I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Joel isn't all that interested in sweeping isolated incidents under the rug.

Wow. Failure to sign the ticket results in being tazed? That officer needs to be arrested and tazed. What an abuse of power.

Here are my thoughts on this incident:

- Thousands of traffic tickets are issued every day without anyone getting tased. It seems like both the Officer and the motorist could have made choices that resulted in a different result.

- If an officer (for ANY reason) draws his taser and has to tell you TWICE to turn around and put your hands behind your back, you are an incredible dumb sh!t. An INCREDIBLE one and you deserve to be tased.

- I'd like to hear the Officer articulate why he chose to arrest THIS driver over not signing the ticket compared to all the other drivers who refuse. Maybe he always arrests them, maybe all the Troopers do, maybe they seldom do, I'd like to hear what "normal" is in this regard. It seems extreme, but not if all Troopers do it all the time. For me, this is the biggest question. If it's SOP to arrest them, then this Officer did nothing wrong. If it's rare to arrest them, then this Officer is a huge prick, even if he technically did nothing wrong.

- Having a wife and/or kids present does not make THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE in how a person should be treated. Should anyone get more or less leeway just because his wife and kid are watching? The liberal media is only playing that angle so the story will be more emotional and so they can try to make the Police look all the worse. Their presence has ZERO to do with how an Officer should act. Taking stuff like that into consideration before you act (or react) is a good way to get yourself killed.

- Once the decision was made that this guy was going to be taken into custody, it was inevitable that force was going to be needed. He had multiple chances to cooperate, there was no reason to believe that the 3rd or 4th time would be the charm. There was no reason to ask again.

- Summary - If a routine traffic stop ends with someone getting tased, then multiple poor decisions have been made, for sure by the motorist, and most likely by the Officer too.

We aren't required to sign speeding tickets in MN, right? (having never gotten one)

Why do they do it in other states? I don't know how many times I've seen the attempt to secure a signature go South.

MN - No.
WI - No. Luckily, that's as far as my experience goes.

I agree. It's a stupid idea that's just asking for trouble.

They want you to sign the ticket so you acknowlege getting it. It's simply your promise to either go to court to fight the matter; or pay the ticket. If you don't do either, there will be an arrest warrant.The people arrested usually will claim they never received the paperwork; then they can show the court the signed ticket to prove otherwise.

The ticket is called "tab" charging. The alternative is to arrest you, take you to jail, wait for court, and then you post bail to get out of jail until your trial.

Most of us would prefer the Tab Charge procedure, when offered that choice.

Even if you DON"T sign the ticket, you are still responsible for going to Court on time, otherwise there will be a warrant for your arrest anyway. It makes no difference in the end,

Most cops insist you actually sign or be arrested. On the other hand an arrest of a non-dangerous person is a waste of public resources; so I think if I was the cop I'd try to explain the procedure, and if the speeder still refused to sign I'd just leave the ticket and wish him good luck. So what? Let the system deal with him.

But I suppose if I was feeling insecure about my position in the world, I'd run him in just to show who's boss. And if I wanted to jack him around, I intentionally wouldn't do a good job of explaining things, so I'd have an excuse to run him in.

It's a shame we have lots of traffic cops to hassle motorists, but not enough police to investigate crimes.

I do believe Minnesota has a "refused to sign" box, with dash cams etc, its less of an issue, but it started when Massachusetts in the early days of radar. would just sit on the side of the road and write down license numbers. then every one who passed at what the radar said was over the limit, they got a ticket. Enough people were either wrongly ticketed, caught in places at times when they were supposed to be somewhere else, or just did not want to pay and started Denying that they were ever on that road at that time, that Massachusetts started a policy that a ticket was not valid unless the driver was encouraged to sign the ticket. Which at that time was not a guilty plea, only a verification that you had been the operator who was stopped at the time of the ticket.

Remember, it was not until the late 70's that many states had pictures on the DL's. before that it was just a card with a description. So driving with someone else's license who could reasonable pass for you was an easy thing. Someone in Chicago had a license of mine, and they got several tickets and used my ID. I would have to get a professor or Boss to xerox evidence that on the date in question, I had been in Minnesota at school or working and mail that back home to argue that the individual driving was not me. (this also worked if you looked a bit older and stole one of your older brothers or cousins licenses and used that to buy beer.)

Im not sure Im with you on this. The way I see it in the burbs where there is not a lot of violent crime, the cops can enforce the "other" laws that may not always be enforced by Minneapolis cops that spend much of their time hunting down shooting suspects.

I for one, am VERY HAPPY the the suburb I live in spends quite a bit of time on traffic enforcement. Maybe I am getting old but when I see people driving 50+ in a 30 or 35 zone I get really upset. Escpecially when I am walking with my kids.

Now hassling for tint too dark (I was cited for 46%, state law is 50%) is something I am on the fence about. But thats another story.

It's been a few years since I've gotten a ticket, but I was never asked to sign anything the cops gave me.

There's more money in hassling motorists.

Darrell quoted that speeding tickets are worth $7Billion per year in revenue US wide and $14 Billion in premiums to the insurance companies.

So true traffic enforcement is ALL about money! If it was about enforcing the law you would not be able to go to court pay the fine and a LARGER court fee and not have it show up on your record. So basically you end up getting extorted out of an extra $50 to not have it show up. Still cheaper then paying the extra insurance though.

Unfortunately I live across the street from Falcon Heights. That tiny suburb choose to give it's police contact to St. Anthony BECAUSE the Chief promised to double the City's take from traffic ticket revenue.

Don't ever run the light at Snelling and Larpenteur. One of their units sits there all day every day. Mostly they chase people into St. Paul and catch 'em at the Fairgrounds entrance.

Hey now, it's not revenue. That's the cost of teaching people about the dangers of speeding. It just happens to be one person at a time, and no one learns. So the teachers have to charge more money for that same lesson.

I'm sure I've ranted about this subject before. I lost it when I saw a COPS-style show where the cop actually believed he was teaching people lessons by writing tickets... The lesson actually learned doesn't go hardly anywhere past that one person, and only applies to the 1000 ft around the exact spot the ticket was given, for maybe 1 month (assuming the usual of no more cops sitting in that exact spot for another year).

The only place I go slow because of cops? 394 HOV lane. There is a cop there every day. Usually Golden Valley's finest revenue generators on most of the lane, and minneapolis' in the reversible lane.