Police

An $80 Fine for a Busted Taillight Ends With a Woman Being Tased

"I don't think that I deserve to pay $80 for something that is fixable — and I can fix it, if that's all you want me to do."

|

A disagreement over a busted taillight fine ended with an Oklahoma police officer tasing a 65-year-old woman.

Body camera footage shows an unnamed officer interacting with the woman, Debra Hamil, during the July 16 traffic stop. The officer presents Hamil with an $80 ticket and asks her to sign it. Hamil protests: "I don't think that I deserve to pay $80 for something that is fixable—and I can fix it, if that's all you want me to do."

The officer tells Hamil that she is under arrest for refusing the ticket and asks her to step out of the vehicle. Hamil says "no," rolls her windows up, and locks the doors before the officer can open them. Hamil briefly rolls her window down to tell the officer that he's "full of shit," then tells him to hand the ticket over so she can sign it. The officer says they're "beyond that." She drives off. The officer enters his vehicle.

The footage cuts to the officer approaching Hamil's truck. He's eventually able to pull her out of the truck and down the ground. After she refuses to put her hands behind her back and kicks the officer away, he deploys his taser.

Hamil is eventually handcuffed and placed in the back seat.

Bodycam video: Woman becomes aggressive with officer after refusing to sign ticket

"YOU ARE FULL OF S***!" | CAUGHT ON CAMERA: A 65-year-old woman became aggressive with a Cashion police officer, kicking him and resisting arrest, after she refused to sign a $80 ticket for a broken tail light.Christine Stanwood KOCO has the full story >> https://bit.ly/32TaJSu

Posted by KOCO 5 News on Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Hamil was later charged with assaulting an officer (felony) and resisting (misdemeanor).

When KOCO posted the video on Facebook, some of the comments supported the woman and some supported the officer. But one thing is certain: This situation was avoidable.

Traffic stops for busted taillights and other minor infractions just aren't worth the risks they generate, both for motorists and police officers. Often, the stops are really being used to generate revenue or as a pretense to search for contraband, such as drugs or guns, when an officer otherwise lacks probable cause. Even then, Berkeley law professor Christopher Kutz has argued, the few times police successfully find something "don't justify the enormous social costs of widespread police interventions." In the worst-case scenario, a traffic stop could result in death, as the surviving families of Philando Castile and Sandra Bland know well.

If police truly wish to continue to go after low-level crimes, they can cut down on interactions like the one seen in the video by reserving traffic stops for accidents and impaired drivers while using cameras and other technology to enforce minor violations. Though it's also worth asking how many of those minor violations are worth prohibiting in the first place. Such fines often amount to the criminalization of poverty, especially given that poorer Americans are more likely to drive older cars, which are at a higher risk for finable offenses.

Advertisement

NEXT: Andrew Yang Is Wrong About Shopping Malls and Amazon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. what a brave man.

    1. Right. If I am this community, why the fuck do I want this attack dog in cops clothing anywhere near anyone?

      1. Did you or anyone else ever consider that a broken taillight in itself might be considered a minor violation but that minor violation could result in a very serious accident?

        1. In most states you get the ticket, but have 24-48 hours to fix it & that is all this lady wanted! You fix it & mail in proof & ticket is squashed!

        2. Considered it. And rejected it. While there is an increased likelihood of a rear-end collision, the odds are smaller than of hitting other unlit obstacles that are commonly on roads (such as deer) AND the degree of damage will be lower than of other impacts because the most likely scenario has both cars moving in the same direction meaning a smaller incremental difference.

          Accident? Maybe. Very serious? Unlikely.

  2. #BackTheBadge #BlueLivesMatter

  3. Deserve ain’t got nothin to do with it.

  4. Hamil briefly rolls her window down to tell the officer that he’s “full of shit…”

    And the decision was made. Tasers are by most considered compliance devices and used as such. Back in the day, would this LEO have used his nightstick on the woman? Or back in the day maybe budgets weren’t so reliant on minor traffic offenses.

    1. Yeah. That is the dirty secret. They aren’t nonlethal guns. They are low effort nightsticks.

      But she was a dumbass sign the ticket.

      Aren’t these things normally fixit tickets? If not; then the fault lies with the city. And then the woman for arguing with the tool. And then the tool for being a tool.

      Lots of blame to go around.

    2. “Daddy, what did you do today”?
      ” I put my life on the line, to keep people safe”.
      “How”?
      ” I beat, electrocuted and kidnapped a little old lady that had car trouble when she didn’t respect my superior authority “.

    3. Tasers, like batons, are less lethal options than guns, not nonlethal, less lethal. If the tased lady had had a bad heart, she could have died.

