Video: Bro tased
posted at 9:31 pm on November 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »
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
I don’t doubt it. I just changed the boy’s diaper. I don’t know what the heck the old lady fed that kid. Jeeeeezzz that was rude.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:26 PM
There are two kinds of cops. There are those who sincerely want to serve their community and who do police work for all of the right reasons. Then there are those who become cops because they think they grow 3 inches taller and 6 more inches of d*ck when they strap on a gun and put on a badge. These are bullies and power freaks who want the ability to abuse people with impunity. They don’t give a damn about the law, just about getting their dominance jollies. These are the cops, and there are far, far too many of them, who give the rest a bad name.
This puke is one of the latter and many departments are lousy with them and will line up to protect and defend them, not the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving. He is the reason I got out of the business.
The kid has a well deserved payday coming. Yay for video cams.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 10:28 PM
And here is another one. Caught on tape.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Yes, flipflop. Spare this poor public servant the ad hominem attacks. How dare you?
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:30 PM
You have a constitutionally protected right to not incriminate yourself, not sure what part of that doesn’t make sense to police officers sometimes…
Neo on November 22, 2007 at 10:35 PM
No ad hominem attack, just an impression of what your views towards citizens appear to be. I’m far from being an anti-LE type, but I’ve observed first hand enough “us v. them” mentality in some cops to be bothered by it. To the cops of that mindset, there are cops and there are dirtbags (or potential dirtbags).
When those cops encounter jerks like this motorist, jerk though he may have been, he wasn’t a criminal until the cop’s behavior made him one. And it was that not-a-cop=dirtbag assumption on the cop’s part that triggered his nearly instant reach for the taser.
flipflop on November 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Anything, SilverStar? I know you’re reading.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
The concept of the taser was sold to the public as an alternative means to deadly force when the use of a gun would be needed to end a deadly situation. Now tasers are being used as a means of convenient compliance. Lesson learned “Do as I say or you will be tased”
KCtheKat on November 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM
You also have a right to be an a$$hole, as long as you don’t break the law. If you’re a cop and you can’t handle that in the people you work for, with tact, dimplomacy and professionalism, a transfer to the sanitation department may be in order.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM
So. Do you drive the trucks? …or do you help sort the recyclables?
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 10:50 PM
If this patrolman was anymore pro-active, he would have shot first (bullets are cheap) and spared the citation (save a tree).
infidel on November 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM
So now you rag on one of your own? Yet you won’t answer a simple question about the Constitution after a half hour? It’s because you don’t care.
Typical authoritarian fascist. I win, SilverBoy.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Neither. I do watch the watchers, though.
You show any wisea$$ punks who’s boss today? You must be wicked cool.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I mentioned this earlier, but the only reason why I said “MAYBE” the guy didn’t see it was because it appeared to be a temporary sign…of the kind where the speed limit might be higher but is lowered for a hazard or like a work zone.
I said “maybe” the driver didn’t see it because in such areas, there might be more than one speed limit sign temporarily posted.
91Veteran on November 22, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Awwww… look… envy!
SilverStar830 on November 22, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Ahhh…missed this in the boatload of comments, but here’s my point in action:
You know, you might like that job riding on the outside of the truck. Plenty of sunshine, the wind in your face….
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Ya know SilverStar, a gentleman would have offered me the hilt of his sword. Since you’re obviously not one, I’ll take your silence as the traditional French battle standard. You know, the white one.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 11:09 PM
No, it’s disgust. But hey, I could go back in and then get a bitchin’ internet handle like SilverShield! then everyone would know what a badass I am, huh?
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Watch yourself, HerrMorgenholz. Challenge his ego and you’re likely to get tased.
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Arrrghhh…moderation is not my friend.
Awwww… look… envy!
No, it’s disgust. But hey, I could go back in and then get a bitchin’ internet handle like SilverShield! Then everyone would know what a bada$$ I am, huh?
Pablo on November 22, 2007 at 11:15 PM
No chance. I’m wearing my grounded jockstrap.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Very nice to have some intelligent thoughtful insight from some of the members in law enforcement on this thread. Others however were not so cordial. Interesting attitudes by these people sworn to protect and serve. It would be nice to know what your departmental psychologist would say about some of the posts here.
infidel on November 22, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Oh, Yeah, I forgot:
Subsection 47; C: of the 10th Ammendment in the Bill of Rights:
“The Freedom to travel at any speed you wish on the public highways and the right to ignore the instructions of the police shall not be abridged.“
Silly me. Forgetting two of the most basic freedoms given us by our Creator, enumerated by our country’s Founders and ratified by the Several States.
