Seems like a guy can’t read the front page of Digg anymore without catching a police taser story. There’s videos, news stories and blog posts galore on taserings (sic?) on a daily basis. Taser stories have become the uber Diggbait anymore. Everybody likes to pile it on the boys in blue that are out there making up the thin blue line while we Google a couple of statutes, rant about brutality gone wild and post their videos on YouTube. Case in point. Even though this post made it on the front page of Digg, the poster’s legal research is fatally flawed:

Applying what we have learned to this event would mean that arresting someone for not signing a citation is unlawful.

Herein lies the first of many flaws in this line of reasoning. The officer did not arrest for refusing to sign the citation, the officer arrested the individual for speeding. My response (see comment #40 on the Exposed Corruption link above):

I’m not endorsing the use of tasers; however, your research is substantially flawed. The citation code section that you cite is purely permissive, leaving the officer with the discretion of making an arrest. In fact, another section confirms this discretionary authority:

77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers. A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; “presence” includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;

The speeding offense clearly occurred in the officer’s presence. While he “may” issue a citation under 77-7-6, he also “may” make an arrest. Furthermore, had you taken your research to the appropriate extent necessary to determine whether the officer was acting under proper authority, you would have found that the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Harmon, 910 P.2d 1196 (Utah 1995), noted that Utah Code sections 77-7-2, and -18 “are couched in permissive language allowing police officers, at their discretion, to either cite or arrest for traffic offenses committed in their presence.” While I appreciate your emotional response to a violent police interaction, you should not attempt to derive a legal conclusion from a half-hearted Google research project . . . unless, of course, your only point is to invoke the knee jerk reactions of Digg users and land on the front page.

If the police are just zapping some guy walking down the street, that’s one thing. If there is some kind of confrontation involved and you decide to interpret the facts and law associated therewith, take the time to understand them before trying to make the police look bad. If the police officer is just plain wrong, then he’s wrong. Everybody that gets tasered isn’t a victim. Sometimes the police are just trying to stay alive. Pick your battles. Read the right law. Understand the facts.