Pixiq

I have to type slowly as not to scream. TASERS ARE NOT SAFE. Aside from the tasing, if she was not legally required to sign the ticket, why did the constable force her to get out of the vehicle? Contempt of cop. Something like, “I’m not going to let grandma tell me what to do.”

His supervisor is just as wrong. She was no threat to the constable. There was absolutely no reason for her to be treated in that manner.

Why don’t people wake up? Tasing is NOT safe. And treating people like this is flat out wrong.

I wonder how this will turn out in the end.

Another fucking charge of resisting arrest??
How in the hell can you put the horse in front of the cart like this?

I do have to say, if I was witness to this I would have been charged with assault on a pussy …err police officer myself.

If this was my mother or grandmother I would find out where this POS lived.

The cop shoved her. They do that to escalate a response from their victim.

When they push their batton in your chest, don’t fall for it. Be Ghandi-like. The cops are trying to get what they crave: violence.

Or, as the pigs call it on Officer.com, batton shampoo.

The cop moved her to get away from the road. I wouldn’t stand in the road and argue with a 2 year old, I mean 72 year old. I wouldn’t call that a shove either, he just moved her back a few steps.

In Texas you must sign the ticket. It is not an admission of guilt it is a summons and by refusing to sign it you are saying you have no intentions of appearing thus you get a free ride to jail.
People may not like it but that is the way it is.

bj, does the law apply to 72 year olds?

jones, yep.

Nothing like State torture and the troglodytes who apologize for it.

she accepted a $40k out of court settlement

http://justgetthere.us/blog/categories/Lawsuits/119

Anyone have a link to the original officers report?

Amazing. Glad to see that, at least, the Travis County Sheriff finds this behavior unacceptable.

When I was a kid speeding in California (racing from Santa Barbara to Ventura on Highway 101), I got stopped for driving 30-40 mph above the speed limit. Probably because of the adrenaline rush from the race, I was *very* belligerent to the California Highway patrolman who stopped me. Not only did he stand there and take abuse from a very loud and smart-assed kid (I’m ashamed of my behavior, and was so shortly after the fact), as he wrote the ticket, he also informed me about traffic court that would mitigate the cost of my ticket and expunge it from my record.

Had the Travis County troglodyte stopped me, I’m pretty sure I would have been dead — because this 72 year-old woman was tame compared to my behavior. That’s the difference between jerkwater Texas and California (at least California in the early 80s). A California Highway Patrolman had to pass a psychological profile exam. Apparently the Travis County Constable organization goes for the rejects.

As for the woman’s “terrible driving” — I don’t know what the normal speed limit was where she was stopped, but in my area of Texas, they often set up construction zones — which are still considered “construction zones” even when nothing is being done. So, I’m guessing, the normal speed limit on this stretch of Highway 71 was probably either 55 or 60 mph — and I didn’t see any construction in the video, did you? (In other words, the woman was probably mad because she got stopped in a speed trap and was in, no way, endangering anyone.)

To add insult to injury, we’ve got the deputy’s shifty-eyed, lying “superior” (so to speak) defending his deputy’s incompetence. Time for some accountability.

The “ticket” is a summons to appear in traffic court not criminal court.

After the officer idenitifies the citizen he becomes a process server unless he suspects criminal activity.

The dash cam video documents service of summons. Signing summons as proof of service is unneccessary and redundant.

This has not been tested at the Supreme court level yet, but is considered common law rule.

Signing a summons is almost always used by prosecutors in traffic court as an admission of guilt. A defense would need to be offered. The cop told me that it would not be an admission of guilt would not hold up in court.

The cop told me that it would not be an admission of guilt would not hold up in court.

The problem is that cops are legally allowed to lie to us so why should we believe them when they say anything?

I guess the woman should have complied with the officer’s orders rather than jeopardize his and her safety at the side of the road.

Further, the woman is a lying douche. Her characterization of the incident to the news media was a complete and slanderous fabrication, and once this video was released the woman (belatedly) wisely refused to comment to the media any more…

… since her lies were revealed.

Did the officer use every opportunity to de-escalate the situation? No, his behaviour was less than perfect. But when that woman lied through her teeth about the whole thing my sympathy-meter dropped down some.

If I were the officer and someone who was combative had me with my back to a busy highway, I would be bellow a command to step back into safety.

As for her being tased, I think I would have backed off at the first warning, if I were her.

No the officer did not use every opportunity, he could have been a little more professional and she could have been a little more law abiding.

Travis County settled with her for $40 grand. This goon was so far out of line. They dropped the all charges against her. There was no evidence for the orginal speeding violation. The county sheriff’s office released a statement that they disagree with ALL the actions of the constable in this video.

As far as the busy highway argument, all the traffic was in the left lane at least 12 feet away. She was always on the shoulder in this video. She was not combative, argumentive or resisting arrest. Fiesty, yes. More importantly she was a law abiding citizen that driving under the speed limit.

This video shows an emotional young boy that never grew up that tried to bully a smaller, weaker, elderly lady.

Completely disgusting.

There is no requirement that you sign a ticket (summons) in Texas. The only law that pertains to promising you will show up in court is if you are arrested and reside outside of Texas.

A summons notifies you that you are to appear in court. It is required that the summons is served to you. You do not have to sign it, agree with it, or accept it.

Most states (Texas included) the officer can write in the signature blocker, “Served”, “Refused Service”, “Attempted to Serve”. All are acceptable.

In this case the video provides proof of service.

Proof of this is that she was not arrested for “failure to sign a ticket” but for resisting arrest.

Because the public wants to give the police the benefit of doubt, idiots like this abuse their power and trump up ridiculous made up charges to arrest, then release. It never stands up in court where the law is actually applied.

The officer was way out of line, the woman was 78 for god sake. Was the release of this video aimed to bolster his case? I don’t think ti worked!

Carlos, in response to your questions, in this particular incident an important point to note is that the 72 year old female agreed to sign the ticket – albeit with a poor attitude – after she stepped out of the truck. That was a ripe opportunity for the officer to defuse the situation, let the lady sign the ticket, and everybody be on their way.

Instead, the officer escalated the situation with an unnecessary bellowing of a command. The situation went downhill from there.

Even though the elderly lady was not cooperative from the onset – she should have signed the ticket at the first request – the burden for defusing a tense situation should be on the law enforcement officer.

The issue is that some LEOs don’t care to take opportunities to defuse tense circumstances or are misguided in their attempts to do so. Too many LEOs put the burden for de-escalating a situation on the involved citizen.

That is not the mark of a professional.

I agree that the officer could have attempted to defuse the situation after she agreed to sign the fucking ticket. If he had done that I wouldn’t have a problem.

On the other hand when somebody is nasty, uncooperative and telling an officer to take them to jail I don’t have a problem with the officer taking them to jail. Just because they realize oh shit I screwed up and want to change their attitude sometimes it’s too late.

This lady didn’t even change her attitude, even when she offered to sign the ticket she was still being a bitch. He had every right to arrest her and she had no right to resist.

Does this lady think because she is 72 she can do whatever the hell she wants. She was driving 15mph over the speed limit in a construction zone but still thought she was above getting a ticket because of her age.

Well at least jones is honest that he thinks people should be tortured for their attitude rather than being the type who thinks America is still a “free” country.

He was defiently just doing his job. Since when does age exempt you from the law. She was clearly going to be a problem as soon as she said she was not going to sign the ticket and when she told the officer to arrest her. He was also just simply trying to get her away from the edge of the road. There are alot of accidents when police and the people they are arresting getting hit from on coming traffic. He was doing his job he would have prolly done more damage grabbing her arm and putting it behind her back then tazing her.

Scott don’t be so dramatic. Have you ever been tasered? It’s not that bad and to call it torture is absurd.

I’m going out right now and drive like an asshole and if a cop has the nerve to pull me over I’ll just fight with him because America is free.

So far none of the commenters for or against the cop have even mentioned the fact that he tazed her…

If anything let her get back in her car, call for backup, and pull her over again and give her another ticker. Or, you know, just let her go and let the court deal with it.

Also, I saw it mentioned that in that state it is NOT illegal to refuse to sign a ticket. Putting the officer even more in the wrong than before. Nevermind that she said she WOULD sign it before he started assaulting her.

Jones #13,

I am glad we agree that the officer could have attempted to defuse the situation.

To be clear, I also don’t support any of the actions of the elderly lady.

Had I been in that specific situation, and I have been in many similar, I would not have appreciated the lady’s behavior either.

But which method would have made the officer’s behavior shine more favorably upon law enforcement (and would have been easier, less complicated, fewer reports, allowed him to get back to patrol quicker, etc.), defusing the situation as we both noted he could have done, or the path he chose to take?

What a crock. Yeah the 72 yo behaved like a jerk but the officer escalated the incident with his behaviour.

Officers are responsible for controlling the situation. Bullying and threats which is the control tactic this officer used hardly ever work, especially with older people. He’s got poor people skills and has already risen to the level of responsibility beyond his capability. He didn’t safely and professionally mitigate the situation as his supervisor claims. He did things to escalate and inflame the situation and put himself in danger.

He did things that were dangerous to his personal safety if she was truly a dangerous person. These start while she is still in the car. He stands in front of and close to the car door window where his ability to defend is limited and the chance of getting shot is greatest.

Then he opens the car door. Again if she was dangerous he gave her an opportunity to have the upper hand and push him into traffic.

Then he walks to the back of the car close to her. If she was dangerous this was again a bad thing. He was easy to attack.

He then stands closer to traffic and shoves her. I agree it wasn’t much of a shove and probably was because he was standing on the wrong side of the fog line in traffic.

From there the mistakes are too numerous to even talk about. But the violation of her personal space was the real trigger for everything else.

This is all about the deputies lack of ability to defuse confrontation and lack of people skills. I don’t think it’s possible to train the people skills when you are older. We will hear about this deputy doing the same thing to someone else.

Duane, I don’t think he considered her a dangerous person. You don’t have to be a dangerous person to be arrested or to have force used on you. The bottom line is she was resisting arrest and the only way to arrest somebody who is resisting is with force.

Karl, I didn’t say he “could have” defused the situation I said he could have attempted to defuse the situation. Whether or not he could have was ultimately up to her and I don’t see her as the calming down type.

I still don’t blame him for arresting her. If somebody acts like she did they deserve to go to jail. I’m sure this is the last thing he wanted to do but it was here choice.

BTW what do you all think of the way she gets on TV and lies her ass off? It doesn’t change the facts of the case but what do you think?

How can you be resisting arrest if the officer never told you you were under arrest?

Hey Jones — you’re resisting arrest right now! You posted a blog comment resisting me! I bet you didn’t know I was arresting you, did you? Because I never told you. Funny how that works.

Clint if you weren’t just a civilian I’d surrender to your arrest.

Jones, look back at my comment #19. I quoted you accurately in my first sentence. If you want the extra clarity in the last reference as to what the officer could have done, then yes, he could have “attempted” to defuse the situation.

But I think that any LEO with even a reasonable amount of legitimate people skills necessary to make a competent LEO, could have effectively defused the situation.

It is poor policing that he did not try.

And in reference to your last question of the veracity of the elderly lady’s version of events, I don’t like it when anybody lies, citizens or law enforcement officers. But we pay LEOs and we expect them to be honest. That is why it is more of a threat to society when LEOs lie (and please don’t take that to mean any implication of dishonesty by the LEO in this particular incident).

You are correct when you say it doesn’t change the facts of the case, which, in my view, are that the officer should have reasonably attempted to defuse the incident and likely could have done so if he had that in his mindset from the beginning.

Karl, I don’t disagree with that, but that doesn’t mean what he did was wrong or that she is not the one responsible for how this turned out.

We are also seeing an edited version of the tape so we still don’t know everything that happened.

Just a quick response to BJ’s comment in #6. Are you sure that it is a crime to not sign the ticket? Many jurisdictions require that you sign the citation as an indication that you are prepared to appear in court. Signing the form and not showing up would be a class B misdemeanor. Some jurisdictions permit an officer to bring someone who refuses sign to a sitting of a local magistrate. The action of refusing itself is not arrestable. It is the officer’s belief that the suspect will not appear in court. Under these circumstances I question that the officer’s motives were sincere.

Jones, how is it not morally wrong if an officer has an opportunity to attempt to defuse a tense situation yet does not even try?

What does that say about policing attitudes?

Why is it that defusing techniques are sometimes (hopefully more than just sometimes) taught during entry level training and then so quickly put on the back burner once some officers get on the street?

Pat, yes I am sure. Under Texas Transportation Code.

543.001 sets the authority
543.002 sets the resolution
543.003 sets the notice
543.004 sets that speed is included.

§ 543.001. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED. Any peace
officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a
violation of this subtitle.

§ 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN
OFFENSES. (a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear
if:
(1) the offense charged is speeding or a violation of
the open container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and
(2) the person makes a written promise to appear in
court as provided by Section 543.005.
(b) If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle
licensed in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a)
applies only as provided by Chapter 703.
(c) The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only
offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is
mandatory.

§ 543.002. PERSON ARRESTED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE
MAGISTRATE. (a) A person arrested for a violation of this subtitle
punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before a
magistrate if:
(1) the person is arrested on a charge of failure to
stop in the event of an accident causing damage to property; or
(2) the person demands an immediate appearance before
a magistrate or refuses to make a written promise to appear in court
as provided by this subchapter.
(b) The person must be taken before a magistrate who:
(1) has jurisdiction of the offense;
(2) is in the county in which the offense charged is
alleged to have been committed; and
(3) is nearest or most accessible to the place of
arrest.

§ 543.003. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: PERSON NOT TAKEN
BEFORE MAGISTRATE. An officer who arrests a person for a violation
of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor and who does not take
the person before a magistrate shall issue a written notice to
appear in court showing the time and place the person is to appear,
the offense charged, the name and address of the person charged,
and, if applicable, the license number of the person’s vehicle.

§ 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN
OFFENSES. (a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear
if:
(1) the offense charged is speeding or a violation of
the open container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and
(2) the person makes a written promise to appear in
court as provided by Section 543.005.
(b) If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle
licensed in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a)
applies only as provided by Chapter 703.
(c) The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only
offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is
mandatory.

Crap, should have put this in this thread then.

J.D. Tucille says it best, I think:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Dashca...

“But the idea that police officers are entitled to automatic deference is the sort of mindset you might expect in North Korea — not in a free society. Police officers are just regular people with a job; they’re no more entitled to expect immediate obedience in all circumstances than are dentists or house painters.

“As for the requirement that a ticket be signed … If that leads to the use of force because somebody didn’t set pen to paper, it’s time to exercise some discretion. Part of becoming an adult is learning that good sense and morality take precedence over rigid rules. Instead of insisting on arresting an old lady over a signature, you walk away and let the courts handle the ticket. That makes more sense than escalating to violence. People who don’t or can’t act see that judgment is more important than a procedural rule are morally immature.

“Maybe that’s the explanation. In the video, Bieze conducts himself like a teenage bully who can’t believe that somebody would dare to defy him.

“As for the defense of his actions by Travis County officials … Well, that speaks for itself. People who defend and even celebrate the brutal abuse of their fellow human beings because they do not “respect mah authoritah” reveal themselves for what they are. (Just back away from them, slowly.)”

This last paragraph – looking at you jones.

@jones -

“Clint if you weren’t just a civilian I’d surrender to your arrest.”

Hey jones, even if you were a cop – are you in the military? No? You’re a civilian too. And so are all police officers.

Cops are not above other citizens. That you’d perpetuate that mindset is telling.

“Scott don’t be so dramatic. Have you ever been tasered? It’s not that bad and to call it torture is absurd.”

Maybe one hit isn’t torture. But the continued shocking, sometimes until death occurs, most certainly is.

Karl, how is it morally wrong to enforce the law? If somebody breaks the law and the officer wants to reason with them then fine, if somebody breaks the law and the officer doesn’t want to reason with them then fine.

She broke the law and was arrested. If this was some gangbanger that acted the exact same way nobody would care that he was arrested. Isn’t it morally wrong for an officer not to treat people equally?

Jones, I am not saying it is morally wrong to enforce the law. The issue is how it is enforced.

You asked, “Isn’t it morally wrong for an officer not to treat people equally?”

Yes, people should be treated equally and if there is an opportunity to use the least amount of force it should be taken for anybody and everybody.

The severity of the effect is irrelevant. It’s the intent that makes it torture. It was pain compliance pure and simple. It was twisting her arm until she said uncle. It wasn’t about self defense or protecting her or the officer. It wasn’t about breaking any laws. It was about her attitude and what the officer thought her attitude should be. And she was going to be in pain until her attitude changed.

Torture.

“I’m going out right now and drive like an asshole and if a cop has the nerve to pull me over I’ll just fight with him because America is free.”

If this were a free country or something resembling it people who interacted with police officers would be assumed to be innocent, rather than assumed to be people who owed some type of allegiance to the badge that was accusing them.

After all, when you say she was “driving like an asshole” and thus deserved to be tasered, you mean she was ALLEGEDLY driving like and asshole, right?

Jones,

I can assure you if I was in the officers shoes at the time she would have been happy to sign the citation and we both would have gone on our way without any of this happening. This is about the officers lack of people skills. I’m not saying the woman had good people skills, because she doesn’t, but it’s not her place to control this interaction it is the officers job.

As far as the video being edited it’s not like it was manipulated. It was trimmed for time not content.

I’ve been pulled over a couple of times for about the same thing in different places and didn’t even get a ticket. Because I turn on my people skills in dealing with the officer and give him a good reason not to give me a ticket. You can tell the people skills of the officer almost from when s/he approaches you.

There is that video of the guy calling an officer all kinds of names and ripping up the ticket. That officer could have easily escalated that situation but he remained cool and calm. It’s very funny to watch. That officer had good people skills and had good self esteem, it’s obvious from watching him. Just as it’s obvious from watching this guy that he’s lacking.

Duane – I can assure you if I was in the officers shoes at the time she would have been happy to sign the citation and we both would have gone on our way without any of this happening. This is about the officers lack of people skills. I’m not saying the woman had good people skills, because she doesn’t, but it’s not her place to control this interaction it is the officers job.

And if she still refused to sign after you sweet talked her and you had to arrest her how would you go about doing that?

In Texas, you can refuse to sign. The officer can either arrest you, or write “refused to sign” on the ticket. From what I have read, some people falsely believe a ticket will be dismissed if they don’t sign. It won’t. But why not just sign it? It’s not an admission of guilt in our state…it’s simply a promise to appear in court. You can present your story to the judge.

This copy of the video is not as clear as another I saw, so I think some of you are making assumptions. It’s also been cut…there is a longer version. She told him to take her to jail, and he said, “Step on out.” The intention was to arrest her, and she knew it.

Then she tried to get back into her truck. Hwy. 71 has an extremely narrow shoulder, and even on that shoulder, you are in danger. And Hwy 71 is just dangerous anyway. People speed terribly on that road, because there are long stretches of it that are out in the middle of nowhere. Houston just last week, had an officer hit as he was writing a ticket, standing on the shoulder of a road. An speeding vehicle hit him and crushed both his legs.

Mrs. Winkfein had just driven 60 mph through a 45 mph construction zone. The fines are double in that case, to try to persuade drivers to slow down when they are near construction workers. She didn’t. Houston has had several construction workers hit and killed, while they were working on the side of the road, by speeders not paying attention. He had instructed her to step back away from the highway, and she refused, even attempting to get back in her truck.

He DID call for backup. He used his shoulder radio and asked for help “with a 72 year old lady. It’s more clear in the longer video. And she chided him for that. She said, “What? You need help with a 72 year old lady?”

She actually dared him to tase her. While I’m not saying he should do it on a dare, she knew it was a strong possibility, and she was just egging it on. She obviously thought the fact that she was a “72-year old woman” was going to get her special privileges. She started saying it before she even got out of the truck. And when you start making up excuses, all sympathy for you is gone with the wind.

The officer knows exactly what it feels like to be tased. It’s part of the requirement for becoming a cop in TX…they have to go through being tased by a fellow officer, so they can experience it themselves.

Police officers are just human beings. They can be made angry just like all of you can. Yes…they have to try better to control it. But some of you are getting extremely upset, just watching the video. And you just can’t imagine how you would react if it were you actually in that situation. Yeah, I know you think you can.

I’m not a cop, but I have many family members who are. One quit the police force recently, because he was tired of being abused by those he was trying to arrest. But you don’t think about that part, because you don’t hear much about it. Nobody gets outraged over police officers going through all that. And they go through a lot.

To the person who wants to call her and alleged speeder, I’m sure there’s witnesses, if she sped through a construction zone. I have pulled over and assisted an officer as a witness when I have seen something like this happen. And I’d go to court to make sure she got what she deserved.

I have to shake my head at the person who asked if the same laws apply to 72 year olds. What a stupid question.

If you don’t want to get stopped, obey the law. Someone commented that a stick in the chest is meant to escalate the situation. If you don’t do something illegal, it’s very unlikely you will ever get that stick in your chest.

C, are you saying a 72 year old has to obey the law just the same as a 25 year old?

Slavery was legal once. Gassing the jews was legal. It’s hardly a moral defense to claim the law.

And it’s funny that you legal positivists keep trying to turn this into and issue of how she was tased for breaking a law or not signing a piece of paper. SHE OFFERED TO SIGN IT. The taser was used to adjust her attitude, plain and simple.

The least moral of all is the person who depends on the law or religion to dictate their morals to them.

The lady was stubborn but I doubt she is unique in refusing to sign a traffic ticket.

Should police lose their temper when somebody doesn’t sign a ticket?

I don’t think they should take it so personal.

As you said, C, it’s not really going to make a difference. It’s still going to go on her record.

And it’s not like she can deny ever receiving the ticket because we have it on camera.

You can’t actually “witness” someone speeding. You have to have a radar gun to know they are speeding.

Clint, your wrong about that

If I’m wrong, how come officers can’t convict people of speeding merely by witnessing it? (and it’s “you’re”)

And I’m not talking about pacing. If you drive next to someone, obviously your speedometer is going to say the same speed they are going at. I’m talking about bystanders standing at the side of the road. You can’t reasonably determine the speed of a car just by looking at it. Not in a way that holds any legal merit whatsoever.