Video: Bro tased
posted at 9:31 pm on November 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Starts slow but the initial demand for license and registration contains just enough ‘tude to make it worth watching in full. If you can’t be bothered, skip ahead to 2:00 or (-8:00 if you’re counting down) and see what happens when electricity is introduced into the mix of an ornery cop, a driver who doesn’t take him seriously, and his pregnant wife. The investigation’s already begun:
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.
Any threat of injury to the officer here?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Nice broad stroke of your paint brush. I’ll put my DD 214 up against yours any day. In the Army 22 years, going on my seventh year as a police officer.
When was the last time you intentionally put yourself in harms way for someone you’ve never met before in your life?
SPIFF1669 on November 22, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Hey! 500 + comments! Does AP ring a bell now and post something new?
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 12:20 PM
It’s more than that the officer simply overreacted. It’s that he demonstrated that he is clearly unfit to be a police officer. The fact that he is still on active duty is mind boggling. The fact that the motorist is absolutely a first class jerk is slightly interesting, but completely irrelevant, in my mind.
greggish on November 22, 2007 at 12:21 PM
i am very disappointed that so many of my fellow conservatives feel the cop is justified.
anyways, for those of you as disgusted with it as I am, here is the Utah DPS contact page:
http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/contact_uhp.html
treyevans on November 22, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Ohio
And yours would win. Thank you for your service. To answer your question: February 1991.
The ones who have harassed and badgered me without cause. The ones who killed Kathryn Johnston and Vicki Weaver. The ones who have been corrupt, degrading, and have lied on the stand. This about the people vs. the state. It’s not supposed to be that way, but it is.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The cop was wrong on several levels. He’s lucky the wife didn’t blow his head off when he threw open the door. He had just assaulted her husband, then approached the vehicle and opened it uninvited, instead of knocking on the window. She could very justifiably assumed he was about to assault her, as well. If she had a weapon, she would have easily assumed her safety was in danger and blew his empty head off. He’s lucky he was dealing with non-criminals, just a hot-headed guy.
windbag on November 22, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I’m off to the inlaws. I will certainly check in later. EVERYBODY GO EAT! Happy Thanksgiving.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 12:33 PM
But you do agree, right?
The driver’s a jerk and the cop overracted.
Our only point of contention is one of degree and relevence, correct?
Oldnuke on November 22, 2007 at 12:35 PM
John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and a retired infantry colonel who beat me with a belt when he caught me smoking when I was 11.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 12:37 PM
He seemed to change quite a bit when he was talking to the other cop.
As for arguing on the side of the road, it was stupid. Particularly when he was tased and fell to the edge of the road close to the lane of traffic.
I was a little surprised the cop left him there when he walked up to talk to his wife. That would have been bad. Someone just tasered, dazed, stumbling into oncoming traffic…
91Veteran on November 22, 2007 at 12:42 PM
The cop went over the line! Yes, the guy is a jerk but if that was reason enough to taze him we’re all in trouble! He also had his hand in his pocket which was a concern but the cop should have asked him to take his hand out and explained why! He should have asked him if he had a weapon and to remove his hands and keep them in sight. Also,,THE MAN TURNED AND HAD HIS BACK TO HIM WHEN HE WAS SHOT! Was not this a sign of cooperating?? The guy was a jerk but he was not raging mad. THE COP JUST BECAME FRUSTRATED TOO EARLY AND DECIDED TO TAZER AS THE EASY WAY TO GET THINGS UNDER CONTROL!
JellyToast on November 22, 2007 at 12:42 PM
This cop is wasted in Utah. He should be doing campus security keeping the Code Pinkos in line.
RobCon on November 22, 2007 at 1:02 PM
That was hilarious!!! Thanks.
91Veteran on November 22, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Dumbo meets Officer Itchy.
That’s what happens.
Better an overcautious patrolman than a dead one.
profitsbeard on November 22, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Don’t really want to comment on excessiveness or not, but lots of people have based comments on the assumption that the law did not require him to sign the ticket.
As a receiver of several speeding tickets in Utah and having read over them thoroughly, I can tell you that all the Utah tickets I signed said on them that the law required I either sign them or be arrested. That was because the signature is an agreement to appear. If not signed, than the officer must arrest the person so they can be taken in for a formal arraignment and bail hearing, which is the other option for “agreement to appear.”