  5. It’s disgusting the people that are defending this fucking thug. Which is all he is, strong arming someone over a single broken taillight is disgusting. 80 fucking bucks is extortion.

    1. I would defend that the rules are:

      If you violate the law, a law enforcement officer has probable cause to stop you and arrest you.

      Most violations of law on the road are resolved by issuing a traffic ticket (which is a court summons) that you sign receipt of and then you pay a fine, fix the problem, or show up in court.

      This lady refused to sign and then evaded a constitutional traffic stop. The officer has the discretion to take her to jail to MAKE SURE she shows for court and she resisted arrest.

      Throw the book at this lady.

      reason does not always pick good examples of police abuse and this is one of those examples.

      1. Nah, you’re wrong on this.

        The cop went from “sign” to “jail” instantly. That’s not acceptable, period. Had he done the hard part of his job (deescalation) none of this would have happened.

        That doesn’t mean she’s off the hook. But if you’re taking a person to jail because they won’t sign something, you’re evil.

        1. The cop went from “sign” to “jail” instantly. That’s not acceptable, period.

          That’s the way the US legal system works and has always worked. If you violate the law, you will be held in jail until your case is heard. You get out of that by signing a promise to appear in court voluntarily. Those are your two options: appear voluntarily or stay in jail. What exactly do you think is “not acceptable” about that?

          1. What part of “evil” was unclear to you fuckboy?

            You don’t put people in jail for refusing to sign something. Full stop.

            And your appeal to always has been that way falls on deaf ears motherfucker, it’s evil no matter how long its been done.

            1. Pay taxes, feed their animals, feed their children, send kids to school, take kids or elderly parents to doctor, pay moving violations, stop having sex with unwilling partner…. there are multitudes of things we send people to jail for refusing to do, you mindless cretin

            2. You don’t put people in jail for refusing to sign something. Full stop.

              Correct, you don’t. Police put people in jail for violating the law until they see a judge. That’s the default. Signing something is what gets them out of jail.

              And your appeal to always has been that way falls on deaf ears motherfucker, it’s evil no matter how long its been done.

              I’m not surprised that an appeal to what free societies do fall on deaf ears with you.

          2. “You get out of that by signing a promise to appear in court voluntarily.”

            Except that’s not remotely related to what THIS was, and you’re a stupid ignorant sockpuppet tard.

            1. It’s EXACTLY what this was, idiot

          3. Jesus I read your post and every time it becomes even more clear to me that you don’t even know what the fuck this case is about or what my point was.

            God damn why do you fucking morons insist on being so dumb.

            1. Jesus I read your post and every time it becomes even more clear to me that you don’t even know what the fuck this case is about or what my point was.

              As a driver, I know exactly what this case is about: you either make a written commitment to appear before a judge or you go to jail until you see a judge. Those are the rules to which you agree when you operate a motor vehicle on public roads in most (all?) states. Signing the ticket is an acknowledgment that you understand that you must appear before a judge.

              There are other systems possible; this is the one the US has, and it’s a pretty decent one. It’s also the one Americans by and large prefer.

        2. The police officer needs to be sent back to school. Deescalation should be part of his job.

          1. “Oh, you refuse to sign the ticket? Shucks. Guess I’ll have to let you go then. Okely-dokley, have a nice day, ma’am.”

            Are you really that stupid?

          2. So…. that’s what they mean when they say they put their lives on the line for us everyday!

          3. In WA, they don’t throw you in jail for not signing a ticket. They just note you refused to sign, and the ticket is still issued. Not sure why this needs to be any different.

            1. Yeah I’m pretty sure that’s very common. You don’t have to sign it. But you don’t get arrested until you fail to appear in court.

        3. She did not go to jail because she “won’t sign something”. She went to jail because she evaded a police officer that had legally detained her then assaulted him.
          I have to wonder if you read the whole article…

          1. People read the articles here?

      2. He also could have made the decision that hey, it’s just a civil infraction, you know where she lives at this point, just mail her her punishment. Insisting on arresting someone just for being a pain is exactly the problem with law enforcement. It just escalates the potential for violence, which is exactly what happened here. Also, important to remember that tasers are supposed to be a substitute for lethal force(I know, ha ha ha pull my other one), which was certainly not warranted here.

        1. You dipshits understand that’s what signing the ticket is for? You get RORed and promise to appear.

          1. Yep. Signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt, it’s just acknowledging you receive the ticket.

            I got a ticket for having on one headlight, the other one was destroyed in an accident. The cop told me if I fixed it within a certain time period and had any cop sign off that it was fixed, they’d drop the ticket.

