So my first thought was "wow, that seems a bit excessive for not signing for a busted tail light" until you see the back end of the truck, which is obviously an immediate road hazard.
Of course, the page that posted this video makes no mention of the condition of the truck, spinning it off to the viewer as an excessive show of force on the officer's part. Any view of the back of the truck is "coincidentally" edited out as well.
Now here's the truck
She also admits that she's known about this issue for six months with a prior warning.
After watching the entire video, I believe his force was justified. However, if there was no prior warning, and the entire rear of the truck wasn't damaged to the point of preventing replacement of the tail light, then he could have noted "refusal of signature" and it could have been settled in court.
What do you all think?
Of course, the page that posted this video makes no mention of the condition of the truck, spinning it off to the viewer as an excessive show of force on the officer's part. Any view of the back of the truck is "coincidentally" edited out as well.
Now here's the truck
She also admits that she's known about this issue for six months with a prior warning.
After watching the entire video, I believe his force was justified. However, if there was no prior warning, and the entire rear of the truck wasn't damaged to the point of preventing replacement of the tail light, then he could have noted "refusal of signature" and it could have been settled in court.
What do you all think?