Listen to the tape again. When the driver refuses to sign the ticket, you can hear the officer sigh because he knows that he’s going to have to go through a big huge hassle to arrest and book this guy. The cop seems very reluctant to me. The driver was the one who let it get out of hand when he refused both viable options he had.
The cop, however, could have made the situation a lot easier by clearly explaining the driver’s options to the driver, namely:
1. Sign the ticket and fight later in court.
2. Refuse to sign and be arrested per Utah statute.
3. Refuse to be arrested, and be enshrined forever in the annals of “Don’t tase me, bro!” lore.
sweetlipsbutterhoney on November 22, 2007 at 1:08 PM
A cop friend of mine told me of his method of dealing with argumentative (but non-threatening) traffic stops.
He’d cross his arms and lean against the car and with a smirk tell the guy he had all day because he was getting paid regardless. He’d let the guy vent, then proceed to issue the ticket. Once the guy realized he could argue until he was blue in the face, AND the cop was willing to wait all day for his face to turn blue, they’d accept the ticket and get on their way.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 1:18 PM
The citizen was wrong. You don’t turn your back on an officer and ignore his legal orders. You don’t ignore an officer when he tells you to stop and turn around with your hands behind your back. And you certainly don’t walk to get into your vehicle.
And for those saying he doesn’t have to sign. I’d seriously doubt that. Signing the ticket isn’t acknowledgment of guilt. It’s to show that you received the summons so you can’t just not pay it/show up and say you never got one. Some states may have different procedures, but this is pretty standard.
thesheesh on November 22, 2007 at 1:26 PM
The officer seemed to get pretty hot, pretty quickly when the dork first started questioning the ticket. He seemed upset that his authority was being questioned at all.
It went rather quickly from some arrogant questions to the driver being told to get out.
It went rather quickly from him being told to put his hands on the hood to him pulling his taser.
What was called for here was for the officer to realize quickly that some jagweed was questioning him. What would have helped is if the officer had calmly realized that, “OK, this guy wants to ask questions, I’ll humor him, but guaranteed he gets a ticket.” “Maybe I’ll do a safety inspection as well.”
The officer allowed his anger over being questioned to overrule his better judgment which escalated the situation.
Perhaps sitting them both down in the station to watch the video would help. Someone can point out where mistakes were made throughout the video, and the appropriate yahoo gets the taser after each mistake is shown.
91Veteran on November 22, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Sorry, the a$$hole who got tased is lucky he didn’t get really hurt. He was close enough to the car door to grab a gun. The assclown motorist should have given the cop his ID and signed the damned ticket. Fight it in court.
I have no use for police who abuse their authority, but this guy was in a really touchy situation, with the driver and his wife going bat$hit on him.
mcgilvra on November 22, 2007 at 1:35 PM
See, no ego, no pain. Being a Cop is tough enough without making it worse.
Speakup on November 22, 2007 at 1:43 PM
He was tased when he shouldn’t have been. That’s excessive force.
No, the best, least excessive alternative under the circumstances would have been for the officer to follow his training, rather than his nature, which seems to be that of a paranoid control freak. These comments are full of people giving well-thought-out explanations of why the officer was in the wrong. The irrational ones are those that claim that any slight deviation from total respect to an obviously flawed officer deserves a beating or a tasing. A skimpy dress doesn’t excuse a rapist, visible cash on a person doesn’t excuse a mugger, and the behavior of this driver doesn’t excuse the officer.
calbear on November 22, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Yeah, I am. It will be 20 wonderful years this coming April (ten years, 5 months and a wake up left for 110% retirement, +3% @ 50… glory glory hallelujah!)
And, this Trooper was not incorrect to taser this individual as he began to walk away, twice, towards the driver’s seat of his vehicle despite orders from the Trooper to comply with his lawful commands.