“Off the PIGS!”
Happy now?
LegendHasIt on November 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM
See the post above yours. That is all.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I’m seeing a lot of comments along the lines of “fascist totalitarianism”, “losing our freedoms”, “stormtrooper”, etc… (not to mention a lot of name calling and insults)…
The above reminds me of the gripes you hear from leftists on the sort of blogs that I don’t need to name, ’cause we all know what they are.
The above reminds me of protesters who stand outside the White House or Capitol Hill or one of any number of “peace” protests and such; the ones who scream insults directed at the President, Congress, our troops, law enforcement, etc., whilst same law enforcement officers just stand by and watch as long as traffic isn’t impeeded (and sometimes even then). If this was truly a “fascist totalitarian state” where we were “losing our rights” under the heels of “jack-booted stormtroopers”, would those protesters be able to protest freely? Would they still be free to come and go; would they even still be alive? In a truly fascist state, where law enforcement officers just looked out for their own, would the victim of the tasing be able to request that the video be released? Not only released, but posted on the website of a privately owned company, there for (quite literally) all the world to see?
What a horrible, repressed, fascist country this is!
Frozen Tex on November 22, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Don’t know about Utah but in Oklahoma if you won’t sign the cite then you’re going to be arrested and have to post cash bond for the offense. Signing is not any admission of guilt, just a promise to appear in court or pay the fine prior to your court date. If you’re being arrested and decide to walk away it’s going to get ugly…. always… everytime.
Buzzy on November 22, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Holy cow! 623 comments! That’s what I get for going on vacation.
dont taze me bro on November 22, 2007 at 11:55 PM
All of that’s right, Tex, for now. We can still argue, and still call the government out for stuff like this. But I think we’ve all heard of people being arrested for videotaping the police, too. We’ve seen the Kelo decision, and the McCain Feingold decision from the SCOTUS. We’re awaiting now the decision in Heller v. DC, and I don’t think it’s going to go well if you’re a person who believes in individual liberty.
You’re right for now. I pray you’re right for a long time to come. I doubt it though, sadly.
HerrMorgenholz on November 22, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I live in NY (upstate) and you are NOT required to sign anything. Cop hands you a ticket and off you go.
Plead by mail, pay by mail or appear in court if you so choose.
The cop in this instance NEVER informed the driver that refusing to sign the ticket was grounds for incarceration. Not once.
The cop ORDERED the driver out of the vehicle AND THE DRIVER COMPLIED. Cop turns his back on this LIFE THREATENING SITUATION. DO NOT tell me he (the cop) had not already decided what was coming next.
The Cop immediately produced his taser and ORDERED the driver to place his hands behind his back.
The driver reacted as though he was facing a NUT CASE and began to back away. Ya’ think he might have been a bit frightened at this point?? Ya’ think he had ever faced that kind of force in his life before? Is there a course in school that teaches people how to “react properly” when having a weapon pointed at you? The guy did not run, he did not rush the cop…he simply began backing away asking what the cops problem was. BAM!!!! TASE HIS ARSE!!!
FACT: The cop LIES HIS ARSE OFF when the next cop shows up. L I E S !!!!! Caught on tape. HE LIED!
Talon on November 23, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Maybe so. And if this is the case then it’s something you go talk to the judge about, rather than getting beligerent with the officer.
We must be clear. This guy didn’t get tazed for the traffic violation. He was tazed for resisting arrest after walking away when the officer told him to put his hands behind his back.
The highways through Utah are major Drug trafficking corridors. Hard for officers to know if they are dealing with just an upset driver or a hopped-up crack-head.
Like I said before. And Like Talon illustrates again. The guy was resisting arrest. Without a tazer any good officer would have pulled either his nightstick or his gun.
The cop did exactly the right thing by taking charge of the situation before the guy did something more stupid.
Lawrence on November 23, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Had dinner at my cousin’s house today. My other cousin (the hostess’ brother) is former LAPD and is now an LA County Sheriff. He watched the video and said that the motorist had it coming when he disobeyed the order(s).
Cousin also mentioned that, during his training for the LACS, he had seen video of the exact same sort of situation–except that in that case the officer’s perfect politeness ended up getting him murdered. As it turns out, it’s the same video linked in the comments above (that’s an HA link, but the video is NSFW–porn is also on that site); the perp was allowed to return to his car to retrieve an M-16. The officer never had a chance and his screams as the murderer pumped bullets into him were heart-wrenching. Good thing the Utah officer’s “people skills” weren’t up to the standards of some here; at least everyone featured is still alive.