            So I got a mounting at a junk yard and a new bulb.

            It’s likely that the lady could have just fixed the damn light and shown up in court with proof and no $80 fine. Even if that’s not the case, you fight the ticket in court, not the cop on the street.

            1. If signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt then the signature is unnecessary. To Marty’s suggestion, just mail the ticket. That is considered adequate proof for other sorts of infractions. No reason at all that couldn’t have been used here.

              1. Or just give her the ticket and note down that she refused to sign it.

                1. And then when she ‘loses’ the ticket you have no proof that she actually received it in the first place.

                  1. Sure you do – the officer’s affidavit describing what happened. The officer’s affidavit is adequate to prove the elements of the crime. It should be more than adequate to demonstrate receipt.

                    1. If she refuses to sign, she obviously either doesn’t understand that she needs to appear in court or she refuses to do so. So how does the “officer’s affidavit” help?

                    2. Sure you do – the officer’s affidavit describing what happened.

                      Which could be anything the officer wants to write down. Cops can and do lie on police reports. The signature if proof of receipt of the paperwork, just like having to sign for a registered letter.

                2. Most jurisdictions do that.

              2. If signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt then the signature is unnecessary.

                The signature is necessary for you to acknowledge that you understand that you have been accused of something and need to take action.

                To Marty’s suggestion, just mail the ticket.

                That’s the way it works in Europe. But Americans happen to believe that they are entitled to confront their accuser and have their day in court. That’s why we have this system, rather than the “just mail the ticket” system.

          2. And your hydrocephaloid ass does understand that’s not the point, and arresting someone for refusing it is?

            I don’t care how you justify it. You’re evil if you jail someone because they didn’t sign your fucking receipt.

          3. “You dipshits understand that’s what signing the ticket is for? You get RORed and promise to appear”

            Also, that’s wrong. It’s not a fine that requires an appearance, it is LITERALLY a receipt.

            1. Actually, you’re a moron. It’s usually a form along the lines of:

              “On this date, I’ve been officially notified that I’m in violation of (insert law here) and I have the following options regarding this charge:

              – Pay a fine of _____________ dollars by no later than (insert date here.)
              – Arrange for a date to contest this charge in court.

              Pick one and send to (address here) for processing.”

              So, yes, it’s quite necessary that a person sign indicating they have received such a notice.

            2. Its NOT a receipt.

              It’s a court summons.

        2. “He also could have made the decision that hey, it’s just a civil infraction, you know where she lives at this point, just mail her her punishment.”

          Not to mention, he could have handed her the ticket for her signature, as she told him. From the article:

          Hamil briefly rolls her window down to tell the officer that he’s “full of shit,” then tells him to hand the ticket over so she can sign it. The officer says they’re “beyond that.”

          But no- his authoritah has been challenged, and somebody must pay.

          1. Exactly my point. This could have, handled properly by the cop, ended a lot better.

            1. Agreed. Who’s supposed to be the professional in this situation, anyway?

            2. I always think ‘what would Sheriff Andy Taylor have done?’.

        3. Did you miss the part where she evaded after being legally detained and then assaulted the officer?
          It WAS a civil infraction until SHE escalated the situation by running from the cop.

          1. And evasion of law enforcement tends to be a felony.

      3. Davis (not Reason) wasn’t writing this as an example of police abuse. In the second half the article he makes that clear, while emphasizing that the bigger issue here is law enforcement stopping people over minor traffic violations.

      4. I think the guy with the gun and the constitutional authority to detain a woman for a broken tail light should have more discretion and less of a temper. Not to mention that he should be in prison for tasing this woman. If you stop a person while thinking that they must respect your authority or else face physical discipline then you’re the problem.

        1. He ‘served and protected’ the hell out of her!!

        2. Did you miss the part where she evaded after being legally detained and then assaulted the officer?

          1. Oh no! The 65 year old woman who did nothing wrong didn’t want to be arrested? You’re right, fucking electrocute her again on me.

      5. +1
        “I would defend that the rules are:”

        Woketarian Reason: “Rules in society? What a statist *monster*! I bet you’re a racist!”

        We have traffic laws. Part of those laws specify the required safety equipment on a car.

        If you break those laws, a cop will pull you over and give you a ticket with a fine. It won’t just be a “request” to fix the problem, because a request provides no true incentive to follow the rules but your kindly consideration for the request.

        The cop is not requesting that you stop the car. Not requesting that you sign the ticket. These are lawful demands, with consequences if you refuse to comply.

        “…reason does not always pick good examples of police abuse and this is one of those examples.”