Albeit, there were other options available that I personally would have used first probably (but I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure). What you most certainly should already know and apparently failed to consider is that law enforcement officers don’t adhere to the “Use of Force Ladder” anymore. We haven’t for many years. We adhere to the “Use of Force Pie”… I can’t believe you don’t know that based on your entire post if, in fact, you are a law enforcement officer.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM
That was exactly my friend’s point. He’s a cop in a fairly high-crime area, and he deals with enough real bad guys.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 1:55 PM
It’s also an illegal question in many states. But many employers still ask the information or do background checks to get the information, in violation of the law. One arrest – whether or not you’re guilty – can ruin you for many areas of employment. When a CEO or HR person violates the law in this way, he or she doesn’t get punished, but when the person they hire is suspected and exonerated of violating the law, he or she does.
calbear on November 22, 2007 at 2:00 PM
This will be buried too deep to be noticed in this thread.
I’m in Cali. I grew up in PA. The law is the same for all states, if not all 50: Obey what the officer tells you. It Is Not Optional.
“Turn around, place your hands behind your back!” Was not obeyed. I’m a US Marine. I’ve done law enforcement. With that one hand in his pocket, the boy could be hiding anything. I know what Deadly Force is, and its conditions for use. I’m sure the officer knows as well, seing as he first resorted to lesser means: voice commands, and a Tazer.
All of you has watched at least 1 episode of Cops. It’s been on for 18 years+. You know what they have to deal with. They’ve never been called to a house just for a cup of coffee.
I have 2 questions. 1) Have you ever been arrested before? Yes or no. I don’t care why. I especially direct this question to those who throw the bullshiite (in my opinion) “police state facist rogue cops” statements. 2) and, especially for those against the cops: Do you smoke pot? yes or no. Anything other than no is a yes. You knowingly participate in criminal activity.
We are a nation of laws. The police are to “protect and serve” the public by maintaining order, enforcing the laws, rendering assistance to citizens, ensuring public safety, and are given POWER over citizens as a representitive of the state or federal government.
I fault that stupid boy in the van because his actions also placed his pregnant? wife in danger as well.
I actually looked up the law. Most of you have not, or have no real idea of what the law contains. The dash cam footage is admissable in court. It obviously was used. He was argumentative, and disobeyed the officer, who then had Probable Cause.
Mazztek on November 22, 2007 at 3:02 PM
By the way, as of 11/22/2007 @ 12:05 PM PST… 525 coments!
This HAS to be a record!
Mazztek on November 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Cops like this make me horrendously angry. A Taser is a better option than deadly force but it needs to be respected just like a handgun. Too many cops are using it, like this cop here, as the next step after one or two verbal orders.
Being a police officer requires you to be a social worker. You are going into or are creating intense, volatile situations. The best course to deal with a stupid traffic stop is the old “yes, sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir”. But that does not give any officer the right, pace all of the stormtroopers on this topic, to shoot anyone the instant they fail to respond to any command.
There are some people here advocating emptying a clip into the driver’s head the instant he fails to comply, and these people are idiots. Force needs to be used intelligently – a family presents a much lower risk than a single male or 2 males. Further, when a man is confronted and threatened with his family present – and any interaction with a police officer is inherently threatening – he needs to be treated much more delicately.
Your job as an officer is not to go around and see how many people you can incite into giving you reasonable grounds to kill them. This officer appears to be trying to Tase or kill as many people as possible that day. If you want to kill men in front of their families, grow a beard, learn pashto, and go join Al Quaeda; you are not cut out to be in the highway patrol.
libertarianuberalles on November 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
A man who gets “pi$$ed off” that easily clearly SHOULD NOT BE A POLICE OFFICER – PERIOD. Not in the United States of America anyway.
MB4 on November 22, 2007 at 3:17 PM
1. No
2. No
Cop at traffic stop=Al Quaeda? Why stop there? Why not just call him a jack-booted thug stormtrooper for the Bushitler?
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM
News Roundup….
Salt Lake Tib
Desert News
Channel 2 KUTV
ABC News
liquidflorian on November 22, 2007 at 3:28 PM
This is very grey to me.
First of all, you don’t dispute the validity of the ticket with the officer, that’s why we have judges.
Secondly, you don’t walk away from a cop who is trying to arrest you. That leaves the officer with the choice of letting you go or stopping you with force. I teach police officers restraint techniques. While not lethal, physical restraint can break bones if the person continues to resist regardless of the pain compliance technique. A taser hurts but a broken wrist is much worse. Also, pain compliance puts the officer in harms way.
