presentation to the grand jury."
Lehmberg said she expects McCain's report in the next few days.
The video of the Tasering incident has been on Yahoo News, YouTube, Twitter, CBSNews.com, the Huffington Post and newspaper Web sites from San Francisco to Buffalo, N.Y. The comment board for the story on Statesman.com had more than 800 posts by Thursday evening.
Deputy Constable Christopher Bieze pulled over Kathryn Winkfein 's 2004 Toyota pickup on Texas 71 in western Travis County on May 11 for allegedly going 60 mph in a 45-mph construction zone. Winkfein, of Granite Shoals, a 4-foot-11 great-grandmother, told Bieze in the video that she wouldn't sign the citation. That led to a confrontation in which Bieze threatened to use his Taser stun gun on Winkfein unless she complied with his orders. She dared him to use it, and he eventually did.
Winkfein was later jailed and charged with resisting arrest. She has since been released.
Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton released a statement Wednesday after the phone lines at his office were flooded by callers who mistakenly thought the sheriff's office had jurisdiction over the actions of constables.
Constables are independently elected and don't report to the sheriff's office, he said.
Hamilton also said he didn't agree with Bieze's actions as shown on the video.
Sgt. Maj. Gary Griffin of the constable's office said Thursday that Bieze did the right thing in dealing with a person who refused to be arrested and who put them both in harm's way.
Griffin said he is confident Lehmberg's office will come to the same conclusion that the constable's office has regarding the incident.
"She was affecting a lawful arrest and was physically noncompliant," Griffin said of Winkfein. "I don't see an offense."
McCain could not be reached by phone Thursday for a reaction to Hamilton's comments. In an e-mailed statement, McCain said that "Winkfein has had similar run-ins with police officers in Burnet County, where she has refused to take the ticket and just drove off." That information could not be confirmed Thursday.
Winkfein's son said she had no comment Thursday. Her lawyer did not return a phone call.
The constable's office has the same use-of-force policy as the Travis sheriff's office, Precinct 3 Deputy Constable Stacy Suits said.
There are no restrictions on the age of a person on whom the Taser can be used, according to policy documents.
Taser International recommends not using the weapon on people who are physically infirm or elderly.
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/06/12/0612tasered.html
TRAVIS COUNTY
District attorney's office plans to investigate Taser case
Deputy constable's use of force on 72-year-old woman could go to grand jury.
By Claire Osborn
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Travis County district attorney's office will review an incident in which a deputy constable used a Taser on a 72-year-old woman during a May traffic stop.
"I have talked with Constable McCain, and he is completing his investigation and will present it to our office," Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg said, referring to Precinct 3 Constable Richard McCain. "We will review it, as we do other matters involving use of force, for possible presentation to the grand jury."
Lehmberg said she expects McCain's report in the next few days.
The video of the Tasering incident has been on Yahoo News, YouTube, Twitter, CBSNews.com, the Huffington Post and newspaper Web sites from San Francisco to Buffalo, N.Y. The comment board for the story on Statesman.com had more than 800 posts by Thursday evening.
Deputy Constable Christopher Bieze pulled over Kathryn Winkfein 's 2004 Toyota pickup on Texas 71 in western Travis County on May 11 for allegedly going 60 mph in a 45-mph construction zone. Winkfein, of Granite Shoals, a 4-foot-11 great-grandmother, told Bieze in the video that she wouldn't sign the citation. That led to a confrontation in which Bieze threatened to use his Taser stun gun on Winkfein unless she complied with his orders. She dared him to use it, and he eventually did.
Winkfein was later jailed and charged with resisting arrest. She has since been released.
Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton released a statement Wednesday after the phone lines at his office were flooded by callers who mistakenly thought the sheriff's office had jurisdiction over the actions of constables.
Constables are independently elected and don't report to the sheriff's office, he said.
Hamilton also said he didn't agree with Bieze's actions as shown on the video.
Sgt. Maj. Gary Griffin of the constable's office said Thursday that Bieze did the right thing in dealing with a person who refused to be arrested and who put them both in harm's way.
Griffin said he is confident Lehmberg's office will come to the same conclusion that the constable's office has regarding the incident.
"She was affecting a lawful arrest and was physically noncompliant," Griffin said of Winkfein. "I don't see an offense."
McCain could not be reached by phone Thursday for a reaction to Hamilton's comments. In an e-mailed statement, McCain said that "Winkfein has had similar run-ins with police officers in Burnet County, where she has refused to take the ticket and just drove off." That information could not be confirmed Thursday.
Winkfein's son said she had no comment Thursday. Her lawyer did not return a phone call.
The constable's office has the same use-of-force policy as the Travis sheriff's office, Precinct 3 Deputy Constable Stacy Suits said.
There are no restrictions on the age of a person on whom the Taser can be used, according to policy documents.
Taser International recommends not using the weapon on people who are physically infirm or elderly.
Granite Shoals, a 4-foot-11 great-grandmother,
4'11" 72 year old great granny
Cop: Your honor: I couldn't overpower this old bitch, without endangering my own life, so I had no choice but to TASER her. Simply handcuffing her by force was not an option... without some backup units present, or a SWAT team ! I swear she was meaner than Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies !
Settle this quick, or Granny will win big in a jury trial, and I agree this is exactly what she was looking for, once stopped.
4'11" 72 year old great granny
Cop: Your honor: I couldn't overpower this old bitch, without endangering my own life, so I had no choice but to TASER her. Simply handcuffing her by force was not an option... without some backup units present, or a SWAT team ! I swear she was meaner than Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies !
Settle this quick, or Granny will win big in a jury trial, and I agree this is exactly what she was looking for, once stopped.
That's very tough to answer as it would always come down to an on the ground call by the officer(s) involved.
At the point where an arrest is being affected, the "resistence" occurs, resulting in the second charge.
That charge is often dropped at the court level if the person involved is cooperative on the original charge which triggered the arrest which then triggered the momentary resistence.
The prosecutor is always the one who ultimately decides what is charged.
The arresting officer(s) are not technically making a charge, but rather are serving as either the complaintant (on behalf of the state) or responding to a legitimate third party complaintant.
That last note is important to remember because it's the reason why if an officer tells you, "If you cooperate, you won't be charged" (ie....If you tell me where the pot is, you won't get charged with possession), he is lying since he does not have the authority to either make or to dismiss any ultimate charges laid after arrest.
The search stuff is difficult, IMO !
I think most people would consent to a search, esp. if not carrying anything, just to be cooperative and speed things along.
If you are carrying, I think your stash should be well hidden enough to evade a cursory search, but roaches in the ashtray would be a big problem.
Bar, don't they call the dogs in, if you just say NO to a search ?
Consenting to a search of your person or property is a terrible waste of time for both you and the police.
Especially if you're not carrying anything illegal.
If you are carrying something illegal, consenting to a search will effectively remove any hope of beating a possession charge.
Police do have the option of calling in a drug dog, but most jurisdictions don't have that many and there is only so long they can reasonably detain you (20 minutes....maybe 30 max).
And even if a dog comes in, you still refuse to consent. If the dog "alerts" and prompts a legal search, that search can later be contested in the event contraband is found and you are arrested for possession.
===
NEVER carry "roaches" in your ashtray. That's extremely foolish.
Carrying any amount of contraband should only be done between point of acquisition and the relative (constitutional) safety of your private residence or other private property.
If carrying for use at another destination, best to carry it in a locked container/case within the trunk of your vehicle.
To further elaborate, you are under absolutely no obligation to be "cooperative" with a request to search.
If you or the police want to "speed things along" the quickest way to do that is to resolve whatever pretext was used for initiating the traffic stop...ie, writing the ticket and let's go.
Most traffic cops are interested in writing the ticket, taking a visual check of your vehicle to see if anything unusual, and then get on to the next traffic stop.
But some like to ask questions and you are under no obligation to answer ANY questions. There's nothing to be gained from answering questions.
OK Bar: but if you have nothing, I'd say let them search, and I think most people would do so.
Even if I had a quarter lb of weed, fairly well hidden, I think it would be better to consent to a search, which would likely not be too intense.
I might refuse if totally clean, out of principle... but if carrying I'd be more inclined to consent, and hope they don't find it.
tough choice !
Even if I had a quarter lb of weed, fairly well hidden, I think it would be better to consent to a search, which would likely not be too intense.
I might refuse if totally clean, out of principle... but if carrying I'd be more inclined to consent, and hope they don't find it.
tough choice !