        Moreover, their headlines totally distort events to play to The Narrative.

        “Old lady didn’t do nothing, and the officer just tased her. Wah!”

        At least they gave an honest narrative in the article.
        +1

        I’d say police policy *should* be that the cop explains to her that a refusal to sign will lead to arrest before giving her a final opportunity to sign before escalating to arrest.

        Having said that, the officer was probably acting consistent with the law.

        She refused a lawful *and professional* arrest order given multiple times. She fled. She assaulted the officer.

        She did do plenty.

        I’d say after the kick, he *should* have, but only as a matter of discretion, explained to the woman that she had now committed felony assault on an officer, and would be tased if she didn’t comply to his lawful command to lie down and put her hands behind her back.

        But that’s a judgment call cutting a stupid, hysterical old broad slack. I’m not going to complain about his escalation after all she had done.

        I like Reason’s suggestion of limiting traffic stops by using cameras and technology instead for fines like this, but given that the tail light is a safety issue affecting other drivers, it’s probably appropriate to do a stop.

        There really should be a nationwide public awareness campaign on the laws of interacting with police so that people know the law, know what to expect from police, and know what they’re expected to do. It’s probably complicated by different jurisdictions having different policies.

        1. I generally agree, except…:

          I like Reason’s suggestion of limiting traffic stops by using cameras and technology instead for fines like this,

          Reason has had several articles against traffic cameras and how they can be abused and used merely as revenue-generating tools.

          1. I like it too. It’s probably appropriate for some offenses but not others.

    2. She got fined not over “a single broken taillight” because she had been driving around with a broken tail light for six months and not given a f*ck.

      She got tazed after she kicked the officer in the nuts.

      1. She got tazed after she kicked the officer in the nuts.

        Weird that she was able to kick him in the nuts through her own car door. Sounded a lot more like he dragged someone out of a vehicle and got kicked in the nuts. Which is exceedingly likely to happen any time you drag someone out of a vehicle and would cause most normal and even some pretty psychopathic people to question whether $80 is worth getting kicked in the nuts over.

        1. If we’re going to be pedantic, he dragged someone out of a vehicle after that person had unlawfully fled from a completely legal traffic stop in her vehicle and necessitated a potentially dangerous vehicular pursuit.

          1. “and necessitated a potentially dangerous vehicular pursuit.”

            Necessitated? How often do you suppose people flee the country to avoid an $80 fine?

            I suppose calmly following her to her house (or wherever else she was going) to deal with the situation is out of the question, then?

            1. “Deal with the situation” how?

              “Sign the ticket, ma’am.”
              “No!”
              “Sign the ticket, ma’am.”
              “No!”
              “Sign the ticket, ma’am.”
              “No!”

              How long do you think he should have spent doing that and nothing more?

              1. Oh, forget that, because that deal went off the table before she fled. The new deal was “Come quietly to jail, or resist arrest, get tazed, and then go to jail.”

  6. Why didn’t she use her white privilege?

    1. She did; she didn’t get shot.

      1. All the black people that get tazed, but not shot, for contempt of cop are using their white privilege? Interesting.

  7. ” . . . while using cameras and other technology to enforce minor violations.”
    No can do – videos and pictures will not be admissible as evidence due to the prevalence of deepfake technology. If a simple alleged photograph or video clip can be used as evidence, then all those Inquirer pictures of politicians with aliens are true. Do you want that?
    The next step would be pretending DNA can tell men from women.

    1. Eye witness accounts used to be the gold standard of evidence. Then video and forensics came along and eye witness testimony is seen for what it is, unreliable. Now that video and audio evidence can be completely faked, that leaves forensics. That can’t be faked, right? One day no form of evidence will be reliable enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Then they’ll just lower the bar for conviction.

    2. They send traffic tickets based on traffic cams all the time.

      I can see issues with that, but “deep fakes” isn’t one of them.

  8. And yet the law is that you have to sign the ticket; it is not an admission of guilt, just a receipt that the cop wrote out the ticket.
    Go after the politicians and get the law changed.

    1. Go after the politicians and get the law changed.

      Technically, there shouldn’t even be a receipt to sign. The officer didn’t provide you a service that you haven’t already paid for. They don’t make suspected murderers sign any receipts confirming evidence has been collected.

      Assuming you buy into the idea that this is somehow a policing necessity, no stop should occur. You should get an letter or email with two photos from either a dashcam or a bodycam showing the same vehicle matching your description, with the license plate that matches yours, and, seemingly, the same broke tail light, dated 3-6 mos. (or whatever) apart, presumably with location as well. You reply with a photo refuting the evidence or a photo demonstrating that the problem has been corrected and the citation goes away. Officer Taser can review it between parking duty shifts from his cubicle back at the department.