That said, the officer should have been more understand BEFORE it got to this point. I can’t hear much of the audio, maybe he was trying to talk this guy down.
dougless on November 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM
From reading those news pieces, it sounds like the UHP weren’t going to follow up on the investigation until the video came out on you tube. Like they were just going to let it wither on the vine until Massey went away.
I think one of the commenter’s in the news articles summed it up well; “quick on the taser, slow on people skills”
liquidflorian on November 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM
This was really difficult to watch. I’m not happy with what the cop did but the driver’s actions put him in a bad position. He was treating that cop like a security guard; there was no respect at all; and walking away from the cop was the big no no. The cop had to do something; if it had been me, and I felt that it was a bullsh*t stop, I would have said ‘yes sir, no sir, thank you sir’ until it was over, and then went and fought it in court. Playing word games and ‘I’m outta here’ while being detained is asking for trouble; when the situation started to escalate and a man with a gun was screaming at me to get down, I’d have gone down, fast. No walking away or going to the car. Sorry, bad cop or not, that kid created the conditions where a bad cop had to make a decision on how to maintain control of a situation.
Of everthing I’ve read, this comment says it for me
austinnelly on November 22, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Yes, not signing a ticket is an arrestable offense. Your signature is an assurance that you will appear in court for the infraction, so if you don’t sign the ticket, the officer can arrest you.
Secondly, the guy kept walking back to his SUV, hands in his pockets, so how did the trooper know what he was going to do? Too many cops have been shot by folks going back to their vehicles to retrieve a weapon.
The tasering was justified to me. The driver was a belligerent a**hole, and the trooper did NOT have to read him his rights. Miranda only applies if you are about to question a subject regarding a crime of which he/she is suspected of committing.
MsUnderestimated on November 22, 2007 at 4:57 PM
The officer needs to find the guy, have a long talk and work every thing out, and just as they come to a consensus, tase him again.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I hate asshole cops like that.
infidel4life on November 22, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I refused to sign a ticket and the cop just noted that I refused to sign and sent me on my way. I live in Utah, got the speeding ticket in Utah(89 in a 75). I went to appear, the clerk told me I could go before the magistrate or just pay fine right there. I paid the fine, got my receipt, and left. No one had to pull a taser on me. No one put cuffs on me. I guess I was just lucky enough to get a cop with some common sense and a cool head. This cop was itching for fight from the start. Maybe he had never gotten a chance to use his taser yet.
BTW, lying to the second police officer was a bad move. Its on tape for all to see.
I just don’t think this cowboy cop has the intelligence or disposition to be in law enforcement.
On another note, all you never question authority, obey at all costs “conservatives” concerns me. Maybe you would prefer a well regulated authoritarian police state. Maybe you think you will get brownie points in conservative heaven if you go through life never questioning authority but all you are doing is handing over more and more freedom to gov’t(normally I would say our gov’t, but since when has that been true?).
Sammy316 on November 22, 2007 at 5:16 PM
The kid should have done what the cop said…. but I saw no reason to taser him. Being a cop means you got to have patience sometimes and that was lacking.
Maxx on November 22, 2007 at 5:27 PM
That sums it all up in a nutshell.
I’m not going to second-guess when the officer pulled the trigger. The citizen may well have been a good guy, and he may well have acting that way precisely because he’d never been in trouble before. But flailing one arm around and keeping the other in your pocket after you’ve been pulled over is just plain WRONG.
The problem is that this situation should never have gotten that far in the first place. It takes two people to argue. All the officer had to do was give the guy a ticket, ignore the flack he was getting and tell the guy to go to court if he wanted to argue about where the sign was – BEFORE he tried to arrest the guy, instead of waiting until after he had to taze him.
BTW, some people mistakenly believe that signing a traffic ticket is an admission of guilt. It would have taken all of two seconds for the officer to explain that it’s just to show you received it. Instead, he arrested the guy. Well that’s wrong, too. The difference is that he’s the one who does this for a living.
logis on November 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Then the cop needs to take the guy in handcuffs to the really seedy bad part of Utah and dump him there with a sign that says “I hate Joseph Smith”. Then tase the guy again right before he leaves.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 5:35 PM
You facsist lovers keep pointing out that he failed to comply after he was placed under arrest. The stormtrooper never told the kid he was under arrest. The stormtrooper never told the kid he would be arrested if he failed to sign the ticket. The stormtrooper never told the kid signing the ticket was not an admission of fault. The stormtrooper was an arrogant asshat who ordered the kid out of his car to teach the kid a lesson. Well after this is all over, the stormtrooper will be an unarmed guard at a parking lot in SLC. I wonder if the stormtrooper and you facsist lovers will learn your lesson.