Oh yes and don’t forget, it’s better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six.
baldilocks on November 23, 2007 at 12:25 AM
I just read where the driver, Jared Massey, was killed in a car wreck this morning. When he got to heaven, God tased him.
GoodBoy on November 23, 2007 at 12:25 AM
thegreatbeast on November 23, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Got a link for that,
sociopathGoodBoy?Meanwhile…
Geez, it’s only been two months.
Yup. Screw the facts, there’s a blue wall of silence to uphold.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 12:39 AM
And according to Sgt. Jeff Nigbur of the Utah Highway patrol, one of the options available to the officer was to simply write “Refused to sign” on the ticket and hand it in to the Court.
But escalation was better, and the guy deserved to get tasered because, well, sometimes people have guns!
Nice.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 12:51 AM
There is a famous video of a speeding stop (in ME, I think). Cop stops a guy in a pick-up truck with a shell on the back. The driver is irate and calls the cop & the stop everyname in the book. The guy is irate & swears and swears and swears. The cop stands there patiently, sometimes interjecting during a break in the invective and occasionly chuckling a little but he lets the driver vent. Finally, the driver comes to acceptance of the situation and runs out of steam. The driver is given the ticket and drives off. A classic video is in the can.
All one can think after viewing this clip is that that cop is a small hero doing a difficult job magnificently. One can’t help but feel that, “Geez, we’re lucky to have these guys out there on our highways”.
What a difference between the two clips. But there is only one answer when the question is, “Which man should be entrusted with the duties of a police officer?”
thegreatbeast on November 23, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Exactly right, thegreatbeast. A guy like that is a keeper.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM
That cop should be fired, and the UHP sued.
Free Constitution on November 23, 2007 at 1:22 AM
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say neither of you is a cop. Now I’m not completely defending the officer’s actions. However, this sort of idiotic after-the-fact speculation based on 8 minutes of videotape is just offensive to anyone with an above average intelligence. Let the police department do its internal review process, and please don’t hand me this crap about “well, there was this one time where this cop just stood patiently while the guy yelled at him and ran out of steam.” I’d like to hear from the officer. What was his subjective frame of mind? Why did he feel the need to use that level of force? Then I would make my conclusion. But seriously, in your example, if that cop who had just stood there, and the guy decided to pull a gun on him, would you still be singing the same tune? The point is, we can both provide myriad examples of people acting inappropriately where the officer diffused the situation by being calm or using force. People are unpredictable. Not everybody acts the same way. It’s important to get the officer’s side of the story. May seem like common sense, but we got a lot of arm-chair police officers here whom I’m guessing have never ridden around in a patrol car before or walked a beat…
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I think this thing has to be broken down into segments to discuss it reasonably.
1) Initial contact: The officer started off making it a belligerent interaction which immediately put the citizen on the defensive.
2) First officer instructions: The citizen, now defensive, reacted in a jerky manner escalating.
3) Ticket presentation: Citizen was wrong to try to argue it on the road side and continued to be obstinate.
4) Officer reaction: From one of the news links posted above: Trooper Cameron Roden, a UHP spokesman: “In the event that a motorist refuses to sign a trooper has two options, Roden said. One is to write “refuses to sign” on the citation, which is then given to the driver. The second is to arrest the driver.” That I think is a definitive answer to the earlier discussion as to having to sign the ticket or not.
The officer, instead of de-escalating the situation with an obvious jerk, CHOSE to escalate it even more. This is where it goes really badly.
Officer utterly fails to communicate numerous things including what is going to happen if the ticket is not signed.
Officer gets sucked into a power struggle with said jerk.
5) Exit from vehicle: Jerk obviously thinks they are out of the vehicle to look at the sign. Reason for this assumption - utter lack of communication by officer.
6) Arrest: Officer orders jerk to put hands behind back. Jerk is obviously confused by this. Officer pulls tazer. Jerk is even more confused and appears to be worried that he is dealing with a lunatic and begins to retreat from situation back to vehicle (putting myself mentally in that situation I think I would have been frightened and confuse too). Jerk makes HUGE mistake - doesn’t keep hands in clear view while retreating thereby giving the officer a good defense that he needs to taze him in the name of safety (a decision that I don’t necessarily disagree with as I would have been nervous seeing that hand heading for his pocket).
