Help
Here's an interesting video of a guy getting tasered in Utah for speeding and not signing the ticket (and arguably for disobeying an officer.)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=IMaMYL_shxc
If you have a short attention span, fast forward to 2 minutes in.
The story is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21921393/
Tasered for Speeding in Utah Who's to blame?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,025
- Joined: 2003-March-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ottawa, ON
Posted 2007-November-21, 19:58
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
#2
- ded
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,459
- Joined: 2005-August-11
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2007-November-21, 20:07
when i see someone shot/tasered in the back... as they are moving away...
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,025
- Joined: 2003-March-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ottawa, ON
Posted 2007-November-21, 20:35
Do I know how to pick them or what?
Voting so far:
One vote for totally driver.
One vote for about equal.
One vote for totally police officer.
(As usual, I haven't voted.)
Voting so far:
One vote for totally driver.
One vote for about equal.
One vote for totally police officer.
(As usual, I haven't voted.)
"Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country." ~ barmar
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,263
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-November-21, 20:37
It appears the disagreement leading up to the event was about equal in fault, the driver for simply not signing the citation, and the patrolman for not stressing that signing a citation is not admitting guilt.
However, the extreme use of the Taser was uncalled for, and according to the article, was against Utah state patrol policy.
I don't see if any way how the driver could have been construed as "a threat to themselves or others".
However, the extreme use of the Taser was uncalled for, and according to the article, was against Utah state patrol policy.
Quote
Under patrol policy, troopers can use a Taser if someone is a threat to themselves or others and other means of control are unreasonable, Roden said.
I don't see if any way how the driver could have been construed as "a threat to themselves or others".
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,668
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2007-November-21, 20:55
I have not looked at the video, nor read the article, but I would make one comment based on what I've read here:
IMO, the police are as much subject to the law as anyone else. If the officer in question in this incident was found to have gone over the line, he should be prosecuted for assault.
OTOH, even if 90% of the citizenry of the United States agrees with me, I'll be very surprised if it happens.
IMO, the police are as much subject to the law as anyone else. If the officer in question in this incident was found to have gone over the line, he should be prosecuted for assault.
OTOH, even if 90% of the citizenry of the United States agrees with me, I'll be very surprised if it happens.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2007-November-21, 20:56
I am going to disagree with Winston. The fellow made several threatening, or at least potentially threatening manuevers, in addition to refusing repeatedly to follow legal and lawfully given instructions of an officer of the law.
Lets start with the taillights on teh car. They are on from the beginning of the tape until 1.55. I assume the car is turned off at this point. The officer has the drivers license and registration. Note it took a minute and half to get those from the driver, but that is probably about normal. All the time the officer is standing precariously close to the highway.
The officer went away and the tape must have been edited. Around 2.00 the officer comes back and he has done all his checks and written a ticket that he says he is going to give the guy, and he wants the fellow to sign. Note at this time, the tail lights come back on on the car. The driver has started the vehicle, which puts the officer at some extra risk. Is the guy going to drive away, thrusing the officer into the highway? This was not a wise move by Mr. Driver. Note again how close the officer stands to the vehicle to protect himself from the traffic.
The driver is arugmentative.. "first of all you are going to tell my why (you are giving me a ticket).." The tape makes it clear of the "why", (the officer tells him at the very beginning, "How you doing, you were going kind of fast can I get your liscences and registration", stuff we can't understand, then "there is a sign right there that says 40 MPH ..you pasted one about 1/2 mile earlier". and no doubt about it the ticket also will say for speeding. At the "I am not signing anything", you can see the officer put the pen up and make up his mind to arrest the driver. Also note, at the order to hope out of the car, the tail lights go off again (at 2.22). Arrest is an option in this case. Bozo has turned an easy speeding ticket into a major ordeal.
When the driver gets out of his car, he has his right hand inside his cargo pants pocket and tries to get the officer to look away by pointing down the highway with his other hand. The officer has every right to wonder what the driver might have in his cargo pants.... a gun? a knife? Such moves around a police officer is not a good idea when they are placing you under arrest. The driver also points down the highway -- the officer might easily intrupt this action as trying to distract the officer so that whatever is in the pants pocket can be extracted and potentially used against the officer. The officer is calm and ask the fellow to turn around and put his hands behind his back and is removing the handcuffs from his utility belt. As the officer is saying this and turns towards the guy, the officers voice becomes more stressed and force-full, as the officer sees the hand in the pocket and the other hand pointing down the street. The officer immediately draws his weapon (taser).
The officer actions to protect himself was as he was was trained and he repeated his order for the driver to turn around and place his hands behind his back. Even as the driver is walking away from the officer and defying his order, watch how the drivers right hand is fiddling with his right pocket, all the while specifically NOT following the specific instructions of an officer in the process of trying to arrest him (and he had been told he was to turn around and place his hands behind his back twice -- once very forcably with a drawn and pointed weapon, and to turn around two more times). It is clear he was being placed under arrest and it is equally clear that he was 1) not obeying the officer, and 2) behaving in an argumentatively threating manner (take another look at the hands in and on the right pocket). There is also something on his belt on that side underneath his right arm, you can see it in a couple of frames, but not real clearly. At 2:36 with his back to the officer is maybe the best view.
Look, I don't like the thought of an officer using a taser without good reason, but I like even less the thought that officers are out on the streets alone and are exposed to all types of risk. They never know when they pull someone over what kind of reception they will get. The starting of the vehicle, the refusal to sign for a ticket, the mannerisms after he got out of the vehicle (hands in and near pocket, the action that could be interpreted by the officer as an attempt to distract him, the repeated refusal to obey the officer). You guys that think it is the officer fault, what was the officer to do. Let the guy walk back and get into his car and drive away? Takle him and fight on the streets? Break a leg or two with a baton? The taser is a non-lethal (yes i saw the two recent deaths) method of gaining control. This is exactly the kind of situation the officer are taught to use the taser. Could he have warned the driver "I will taser you if..."? Sure the driver was a good four steps from his car door. Perhaps there was time for yet one more warning, but you know what, a taser or gun pointed at me and four forceful orders to put my hands behind my back would be 3 more than I would need. But at this point after failure to follow direct orders and walking away in defience of these lawful orders, the officer did what he was no doubt doubt trained to do.
Fault, driver. Clear.
Lets start with the taillights on teh car. They are on from the beginning of the tape until 1.55. I assume the car is turned off at this point. The officer has the drivers license and registration. Note it took a minute and half to get those from the driver, but that is probably about normal. All the time the officer is standing precariously close to the highway.
The officer went away and the tape must have been edited. Around 2.00 the officer comes back and he has done all his checks and written a ticket that he says he is going to give the guy, and he wants the fellow to sign. Note at this time, the tail lights come back on on the car. The driver has started the vehicle, which puts the officer at some extra risk. Is the guy going to drive away, thrusing the officer into the highway? This was not a wise move by Mr. Driver. Note again how close the officer stands to the vehicle to protect himself from the traffic.
The driver is arugmentative.. "first of all you are going to tell my why (you are giving me a ticket).." The tape makes it clear of the "why", (the officer tells him at the very beginning, "How you doing, you were going kind of fast can I get your liscences and registration", stuff we can't understand, then "there is a sign right there that says 40 MPH ..you pasted one about 1/2 mile earlier". and no doubt about it the ticket also will say for speeding. At the "I am not signing anything", you can see the officer put the pen up and make up his mind to arrest the driver. Also note, at the order to hope out of the car, the tail lights go off again (at 2.22). Arrest is an option in this case. Bozo has turned an easy speeding ticket into a major ordeal.
When the driver gets out of his car, he has his right hand inside his cargo pants pocket and tries to get the officer to look away by pointing down the highway with his other hand. The officer has every right to wonder what the driver might have in his cargo pants.... a gun? a knife? Such moves around a police officer is not a good idea when they are placing you under arrest. The driver also points down the highway -- the officer might easily intrupt this action as trying to distract the officer so that whatever is in the pants pocket can be extracted and potentially used against the officer. The officer is calm and ask the fellow to turn around and put his hands behind his back and is removing the handcuffs from his utility belt. As the officer is saying this and turns towards the guy, the officers voice becomes more stressed and force-full, as the officer sees the hand in the pocket and the other hand pointing down the street. The officer immediately draws his weapon (taser).
The officer actions to protect himself was as he was was trained and he repeated his order for the driver to turn around and place his hands behind his back. Even as the driver is walking away from the officer and defying his order, watch how the drivers right hand is fiddling with his right pocket, all the while specifically NOT following the specific instructions of an officer in the process of trying to arrest him (and he had been told he was to turn around and place his hands behind his back twice -- once very forcably with a drawn and pointed weapon, and to turn around two more times). It is clear he was being placed under arrest and it is equally clear that he was 1) not obeying the officer, and 2) behaving in an argumentatively threating manner (take another look at the hands in and on the right pocket). There is also something on his belt on that side underneath his right arm, you can see it in a couple of frames, but not real clearly. At 2:36 with his back to the officer is maybe the best view.
Look, I don't like the thought of an officer using a taser without good reason, but I like even less the thought that officers are out on the streets alone and are exposed to all types of risk. They never know when they pull someone over what kind of reception they will get. The starting of the vehicle, the refusal to sign for a ticket, the mannerisms after he got out of the vehicle (hands in and near pocket, the action that could be interpreted by the officer as an attempt to distract him, the repeated refusal to obey the officer). You guys that think it is the officer fault, what was the officer to do. Let the guy walk back and get into his car and drive away? Takle him and fight on the streets? Break a leg or two with a baton? The taser is a non-lethal (yes i saw the two recent deaths) method of gaining control. This is exactly the kind of situation the officer are taught to use the taser. Could he have warned the driver "I will taser you if..."? Sure the driver was a good four steps from his car door. Perhaps there was time for yet one more warning, but you know what, a taser or gun pointed at me and four forceful orders to put my hands behind my back would be 3 more than I would need. But at this point after failure to follow direct orders and walking away in defience of these lawful orders, the officer did what he was no doubt doubt trained to do.
Fault, driver. Clear.
--Ben--
#7
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-November-21, 21:03
I was the (first?) vote for 100% officer's fault. Then I watched the video. I would like to multiply my vote by a million. Wow.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2007-November-21, 21:12
Living in Utah is punishment enough 
"Phil" on BBO
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,263
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-November-21, 21:17
I did not watch this video as closely as did Ben, but I would like to point out to Ben that brakelights do not need an engaged engine to work.
At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest - that seems a overly-quick response to me.
Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.
I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.
The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.
The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.
At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest - that seems a overly-quick response to me.
Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.
I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.
The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.
The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#10
- Group: Yellows
- Posts: 1,985
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Gender:Female
Posted 2007-November-21, 21:33
pclayton, on Nov 22 2007, 03:12 AM, said:
Living in Utah is punishment enough
tee hee
#11
- LOR
-
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 852
- Joined: 2003-December-04
- Gender:Female
- Location:California
Posted 2007-November-21, 22:04
When you have watched a few of the funeral processions for law enforcement officers who were killed during "routine traffic stops" it is easier to understand what happened on this video. The number has been skyrocketing, especially in California.
Regards, Jo Anne
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#12
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2007-November-22, 01:45
I happen to think that disobedience to an officer in itself is reason for the blame ranging from about equal to 100% driver. Of course, the officer should know better etc etc etc, but the primary cause is still the guy refusing to sign anything. So mostly driver.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,343
- Joined: 2004-January-03
Posted 2007-November-22, 02:31
Winstonm, on Nov 22 2007, 03:17 AM, said:
I did not watch this video as closely as did Ben, but I would like to point out to Ben that brakelights do not need an engaged engine to work.
- that seems a overly-quick response to me.
Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.
I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.
The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.
The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.
- that seems a overly-quick response to me.
Still, no matter what you think, I cannot see how you can take from the video that the driver - who had his wife and child in the car with him - could be presumed to be "a threat to himsef or others" as Utah patrol policy demands before a Taser can be used.
I've seen a few of these questionable Taser incidents from across the land, and in each questionable incident the victim could have prevented it - but at the same time, in every case I've seen the Tasering is an overaggressive response to what at best might be termed an "unruly and loud" individual.
The bottom line seems to be that law enforcement looks upon Tasering as a quick, efficient, and s-a-f-e method of control, when in truth the safety is far from total and a number of deaths have been attributed to its use.
The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.
I find this post odd, odd in the fact, how much time does a police officer have to spend dealing with and non cooperative individual, I think the police officer was totally clear in what he wanted and dealt with the matter swiftly and efficeintly and no one was hurt (ok being tasered is probably no fun, but hardly excessive force was used.
Quote
At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest
I do not see how you can draw this conclusion, are you refering to the first time the man stated this or the umpteenth?
Quote
The taser is meant to be used for the officer as a viable choice to the use of deadly weapons - it is not meant to be used simply to show who is boss.
I do not like the insinuation you make here, the police officer has a duty to take charge of a situation, I hope if you ever need the police to handle a situation concerning a possible or perceived threat to you or your family, I hope that you get a police officer like this one, that takes control and handles it as efficeintly as he did
I think the police officer was faultless, he did a good job and you should be proud of how he handled himself doing what can only be described as a very difficult job
#14
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-November-22, 02:45
I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal. He doesn't have to sign anything he doesn't want to, he would still get the ticket anyway. I wouldn't sign either if I hadn't been speeding. The police officer had no reason to ask him to leave the car to begin with, that's what caused a bad situation in the first place!
The driver was right at the side of the road when the officer nailed him. Has anyone thought what would have happened if he fell INTO the road and got run over by a speeding car? The taser is for when someone is out of control or a danger to the officer or someone else, not for when someone is a pain in the ass. Speaking as a person who thinks most lawsuits in this country are a joke, I would sue the pants off this officer if I was this guy. The officer reacted terribly to a situation that police are faced with all the time, turned a situation that was merely irritating into one that was dangerous by having the guy leave his car, tried to be all high and mighty king of the world by making ridiculous requests and pulling out a weapon when it wasn't even close to being needed and then using it, and he should pay the price.
The driver was right at the side of the road when the officer nailed him. Has anyone thought what would have happened if he fell INTO the road and got run over by a speeding car? The taser is for when someone is out of control or a danger to the officer or someone else, not for when someone is a pain in the ass. Speaking as a person who thinks most lawsuits in this country are a joke, I would sue the pants off this officer if I was this guy. The officer reacted terribly to a situation that police are faced with all the time, turned a situation that was merely irritating into one that was dangerous by having the guy leave his car, tried to be all high and mighty king of the world by making ridiculous requests and pulling out a weapon when it wasn't even close to being needed and then using it, and he should pay the price.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,263
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-November-22, 07:39
Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.
Quote
Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,575
- Joined: 2004-March-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:UK
Posted 2007-November-22, 08:03
The policeman presumably took offence at being called "Bro"
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. m
s
t
r-m
nd
ing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.
"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"
"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. m
str-mnding) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees."Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"
"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,263
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-November-22, 08:27
Sceptic wrote:
Wayne, I'm simply referring to the same events that Ben wrote about.
Sceptic wrote:
I'm unclear on whether you have read my earlier post on this subject, but I assigned the blame 50-50. Putting himself into a pickle by being argumentative was dumb on the part of the driver.
It will be interesting to see if the Utah patrol review board agrees that the officer's actions were faultless.
But to be clear, Tasering is not simply an "unpleasant" experience, but an extremely painful one that is not safe and has caused deaths. From my veiwing of the video, it seemed excessive and unwarranted.
But we are each influenced by our personal biases - which filters out that which does not fit our viewpoint and emphasizes that which does fit. I see the argument in favor of the patrolman's actions - but from my bias it appeared he was quick to made an arrest decision and quick to use force in a non-violent confrontation.
Quote
QUOTE
At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest
I do not see how you can draw this conclusion, are you refering to the first time the man stated this or the umpteenth
At the point the driver said he wasn't signing anything, it is apparent the patrolman was going to make an arrest
I do not see how you can draw this conclusion, are you refering to the first time the man stated this or the umpteenth
Wayne, I'm simply referring to the same events that Ben wrote about.
Quote
At the "I am not signing anything", you can see the officer put the pen up and make up his mind to arrest the driver.
Sceptic wrote:
Quote
I think the police officer was faultless, he did a good job and you should be proud of how he handled himself doing what can only be described as a very difficult job
I'm unclear on whether you have read my earlier post on this subject, but I assigned the blame 50-50. Putting himself into a pickle by being argumentative was dumb on the part of the driver.
It will be interesting to see if the Utah patrol review board agrees that the officer's actions were faultless.
But to be clear, Tasering is not simply an "unpleasant" experience, but an extremely painful one that is not safe and has caused deaths. From my veiwing of the video, it seemed excessive and unwarranted.
But we are each influenced by our personal biases - which filters out that which does not fit our viewpoint and emphasizes that which does fit. I see the argument in favor of the patrolman's actions - but from my bias it appeared he was quick to made an arrest decision and quick to use force in a non-violent confrontation.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2007-November-22, 08:39
gwnn, on Nov 22 2007, 02:45 AM, said:
I happen to think that disobedience to an officer in itself is reason for the blame ranging from about equal to 100% driver. Of course, the officer should know better etc etc etc, but the primary cause is still the guy refusing to sign anything. So mostly driver.
yep, i tend to agree with this
jdonn, on Nov 22 2007, 03:45 AM, said:
I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal.
you don't have to sign, but signing doesn't indicate guilt... however you do have to obey a lawful order from a policeman... it goes back to that other thread, imo... if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences... all the driver had to do was obey whatever orders were given, period... the place to argue is in court
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 2004-April-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Germany, NRW
Posted 2007-November-22, 09:14
luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM, said:
if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...
And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?
ciao stefan
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2007-November-22, 09:55
jkljkl, on Nov 22 2007, 10:14 AM, said:
luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM, said:
if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...
And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?
ciao stefan
yes, in a perfect world we'd all like to see the punishment fit the crime... but you sound as if you agree in principle that there should be some consequence, now it's only a matter of degree... how much simpler would it have been if the driver had just handed over the papers, signed the ticket and gone?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)