THE LAW GIVES YOU GUNS AND TASERS AND THE RIGHT TO MAKE US OBEY YOU, BUT WITH GREAT POWER COMES RESPONSIBILITY. TELL THE KID HE WILL BE ARRESTED IF HE DOESN’T SIGN THE TICKET. DON’T PULL EVEN A DISRESPECTFUL KID OUT OF HIS CAR JUST TO HARASS HIM. TELL A KID HE IS UNDER ARREST BEFORE YOU TASE HIM.
tommylotto on November 22, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Like Bruce Willis at the beginning of “Die Hard 3: Die Harder”!
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Both officer and driver were jerks, but the fault is all the driver’s. Every speeding ticket I ever got (and I got a lot of them in my younger days) You HAVE to sign or are subject to immediate arrest.
They say right on them that signing the ticket is NOT an admission of guilt, it is acknowledgment of receipt and promise to appear in court if you wish to argue it.
Even when you are pulled over by an obviously crooked local cop in a little community where the department’s operating budget is paid for by bogus speeding tickets given only to out of state licenses (Winslow, AZ for example) you are a fool if you argue with the cop, and you are a bigger fool if you don’t do exactly as he tells you. Fight it later (bring a lawyer) if you want to stand on principle.
Lately, all too many good police officers have been out here in the western states for merely enforcing the speed limits, often by people that seem to offer no threat, So they are all kind of jumpy. I can’t say as I blame them for not taking chances.
LegendHasIt on November 22, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I knew somebody would get it lol.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 5:43 PM
…and then send him back to mother in a cardboard box.
Wow, just wow.
Sammy316 on November 22, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Did you see the part on the video where the stormtrooper explained that to the kid? Me neither…. ZAPPP
tommylotto on November 22, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Ok.. seriously, this cop was out of line. I truly hope that the department is sued and that the driver receives a huge settlement.
The payment could be made in bundles of hundred dollar bills with exploding Blue dye packs hidden inside. The officer could then scream “Take this Papa Smurf” and tase him again.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Hey, I was kidding earlier, but there it is: Stormtrooper!
Wouldn’t Super Trooper have been more fitting?
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 5:57 PM
The stormtroop tells him to “hop out of the car.” The stormtrooper walk back to his car with his back to the kid (proving he does not percieve the kid as a threat). He sets down the ticket book and immediately pulls out his weapon as he is turning around. The more I watch this the more it looks like an ambush. Please fire this cop. Make an example of him. Pay the kid and his pregnant wife a settlement in the mid seven figures.
Lesson learned.
tommylotto on November 22, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Did you see the part on the video where the stormtrooper explained that to the kid? Me neither…
It is written right on the ticket, in the block where you sign. If you can’t or don’t read it, then you are too stupid to be driving in the first place. And the fool in this video can’t even claim ‘no habla Ingles’ (like half the people pulled over for traffic violations in this part of the country do.).
LegendHasIt on November 22, 2007 at 6:19 PM
All uses of force are reviewed first by IA, then peers then the civil service board. I love those of you that are quick to jump into condemnation of any and all police officers. Officers in this country are stuck between a rock and a hard place, when we explain to the general public what we are and are not allowed to do we’re told we’re donut eating lazy bums. When we do enforce the laws were called “Stormtroops”. As I’ve said before and will say again, police work is ugly, few are wired for it. If you aren’t then stop watching these videos and if you watch them anyway keep you mouths shut when you see that it isn’t pretty.
As for whether what he did was excessive or not, that will be determined under review. I hate it when “civilians” second guess my work and I refuse to second guess the work of another officer based on something this incomplete.
srhoades on November 22, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Irrelevant. He did not arrest the driver because he perceived him as a threat, he arrested him for refusing to agree to appear in court.
The driver then ignored the officer’s repeated instructions, refused to be taken into custody, and required the officer to subdue him to complete the arrest.
This is not complicated. When a cop indicates that you are being placed under arrest, you do not have the option to disagree and walk away, no matter how innocent you believe yourself to be. You just don’t.
LagunaDave on November 22, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Another great example of the “us v. them” mentality too many cops seem to have these days.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Here’s what you aren’t getting. This thread and comments on this thread are about THIS incident. We aren’t on here talking about ALL cops, and ALL traffic stops resemble fascism. . . and blah blah blah.
I respect cops. One of the reason I’m for legalization of all drugs is because I think it is stupid for a cop to get killed over a ridiculous drug raid. It’s terrible when that happens and it is terrible when anything bad happens to a law enforcement officer.
BUT THIS CASE! This guy was out of line. I think all of us ‘civillians’ would have a lot more respect for the cops on this board who say, ‘you know what, that cop was way over the top and most cops don’t act that way.’
We aren’t condemning all cops. These video tapes are rare. They are shocking because most ‘civilians’ do obey the cops. Most ‘civilians’ don’t expect the cops to act this way. But the problem is the fraternity of police can’t make people objective. This (hopefully) was an anomaly (judging by some of the comments from cops here, it may be the norm now – YIKES).
All we are doing is looking at this video and seeing the guy with power abuse the guy without power. The guy was shocked that the cop put that tazer in his face ( a reasonable person would). He didn’t hear the cop then, he saw the tazer.
You people do know too that some people impersonate cops. So if these people get a person who impersonates a cop – they’ll just have to do whatever he says – even to death. This is a real fear of ‘civilians’.
The guy was with his family. There was no way he was a threat at all. I would respect this guy if he was dealing with a hardened criminal, but this ‘civilian’ deserved to be given a little more respect. The officer has to know that when he pulls someone over, he has ruined their day and cost them an extra 3-500 bucks. Doesn’t make people the most pleasant.
ThackerAgency on November 22, 2007 at 7:48 PM
1)Yes, I’ve been arrested. I mentioned it about a gazillion comments ago, which would be about a third of the way up the way this thread is going.
2) No. I don’t smoke pot. I tried it once in February 1989 and hated it with a passion.
As for being given POWER over citizens, you most certainly are not. You are exercising a power loaned to you, which in turn was given to the citizens by God. The attitude you’ve shown is exactly what I’ve talked about at length.
True, indeed. Fewer are wired for it than are doing it.
And clearly you are not one of those that are wired for it. Us “civilians” look at those who use quotes around “civilian” with a critical eye. This ain’t the Third Reich, Barney Fife.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Wow that comment makes me more confident in law enforcement. You against us huh.
I will just file you under cowboy and try to not lump you into the general law enforcement community.
Sammy316 on November 22, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Well, crud. I invoked Godwin. My bad…..
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 7:57 PM
What gets me is I think that even most cops here that are defending the cop in the video wouldn’t have tased the guy. Cops have an understandable desire to protect their own, which unfortunately only feeds the “us v. them” mindset I mentioned earlier.
I’m still convinced that most cops are good cops with the public’s best interests at heart. But I’ve seen nothing in the video or in the comments here to convince me this particular cop wasn’t over-reacting.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 8:01 PM
So, Allah…after 550+ sometimes vituperative posts, what’s your take on this?
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 8:34 PM
well i can tell no one worked today. WOW. Alot to say over a dumb ass getting tazed. I love it.
ross
kara26 on November 22, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Not true…most cops in my state who go through the academy have to watch many videos of line-of-duty deaths. The purpose of this is to be able to recognize signs of danger and increase officer safety for everyone. The most bone-chilling video was that of SC Trooper Mark Coates, who was shot and killed in a “routine” traffic stop. Nothing about traffic stops is “routine.”
I know there are some bad apples out there, but please don’t judge all cops by those examples. All we want to do at the end of the day is go home and make sure we are all safe.
MsUnderestimated on November 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I notice people keep saying that the guy was resisting arrest. I’m not sure the legal definition so I don’t know if he was or not, but I do know that the cop didn’t say anything about arresting the driver until AFTER he was tazed and in cuffs. Is it really resisting arrest if the cop doesn’t tell you you’re under arrest in the first place?