7) Followup: Officer’s perspective of events, whether intentional prevarication or simply his “fog of war” perception of events or something in between, calls the officer’s entire position further into question.
So in short I, as I think most everyone here, agree that the citizen was a jerk and made things worse. I also think that the Officer from the initial contact forward escalated the situation at every turn. The officer had numerous opportunities to de-escalate the situation but instead chose the most confrontational, escalating choice throughout.
While I think that tazing in and of itself was likely justifiable, it clearly was not inevitable as the office had the option of just letting the jerk drive away or de-escalating throughout.
deepdiver on November 23, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Right, we need 6 months of administrative review by people who weren’t there either to determine what happened on 10 minutes of videotape we’ve all got access to.
It isn’t speculation when you can watch the incident from beginning to end. It’s applying judgment, something that cop failed to do.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 1:42 AM
What video were you watching? The taser was out immediately. The officer never told him he was under arrest until after electricity was jolting him to the ground.
Not sure if you are old enough to know him, but from your handle I bet you’ve heard of my uncle/godfather, Vito. He was a Captain in OC. He was a great cop. One of the best. A hard man too. But he was harder on his deputies that civilians. That is what is disturbing about this thread. The law enforcement types rally around their own, right or wrong. The kid was wrong, sure, but that is not the issue. We are talkin’ about the cop’s handling of the situation. This cop was clearly in the wrong. He never let the kid know what was happening until it was too late. He was tased before he was ever told he was under arrest. If a cop cannot criticize this officer’s performance, he shouldn’t be allowed to wear a shield.
tommylotto on November 23, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I agree with you there. I think you are probably right that it was justifiable, but not inevitable. A better officer could’ve probably handled it better. But again, just because we know now after the fact that the guy was probably harmless with a pregnant wife certainly does not mean the officer knew these things. Put yourself in a patrol officer’s shoes, if possible. Imagine stopping people day after day, not knowing who exactly is in the car you just pulled over. Most are decent, law-abiding citizens. However, all it takes is one guy you didn’t see coming to get the drop on you and end your life.
So you don’t even want to hear the officer’s side? 6 months of administrative review? Yes, I would most certainly take their judgment over yours any day of the week. Who the hell are you? Obviously no one with any law enforcement experience (see above). I’m sure this cop will be disciplined, but probably not fired. But you, Pablo, the arm-chair cop, knows exactly what to do in these situations!
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Quoted for truth.
liquidflorian on November 23, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Right. He was pulling the taser as he was telling the guy to turn around and assume the position for the first time. It’s little wonder the guy started backing away from him.
You Tube sucks for stupid cops. Good ones have nothing to worry about.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Right, so let’s just tase everybody and figure it out later. Because you never know.
Wrong. You might want to see above.
I don’t have a problem with all cops, just the lousy ones, of which there are too many.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:12 AM
That’s really great about your uncle, Tommy, but again, when an officer has a taser gun pointed at you, don’t you think a rational person would stop moving and do what the officer tells you? You know, rather than walk away with your hand in your pocket?
I guess I’m a “law-enforcement type.” And I’m quite able to criticize cops who do outrageous things. I just don’t see this particular case as a black/white issue like most of the people on this thread. I’m not sure what their policies are in Utah, but the cop should’ve announced that he was going to taser him before actually tasering him. But again, the driver should’ve listened to goddam officer.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:18 AM
tommylotto’s Uncle Vito sounds like another example of the good ones.
More relevant wisdom from LtCol Dave Grossman, via Bill Whittle’s Tribes essay:
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:19 AM
So you actualy used to be a cop? Really? There are “too many” “lousy” cops, eh? And how did you come to that conclusion, Pablo? Did you conduct a rigorous scientific study, evaluating each cop in the thousands of police departments throughout the U.S? Or you basing it on some bad experiences you’ve had? See, I have a friend who does the latter. He’s also far-left dude who wears Che Guevara t-shirts.
I work with cops almost every day (I’m a grad student in criminal jutice, as if it was any of your business, but just for full disclosure), and I have met a few that left a lot to be desired. However, if we are basing it on anecdotal evidence (which is what you are doing), than my evidence has been that the vast majority are good guys.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:29 AM
No, I worked with them, Will. Day in and day out, in real world situations, and with the same training they’ve had.