      1. That’s what happens when you show up to court with a receipt – they dismiss it.

        You stupid anarchist fcvks would be singing a different tune had her lack of proper lights had caused an accident involving you

      2. Yeah, my $20 citation for improper license plate lighting went away when I showed them the receipt for the replacement bulb and told them that I had fixed it.

        Then they charged me $54 in court costs. It would have been cheaper to pay the ticket.

        1. Nahh – it would have been $74 dollars in that case.

          The Gestapo always gets “their” money.

      3. Technically, there shouldn’t even be a receipt to sign

        It’s not a “receipt”, it’s a written promise on your part to appear in court; the alternative to promising to appear in court is to stay in jail until your court hearing.

        Assuming you buy into the idea that this is somehow a policing necessity, no stop should occur.

        That’s the way it works in Europe. In the US, voters apparently prefer for police not to be judge, jury, and executioner in absentia.

        1. “it’s a written promise on your part to appear in court;”

          You’re wrong. It isn’t a fine that also requires an appearance, it is LITERALLY a receipt. You are exactly wrong. There is no appearance necessary, you can simply pay the fine.

          1. You are working overtime at spreading your idiocy. Paying the fine ahead of your court date is an admission of guilt, a guilty plea, and absolves you of having to appear.
            But if you don’t fix the light, you probably get another ticket.

            I think most teenagers understand the legal system better than you

            1. So what you’re saying is that if the officer notices a broken taillight on a parked car he has to wait for the driver to show up in order to issue the citation but he can issue a parking citation, boot, and even tow the vehicle entirely without the ower/driver being present?

              Ultimately, sounds like a heads up vs. tails down, tastes great vs. less filling, gun database vs. universal background checks situation, penalty vs. tax, FYTW to me.

              1. Have you been around a car made in the last 45 years?

                A “broken” taillight May not even be a violation in most jurisdictions, as it would mean a broken taillight cover, which may in fact have a working bulb underneath.

                Besides, a broken light itself is not a violation, operating a car on a public road with a broken light is. And cars don’t get tickets, drivers do, which is why the whole debate about video is silly.

          2. You’re wrong. It isn’t a fine that also requires an appearance,

            That makes no sense. Once you pay the fine, you don’t have to appear. I mean, what would be the point of appearing if you have already paid the fine? You appear before a traffic court only if you contest the ticket.

            it is LITERALLY a receipt.

            What would it be a receipt for? You don’t pay the officer.

            1. It is NOT a receipt. It is a court summons. I’ve had over 100 tickets in my life in 9 different states; they all have a notice to appear on certain date. When you sign it you are acknowledging that you understand you are to appear in court on that date or pay the fine prior to the annotated date.

              1. It is NOT a receipt. It is a court summons.

                That’s what I said. Why are you telling me?

    2. And yet the law is that you have to sign the ticket

      Actually, that’s not quite the law. The law is that you are held in jail until a court hearing unless you promise (in writing) to appear voluntarily in court.

      1. Not for a tail light you fucking retard. This isn’t bail dumbass.

        What the fuck is up with you stupidly thinking wrongly that this is anything like bail and requires an appearance when it doesn’t?

        1. Because it says so right on the ticket:

          WITHOUT ADMITTING GUILT, I PROMISE TO APPEAR AT THE TIME AND PLACE INDICATED BELOW:
          x Signature ______________
          [Name of court]
          [Section/division/room]
          [Street address]
          [Phone number]

          How much clearer can it be? Your signature is a promise to appear (or discharge the ticket by paying it before the appearance date). If you refuse to sign, it means you are explicitly and deliberately refusing to appear before the court.

          1. EXACTLY!!

            I’ve had over 100 tickets in my life in 9 different states; they all have a notice to appear on certain date.

            1. Maybe learn to drive?

    3. well, in California, the police only turn on the lights and pull you over if they have evidence of criminal traffic violations. For instance, illegal parking is a civil administrative infraction, not a criminal vehicle code violation that’s why I parking tickets don’t require you to sign them. If there is an actual criminal violation, as soon as the police turn on the red lights you are under custodial arrest. You release yourself from custodial arrest after you agree to appear in the court system. The problem may be whether a broken tail light is actually a criminal vehicle code violation or a civil administrative violation. My wife refused to sign a fraudulent ticket that turned out to be a civil administrative violation. She was sent to jail and received a six-figure settlement because she uncovered the fraudulent police activity

      1. The moral of the story is, if they light you up, you are under custodial arrest. You can’t run. You can release yourself from custodial arrest by agreeing to the jurisdiction of the court system. I agree she should have fought the issue in court after repairing her tail light. But in almost all cases, you must sign the ticket or you have resisted custodial arrest

        1. Nope. In most cases they merely note you refused to sign and you still have to appear.

  9. >>>Traffic stops for busted taillights and other minor infractions just aren’t worth the risks they generate, both for motorists and police officers.

    *are* worth the revenue they may generate.

    1. Some people continue to operate unsafe vehicles on public roads.

      Some places issue “fix it” tickets which don’t result in fines as long as you get the safety issue fixed within a period of time.

      This OK jurisdiction does not use that method or the officer didnt want to use that method.

      1. We don’t know that, Reason is generally pretty terrible on those details

      2. This OK jurisdiction does not use that method or the officer didnt want to use that method.

        The officer couldn’t use that method because the woman had told him that she had already been driving around with a broken taillight for six months. Obviously, this wasn’t an innocent oversight on her part. That’s why she got a $80 ticket. He even said “I wish you hadn’t told me that”.

        (And he tazed her not for refusing to sign the ticket but because she kicked him in the nuts.)

  10. wiat. Reason thinks traffic enforcement by video camera is OK?
    |while using cameras and other technology to enforce minor violations.

    As a motorist, I wish the cops would pull over every idiot driving a car without functioning brake lights, head lights, and turn signals. It’s a “fix-it ticket” in my state – show you’ve corrected the problem and the ticket is expunged.

    I’m no badge-licker, but this woman drove a car with a broken light for months, refused to simply sign the ticket, drove off, resisted the cop, kicked the cop. “Just do what you’re told” doesn’t apply in a lot of cases, but this time, the cop was right.

    Frankly, I’m surprised she didn’t get shot or arrested by SWAT after the “chase,” but then she is a country girl.

    1. We get it you’re a badge licker.

      1. He’s licking something, but it’s about 18 inches lower than the badge.

    2. >>>drove a car with a broken light for months

      lock. her. up.

      1. Change the law to decriminalize all vehicle safety problems.

        1. In Georgia, there are no Infraction offenses against public laws. Everything is either a Felony or Misdemeanor.

          It means that tickets are issued to appear for court but you can request a jury trial for a speeding tickets and get a state appointed attorney.

          1. What the fuck is it with your and your law and order crap, only when it suits you? You scream bloody murder and love quoting the Constitution for all sorts of shit — and here you think it’s just dandy tasering someone for a tail light.

            Consistency of interpretation would be a nice change from consistently authoritarian.

          2. I doubt you;ll respond to this, even if you see it; you typically either call me a troll or ignore me.

            Where in your 1789 Constitution does it justify roving police patrols? You like to have a fit over the slightest infringement of gun rights, ignoring the arguments that gun rights as originally conceived included various restrictions. You refuse to acknowledge similar absolutist arguments against libel and slander laws

            Where is the justification for police whose jobs consist almost entirely of looking for busted tail lights? Are those not searches by absolutist interpretation? Is $80 for a fixit ticket not excessive by absolutist interpretation?

            You are about as consistent a Constitution lover as you are consistently responsive. You ignore what you don’t like and insult people who dispute the parts you do like.

            1. Where in your 1789 Constitution does it justify roving police patrols?

              … reserved to the states …

              Is $80 for a fixit ticket not excessive by absolutist interpretation?

              It would be, except she had been driving around with it for six months, and that made it not a “fixit” ticket.

              1. “Reserved to the states” is not the secret backdoor key to violating the Constitution. It doesn’t allow slavery, outright gun bans, state religions, etc.

                Where does it allow roving searches that go far beyond any general warrants used by the British? Where does it allow excessive fines? Is tasering someone for refusing to sign a ticket cruel and unusual punishment?

                Fuck that noise. If lc1789 wants to be a constitutional absolutist when it comes to the 2nd amendment, he damn well better be just as absolutist elsewhere.

                1. The ‘search’ in this case, moron, was the cop noticing a plainly visible broken tail light on a vehicle on the road.

                  $80 is not excessive for someone who basically bragged about not giving a fuck that the light was broken, and that it had been broken for months.

                  She wasn’t tazed for refusing to sign a ticket, dipshit. She was taxed for kicking a police officer who was trying to legally arrest her.

                2. “Reserved to the states” is not the secret backdoor key to violating the Constitution.

                  It is in the 1789 Constitution, which is what you asked about. That is, the original Constitution merely defined the limited powers of the federal government; it didn’t limit the powers of the state governments.

                  Over the next century, the Bill of Rights increasingly became applied to state governments under various legal theories.

                  Where does it allow roving searches that go far beyond any general warrants used by the British? Where does it allow excessive fines? Is tasering someone for refusing to sign a ticket cruel and unusual punishment?

                  The woman admitted to driving around with an unsafe vehicle for months, refused to promise to appear in court, and then violently resisted arrest. She hasn’t been punished at all yet; my guess is she’ll get a lot more than just a $80 fine.

        2. we diverge here. discretion on pull-overs is better … both people had a pleasant afternoon in whatever universe he let her slide

          you’re not wrong, i just don’t care to follow the letter …

    3. Right, wish I’d read your post before writing mine.

    4. You like to toss that officer’s salad don’t you??

  11. The fine is about the same cost as a new tail light so it only really serves to put off the repair making it more likely she’ll be pulled over again.

    1. Bullshyt. A new lamp bulb costs $10 max, and $30 max if if you but it at a shop that installs it

      1. The article say “busted”, not “blown out”. May cost a bit more than $10.

  12. If I recall correctly, I was once ticketed for having an inoperable license plate light in FL. I was issued an order to provide proof of having fixed it within 30 days, in which case I’d have to pay a small administrative fee, but if I didn’t show proof of repair, the full ticket would be enforced. This seems far more sensible than “fix it AND pay full ticket price.” If the laws are more reasonable, folks are more likely to respond to them reasonably. Both of these people are clearly taking shit too far; but having a better law may be the correct answer.

    1. On the one hand, I want to laud Florida for a reasonable logistical solution. On the other hand, an inoperable *license plate light*, WTF?

      1. The only time my daughter has been pulled over, it was for a license plate light. Such things are clearly just an excuse to make a stop and run the driver for warrants/search for drugs/call for a dog to pretend to signal.

        1. Or to make sure criminals can’t avoid detection at night

          1. If a broken license plate light is going to cause that, shouldn’t the cop be cited for driving a car without working headlights?

            1. How dense are you people? They could commit an armed robbery, or a murder, or be driving drunk and erratically, and be witnessed by a pedestrian walking their dog. If the pedestrian sees the license plate, they are caught much easier.

              1. If the pedestrian sees the license plate, they are caught much easier.

                Now you’re confusing identification with apprehension, bystanders and witnesses, and, once again, implying guilt where it’s not clearly associated and broadening an exceedingly narrow class of criminal who commits crimes like murder or armed robbery between sundown and sun up with the lights on to everyone who drives.

                Regardless of your flights of fancy, license plates themselves are used *far* more often for routine harassment and monitoring than they are for any actual criminal behavior. So, even if license plates lights are absolutely key to apprehensions in a significant number of cases, they are disproportionately significant in a considerably the much more numerous cases of petty harassment by police officers.

          2. You’ve confused identification and detection, broadened an exceedingly narrow class of criminal who’s driving a fully-roadworthy conveyance too dumb to turn off the lights to all criminals, and falsely assumed the guilt of someone identified by driving a vehicle.

            It’s pretty blatantly an excuse just to bring car manufacturers to heel and pull people over.

        2. Fancytown cops will use pull overs like these to let any riff raff passing through know that they’re not welcome.

          “You obviously ain’t rich and so don’t belong here.”

    2. She had been driving around with a broken taillight for six months; she said so herself to the officer. That’s why she got the ticket. Otherwise, she’d just have gotten a warning.

  13. $80 fines for busted taillights ensure the police force has the resources to issue $80 fines for busted taillights.

    1. Cops are the enforcement arm of legislatures.

    2. $80 fines for busted taillights ensure that everyone gets their car in working order without a 6 month delay

      1. Clearly not everyone. It’s not even clear that $80 fines and a tazing have yet ensured that this tail light is fixed.

  14. Christopher Kutz has argued, the few times police successfully find something “don’t justify the enormous social costs of widespread police interventions.”

    Well, that’s a fine supporting argument for a publication ostensibly dedicated to the idea of individual rights. Could you not find a libertarian-minded legal expert to weigh in, Zuri? Or at least link to Kutz’s research wherein he defines “enormous social costs”?

    1. What are the enormous social costs associated with allowing people to drive around with no working lights on their cars?
      A lot more “innocent” people are harmed by that than by traffic stops

      1. no working lights

        This isn’t what anyone except you is talking about and the number of times I’ve seen people driving with one headlight out or even having forgotten to turn them on after dark makes me think the *social* consequences aren’t that bad.

        1. I see people driving without any working tail lights and. Or brake lights all the time. It’s dangerous.

  15. The world has changed and the days of Officer Clancy are apparently gone, but law enforcement today is more like paramilitary sometimes. These police officers are grossly under trained in basic de-escalation skills, are inadequately screened for inappropriate personality aberrations, and are not held accountable for illegal acts, abuses of power, and just plain punk behavior. Sure, the woman was sassy, but the officer escalated the situation unnecessarily. He turned it into a power struggle and pissing contest. He is poorly trained for working with the public.

    1. Especially if you kick ’em in the balls.

  16. “An $80 Fine for a Busted Taillight Ends With a Woman Being Tased.”

    An $80 fine AND get tased?
    I’ll bet you won’t find that deal at Walmart!

  17. There are many, many examples of our our out of control police forces. This isn’t one of them. It’s obvious to any reasonable adult, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

    1. The complaint isn’t entirely out of control police forces. There’s actually a considerable amount of the story devoted to rethinking policy that compels officers to do stupid shit.

      It’s actually one of Reason’s less psycho-left-libertarian articles in quite a while.

      1. There’s actually a considerable amount of the story devoted to rethinking policy that compels officers to do stupid shit.

        True. A private company wouldn’t just give drivers like this a ticket and ask them to appear for a hearing, they’d simply ban them for life from their roads and tow their car. For some reason, the operators of public roads don’t do that and instead have to risk getting kicked in the nuts.

  18. I’m not going to the wall to defend this particular woman – if the charge is wrong there’s a forum to decide that. Just sign to show you got the summons, and then deal with it in court.

  19. [You’re] full of shit

    Hero

  20. If she was rich, this never would have happened. Do you think the rapist, Jeffrey Epstein, ever was tased?

    1. You’re charged extra at Pedo Island for a good tasing.

  21. From the article:

    “Hamil briefly rolls her window down to tell the officer that he’s “full of shit,” then tells him to hand the ticket over so she can sign it. The officer says they’re “beyond that.” She drives off.”

    She tells the cop to hand her the ticket and he refuses. WTF is that- “Neener, neener, you can’t make me?” Is he in fourth grade, or what?

    Once again, who’s supposed to be the professional here?

    1. “Sign the ticket, ma’am.”
      “No!”
      “You’re not going to sign the ticket?”
      “No!”
      “Okay, step out of the car then because you’re under arrest.”
      “WAAAAAAH NOW I WANT TO SIGN THE TICKET!”

      1. And when she agreed to sign it, that should have been enough. Saying it’s “beyond that” is just punishing her for her earlier refusal to comply and not actually serving a legitimate judicial objective. As for all the comments above saying it’s a summons – you don’t actually have to sign a summons because it is an order, not a request to attend. Some people need to remind themselves of the basics of the law!

      2. The one failing in him/procedure is that after the first no, he asked her whether she would sign the ticket, instead of explaining the consequences of not signing the ticket to her.

        Once she knew the consequence, she agreed to sign.

  22. I would have fixed her taillight, or even quit my job as a statist enforcer, before I’d tase/ batter and assault an elder lady, but then I’m not a “hero”™.

    1. I would have fixed her taillight

      How many taillights a day would you fix for people out of your pocket?

      or even quit my job as a statist enforcer

      What does this have to do with statism? Do you think a private road operator would be any more tolerant of someone deliberately driving an unsafe vehicle for six months and then kicking their security personnel in the nuts?

      before I’d tase/ batter and assault an elder lady, but then I’m not a “hero”™.

      Do you think that anybody automatically becomes a nice person when they get old, or only women?

  23. The correct procedure would be:
    – officers makes the traffic stop to warn driver of the issue
    – politely explains the tail light is damaged
    – issues a fix by XX date citation with info on how to verify the fix
    – leaves and says “have a nice day”

    THIS officer should be fired for unacceptable behavior and prohibited from ever doing police work in the future. She should sue for abuse and a good settlement.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

    1. What’s the correct procedure when the motorist tells you outright that they already knew the light was broken for six months and didn’t care?

      What’s the correct procedure if the motorist refuses to sign anything you give him/her?

      What’s the correct procedure if the motorist leaves the site of the traffic stop before the officer is finished?

  24. What a stupid bitch. Someone should show her that Richard Prior clip on how to act when you get pulled over. She sure enough would of acted different if she happened to need the officer at the time.

  25. This is what happens when white privilege goes wrong. Gramma been doing her country thing for so long she thought she was butlletproof.

    I bet she’s ready to look at the Police State differently now. Someone from the OKLP should go have a cup of coffee with her and her family.

Please to post comments