The cop just told him to hop out of the car, then stuck a tazer in his face and started yelling at him. Up until that point the driver hadn’t disobeyed the cop. He was a little slow with the license, but he wasn’t disobeying. Seems to me like the driver would have continued obeying (while arguing of course), if the cop hadn’t escalated the situation from verbal to physical.
frost on November 22, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Don’t know how many of these statist authoritarians are LEOs, but my guess is more than one. They’ll tase you bro. Every one of them, and they vote.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 9:00 PM
You (and Tazer Hero) seem to have forgotten exactly who it is you work for, tough guy. Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work, hmmm?
infidel4life on November 22, 2007 at 9:01 PM
The more I watch the video, the more convinced I am that this cop needs to be dismissed from the force.
Insomniac on November 22, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Nope, no LEO, I’m a Taurus, but by golly I love tasing. I vote too. This year I’m gonna write in “John Gardner” for president and start the Tasing Party. Our party slogan will be:
“A Tasing In Every Pot Bust”
I think John said I could be Director of Homeland Tasing.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 9:24 PM
The kid will win in court, because the cop lied to the other officer. He said he told kid to turn around or he would taze him, thats not what he said in the video. After watching the video twice, I have come to the conclusion that the officer in question is a tool and needs a nice long suspension and some retraining. Too bad the police department and the taxpayers are going to have to pay for his stupidity. By the way, how does he get permission to search the vehicle?
deadbackpacker on November 22, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Actually, I’d take Gardner.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Just an aside: How many of the sainted protectors of the public on here have ever objected to their supervisors about the suspension of the Constitution when it comes to DUI arrests?
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 9:37 PM
The more I read these posts, the more convinced I am that I went to the Democrat Underground by mistake… Or at least wandered into a Ron Paul rally.
Yeah the cop over reacted, but he didn’t kill the guy or even put the boots to him. I imagine he will be / has been disciplined, maybe be fired or at least assigned to desk duty or the lousiest job in the department for a long time.
But I have seen enough bitterness in these posts towards ‘The Man’ and lack of understanding of what the real world is like, that it feels like I time-traveled back to college in 1970.
LegendHasIt on November 22, 2007 at 9:40 PM
That, in a nutshell is why I rarely bother with HA any more.
TheBigOldDog on November 22, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Suspension of the Constitution when it comes to DUI arrests?
How do you figure? … and which part of the Constitution are you suggesting is being violated if I arrest you for driving while intoxicated?
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Don’t worry, keep giving up your freedoms, the way things are going the nanny state will guide you, regulate you, and keep you in order.
>>sigh
Sammy316 on November 22, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Well don’t let the door hit you in the rear :)
Sammy316 on November 22, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Most of them are trolls, lurkers, or shills, I’d guess. They don’t comment on any of the threads for the most part and most of them look brand spanking new to me. I can’t remember seeing many of the folks you’re refering to in this thread on any of the other threads before.
Open registration is a two edged sword… and apparently it takes a grainy interweb video of a good beat down of a non-compliant Joe Shmoe by a cop to bring them out of the shadows.
We need more stuff to get their ire up more often, then the mods can pluck the weeds as they sprout.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM
LegendHasIt and BigOldDog:
I’m no hippy, believe me. WAY back in this thread, someone commented that Jefferson would be calling for a mob to overthrow the government over this and Hamilton would be trying to find another taser to put that mob down. That’s about right. This argument is as old and as American as they come. Honestly, I’ve been kind of giggling about it for the last several hours. I side with Jefferson. You don’t. This fight didn’t begin here, and it won’t end here. This “tension” is America. God Bless you, and I hope you ate yourselves stupid today. Regards.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 9:53 PM
That’s the “Search incident to the arrest doctrine”. Which allows a ‘wingspan’ search of any area/container within the area where the arrestee was sitting i.e. any area where he/she can reasonably reach in the ‘wingspan’ of his/her arms.
It’s one of the SCoTUS ruled exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
Britcop on November 22, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Typical authoritarian fascist. “Ban them!” I don’t like what they have to say. Polish your badge today?
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I just tased the Democratic Underground and Kos. They wont be bothering us anymore.
Man my computer screen looks weird…
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Fascinating macro-issue (the micro-issue of this traffic stop is not what I’m commenting on)
How incredibly informative – all folks on the opposite side of this thing…do you realize that this is like being a fly on the wall in a jury room while they are trying to discuss a case? Little wonder that the outcome can seem like such a crapshoot. There’s so much pressure for 12 people to reach a verdict, and someone’s fate rests on the outcome of such disparate and passionate arguments as these.
RushBaby on November 22, 2007 at 9:58 PM
“Ban Them” sounds better than the Liberal cry of “KILL THEM”
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Just refering to the trolls and shills… and Godwin invokers HerrMorgenholz… nothing more.
You can ‘act’ all tough and ‘act’ all bad, and contort, and twist, and even put words that suit you in peoples posts in your anonymity on the interweb, but I know, as well as everyone else, you’d be “yes sir” and “no sir” and kissing the butt of the cop that contacts you if you are contacted in an official capacity.
You’re one of the “new” folks here, and a troll. It’s obvious by your incitements and weak troll-fu.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Ground wire. Nuff said. Sure sounds fun though.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Just refering to the trolls and shills… and Godwin invokers HerrMorgenholz… nothing more.
You can ‘act’ all tough and ‘act’ all bad, and contort, and twist, and even put words that suit you in peoples posts in your anonymity on the interweb, but I know, as well as everyone else, you’d be “yes sir” and “no sir” and kissing the butt of the cop that contacts you if you are contacted in an official capacity.
You’re one of the “new” folks here, and a troll. It’s obvious by your incitements and weak troll-fu.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:01 PM
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Agree with you both completely.
DKK
LifeTrek on November 22, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Dang. Posting faux pas.
And I’m far from new. I just don’t post often. 20 to 1 says your parents didn’t christen you SilverStar830, so knock off the anonymity thing. I’m just an ordinary guy talking to an ordinary cop. Our anonymity allows us to debate clearly and concisely. By the way, have YOU ever objected to the suspension of the Constitution when it comes to DUI arrests? I asked the question earlier and all I got was crickets.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:06 PM
And I do respond yes sir and no sir. Know that it twists my gut to do it though, and it’s because you have a gun and a high school education.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Using a sentence like that around here is a dead giveaway as to which ilk you belong, snake-in-the-grass, and as to why you’ve been monitoring and
commentingtrolling on this thread the whole entire day.You’re a non-factor, and as such, duly ignored here on out.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Try back reading a few posts goofball.
/back on ignore
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Much easier (as a citizen) to play nice and go to court. I’ve beat 90% of all the tickets I fought. Fighting it out there on the highway (especially with staties) is not very smart.
amend2 on November 22, 2007 at 10:13 PM
You know neither how tough nor how bad I am. I’ll tell you. I’m neither. I’m a quiet, polite, and, I think, unassuming guy. I’m gentle with everyone I come in contact with. And you still don’t know how “bad” or “tough” I am, or can be. See? That’s the problem. You walk in with the assumption that “bad” or “tough” are meaningful things. You believe that violence rules, and you’re not necessarily wrong there. But I don’t cut my hair or wear clothing in a manner to demonstrate how “bad” or “tough” I am. You do, officer. Look at yourself in the mirror tomorrow morning before you leave for work. Talk about acting? You entire presentation to the world is one of “bad” and “tough”. Only you know if its true.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM
and probably making more money than you.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM
You’ve used phrasing similar to this on at least one previous comment on this thread. It says a lot about your view of the citizens you’re paid to “protect and to serve”, and has no relevance to one’s opinion on whether the cop was right or wrong.
But I guess I’m just a troll, if by “troll” you mean “one who disagrees with you”.
Incidentally, I’ve been a somewhat regular visitor/commenter here since the site launched in May 2006.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Doh. I missed your non-response. My bad.
Know anything about the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution? Nope. Which is why you haven’t objected to checkpoints which you conduct, forced body invasions to search for evidence, etc.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Any more wisdom you’d like to impart? (Actually, you might be right. See my post above about the $6000 per month pension some poor civil servant might lose if he did, indeed, murder a couple of his wives. Cop, of course).
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Yes. His children smell better.
GoodBoy on November 22, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Spare me the ad hominem attack… that’s weak sauce. You know very well that I was refering to the tough talk in some of the thread posts, when the tough talk in real life when facing a cop would be non-existant. By troll you know very well that I was refering to the intentional ignorance (errr, or maybe not so intentional… don’t know for sure), and the little jabs to incite others.
And I don’t recall anyone naming you specifically as a troll, but maybe that’s your conscience speaking for you.
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »