More tazer-happy cops!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312466,00.html

Another one! Same damn thing as the UF one, too. Some jackass decides he is above the law and then is damn surprised when a policeman escalates the force level. Jesus Christ. The time to defend yourself against a ticket is in court, not with the ticketing officer.

Another one! Same damn thing as the UF one, too. Some jackass decides he is above the law and then is damn surprised when a policeman escalates the force level. Jesus Christ. The time to defend yourself against a ticket is in court, not with the ticketing officer.Damn, how did this country make it so long without the police having the ability to summarily dish out punishment like this. :rolleyes:

Damn, how did this country make it so long without the police having the ability to summarily dish out punishment like this. :rolleyes:
Punishment? The man was heading toward his car while the officer is trying to arrest him. If you were a policeman, what the hell would you do? Let him get in his car? At worst he could have a weapon in the car, at best he's going to drive away. I'm sorry, but when you refuse to sign a ticket, the law says you get arrested. And when you get arrested, you comply with a lawful order from a peace officer. "Turn around, put your hands behind your back" is such a lawful order. This isn't fucking rocket science, people.

Cops are not allowed to act like total fucking douchebags in an effort to encourage citizens to mouth off and disobey orders. That's called power tripping.

Cops are not allowed to act like total fucking douchebags in an effort to encourage citizens to mouth off and disobey orders. That's called power tripping.
Look, you can say that the officer is power tripping all you want. The guy is headed toward his car when he gets tasered. The officer needs to stop him from getting back in his car somehow. Verbal commands are not working. He has some options here. Tackle him, pepper spray, or taser. Tackling offers high risk to the officer as well as the jackass, not the best situation. You can't really pepper spray someone retreating. So, taser. It's the only logical choice in the situation.

Even the ACLU agrees (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA) that you should obey verbal commands from an officer.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8595/copperuk9.png

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8595/copperuk9.png
Fine, so he wasn't in position to intercept the guy. Big deal. Should he have been there? Well, things would have been better off if he had, yes. Does that change the fact that the guy headed toward his car needed to be stopped? Nope. The blame still lies with the guy ignoring the policeman trying to arrest him.

Honestly, Nappy, how else do you want the police to behave? If a guy caught burglarizing your house was fleeing the police, would you be crying, "No, don't taser him, that means you're power tripping!" Hell no, you'd be marveling that the police had the restraint to taser him instead of putting a bullet in his brain. Crying about shit like this distracts from the real incidents of police misconduct, just like, if you'll pardon the metaphor, making guys peeing in alleys sex offenders distracts from policing against truly dangerous sex offenders.

The cop should have moved, as soon as it was clear he was moving towards his car, to the position indicated. It's quite simple actually. The driver wasn't running, nor was he moving particularly fast. He was walking. There was plenty of time for the officer to intercept him.

If a guy caught burglarizing your house was fleeing the police, would you be crying, "No, don't taser him, that means you're power tripping!"
Honestly, your analogy here reminds me of something Decka might cook up. This wasn't burglary, it was a routine traffic stop.

Honestly, your analogy here reminds me of something Decka might cook up. This wasn't burglary, it was a routine traffic stop.
You'd be surprised how dangerous a quote-unquote "routine" traffic stop is for a police officer. Simply being courteous in such a situation goes a long way to defuse it. If you act like a dick to a cop, don't be surprised if the cop acts like a dick back.

The cop's actions may not have been ideal, but they were legally justifiable.

The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where "a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others," Nigbur said.

Nothing the driver was doing was threatening the officer, and a simple repositioning would have kept him under control. Refusing to sign a traffic ticket is grounds for an arrest, and the officer should have clearly and calmly communicated that to the driver before telling him to get out of the car, and he should have clearly informed him that he was being arrested, and read his rights to him.

You'd be surprised how dangerous a quote-unquote "routine" traffic stop is for a police officer. Simply being courteous in such a situation goes a long way to defuse it. If you act like a dick to a cop, don't be surprised if the cop acts like a dick back.

The cop's actions may not have been ideal, but they were legally justifiable.
The situation was never "fused" in the first place. The driver was calmly walking back to his car, in violation of a verbal order. He never threatened the officer. The officer is supposed to control situations, not escalate them.

Nothing the driver was doing was threatening the officer, and a simple repositioning would have kept him under control. Refusing to sign a traffic ticket is grounds for an arrest, and the officer should have clearly and calmly communicated that to the driver before telling him to get out of the car, and he should have clearly informed him that he was being arrested, and read his rights to him.
Watch right when the cop starts telling him to turn around, around 2:28. Look at where the guy's hand is going. His fucking pocket. And when the cop tells him to move his hands elsewhere, he refuses. I don't know about you, but if I was a cop in that situation, I'd be a mite nervous about the guy's intentions myself.

The driver was calmly walking back to his car, in violation of a verbal order.
Yep. Perhaps you've heard of the "continuum of force" police officers go by? Verbal orders are the lower rung. If they don't work, you move up to nonlethal force.

His hands weren't going to his pocket, they were already there, that was how he was walking. He wasn't making any sudden movements or anything.

His hands weren't going to his pocket, they were already there, that was how he was walking. He wasn't making any sudden movements or anything.
Perhaps. But combine that with his refusal to cooperate, and you have a problem. The cuffs are going on, and the guy is obviously not helping.The cop is going to have to use some sort of force to get them on. Taser, tackle, pepper spray, baton, or firearm, how do you want it done? How the hell else could he have handled the situation? Why is using a taser automatically wrong with some people? It's no worse than tackling the guy, and in some ways better.

Once again. He should have blocked his path with his presence, then repeated his verbal orders and warning. Tackling? WTF?

Once again. He should have blocked his path with his presence, then repeated his verbal orders and warning. Tackling? WTF?
Blocking his path takes time. Time that the guy could use to pull a knife or whatever the hell may have been in his pocket. Sure we know now that he had no weapons, but the cop doesn't have X-ray vision; he didn't know that. You could make the argument that he should have been there to begin with, but that's asking a bit much, don't you think?

Also, how many times does he need to repeat himself? He said, quite a few times, to put your hands behind your back, etc.

Once again, it was a routine traffic stop, there was no reason for the cop to think he was armed. Shouting, "HEY!!!" followed by a quick repositioning would have done the trick. Shouting would have put the driver off, in little position to draw a weapon, if he didn't do so immediately, giving the officer the time he needs to move and maintain control of the situation. If you've ever been shouted at from close range, you would know it's pretty effective. Officers should be trained in the art of verbal intimidation, but it seems that these days that training is being replaced with a fucking tazer.

Once again, it was a routine traffic stop, there was no reason for the cop to think he was armed. Shouting, "HEY!!!" followed by a quick repositioning would have done the trick. Shouting would have put the driver off, in little position to draw a weapon, if he didn't do so immediately, giving the officer the time he needs to move and maintain control of the situation. If you've ever been shouted at from close range, you would know it's pretty effective. Officers should be trained in the art of verbal intimidation, but it seems that these days that training is being replaced with a fucking tazer.
Okay, we're going off on a red herring here. Sure the cop could have handled the situation better. I think a situation that a cop handles with complete perfection is fairly rare; there are bound to be a couple minor mistakes in the handling thereof. It's a high stress job, that comes with the territory. Was the policeman acting illegally? I think it's fairly obvious he was not.

By the way, it's "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle". With an S.

I don't give a fuck about the spelling of tazer.

What's clear to me is that the officer is extremely poorly trained in the use of force to control situations. And he clearly violated the guidelines on the usage of a tazer quoted in the article.

What's clear to me is that the officer is extremely poorly trained in the use of force to control situations. And he clearly violated the guidelines on the usage of a tazer quoted in the article.
That isn't so clear to me. I think that the officer feeling threatened, I can see that. He wasn't actually threatened, but I can see him feeling threatened enough to use nonlethal force. It's not like this came with no warning; the guy had ample warning and plenty of requests to comply.

Why should the officer feel threatened? There's no way even I would feel threatened in that situation. He is armed, the other isn't. He has a uniform and a badge, the other doesn't. The only reason he would feel threatened is if his training and experience weren't up to par. Which is exactly what it looks like here. The officer relied on nothing more than the weight of his badge to enforce compliance, and it shows in the idiotic way he was throwing his authority around. People nonviolently resist officers all the time. Part of their training is how to handle it. There are strict guidelines on tazer use, and tazers haven't always been around. Cops used to be able to command obediance without always having to draw a weapon. Apparently this cop did not know how to do that.

Why should the officer feel threatened? There's no way even I would feel threatened in that situation. He is armed, the other isn't. He has a uniform and a badge, the other doesn't. The only reason he would feel threatened is if his training and experience weren't up to par. Which is exactly what it looks like here. The officer relied on nothing more than the weight of his badge to enforce compliance, and it shows in the idiotic way he was throwing his authority around. People nonviolently resist officers all the time. Part of their training is how to handle it. There are strict guidelines on tazer use, and tazers haven't always been around. Cops used to be able to command obediance without always having to draw a weapon. Apparently this cop did not know how to do that.
Does that absolve the jackass in the Durango from fault? The cop didn't tase this guy in a vacuum, you know. It was a succession of events.

Sure, if the kid had just sat down and shut up, it wouldn't have happened. But can we really expect our citizens to just put up with stupid bullshit from poorly trained and power hungry cops? They're trained, citizens aren't. Police officers have a duty to ensure that situations are peacefully resolved whenever possible. The officer could have handled it much more effectively, from the time the cop stopped the driver, to cuffing him and placing him under arrest, in every way. He was flat out incompetent.

It didn't look to me that the officer was behaving in a manner becoming of an officer of the law. When you disrespect your badge, others are going to disrespect it too.

Sure, if the kid had just sat down and shut up, it wouldn't have happened. But can we really expect our citizens to just put up with stupid bullshit from poorly trained and power hungry cops? They're trained, citizens aren't. Police officers have a duty to ensure that situations are peacefully resolved whenever possible. The officer could have handled it much more effectively, from the time the cop stopped the driver, to cuffing him and placing him under arrest, in every way. He was flat out incompetent.

It didn't look to me that the officer was behaving in a manner becoming of an officer of the law. When you disrespect your badge, others are going to disrespect it too.
I'm not sure a peaceful solution was possible. I mean, the guy refused to sign the ticket. Now, I've never gotten a ticket before, but I'm under the impression that signing the ticket simply means "I agree to either pay the fine or show up in court." So you have to arrest the guy, and if he's this belligerent about a speeding ticket, I don't think he's going to be very cooperative there either. What makes you think a peaceful solution was possible?

I looked it up. Refusing to sign a ticket is like refusing bail. They put you in jail and make you answer your crime before a judge. As soon as he refused to sign, the officer should have warned him that it was grounds for an arrest, then proceeded with the arrest stating clearly that he was under arrest, then executed the arrest near the driver's SUV, using proper arrest procedure, including reading the arrestee's Miranda rights, assuming the driver still refused to sign the ticket. It is probable that the driver didn't know that refusing to sign was grounds for an arrest, and that's what prompted the response. People do impersonate cops, and they do pull people over. The man had much more cause to be afraid for his safety than the cop did.

I'm not sure a peaceful solution was possible. I mean, the guy refused to sign the ticket. Now, I've never gotten a ticket before, but I'm under the impression that signing the ticket simply means "I agree to either pay the fine or show up in court." So you have to arrest the guy, and if he's this belligerent about a speeding ticket, I don't think he's going to be very cooperative there either. What makes you think a peaceful solution was possible?Hard to believe the country made it this far without the taser!

Hard to believe the country made it this far without the taser!
You're really not helping your case.

Why should the officer feel threatened? There's no way even I would feel threatened in that situation. He is armed, the other isn't. He has a uniform and a badge, the other doesn't. The only reason he would feel threatened is if his training and experience weren't up to par. Which is exactly what it looks like here. The officer relied on nothing more than the weight of his badge to enforce compliance, and it shows in the idiotic way he was throwing his authority around. People nonviolently resist officers all the time. Part of their training is how to handle it. There are strict guidelines on tazer use, and tazers haven't always been around. Cops used to be able to command obediance without always having to draw a weapon. Apparently this cop did not know how to do that.
I mean no offense but i really have no other way of making this statement. It appears to me that you have led a kind of sheltered life when it comes to violence Nappy. Especially if you think a badge and a uniform makes one bit of difference to someone with malice in their hearts, illegal drugs in their veins, or some sort of mental shortcoming. I've had more than my fair share of violence, and it happens most times incredibly fast. You never know what someone with their hands in their pockets and refusing to listen to shouted instructions may do.

I've been through several different kinds of martial arts classes, joined the military, and had more than my share of fights in high school. The officer didn't shout at the man, he ordered him in a loud voice. Big difference. He had no signs whatsoever of drug use, malice or whatever. Just because bad shit happens in the world is no excuse for paranoia. That leads to ridiculously overblown reactions, like this one. Did you even watch the video?

I've been through several different kinds of martial arts classes, joined the military, and had more than my share of fights in high school. The officer didn't shout at the man, he ordered him in a loud voice. Big difference. He had no signs whatsoever of drug use, malice or whatever. Just because bad shit happens in the world is no excuse for paranoia. That leads to ridiculously overblown reactions, like this one. Did you even watch the video?Did you see action in the military? Is that what you are saying? Classes in martial arts dont really count for much, and high school fights are just that. Im talking real violence. Violence without rules.


I wasnt inferring that the gentleman in the video was any of the things i mentioned. However, how was the police officer to know any of these things about him without being able to communicate?




Sure, if the kid had just sat down and shut up, it wouldn't have happened. But can we really expect our citizens to just put up with stupid bullshit from poorly trained and power hungry cops?
Even you agree this wouldnt have happened if the kid had done what he was supposed to. That being to do as the officer commanded him to do in the first place.

No one is saying that citizens have to put up with what you describe above, however, you cant just assume all police officers fit the description you use above and have a beligerent attitude for no reason.



Did you even watch the video?
Sure did. Know what i saw? I saw some spoiled ass kid trying to dictate to the officer what he can and cannot do while trying to faciliate an arrest. The kid should be charged with resisting arrest as well as any other charges he is already being charged with. That could have been a dangerous spot for that police officer out there by himself with the two of those kids. How can you expect the officer to assume there is no danger? It's HIS life on the line out there. It's easy for someone to look at a video without any threat to the viewer and render a judgement. It's entirely different when you're in that situation.

I just want to add that I agree with you that there are a lot of bad apples out there hiding behind a badge. This police officer is not one of them, imo.

The officer was trying to control the scene and that punk kid was determined that he was gonna be the alpha. One taser shot later, and now he knows better.

The trooper should be fired. Period!!! I hope they get sued!!!

Hard to believe the country made it this far without the taser!

I sure wish the taser had been around during my stint as a law enforcement officer. It would have eliminated a lot of fights I was in, yes fights. The guy, or female, has not done enough to shoot them, yet, you have to arrest them.
Some will fight as long as they have strength to fight, to avoid jail.
Sometimes, the fight was so bad, that the subject had to be taken to the hospital. Back-up does not always arrive in time, things happen too fast due to the choices of the detainee.

After several years, due to the number of people and situations, he/she deals with, an officer's experience tells them early where a situation is headed. Early action can help avoid severe consequences.

In general, the officers I see today, are better educated and trained than years ago. I remember when a law enforcement applicant was chosen more for the large size of his shoe than the size of his intelligence. Brute physical force was the path most likely used to solve most situations in those days.

Most of us today, at work, get to hit delete or use an eraser to correct our mistakes;a law enforcement officer has to live the rest of his life with a mistake which occurred in seconds of often heated-chaotic time.

There is no simple arrest. Two officers, I worked with, were shot in the chest by a guy riding a bicycle-when he pulled his had out of his pocket.

Do not be so quick to judge. These guys go from one call to another all shift.
You get tired, mostly of the stupidity of man-kind.

Did you see action in the military? Is that what you are saying? Classes in martial arts dont really count for much, and high school fights are just that. Im talking real violence. Violence without rules.
You know, cause that sort of thing is exactly what happened here. :rolleyes:


I wasnt inferring that the gentleman in the video was any of the things i mentioned. However, how was the police officer to know any of these things about him without being able to communicate?
The officer had plenty of fucking time to communicate, before he told the kid to step out of the car. He fucked his job up as soon as he stepped up to the car and started running his mouth. I've been stopped plenty of times, and the officers in every case seem to follow a procedure that ensures the safe completion of the stop. In this case, he did none of these things.

Even you agree this wouldnt have happened if the kid had done what he was supposed to. That being to do as the officer commanded him to do in the first place.
Well, sure, babying up is a great way to get fucked by the judicial system. It's sad when we as citizens have to come up with defense procedures to deal with power hungry cops, instead of expecting them to do their jobs skillfully.

No one is saying that citizens have to put up with what you describe above, however, you cant just assume all police officers fit the description you use above and have a beligerent attitude for no reason.
I'm saying this one did.

Sure did. Know what i saw? I saw some spoiled ass kid trying to dictate to the officer what he can and cannot do while trying to faciliate an arrest. The kid should be charged with resisting arrest as well as any other charges he is already being charged with. That could have been a dangerous spot for that police officer out there by himself with the two of those kids. How can you expect the officer to assume there is no danger? It's HIS life on the line out there. It's easy for someone to look at a video without any threat to the viewer and render a judgement. It's entirely different when you're in that situation.
So, every time a video of a police officer's actions get reviewed by his peers it's all just moot, because they weren't in the situation he was? And what about the citizen's legitimate concern about what the cop was doing? As I stated earlier, people do impersonate cops. The cop was disgracing his badge and I don't know what I'd do if I was in the kids situation, either. But I do know that cop shitted all over procedure, procedure designed not only to ensure that the citizen's rights aren't violated, but to ensure the safety of both the police officer and the citizen, and to prevent situations like this one.

I sure wish the taser had been around during my stint as a law enforcement officer. It would have eliminated a lot of fights I was in, yes fights. The guy, or female, has not done enough to shoot them, yet, you have to arrest them.
Some will fight as long as they have strength to fight, to avoid jail.
Sometimes, the fight was so bad, that the subject had to be taken to the hospital. Back-up does not always arrive in time, things happen too fast due to the choices of the detainee.

After several years, due to the number of people and situations, he/she deals with, an officer's experience tells them early where a situation is headed. Early action can help avoid severe consequences.

In general, the officers I see today, are better educated and trained than years ago. I remember when a law enforcement applicant was chosen more for the large size of his shoe than the size of his intelligence. Brute physical force was the path most likely used to solve most situations in those days.

Most of us today, at work, get to hit delete or use an eraser to correct our mistakes;a law enforcement officer has to live the rest of his life with a mistake which occurred in seconds of often heated-chaotic time.

There is no simple arrest. Two officers, I worked with, were shot in the chest by a guy riding a bicycle-when he pulled his had out of his pocket.

Do not be so quick to judge. These guys go from one call to another all shift.
You get tired, mostly of the stupidity of man-kind.

Great post Dan.

You're really not helping your case.
Not to somebody who is incapable of seeing the obvious point, like you defenders of this violent cop-out used by sub-par cops.

And what about the citizen's legitimate concern about what the cop was doing? As I stated earlier, people do impersonate cops. The cop was disgracing his badge and I don't know what I'd do if I was in the kids situation, either. But I do know that cop shitted all over procedure, procedure designed not only to ensure that the citizen's rights aren't violated, but to ensure the safety of both the police officer and the citizen, and to prevent situations like this one.

I agree with you on one point, Napster. The cop didn't do a very good job of communicating the consequences of not signing the ticket. As to using the taser, it was his safest and best alternative when the guy started moving towards his car. You mentioned that the officer had no cause to be nervous or even frightened by the situation, and that he should have "intercepted" the guy by moving between him and his car. I'll point out that the cop was outnumbered, and that's cause for concern in any situation, and that by moving between the subject and his car he would have to put his back to the woman in the car. Not a bright move unless you want to get shot in the back.

...a law enforcement officer has to live the rest of his life with a mistake which occurred in seconds of often heated-chaotic time.
Yeah, like the over-relience on electrocution as a control measure to make up for a failure to deal well with people under stress, thereby killing some of their fellow citizens.

Yeah, like the over-relience on electrocution as a control measure to make up for a failure to deal well with people under stress, thereby killing some of their fellow citizens.

Very Well Said.

Great post Dan.
Agreed. I do like having the option of a tazer to solve disputes that escalate beyond non-violent means of keeping control. I just think officers that carry them should be subjected to a higher degree of training than officers without them. What I see here is an officer botching what should have been a simple traffic stop. He failed numerous times to inform the citizen what was going on, and it resulted in the use of a tazer to maintain control. The citizen wasn't a threat to the officer, it was all in the officer's mind. He overreacted, unnecessarily escalating the level of force.

And don't tell me there's no such thing as a routine traffic stop. I've been stopped several times, and in all cases the officer acted courteously and properly informed me of what was happening at all times. Had the officer done so in this case, use of a tazer might have been avoided.

Yeah, like the over-relience on electrocution as a control measure to make up for a failure to deal well with people under stress, thereby killing some of their fellow citizens.

You're right Shiloh, no doubt some cops will use the taser when it's not justified, but then again, people in any profession do illegal or unethical things every day. The fact is that cops are people and they'll occasionally overreact. When they do, there should be consequences. Those consequences should be tempered however by acknowledging the circumstances under which they work, and their past performance of their duties. It's easy for us to judge someone else's actions from the safe and adrenaline-free comfort of our computer desks, but I don't think we should be too quick to pass judgement without recognizing the stress involved in this kind of situation. Did the cop overreact? Maybe. If he did, it wasn't a very serious overreaction since it appears no one was permanently injured, so hopefully their won't be a serious overreaction to this incident by his superiors.

I'm not sure I wouldn't have tased him myself...I mean, what would possess anyone to walk away from a cop who was pointing a weapon at you? That cop had to be wondering that himself, IMO.

...I mean, what would possess anyone to walk away from a cop who was pointing a weapon at you? That cop had to be wondering that himself, IMO.Maybe he simple believed that by walking away the tension would be abated, but I don't know for certain. It is a common lesson we teach our children: walk away from a fight. To walk away is clearly not to threaten.

My problem in these matters is that the taser seems to be a violent substitute for dealing effectively with people under stress. People in this country have a right to due process before an official of the state administers punishment of any kind. When I review these tapes, what I too often see is a cop who seems pissed because he is not being obeyed, so zap. "How dare you not do what I tell you to do, damn it?!" Bzzzzzzzzz...

Yeah, like the over-relience on electrocution as a control measure to make up for a failure to deal well with people under stress, thereby killing some of their fellow citizens.I must have missed that part of the video. You say the kid died?

Maybe he simple believed that by walking away the tension would be abated, but I don't know for certain. It is a common lesson we teach our children: walk away from a fight. To walk away is clearly not to threaten.Only in this case, nothing is "clear" at all. There is no way to predict what his actions will be.





My problem in these matters is that the taser seems to be a violent substitute for dealing effectively with people under stress. People in this country have a right to due process before an official of the state administers punishment of any kind. When I review these tapes, what I too often see is a cop who seems pissed because he is not being obeyed, so zap. "How dare you not do what I tell you to do, damn it?!" Bzzzzzzzzz...
Due process is for a court of law, not a tension filled incident on the side of a highway. Citizens need to comply with a police officer until he/she gets the scene under some semblance of control. Then bitch all you want to. Chances are you wont get tased then.

This cop didnt seem pissed off at all to my viewpoint.

I must have missed that part of the video. You say the kid died?I'm saying that it happens sometimes.

Due process is for a court of law, not a tension filled incident on the side of a highway.Which is why cops don't need to be carrying these toys around with them.
Citizens need to comply with a police officer until he/she gets the scene under some semblance of control.The cops need to learn to deal with situations so they can control them without resorting to potentially lethal levels of violence.

Maybe he simple believed that by walking away the tension would be abated, but I don't know for certain. It is a common lesson we teach our children: walk away from a fight. To walk away is clearly not to threaten.

I disagree. In this situation, walking away is a threat when the officer is ordering you not to. Again, the simple act of defiance would make me very nervous about what the person's intentions were.


My problem in these matters is that the taser seems to be a violent substitute for dealing effectively with people under stress. People in this country have a right to due process before an official of the state administers punishment of any kind. When I review these tapes, what I too often see is a cop who seems pissed because he is not being obeyed, so zap. "How dare you not do what I tell you to do, damn it?!" Bzzzzzzzzz...

I don't think use of a taser is "punishment" any more than handcuffing a person is "punishment". It's simply another tool with which to safely make an arrest. Can it be misused? Sure, but this incident is not a glaring incident of misuse.

I also didn't see a lot of anger on the part of the cop. He spoke forcefully to the subject in order to gain compliance, but he was not loud or abusive to the man's wife.

Jeez, haven't you people watched Real TV? The guy was obviously going back to his car so he could drive away and start one of those high speed car chases we see on TV sometimes. Why would he go back to his car unless he was going to try to get away or, less likely in my opinion, get his gun out and shoot the cop. Obviously the officer has to avoid both of these situations, and "intercepting" him could easily lead to one or both of the guys being harmed. This seems SO clear cut to me. It's even clearer than the dumbass in Florida who started this whole taser hating craze...

I disagree. In this situation, walking away is a threat when the officer is ordering you not to. Again, the simple act of defiance would make me very nervous about what the person's intentions were.Maybe we use the word "threat" differently. In my world, to refuse to obey does not equal to threaten.

I don't think use of a taser is "punishment" any more than handcuffing a person is "punishment". It's simply another tool with which to safely make an arrest.People don't die from being cuffed. You honestly equate restrant with electrocution?

He spoke forcefully to the subject in order to gain compliance, but he was not loud or abusive to the man's wife.Don't you mean: He failed to gain compliance? His tone may well have been part of the problem.

These cops, and all who support them, might oughta take a few CEUs in crisis managment, etc.

It's even clearer than the dumbass in Florida who started this whole taser hating craze...Tasers have been questioned for some time now, well before the Florida case. Personnally, I find it no small coinkidink that this willy nilly use of the taser grows right along with other examples of disregard for civil rights in our dear old USA.

Maybe we use the word "threat" differently. In my world, to refuse to obey does not equal to threaten.

You wouldn't feel the least bit threatened by a man who moves towards his car after being told he should lie on the ground with his hands behind his back? I would, in my world. :)


People don't die from being cuffed. You honestly equate restrant with electrocution?

That wasn't the question. The question was are they "punishment". In the context of tools used to effect an arrest, neither of them is an example of the police dealing out "punishment" for a crime.


Don't you mean: He failed to gain compliance? His tone may well have been part of the problem.

Maybe. His tone isn't really relevant to whether he used the taser properly.


These cops, and all who support them, might oughta take a few CEUs in crisis managment, etc.

I can agree that the cop could benefit from some more training, but again, that doesn't mean he used the taser improperly.

I'm curious Shiloh...how would you describe the behavior of the arrestee in the video?

Maybe. His tone isn't really relevant to whether he used the taser properly.It's relevant to whether or not the situation ever needed to get to that point at all.

I'm curious Shiloh...how would you describe the behavior of the arrestee in the video?I went back over the link again and am more bothered now than I was before. He's a bothered, pissed off guy, like most folks are when they get pulled over. But I see nothing at all to suggest he is a threat to the officer.

The driver gets out of the car as directed and walks back to the criuiser, pointing down the road to address the issue of "where's the sign?" Then he turns back to see a weapon pointed at him and a cop telling him to get down. He is the only one threatened here! Truely offensive representation of the police profession.

In the context of tools used to effect an arrest, neither of them is an example of the police dealing out "punishment" for a crime.
The punishment is for not doing as you are told by Big Daddy Cop.

You know, cause that sort of thing is exactly what happened here. :rolleyes:.
No, but it could have. Thats what this whole situation was all about, possibilities. :rolleyes:



The officer had plenty of fucking time to communicate, before he told the kid to step out of the car. He fucked his job up as soon as he stepped up to the car and started running his mouth. I've been stopped plenty of times, and the officers in every case seem to follow a procedure that ensures the safe completion of the stop. In this case, he did none of these things..The cop wasnt the one running his mouth. The punk kid is the one who was telling the officer what he would, could do. Whether you like it or not, whether you respect police officers or not, they should be afforded respect for the authority they wield. There are ways to win an arguement with a police officer in court. However, during the heat of the moment in a situation like the one in the video, is not the time to try it.





Well, sure, babying up is a great way to get fucked by the judicial system. It's sad when we as citizens have to come up with defense procedures to deal with power hungry cops, instead of expecting them to do their jobs skillfully.


I'm saying this one did..Showing simple fucking respect for the badge is not babying up. Use common sense when dealing with police. They have a job to do. Why make it harder?

What defense procedures are you referring to? Are you advocating action against police officers, or better ways of dealing with them during an arrest? Im lost by that statement.





So, every time a video of a police officer's actions get reviewed by his peers it's all just moot, because they weren't in the situation he was? And what about the citizen's legitimate concern about what the cop was doing? As I stated earlier, people do impersonate cops. The cop was disgracing his badge and I don't know what I'd do if I was in the kids situation, either. But I do know that cop shitted all over procedure, procedure designed not only to ensure that the citizen's rights aren't violated, but to ensure the safety of both the police officer and the citizen, and to prevent situations like this one.I disagree with your opinion on this.

Showing simple fucking respect for the badge is not babying up.If cops continue to allow this crap to continue, there is no reason to respect a badge.

No, but it could have. Thats what this whole situation was all about, possibilities. :rolleyes:
Paranoia is never good security.

The cop wasnt the one running his mouth. The punk kid is the one who was telling the officer what he would, could do. Whether you like it or not, whether you respect police officers or not, they should be afforded respect for the authority they wield. There are ways to win an arguement with a police officer in court. However, during the heat of the moment in a situation like the one in the video, is not the time to try it.
Maybe you didn't watch the same video I did. The cop sauntered up to the vehicle and started pissing and moaning. This isn't good for discipline, and it doesn't engender respect for your position. It was a botched stop, from beginning to end.

Showing simple fucking respect for the badge is not babying up. Use common sense when dealing with police. They have a job to do. Why make it harder?
When they do their job well, they should be respected. When they do a shitty job, they should not. This cop had a thing or two to learn about controlling a situation, from start to end. The fact that it had to come down to the use of a tazer is proof.

What defense procedures are you referring to? Are you advocating action against police officers, or better ways of dealing with them during an arrest? Im lost by that statement.
Entire websites are dedicated to the task of dealing with police officers who abuse their authority and how to fight back, from complaint procedures to defense tactics used in confrontations.

I disagree with your opinion on this.
Your disagreement is noted.

Maybe he should have used his 9MM? He could have just blown his knees out and then the perpetrator would have been in no position to argue (or walk away... for that matter).

I have been pulled over on several occasions... I stay in my car, respect the officer's decision (ticket or no) and then go upon my way. I guess I should be antagonistic and declare my "rights" to the cop, then he would see how much of a "bad-ass" I am, thereby letting me go and not intruding on my God-given rights.
:rolleyes:

Paranoia is never good security.Do you work in law enforcement nappy? Just wondering how you know to handle this situation so much better than the officer.



Maybe you didn't watch the same video I did. The cop sauntered up to the vehicle and started pissing and moaning. This isn't good for discipline, and it doesn't engender respect for your position. It was a botched stop, from beginning to end.. I saw him simply walk up to the vehicle and ask for license and registration.



When they do their job well, they should be respected. When they do a shitty job, they should not. This cop had a thing or two to learn about controlling a situation, from start to end. The fact that it had to come down to the use of a tazer is proof. .I say he controlled the situation by using the taser.



Entire websites are dedicated to the task of dealing with police officers who abuse their authority and how to fight back, from complaint procedures to defense tactics used in confrontations.
Post me a link to these sites that teach you defense tactics against police officers. Maybe i'm missing something in translation.

I stay in my car, respect the officer's decision (ticket or no) and then go upon my way.That may well be true, but it has nothing at all to do with the issue of a "peace" officer who handles a situation the way this one did.

He goes from discussing the issue with the driver, to asking him to step out of the car, to pointing a weapon at him. Just like that. One, two, three. The driver turns around and is confronted by a freightening scene. (He is being targeted by someone in a situation he cannot understand.) This cop is too much of a moron to handle a no-threat situation well. How safe would he be if there were actually a real dangerous situation?

Your approach to how to avoid being abused by the very people hired to keep the peace is a practical one, and one I'd recommend to my young son and daughters. But that in no way excuses violence as a substitute for professionalism in cops.

I say he controlled the situation by using the taser.
I say he created a whole new one by using it.

The trooper should be fired. Period!!! I hope they get sued!!!


Did you read the article or watch the video at all?:rolleyes:
At best both of them are dinks and didn't do a very good job of keeping the situation under control.
The driver should have kept his mouth shut from the get go and just followed orders and then fought the ticket in court.
The cop should have started reading the driver his rights as he was pulling out his cuffs. I think he dealt with the situation as best as he could in the split seconds he had to react.
Just my opinion

I say he created a whole new one by using it.We'll agree to disagree. However, im glad he had the option of a taser as opposed to a gun.

He goes from discussing the issue with the driver, to asking him to step out of the car, to pointing a weapon at him. Just like that. One, two, three.

You left out the part where the officer ordered him to put his hands behind his back, and the driver didn't comply. At that point the officer drew his taser and repeated his command. The driver then began to walk away from the officer saying "What the hell's wrong with you?"

The driver was ordered to "put his hands behind his back", and to stop, four times before the officer fired his taser.


The driver turns around and is confronted by a freightening scene.

Perhaps, but following the officer's orders would have prevented that.


This cop is too much of a moron to handle a no-threat situation well. How safe would he be if there were actually a real dangerous situation?

With respect Shiloh, the only way you know it was a "no-threat" situation is through hindsight. The officer had no way of knowing that at the time, and all traffic stops are potentially threatening.


But that in no way excuses violence as a substitute for professionalism in cops.

You're right of course, and I suspect that the trooper in this incident got a healthy ass-chewing from several of his bosses, and hopefully, some additional training.

The cop should have started reading the driver his rights as he was pulling out his cuffs.
This is wrong. You only have to have your rights read to you before being questioned by the police, or before making a statement to the police, and both times only after you are being taken into custody.

As an aside, the way to fight a ticket and win is to be as mild and boring and unremarkable as possible when stopped by police. Make note of the details of the event immediately and return to the site if needed, to take photos. Then set your court date. A few days before your court date, reschedule, then reschedule it again if possible (in most states I think you can do this two to three times).

When you finally go to court, go prepared. Dress entirely differently than you did when you were stopped, change hair color and style, if you wore glasses when you were stopped, take them off in court, etc. Bring your evidence, charts, documents, etc., and make your case calmly and professionally as possible.

Odds are good that, since you've reset your court date a few times, the cop's schedule won't allow him to be in court. If he's not there, you win. If he is there, he may not be able to identify you; you win. If he's there and does recognize you, you've still got your evidentiary ducks in a row. If you weren't guilty to start with, you've got a good chance to win against the cop.

A few tips from someone who's played the game and won. :drive:

I would have tazed this guy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXY2fImfr7Y&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/video-bro-not-tased-but-probably-should-have-been/

I would have tazed this guy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXY2fImfr7Y&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/video-bro-not-tased-but-probably-should-have-been/That's gotta be shaman in the suv. :lolhit:

Clue that gave it away: "there is hope. Tonite Bill Clinton gives his acceptance speech."

If he is there, he may not be able to identify you; you win.
Um. Unless the cop is a complete moron, this won't work. The simple question, "Are you John Doe?" blows that tactic all to hell. He doesn't need to identify you by looks for an infraction, especially when he has your name, DL#, DOB, etc. on the ticket, unless you commit perjury by denying that you're the person on the ticket.

I would have tazed this guy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXY2fImfr7Y&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/video-bro-not-tased-but-probably-should-have-been/

Thanks for posting that OP...I'd seen it before, and anytime someone rants about how all cops are rotten, I think of that trooper.

Here's a youtube in return...Chris Rock on "How not to get your ass kicked by the police" :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related

This is wrong. You only have to have your rights read to you before being questioned by the police, or before making a statement to the police, and both times only after you are being taken into custody.

Yes, often people do not understand that the reading of one's rights is a protection for police evidence. Self-incriminating answers to police questions can not be used as evidence, in court, unless the police have read you your rights. This reading of the rights may not occur until later at the station, before questioning.
Be cautious that self-incriminating statements have been used in court that were voluntary and unprompted, although the rights had not been read yet.

You left out the part where the officer ordered him to put his hands behind his back, and the driver didn't comply. At that point the officer drew his taser and repeated his command. The driver then began to walk away from the officer saying "What the hell's wrong with you?"

The driver was ordered to "put his hands behind his back", and to stop, four times before the officer fired his taser.The cop was drawing the taser before he ever got the first order to "turn around and put your hands behind your back" fully out of his mouth. That's the point.

The officer is relying on a violent response to the motorist when the motorist has done nothing to suggest that such a response in needed. All the driver did was TALK, for crying out loud, and the cop was going for a weapon! The driver's walking away in shocked response to an unwarrented threat seems perfectly reasonable to me. Who the hell knows what this cop is about to do?

You might want people like that empowered on your streets. I don't.

Yes, often people do not understand that the reading of one's rights is a protection for police evidence.It does serve to protect evidence, if correctly administered, but it is first and foremost a protection of the rights of the accused from the abuse of authority.

This country has a long and proud history of limiting the power of government and all of its agencies against the rights and liberties of the individual citizen. (Until as of late, that is. These days I guess it's okay for a cop to electrocute you if you react to his scaring the shit out of you!)

Verdict in on this one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/01/national/main3561663.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3561663

*sigh* This doesn't surprise me.

Nonetheless, the trooper now realizes that other options were available, Davenport said.
If only others here would have realized that too.

If only others here would have realized that too.
I dont think anyone ever said he was forced to use the taser. Only that, as in the judgement, it was reasonable to do so.

Only that, as in the judgement, it was reasonable to do so.Circling the wagons!

(Anyone notice that he could have given the guy the ticket without the signature? Now what's this all about? You ain't talking to me that way! zap-zap-zap!)

(Anyone notice that he could have given the guy the ticket without the signature? Now what's this all about? You ain't talking to me that way! zap-zap-zap!)
Untrue. Some jurisdictions require a signature on the ticket either to prove that the ticket was actually served, or to serve as an affidavit that the person receiving the ticket will either pay the fine or show up in court to contest it. In those jurisdictions, if you refuse to sign the ticket, you must be arrested.

Untrue.Did you read the linked story? What may or may not have been the case in some jurisdictions is irrevevant here.

From the story: Officials said Gardner could have issued the ticket without Massey's signature.