I know a bully when I see one. And I see one on that video.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Dude, I have a seriously hard time believing anyone who quotes that used to be a cop. So now this guy who was tasered was the “lowliest lamb”? Look, I’m the first one to admit that there are bad apples. But you must’ve either had some really bad experiences (based on some of the stuff you’ve said in this thread), or you’re talking out of your ass. I think I’m a pretty fair guy, and I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But this is the Internet, and most of the time people are full of BS.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:35 AM
BTW, I didn’t ask, and I don’t really care. If you were hoping to impress me with that, it didn’t work.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:36 AM
So were you a cop, or not? And for how long? I’m genuinely curious…
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Comprehension is your friend. Reading is fundamental. You should try it. Try separating what I said from what I quoted. Col. Grossman makes a very excellent point. That you missed it is neither his fault nor mine.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Definitely wasn’t trying to impress you! But since you’re giving me the run-around about what your credentials are, I’d thought I’d actually give you mine (instead of like, you know, pretending I am or used to be a cop)
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Yes. 3 years.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:39 AM
No need to get nasty, buddy! I got the point of your little quote! I’m just not sure the comparison is really apt. The guy wasn’t just standing there, being completely docile, and obeying the officer! He ignored his explicit instructions, and that is why he got zapped…
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:41 AM
Was it a big/medium/small city? Rural area? Three years, so did you just do patrol? Any particular events make you quit? I’m honestly not trying to get personal, I’m just genuinely interested in hearing your side.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:44 AM
The first instruction he didn’t comply with, other than to sign the ticket, was while he had a taser pointed at him…and, OMG, he backed away from it.
Is it so surprising that his self preservation instinct might override his respect for the badge with a hothead behind it? It’s more surprising that he didn’t run like hell.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:45 AM
Medium. You could call it a busy suburb. My problem was with the culture that I explained above. Go against that grain, and you’re committing career suicide. I opted out instead of being continually disgusted at what I saw being done in the name of law and order and public service.
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
If nothing else, I got the last part of that.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 2:50 AM
So tell me, if and when you were ever on patrol, and say, pulled over a person, did you like it when the driver jumped out of the car, and starts walking to you at a fairly agressive pace?
Moreover, he didn’t “back” away from it. His back was to the police officer. Not a minor detail. He turned around, and his hands were not up in a defensive posture. Who knows what this guy was going to do next from the officer’s point of view?
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM
Fair enough. And I respect that, I really do. It hasn’t been my experience with working with cops, but many departments have their own culture, so maybe it was mostly indicative of the one you were part of… I just think you are wrong to let your bad experience sour your opinion of all cops (although, I guess it’s somewhat understandable if you do)
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 2:56 AM
That’s not what happened here. He was ordered out of the car and he complied. And he wasn’t coming at the cop, he was walking along the road pointing at the sign.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 3:01 AM
I haven’t said that. In fact, I’ve said quite the opposite of that. By way of example, San Diego cops are, by and large, highly professional, last time I checked. German Polizei, who I dealt with often in the military, are extremely professional. Boston cops, OTOH, are mostly goons. There is a continuum from excellent to horrible. Training and leadership have everything to do with it, and some places are much better or worse than others.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Well, one might quibble over whether or not you’ve really said that. I got the impression that you had a low opinion of most police officers…
But if you think there is a continuum, and training and leadership have everything to do with it, I most certainly agree with you there. My experience has been almost solely with the NYPD. They definitely have their problems, but well…the NYPD is complicated.
Good luck with whatever you are doing now.
WillBarrett on November 23, 2007 at 3:14 AM
You can quibble if you like. But i stated here earlier, and then directed you to the comment where I said this:
If you’d like to take that to mean that I think all cops suck, that’s entirely your interpretation and not anything that I’ve said.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 3:23 AM
Wait, the cop sets down his stuff (mistake turning his back on this guy for sure) and turns back to see the guy reaching into his pocket - to the point that he appears to be hiding what he is doing in that pocket. Then the officer pulls his taser. The cop had no way of knowing what the guy was doing in his pocket, was it a weapon, was it a phone, or was it a Popsicle? Pull my gun or pull my taser? He made the right choice and no one was killed.
DKK
LifeTrek on November 23, 2007 at 4:20 AM
The guy had the wear withal to stand there and say, “what the hell is wrong with you,” but not to even put his hands up! He continued in that pocket, turned and walked toward his car all the while ignoring the officers orders to put his hands behind his back.
LifeTrek on November 23, 2007 at 4:29 AM
Was there a good-guy in that story?
Snotty kid, or control-freak with a taser. I’m not sure which I dislike the most.
arkansasmike on November 23, 2007 at 8:40 AM
And gives us an indication of how much he considers the guy a danger: not at all. Just a punk who needs to learn some respect for the badge, and just lucky enough to run into someone to teach it to him…with a taser.
He’s got his thumb hooked in his pocket. He’s not even reaching into it.
Cops never know what someone is doing in their car when they pull someone over. Maybe they should tase everyone right up front, just to play it safe. After all, as long as no one gets killed. Tase first, figure things out later. And make sure the motoring public knows better than to do anything whatsoever that might put a cop in the position of not knowing.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 8:56 AM
That’s the key right there.
Redhead Infidel on November 23, 2007 at 9:22 AM
No, the key is how it got to that point in the first place. This cop took an idiot and manufactured a criminal.
flipflop on November 23, 2007 at 9:28 AM
FlipFlop
I read your blog entry over this cop and the incident and agree for the most part. You forgot to mention that at the end of the video, what the first cop who tased the driver told the second cop was not what actually happened.
In Virginia, I have been told several times by cops who were friends of my family that there are only two types of citizens; those who have been arrested for their crimes and those who have not.
If this cop cannot deal with irate or asinine citizens, who did not threaten him BTW, without resorting to violence, then he is simply not qualified to be a cop.
Cops are feared and most get off on it. How would you like a cop threaten to shoot you for asking how to file a complaint and being run off the property of the police station?
http://www.policeabuse.com/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,32/task,videodirectlink/id,24/
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 10:05 AM
The idiot made himself a criminal when he speeded and refused to follow the policeman’s directions. I might include refusing to sign the citation but don’t know Utah’s laws on that.
I would have asked the policeman, as I have in the past without problems, “Does the law require me to sign?”, “If no, then why should I still sign it?” This policeman answered all of this young man’s questions, but the man doesn’t listen and refuses to believe that he is guilty of anything. From the first time the kid opened his mouth and throughout the video he was disrespectful and not cooperating with the policeman.
I would hate to be a policeman in this day and age. Society and local government (in many places) itself is working against those that have sworn to uphold the law, protect the innocent and do so while putting themselves at great risk.
I have no patience for those who disrespect the law.
shick on November 23, 2007 at 10:07 AM
So you have never broken the law? Or are the ones you break “not really” legitimate, hence your choice to break it.
I’m glad policemen are under more scrutiny. I don’t long for the old days in which beatings and frameups were done against the poor, while the well off and their kids got a pass for the same offenses.
Cops like this one give the 90% who are honest and decent cops a bad name. We shouldn’t applaud this behavior.
Bradky on November 23, 2007 at 10:11 AM
A couple of points…
First off… the Cop did NOT tell the guy what he had done wrong… after the guy asking.
Secondly… as SOON as the guy left the vehicle, he should have had him put his hands on the car for a search IF his intention was to arrest him… he didn’t…
Third… he should have TOLD the guy, as he was placed “in the position” (hands on the car to be searched) that he was under arrest for failing to sign the ticket (but it seems in that State that is not procedure for arrresting the guy).
Fourth… rights should have been read…
Fifth… that was a illegal search… the guy was NOT yet arrested… no permission was asked… and ANOTHER owner of the vehicle was both present, and NOT under arrest. He can look in the windows… but he can’t touch.
Sixth… as the Campeon case so clearly showed… you don’t get to use force because a guy has his hands in his pocket.
Use of Force has a “reasonable” clause in it which has to do with circumstance, and TRAINING (used to teach this in the military…).
Fact of the matter is that this Cop didn’t like the guy, and so used his taser as coporal punishment. He acted as judge and jury… he clearly violated his Civil Rights.
IMO guy has a case.
Romeo13 on November 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM
No, speeding is an infraction, not a crime. It is also not a crime to refuse to sign a ticket, and the officer, according to the spokesman from his own department, could simply have noted the refusal on the ticket and gone along his merry way.
RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY!!! is only funny on South Park. And this “peace officer” is little more than Cartman.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Obeying and respecting are two different things. Obeying/not obeying the law is a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences if you disobey the law and are caught. Disrespecting the law happens when you think disobeying the law has no consequences for you whatsoever.
James on November 23, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Un-freakin’-believable.
flipflop on November 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Funniest part of this whole thread?
The founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment so we the People, could combat an Authoritarian Government if it manifested itself…
Article 5 of the Constitution…
Ummm… where was Due Process?
Romeo13 on November 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM
I would dare to argue that your figure of 90% is way too high. Judging the human nature to abuse positions of power, I see police officers abusing their position more than not.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I hope you’re wrong on that…I still like to think the majority of cops are good ones watching out for the public’s interests. But the video in the link you posted earlier doesn’t bode well.
The last thing I want to see is more dead cops, but the prevailing “us and them” culture in law enforcement has to change somehow.
flipflop on November 23, 2007 at 10:54 AM
As I have already stated:
So yes, I have already admitted my guilt. But the point of your question is that I have disrespected the law by refusing to obey it. I agree with you. I deserved the fine I had to pay. But my point in regarding “disrespect the law” was in those who wear a badge.
I stand corrected. What is the correct word used to describe someone who commits an infraction? The idiot made himself an ‘infractioner’.
shick on November 23, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I think this is a case where everybody can be right. The cop, like most traffic cops, is a) on a personal power trip, b) bitter that he’s relegated to the role of little more than county tax collector, or c) both. However, the guy he pulled over still behaved like a first-rate idiot. Unless you’re an attractive female, there’s absolutely no point in arguing with a traffic cop. Even if the cop completely misunderstands the laws in question (which happens), cleavage might get you out of the ticket, but reason never will.
Blacklake on November 23, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Sounds like a flip flop to me. Either you break the law or you don’t.
All the hoopla about Clinton, illegal aliens and “the rule of law” wears pretty thin with your reasoning.
Bradky on November 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM
You’re confusing the cop with the law. As is the cop.
“Citizen”
What is the correct term to describe a policeman? “Public servant”
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 11:17 AM
You’re right, of course. The proper place to challenge a cop is in court. My one personal experience with this:
I was driving south in I-395 near the Pentagon a few years back at around 5:30PM. The traffic there at that time of the day is horrendous. As soon as I got stuck in that traffic, my car started to overheat, so I pulled into the breakdown lane.
In about 30 seconds, there was a Virginia state trooper pulled up behind me, lights flashing. I thought “wow…must be record time for a cop assisting a motorist in distress”. Silly me…the cop announced that he was citing me for “illegally driving on the shoulder”.
I explained to the cop that my car had overheated, and invited him to look at my temperature gauge, which was pegged. He nodded, returned to his vehicle, and returned a short time later with the citation. I looked at him and said “Are you nuts??”, to which he replied “Please just sign the citation.” To this cop’s credit, he was polite and professional the whole time…just dead wrong.
I returned his politeness by being politely confrontational. I said “Sure, I’ll sign it, and I’ll appear in court. Just do me a favor and look at my temperature gauge one more time and acknowledge to me verbally that you see it’s pegged, so if you deny it in court, you’ll be committing perjury.” He did as I asked, and the following month in court I beat him silly. The judge looked at the cop as if he’d grown a second head.
My point in this long-winded comment is that even though the cop had over-reached in ticketing me, he was polite the entire time and nothing escalated. I wonder what that Utah cop would have done to me after I asked him if he was nuts.
flipflop on November 23, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Whether or not you respect the law, you still have to decide whether or not to obey it. I doubt most drug runners are saying to themselves, ‘Well, since as a drug mule it’s obvious that I don’t respect the law I might as well make it that much easier for the cops to bust me by committing several traffic violations.’ No, they make a decision to or not to speed/go through yellow lights/roll through stop signs based on the risk factors they have at the time. Regular motorists do this too…I bet this includes you too, Bradky.
James on November 23, 2007 at 11:20 AM
BTW, anyone want to speculate as to the cop’s rationale for searching the vehicle without permission, a warrant or probable cause?
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Someone posted earlier about a cop’s legal authority to search the immediate vicinity of a subject who’s just been placed under arrest. I’m not a lawyer or a cop, but it sounded reasonable.
flipflop on November 23, 2007 at 11:41 AM
MirCat on November 22, 2007 at 12:26 AM
LOL! OMG… my eyes are watering.
Unless you are a criminal, you should consider the police your friend and treat them as such. The police deal with “people” none of us want to deal with, they do a job a lot of us would not even consider doing. Why make his job more stressful(unless you have some chip on your shoulder)?
My driving record is spotless, not because of my cat-like agility or ninja-reflexes, but because the following statement.
“Yes sir, your absolutely right, I have no excuse for(fill in the blank) and I deserve a ticket for taking up your valuble time because of my stupidity.”
The first time I said it from the heart; BAM, I got a warning. And even though I’ve said it two more times since then, it is not much of an act to get out of a ticket, because I mean it.
Go ahead call me a sheep, or a wuss, coward er whatever. My spotless record allows me a concealed handgun permit, a low insurance bill, and I have never been tazed.
When that driver is disrespectful to the police, he is disrespectful to all of us supporters of law-enforcement. When the police taze someone, they are tazing all criminals. (OK, I was kidding about that last paragraph)
The guy who got tazed should look on the bright side, he didn’t wet his pants(maybe he’s an electrician) and he learned a valuble lesson(next time you get pulled over, cops really like it when you grab for their gun).
christophercube on November 23, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Exactly! I couldn’t agree more. Every time a taser moment gets caught on camera, the world throws a fit. The outrage reminds me of code pink screaming about waterboarding. I have yet to see a taser video that made me angry at the cop. I’m tired of cops being made to feel guilty for doing their job. How in the world are they supposed to “Protect and Serve” if all they’re allowed to do is talk mean.
Joshua P. Allem on November 23, 2007 at 12:16 PM
No one is arguing that the kid is an idiot (and may have deserved a good tasing), but what of the cop’s performance. He never told the kid the consequences of refusing to sign the ticket (possible arrest). He never told the kid that he was under arrest, until after the tasing. He really didn’t think the kid was a threat (if he did think the kid was a threat, why did he walk back to his car to set down his notebook with his back to the kid that he just told to “hop out of the car”?) He whips out his weapon and points it at the kid’s face immediately as he is turning around from setting down his note book and issuing the first order to get up against the car.
Any of the law enforcement types on this thread defending this police work either do not know what they are talking about or are not fit to wear a shield. This cop created the situation that required this otherwise law abiding but obnoxious kid to be tased.
tommylotto on November 23, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I think what people tend to forget is that when the tasers come out today, in the old days the billy clubs would have. Which is more likely to cause lasting physical harm? And would there ever have been a Rodney King incident if the LAPD had tasers available to them at the time? There’s a lot to be said for weapons that won’t leave a mark.
Blacklake on November 23, 2007 at 12:22 PM
What I would really like to know is what is the policy if someone refuses to sign a citation in the state of Utah? Does it result in someone being asked to exit the car and being arrested? If the officer was following procedure, then the guy got what he deserved for not obeying him and walking away, but it also looked like the officer had a chip (or a brick) on his shoulder and was looking for an excuse to nail this with an arrest and/or the taser. Heck, I thought officer was going to tase the pregnant wife, who was hysterical over her husband being tased. It kind of reminds me of the conclusion of Crimson Tide when Jason Robards says “you were both wrong and yet you were both right”. I would definitely have to read that policy to see if the officer totally followed protocol.
Planet Boulder on November 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
If the kid refuses to sign, the officer has two options. He can write on the ticket, “refuses to sign” and give the ticket to the kid and just let him go; or the officer can in his discretion arrest the kid.
However, competent police work requires that you inform the kid that signing is not an admission of guilt and of the consequences of failing to sign before you arrest him. It is also a good idea to tell the kid he is under arrest before you taser someone. This cop is of the incompetent variety.
tommylotto on November 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM
tommylotto on November 23, 2007 at 12:18 PM
This cop created the situation that required this otherwise law abiding but obnoxious kid to be tased.
“Yes sir, your absolutely right, I have no excuse for(fill in the blank) and I deserve a ticket for taking up your valuble time because of my stupidity.”
Not direcly quoting but, taking on this type of attitude with the cop, would have(most likely) defused the situation. Even if the official is being short with you, or a complete unprofessional jerk. Even if you don’t agree with the ticket or you don’t like the officer. Standing on the side of the highway is no place for sh*thouse lawyers to dispute a traffic violation or scuffling with JohnLaw(so if you feel wronged, don’t take the law into your own hands, you take em to court, JudgeWopnerRules).
christophercube on November 23, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Way up the post someone from Utah stated that they simply write on the ticket that the guy refused to sign.
Question for the legal eagles… are you under arrest IF the cop does not say so? Where is the due process and following of procedure in this case…
No Miranda rights.
No Statement of the intent to arrest from the cop until AFTER the tas… no, “Sir, I am placing you under arrest for…”
He asked to guy to put his hands BEHIND HIS BACK??? Huh? Not on the car for a search? (as I’d been trained by the Military… you NEVER cuff a guy who has his balance intact… you ALWAYS put him either against a wall… or on the ground, AND you NEVER tell a person who is FACING YOU TO PUT HIS HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK!! DUH, you loose sight of his hands that way.
Cop is too stupid to be a cop.
Romeo13 on November 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »