More on the D.C. boomtown effect. Plus, Reuters says the best and brightest college grads are increasingly coming to D.C. instead of entering the private sector.
Sixteen-year-old kid writes letter to newspaper defending his “brotherhood” of police officers. Oh, brother.
French high court guts Sarkozy plan to police the Internet.
The legacy of Kelo lives on, as politically-connected developers continue to use the power of government to take land from unwilling property owners.
Travis County, Texas officials defending the tasing of a 72-year-old woman during a traffic stop.
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton decides it’s more important to bar D.C. residents from legally owning guns than it is to give them voting rights.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, June 11th, 2009 at 9:48 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
And I’m so looking forward to those ‘top’ college grads claiming a divine right to run my life for the next 30 years because of their pedigrees.
That 16 year old is the future of Law Enforcement.
… That makes me want to barricade myself in the basement …
And wouldn’t you know it… the letter is about a dog getting shot. I wonder if I can find a report about the specific incident…
I’m afriad Kelo will come home to roost at my home. Twenty acres of 40-something-year-old crumbling buildings next to Metro? We don’t stand a chance.
Shouldn’t someone be humiliating these cops who Tase elderly women and shoot chihuahuas? I mean, how embarrassing. Maybe a site called bluepussies.com or pussypigs.com or something? Eh, the URLs are probably already taken; I’m not going to try to find out from work.
#2
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/05/28/news/local/4aaa03_dog052809.txt
followed up by:
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/06/03/news/opinion/5edi03_scheele060309.txt
Here we go…
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/05/28/news/local/4aaa03_dog052809.txt
As usual, it’s based entirely on the officer’s testimony, so there’s little way to know if the officer was antagonizing the animal with his baton (likely) or if it was actually attacking him.
If a dog is of decent size, is actually aggressive, and a few feet from you and actually wants to attack you… you’re going to the hospital. If you’re lucky… and armed… you can shoot it while it’s mauling you. But if you let it get that close before drawing your gun, you’re not shooting it before it bites you.
…Unless it wasn’t all that dangerous to begin with.
Regarding the top college grads coming to DC, after 8 years of former Liberty and Regent University students setting policy I think this is a good thing.
#6 bob,
I posted that link just before you did but my comment still says “awaiting moderation”. I’m not sure what that’s all about. There was another link to a letter regarding the dog shooting from later in the week. I’m afraid to post the link for fear my post won’t show.
It’s the same democratherald.com followed up with “articles/2009/06/03/news/opinion/5edi03_scheele060309.txt”
Yeah! Can’t have people in DC owning guns! It might actually become a dangerous place to live, as opposed to the peace loving utopia it is now.
Oh wait… that’s not right…
But look at other areas that allow people to own guns! Like neighboring Virginia! Just being able to own guns there has turned it into a crime riddled war zone!
Oh wait… No it hasn’t. There’s pretty much no freakin’ crime at all here.
Well! At least Virginia has the sense to not allow us to open carry or anything insane like that! The place would be a shooting gallery!
Oh wait… that’s not right either. It’s perfectly legal to open carry here.
It’s like… gun laws don’t stop crime at all!
This just in! Drug laws don’t stop drugs, either.
Regarding DC: I have to agree with a commenter on the Reason site: Regardless of how stupid DC’s gun rules are, voting rights should not be contingent on anyfuckingthing, much less a provision giving the federal government more control over DC’s local laws than it has over any other city in the United States.
I understand that DCs gun regs are odious to a whole lot of people here, but that should either be for DC residents or the courts to correct. Putting that amendment in was BS from the beginning.
Please believe me, I am the last one to defend a cop, but if the account of what the kid said is true (take with a salt shaker of salt), then the cop was justified in shooting the dog.
I am a dog owner myself and I have seen all the stories about cops shooting dogs. It’s especially abhorrent when their first resort is to pull out their weapon and kill the dog for merely barking or with the usual excuse for killing someone (I was scared).
But if the officer aided the woman, distracted the dog and the dog wouldn’t retreat after being threatened or beaten by a baton, then I have no problem with the shooting.
They are way too nice and mild-mannered at the Volokh Conspiracy.
**Pulls out Occam’s Chainsaw and revs engine**
The Alderman received a campaign contribution from that developer.
The developer wanted a few properties in that Alderman’s district.
If the Alderman did not want to appear biased, he would have shot it down on principle to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
The Alderman made it happen.
The deal is corrupt.
QED.
So, let me get this straight. You have no problem with an unelected, effectively unaccountable cabal (the judiciary) striking down their laws, but you have a serious problem with a superior body politic (Congress) which is democratically chosen passing a law that has the same effect?…
DC isn’t even covered by the 10th amendment. DC has no constitutional right of home rule because it is not a municipal jurisdiction in a state.
#11, Jon
There are dangerous dogs out there that are a menace and it is completely appropriate for officers to take lethal action when needed.
However, that’s not the problem. That’s actually a very rare occurance, and is usually a result of improperly treated animals gone bad.
What does occur, and with astonishing regularity… is officers will, and with the full support of their departments, gussy up the report so it looks like they had to take Cujo the Man Slayer out, instead of what they should have done… which could be as simple as bump the tiny little wiener dog aside with their foot.
As such… the police have no credit with me when it comes to truthfulness, they must pay in cash and in advance. I won’t automatically assume they are telling the truth. They must prove that their actions are appropriate. They must do this because it acts as a check to their ability to abuse power.
In this case, it appears that the dog was essentially under control, it was at home and would probably stay there. The officer should have tried other options… like Animal Control, for example… instead of antagonizing the animal with his baton.
Now, obviously… I wasn’t there. But as indicated, I don’t trust the officer’s word. If he says he was attacked by a vicious animal that he then had to take down, I want to see the injuries. Or the video. Or the audio recording.
regarding the tazing of the old lady, I think the comments on the article are the most depressing thought.
The first 2 pages mostly just argue about whether or not she was out of line and most people seem to think she got what she deserved because she didn’t follow the officers instructions.
I think the point is completely missed. Everyone. Everyone loses their temper every once in a while. Does this mean we should all be tazed into submission?
Personally I think the officer and every “official” who defended him should lose their job. Also, if he really did “act within procedure,” then there is something wrong with procedures.
This is not a police state. Officers should be able to perform the simple function of enforcing trafic laws without using a tazer. Seriously, if she didn’t want to sign it, so what? The cop should have sent her on her way. Incidents like these almost make me think trafic cameras really are the way to enforce trafic laws. At least the cameras won’t bully you around for arguing with them.
PS I said ALMOST about the cameras :P
Considering the “boilerplate” language that is becoming more and more exposed on DUI and drug arrests, I have no faith in anything a cop says after the fact at this point.
As to the 72 year old women, the person escalating that confrontation was the cop. She was being mouthy (just give me the fucking ticket or something similar), but she didn’t really get feisty until the cop shoves her further to the side of road. He’s lucky she didn’t fall and break her hip. He didn’t have a justified reason for placing his hands on her at that point as she already was 2 feet away from the edge of the road. He might have been closer than he wanted to be, but he just had to shift over so they are standing in line as opposed to him being up on the road.
From the story about tasing the 72 y/o woman:
“She was using language I wouldn’t expect any woman to use, let alone a 72-year-old woman,” Griffin said.
That seems to be a common claim in almost all cases where cops defend their actions, as if fowl language, by itself, constitutes a significant factor in whether to arrest or use physical force against someone. If you can’t ignore someone’s use of offensive language, you have no business being a cop.
Winfein’s “actions were inappropriate,” Griffin said.
“Inappropriate” is a word most commonly used to identify behavior that, while not illegal, is used to excuse a response as if it were illegal. I have really come to hate this word, because it’s usually used to characterize socially questionable (unmannerly, crude, rude, offensive) behavior as behavior that, while not really a crime, should be prohibited or punished by the state. I classify it right up there with “pervert” which is a label assigned to anyone caught doing something that many “normal” people do but no one admits to.
The video is blocked where I work, so I can’t comment on the details of what it shows regarding the behavior of the woman and the officer’s response to it. I caught a small part of it on TV this morning, and I’m not inclined to sympathize with either the cop or the woman.
Oh if you can’t get youtube at work. New York Daily News has the dashcam video up on their website.
And wow that article compresses and moves around a lot of the actual movements from the dashcam.
#16, Edmund:
Correct. All the trooper had to do was give her the unsigned ticket. But no, she dissed his AUTHORITAH and had to pay by being arrested.
Not for refusing to sign the ticket, that’s not illegal. He was going to arrest her for dissing his AUTHORITAH. He then pushed every button and escalated it as far as he could to get the maximum arrest.
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton is what is technically referred to as a “fuckwit.” This is not surprising.
Re-watched it. So she said “I’m not going to sign it you’ll have to take me to jail”. He then has her get out of the car and they proceed back.
They get to the back and she says “give me the fucking thing and I’ll sign it” (reaching out for the book). At this point shouldn’t a light be going off in the officer’s head “We have compliance!! We have compliance!!! No need to use my taser to force compliance. I just got it.” (I’ll ignore the fact it shouldn’t be used to get compliance for purposes of this exercise), no need to go further. This is when the situation gets escalated further when he shoves her to the side of the road (and she gets really feisty).
These traffic stops are not just obedience tests but also
attitude tests.
So she’s willing to sign it (as Edmdund Dates says above)
but uses a 4-letter word in the process.
She passed the compliance/obedience test
but not the attitude test. She doesn’t sign it *happily.*
So an agent of the state electrocutes her.
Strange place, this country.
I think that pretty much nails it, Yizmo.
There wasn’t one a-political link out of all this. Nothing about a funny website or silly article to help us cool off from the anger fostered by the rest of the morning links. We need balance Radley.
Or at least I do anyway.
#21, Edmund:
Yeah, i had to find a version that starts before she got out of the car, then watch that one a couple times, too.
Yes, she was lippy. But she did nothing illegal. She should have never been ordered to exit the vehicle in the first place. That exchange should have gone:
Her: “I’m not going to sign it you’ll have to take me to jail!”
Trooper: “That won’t be necessary, ma’am. Signing the ticket isn’t a requirement of law here in Texas. Have a nice day, ma’am.”
It was at the point where they got to the back of the car that she realizes this guy is actually going to jack her up on charges and offers to sign the ticket. She is now a cornered squirrel.
The Trooper had already stepped over the line, and was now ramping it up another notch. If he’d said “Oh! I was kidding! I wasn’t going to arrest you!” He would have exposed the fact that he had no reason to arrest her in the first place.
Nope, he was just going to keep escalating until she was locked up or dead.
Come on guys! This is TEXAS, where they just sentenced an 18 yo mentally retarded (IQ 47!!) boy to 100 years in prison for the first time offense of fondling a 6 year old. And what’s even more amazing was this youngster was white! Just imagine if he had been black or brown.
People in TEXAS have very strange ideas of justice.
So, let me get this straight. You have no problem with an unelected, effectively unaccountable cabal (the judiciary) striking down their laws but you have a serious problem with a superior body politic (Congress) which is democratically chosen passing a law that has the same effect?…
The judiciary is there for precisely that reason. You can use all the dark language you like (I especially like “cabal), but if the DC gun laws are still unconstitutional, bring it to court and have them overturned. If they are constitutional, then it should be for the residents to decide to keep or discard them. Are you really comfortable with the “body politic” passing a law on what you see as a fundemental right which could then easily be changed if the public mood shifts?
DC isn’t even covered by the 10th amendment. DC has no constitutional right of home rule because it is not a municipal jurisdiction in a state.
And you see no problem with the fact that DC residents have no representation? Now, I personally believe retrocession makes a lot more sense than statehood or a constitutionally questionable law like this one, but again, that gun amendment was just a cynical ploy, a “poison pill”. If it is really such an important issue for the sponsors, why not bring it up in a seperate bill?
Yizmo’
nit pick here, but electrocute means to kill by electrical shock. He shocked her and could have electrocuted her given her age and the lethal history of tasers.
The problem with granny at the traffic stop is that they’re both assholes.
1. She might be 72 or whatever, but she’s no helpless granny. There was no reason to be shouting vulgarities at an officer who is ticketing you.
2. She should not have been doing 60 in a 45. I don’t know the road conditions there, but from the news report there’s apparently a real reason that the speed limit is much lower there.
3. She should have simply signed the ticket like the guy asked. He didn’t seem to be a dick until that happened.
4. He should have training to de-escalate a situation. It doesn’t matter what someone yells at a police officer, that’s *never* a reason to escalate the situation unless they’re making threats of injury or violence. She wasn’t.
5. I don’t believe there’s a legal requirement for the ticket to be signed, based on reports that I’ve seen. Therefore, he should have simply walked away at her first refusal.
6. He should not have gotten pissed off and shoved her. It’s obvious that he didn’t fear for her safety and try to get her out of traffic. He was pissed off and shoved her because he’s a dick. It’s assault. She was nowhere near the road.
7. He should not have tasered her, and that alone should get him fired. Even the makers of the weapon say it shouldn’t be used against the elderly. If a man of his size is too much of a pussy to arrest her, he should turn in his gun and badge (back to my singular zero-tolerance stance).
8. He arrested her for resisting arrest. Here we go again. If there’s no legal basis for the arrest, and I don’t see any, then it’s kidnapping. It’s logically impossible to legally arrest someone for resisting arrest, although that could be an extra charge after someone was legally arrested for something else.
9. The superior officer who stood up for him should be ashamed of himself. I understand he’s trying to thwart liability, but the emperor has no clothes. To claim that his little shoving match was looking out for her safety is so obviously preposterous as to be a joke.
10. The news crew should be ashamed for handling this so badly. There are so many obvious questions that weren’t asked. Was she legally required to sign the ticket in the first place? How can someone be arrested for “resisting arrest”? What are department procedures for using a stun gun? Why couldn’t a man of his size arrest her without tasering? Why isn’t he being charged for assaulting her?
The other thing I’m wondering is if this woman has any kids. If someone did that to my mother, he’d be familiarized with the concept of a “country ass-whipping”. And I might bring a taser…
There wasn’t one a-political link out of all this. Nothing about a funny website or silly article to help us cool off from the anger fostered by the rest of the morning links.
Maybe some bacon-flavored gumballs will cure what ales ya…
I don’t know about Texas, but the ACLU advises not to refuse to sign a ticket because you can be arrested for that.
Note that she wasn’t charged with not signing the ticket, only resisting arrest and detention. My understanding is that Texas statutory law specifically states that it’s legal to resist and illegal arrest. Any arrest for “resisting arrest” is defacto illegal…
Does anyone have cite for this idea that it isn’t illegal to refuse to sign the ticket? I keep seeing it mentioned, but I’d like to have it from a reliable (i.e. quoted statute etc) source.
It’s been stated here before I believe, but here it goes again.
The cop had no right to pull her from her vehicle. Anything that happened after that is his fault.
Sorry.
Also, she is a little old lady. Sure, she’s a lippy, bitter old lady, but a little old lady nonetheless. He’s a young man, big badass cop, he really needs the aid of a weapon to subdue her?
I mean, he needs a taser gun to subdue a little old lady? What does he need to subdue a criminal who is not a little, feeble old lady?
A tank?
Oh yeah, I guess that’s why they have tanks now.
Depressing.
OTOH, we do have a cop in Texas expressing otherwise,
As Sheriff of Travis County, I want to make two things perfectly clear. First, the deputy constable does not work for my agency. The Constables Office is a separate office with the Constable elected to office by an individual precinct. Second, I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy constable as they are shown in the video. When I look at the video I am in awe of what happened.
links here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7w_jCfDGBM
and here,
http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/061009kvue_Hamilton_response-cb.69dac07c.html
One more point, in the report, it is stated that the cops in question have only been carrying tasers since February of this year.
Children with toys, you know, just can’t wait to play with them.
Cheers.
“She was using language I wouldn’t expect any woman to use, let alone a 72-year-old woman,” Griffin said.
That seems to be a common claim in almost all cases where cops defend their actions, as if fowl language, by itself, constitutes a significant factor in whether to arrest or use physical force against someone. If you can’t ignore someone’s use of offensive language, you have no business being a cop.
—————————————-
Exactly. I recently read a quote from some preacher that, in a different context, echoed this idea:
“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a s–t. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said s–t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
The unintended consequence of our increasingly PC society is a rising intolerance of foul language, and we are all paying the price. Having to hear words we find offensive sometimes is preferable to being arrested or tased for dropping the f-bomb.
/irony noted for self-censorship, but I was unsure of what is kosher
I think a 16 year old kid can be forgiven for being naive. Maybe he’ll be lucky and never get pulled over by an officer who’s filled with his own self-importance.
Rhayader has a good comment on that site. He correctly identifies tha problem as systemic.
EDS’s comment (aside from the ad hominem at Rhayader) completely misses Rhayader’s point.
Cop runs over lady on beach, gets suspended for 7 days:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525806,00.html
What a punishment.
According to Texas transportation code located at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/TN/htm/TN.543.htm
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.
If you do not sign the ticket you are failing to make a written promise to appear in court, therefore, the officer can arrest you and take you before the magistrate.
At least that is my interpretation of it.
From the 16-year-old’s letter:
“If officers see somebody in any kind of trouble it is their duty to protect that person.”
I was once 16 and I said some pretty dumb stuff then too. And I thought I knew everything. This poor child has no idea that the USSC has ruled that a LEO is under no legal obligation to render aid in any situation.
If there’s any harmony in the universe, karma will be paying this sycophantic teenager a visit in the near future.
The ACLU “bust card” strikes me as good common-sense advice, not necessarily a statement that an arrest for failure to sign a ticket is legal.
Having said that, I think the card’s advice, below, is really bad advice:
On the K.I.S.S. theory, I would advise that a person questioned by the police (i.e., without an arrest) should never answer unless it is crystal clear that they are viewed solely as a witness.
One whack from the baton upside the dog’s head would have sent the dog scurrying back right through the screen door. Been there, done that…but with a catch-pole.
I’ve encountered numerous “aggressive” dogs during my last job. I’ve never had to shoot one that was “attacking” me. I did have to shoot three dogs on separate instances because they were posing a threat to the community and could not be captured.
I’ve also been bitten numerous times. Usually my fault for trying to put hands on the friggin’ dog.
Here’s the correct way to handle a cursing motorist….. 8-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OgeMNVFpIg
I like that. I have to come up with an adaption of that for our propensity to treat nudity and sex as a worse crimes than violence.
Fowl fuckin’ language is generally fuckin’ tolerated here as long as it’s used strictly for fuckin’ literary reasons and doesn’t fuckin’ get out of fuckin’ hand or otherwise become fuckin’ gratuitous.
Dave, that might be the epitome of the difference between Texas and Massachusetts.
Both driver and cop.
LOL.
Cheers.
“As Beize was trying to arrest her, she tried to get back in her truck, the affidavit says. Sgt. Maj. Gary Griffin of the constable’s office said Winkfein was belligerent, pushed Beize into oncoming traffic and nearly stepped into it herself.”
The affidavit says he was trying to arrest her, but the video shows that he was just screaming at her and shoving her farther away from the road while she was trying to get back into her truck. The Sgt. Maj. said she tried to push him into traffic, but the video I saw never shows her push him. It does show her making a motion as though she were going to push him or grab his arms, but it appears that at the last second, she exercised some self control and refrained from laying hands on him. Perhaps we should make her a constable, seeing as how she has the presence of mind to decide when or when not to use force.
I generally have better luck with flash based videos, but when I try to play the one on the New York Daily News web site , it says “The video you are trying to view is not available.” And it says that for all of them. I used to be able to view the videos on reason.tv, but now even those are blocked. I usually just watch them when I get home.
Thanks for the suggestion, though.
Bear in mind the dashcam videos are often edited by the police after the fact, or if the video would require too much editing it’s determined that the dashcam wasn’t working.
Dave Krueger @ 2:18 PM
“Fowl fuckin’ language”
Is this another poultry complaint?
;p
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
“I am 16, but the Albany Police Department and the Linn County Sheriff’s Office are my brotherhood; therefore I know them pretty well. ”
I have trouble with this part(above). Wouldn’t “I know them pretty
well; therefore they are my brotherhood” be more logical?
Anyway I’m sure the kid’s a fine Hitler Youth.
The kid who wrote the letter clearly has some sort of learning disability which does not allow him to think in terms of nuance or subtlety, and he’s been told his whole life that the police are infallible white knights who selflessly defend the innocent from the forces of darkness. He probably gets made fun of and/or beat up at school because of his disability and sees becoming a police officer as a way to gain respect and admiration, and probably a modicum of revenge on the ‘bad people’ who he feels will inevitably come down on the wrong side of the law later in life and be brought to justice by the mighty police, and in his fantasies he is the officer who will dole out the Justice. Thus, he feels a connection to the cops and sees any criticism of them as an attack on his stunted worldview. In short, sadly, he’s the prototypical future cop.
I think that we need to leave DC’s gun laws alone for a while. That way when those “best and brightest” get there, their numbers can be whittled down some, possibly saving this country.
Hmm, so it may be that in Texas, you can get arrested for refusing to sign. There are states that do not require it, but Texas does not seem to be one of them.
My bad, I thought I had seen somewhere that Texas was more rational than that. What was I thinking? This is TEXAS we’re talking about.
In any case… there is no advantage or reason to arrest anyone for this. Simply writing “Refused to sign” on the ticket is what most cops who are capable of thinking do in situations like this. The rest, apparently, are of the “Respect mah AUTHORITAH” type that think anyone that doesn’t blindly and instantly obey all orders should be tased without mercy.
As an aside… rule of thumb… DO NOT surf through bulletin boards where cops post. You WILL be pissed off by what they write.
I still think the cop was totally in the wrong for arresting her. Simply giving her the unsigned ticket would be sufficient, and there is no reason to attempt upward escalation like that. It’s not like they didn’t know who she was or where she lived.
I screw that up (foul vs fowl) up every time I use it and someone always points it out. And next time I screw it up just like always. I think it’s probably the beginnings of dementia.
#48 Aresen, that was a cute play on words, by the way. :)
On second thought, maybe the teenage sucker of cop cock is crazy like a fox. Now if he’s pulled over by an Albany cop, he can say he’s the kid who wrote that gleaming letter of praise that was published in the local paper. Might be good for a few warnings rather than tickets.
Note to self: must pen glowing ode of praise to local police….
@ #55 CinCa:
I had similar thoughts. I bet a copy of his letter is pinned on the bulletin board in every nearby police station. He’ll probably get invited to tour the station, etc. (Assuming he hasn’t already.)
OTOH: He can suck all he wants, but does he have to swallow?
That’s a decision every man must make for himself, Aresen.
Watched that dashcam footage of the Mass cop and motorist. I think it’s possible it was staged. No way a cop puts up with that kind of abuse. Foul language is one thing, assault is another.
For more funny cop vids, if you haven’t seen this series, it’s worth a look (here’s my personal fave episode):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNDlf6hA6TY
“As an aside… rule of thumb… DO NOT surf through bulletin boards where cops post. You WILL be pissed off by what they write.”
And if you respond to them, your account will be locked or deleted for “cop bashing.” http://www.ar15.com for example
//My bad, I thought I had seen somewhere that Texas was more rational than that. What was I thinking? This is TEXAS we’re talking about.//
Suppose a cop were to simply note “refused to sign”, and the motorist didn’t show up in court. When compelled to explain his absence, the motorist denies knowing anything about the ticket. What should happen?
Cops are required to demonstrate that a motorist has been made aware of a citation. This requirement serves to protect motorists. If the only way a motorist is willing to demonstrate awareness of a citation is to be dragged before a magistrate, that’s his/her problem.
“Cops are required to demonstrate that a motorist has been made aware of a citation.”
Um, dashboard camera?
Actually the interesting thing about Texas is if you read down that statute if you refuse to sign, you are supposed to be taken before a magistrate immediately. Does that mean you get to have your case heard right there and then? I have no idea how magistrates or the system Texas works, but if you read the statute there might be room to demand immediate resolution.
Does this mean that cops can’t use their normal tactic of nuisance arrest and then just release you 10-20 hours later?
//Um, dashboard camera?//
The statutes were almost certainly written before such cameras became commonplace; practices might possibly be adapted to take advantage of such cameras so as to avoid the need for the motorist to sign a citation, but I doubt the cameras are going to have sufficient resolution to show what sort of document was shown or given to the motorist. Even if the requirements to serve a citation should be changed, however, such changes should come from the legislature rather than the police.
That 16-year-old? A young Dwight Schrute, just probably not as funny.
Cynical in CA: I went through college in the late 60s, the hippie era. I knew several long-haired, bearded folk who had “Support Your Local Police” stickers on the bumpers of their VW buses.
The text in the Texas laws seems to be fairly boiler plate for most states. Some states don’t requiring signatures, some require them only in cases of mandatory court appearances.
In all cases, the ticket itself is valid signed or not. Failing to appear in the set time frame will usually result in a suspended license. Your ticket will not be dismissed simply because it’s not signed by you.
Now, back in the day… when noone had I.D. or needed a Driver’s License, (I don’t even know when that was…) I can see the need for signing the ticket, going immediately before the magistrate on refusal, etc. But not today.
That’s called ‘Perjury’. It’s a felony. It’s a stupid motorist willing to commit perjury to get out of a ticket after showing the cop his Driver’s License, and it’s a stupider cop who commits perjury and then shows up in court to defend it just for a traffic stop.
There’s simply no reason to “be immediately called before a magistrate” against your will in this day and age. It’s just bad publicity for cops if anything goes wrong. The smart action for everyone is to get the ticket done quick with the motorist never leaving the vehicle.
People are stupid and speed. Municipalities are greedy and set up speed traps. Tickets are really expensive and keep on costing you. Pulling out the taser because someone didn’t sign is just not acceptable. Escalating the situation to the point where the taser comes out is equally unacceptable.
Re: guns and voting.
Huh. So does Rep. Horton think banning guns will keep people from using them to express their anger at a lack of voting rights?