Video: Taser II, Electric Boogaloo; Update: Cop was suspended three days
posted at 12:57 pm on December 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
One of our commenters to yesterday’s taser post said the Utah case proves that when a cop gives you an order, you obey it — period. Let’s test that logic here. Any objections to this guy being yelled at for not producing a license instantaneously, then ordered out of the car, having his arm apparently slammed in the door, and summarily tased?
Note that the cop appears to have the taser pointing at him while he’s still sitting in the driver’s seat. Click the image to watch.
Update: Three people sent this to me in the past 12 hours, but as you can see from the timestamp, the clip’s more than a year old. Sorry for not noticing that sooner; anyone know why this is circulating right now?
The cop was suspended for three days. Read the letter in PDF form 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]
You are out of your mind. When is it an arrestable offense for acting like any other reasonable person would to a cop with a serious attitude problem, rather than a sheep? A badge doesn’t make anybody exempt from common courtesy, nor the predictable consequences from a complete lack of it.
Don’t come cry to me when an officer violates you, just do what he says.
Free Constitution on December 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Wow, a whole three-day suspension for assault and battery with a taser under color of authority. If a private citizen perpetrated an assault like that against another citizen there would be criminal charges filed. Obvious double standard.
infidel4life on December 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I wish this site had emoticons… I would love for there to be one of the Big A tazing idiots like the one that kept stuttering AllahP in this thread…
Pam on December 2, 2007 at 5:50 PM
…ugh
You show me where I even once defend that officer’s deplorable actions in that video, within this thread, and I’ll lick the bottoms of your ditch-digger boots until they look brand new.
SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 5:51 PM
You have a tan on the rest of ya’ to go with that brown nose? No one stuttered (whatever you mean by that) AllahP in this thread. He got called out on his lame post of a police+taser video that’s over a year old and was LONG since put to bed, directly on the heels of the other taser incident where the officer was rightfully exonerated is all. Maybe the ones who can’t see the ploy need the tasing sweetheart.
SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 6:00 PM
For the most part, I think some of the people that defended the cop did so out of respect for the job and not so much the actual officer in the video. Big A showed the video, not out of hate for cops, but actually as a lesson to all of us that sometimes, people abuse their positions. He, nor myself, or anyone else that stood up for the driver hates cops. We just don’t like to see abuse. I felt a great deal better about the situation after reading the suspension and your post citing the reaction from the officer’s peers. Thanks for sharing that with us.
Pam on December 2, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Thanks for asking about my tan! Yes I do have a tan, although not a good as I like it to be at this time of year.
How sweet of you to ask.
Pam on December 2, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I’m late to this one, but for my two cents. . . I think the license plate is in the rear window. If you look closely in the video you can see it on the driver’s side in the window.
I think people know where I stand here. Shocking again.
ThackerAgency on December 2, 2007 at 6:06 PM
In SilverStar’s defense, he called this officer’s actions for what it was–wrong–right at the start (more or less…after brow-beating AP for posting an old video).
But old or new makes little difference. The issue isn’t whether the taser is a good tool or a bad one (I happen to think it’s a good one), the issue is how and when cops employ it. There are far too many cops with a dogsh*t attitude towards “civilians”, and SilverStar does nothing to further the cause of the good cops out there.
flipflop on December 2, 2007 at 6:08 PM
This is totally different than the Utah Bro. That bro was clearly not a threat. This one may not have been either, but we don’t know because the cop becomes agitated while the guy is still in the car. Where were his hands? What was he acting like? My brother was once ordered out of his car after being stopped for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Once out of the car the cop shouted at him to take his hands out of his pockets and had his hand on his gun.
I was all ready to say the cop went overboard here again, until he started the “do you have any black friends”/”do you not like black people” crap. The cop’s behavior still seems excessive, but not knowing what exactly was going on in the car makes it impossible to be sure.
I do still say that Utah cop was out of control though. There was a good debate on FNC this morning and the guy defending the cop got owned. The main point, was what we all noted in one of the other threads, the paper he wanted the bro to sign isn’t an admission of guilt, it’s a court summons. Instead of the officer simply saying this, he provoked a situation. I tend to do what a cop says, particularly when we’re pitted against each other in Gutfeld’s activity pit in a “no safety words” match, but if I had it in my head I wasn’t going to sign something, I could see not wanting to sign it, until the cop put my mind at ease that I wasn’t admitting guilt. The cop didn’t have to go all “get out of the car…” on him, he could have at least tried “look, this doesn’t mean you admit to it, kid…” At that point, if bro refused to sign, then bro would be setting himself up for arrest. The guy on Fox also noted something else… The kid’s head is on the interstate for most of that video, and he doesn’t take the precaution of putting bro in his cruiser when he goes to deal with the wife, allowing bro to stand up on his own, etc. Poor police procedure all the way through.
RightWinged on December 2, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Making a positive from a negative.
Carry a defrosted chicken with you at all times while driving. Once you get tased you’ll have a delightful dinner to eat on the way to jail.
GoodBoy on December 2, 2007 at 6:19 PM
I see no reason here for the cop to go ballistic as he did. In the Utah video, I’m in complete agreement with you. The cop needlessly escalated the situation, resulting in the dipsh*t kid doing something (walking back to his car) that gave the cop no choice but to tase him.
In this video, the cop was just a d*ck from the jump.
flipflop on December 2, 2007 at 6:21 PM
After reviewing that video, I get the impression some cops want to spread the sensation of being tazed to the general public.
Kini on December 2, 2007 at 6:23 PM
RW, he didn’t ask the cop that until after he was tazed and was on the ground and told the cop he was sorry he was having a bad Thanksgiving day, and was waiting for the cops backup to arrive.
Pam on December 2, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Could have been stolen by some jerk. He does point out that he has a front plate.
Tim Burton on December 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM
As far as I am concerned, “less than lethal” weapons such as tasers, bean bag guns, microwave heat rays, etc. provide law enforcement with the freedom to abuse their power with limited or no consequences.
Prior to the introduction of these technologies, a cop had to treat the decision to escalate to the use of violence much more serioiusly. This often forced them to rely on other approaches when dealing with people who have an attidute. You just can’t can’t pull out your service piece and blast a grandmother or child in the head for talking back, but apparently you can taze them because they will probably recover later.
As a civilian gun owner, I cannot legally even present my gun unless there is a clear an present danger - not just the mere possibility of a danger.
Tazers and other such doodads allow a cop to lower that standard to one of mere annoyance. Oh, your kid is whining an kicking - zap. Oh, the old lady is talking back - zap. Oh you don’t have your “papieren” within two seconds - zap.
I don’t necessarily blame the cops. If I had a low risk, minimal consequences, way to subdue anybody who irritated me, I would probalby take the lazy way out too, and just taze everybody on the highway each morning. It’s human nature to attempt to expend the least energy to get a task done.
Which is why these tools should be eliminated, or limited to situtations that would also require a SWAT type response.
In America, a police badge does not bestow dictatorial powers on whomever is wearing it. As with civilians, the use of force by a cop should be restricted to responding to a clear and present danger, not the mere hint of one.
Yes, people can be idiots and everything else. Part of the cop’s job is to deal with those peolple to achieve the legitimate actions required by their duties, not taze into submission anybody who happens to annoy them.
Herikutsu on December 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Excessive.
Static on December 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Well said. Better than I could have done.
flipflop on December 2, 2007 at 6:31 PM
You don’t know me, or my work, at all. Suffice it to say, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel. The thing that gets my ire up are all the livingroom lawyers who think they know what the f**k they’re talking about, but know nothing about the job, except what they see on the boob-tube, or in grainy noisy internet videos. They watch a grainy internet video and start sputtering like they know any damn thing at all about what happened above and beyond the grainy video.
I’ll go ahead and toot my own horn and tell you that I am highly respected peace officer, fair to a fault at times, a member of our departments HNT (Hostage Negotiation Team), a medal of valor recipient, a life saving medal receipient. I have literally (as God is my witness) had people I’ve arrested and sent to jail see me (sometimes off duty) and come up to me and Thank me for making a positive change in their lives happen. On occassions where an extra effort to help someone is possible, I don’t just send them to the pokey and forget they exist. Sometimes I check in on them and assist them with getting much needed help and assistance they can’t aquire on their own because of the maze of bureaucracy and red tape they encounter. I just did “shop with a cop” this last weekend for underprivileged kids for Christmas, and I’ll be doing another for children of parents in prison this coming Saturday.
And guess what, I have a taser too. I’ve had it over a year. Every peace officer on my department has one. They are standard issue now. I’ve never used it on a suspect as yet as I prefer to exhaust all other options, and I’ve been lucky, so far. I am adept at “verbal judo” in tense situations. I think growing up in a very rough area of Los Angeles was a big help. But I’ll use my taser in a heartbeat if it means I don’t have to shoot someone, or beat them with my night stick. We don’t get paid to get hurt, as much as many people would argue otherwise, and we don’t get paid to abuse others either.
I don’t approve of the officers tactics in this video, or even the other video, as I’ve stated in both threads, but I’m coming up on 20 years service in assignments from the very worst parts of the city to the most affluent parts, and one thing stands true no matter where you work as a cop… the majority of people wherever they live are good, honest, hard working caring people. In a way it is my tribute to them to do my best to make sure they can sleep peacefully at night knowing that if we’re needed, we’ll come, and we’ll defend them and their property up to and including possibly making the ultimate sacrifice. No cop I personally know feels otherwise.
“People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 6:38 PM
For having just being tazered, that guy sure can run his mouth.
Frankly, I felt like zapping him again.
The Ugly American on December 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM
That being said, I hope that dude got a huge settlement from the APD.
The Ugly American on December 2, 2007 at 6:45 PM
You couldn’t say that up front? Why the need to be an asshole for the past 3 hours?
Pam on December 2, 2007 at 6:47 PM
You’d rather get your panties in a knot than see the forest for the trees. I can’t explain to you what’s right in front of your face toots. You seem semi-intelligent. Do I owe you something for not doing that?
SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Heh, I’m one of those! But seriously, I’m the type that knows my rights and will argue with cops when I they’re in the wrong, and it usually leads to them getting unnecessarily testy with me, at one time I was cuffed. I requested his SO come down: he was lectured, I was released -basically because I knew more about the law than he did, but he was right because he had the badge.
That is the kind of thing I want to end. Police were in the business of being peace officers, NOW they are increasingly law enforcement officers -a much more arbitrary role, with more tendency to abuse authority.
SS830, you sound like a peace officer, not a LEO. Good job.
Free Constitution on December 2, 2007 at 6:52 PM
In the Utah incident the things that made me go with the cop was that the suspect turned away from the cop and put his hand into his pocket while arguing with the cop. In that situation, I would have regarded that as a potential threat. So in my opinion, that made the incident justified.
In this incident I’m going to have to side against the cop. . . BUT. . .I will offer 2 defense that mitigate but do not fully excuse. The first is that suspect refused to produce the documents when asked, to the point where the passenger had to plead with him to do so. That’s mitigating point number 1, the second is the pause, brief though it is when the driver stepped out of the car. Almost immediately upon exiting, a large vechicle speeds by almost clipping the officer who is keeping just over arms length from the suspect. I speculate that that may be the reason the officer closed the door and possibly striking the suspect.
From there, you’ve got a somewhat heated situation, and when the suspect refuses to move to the back of the car with multiple instruction to do so, the situation appears to be on the brink (but not fully) of going out of control. So I do think that the officer deserved the suspension, but I don’t think anything further needs to be done other than offer an apology and deal with any civil suit which should have a modest award.
I don’t see any indication of racism other than coming from the suspect who brings up the issue multiple times when there is no evidence of racist behavior.
I think it was a high pressure situation, on a holiday, with lots of traffic and an uncooperative driver.
AGAIN, I side with the driver, but I don’t see the incident as overly eggregious, I think on a scale of one to 10 (with 10 being an out of control officer and 1 being an out of control suspect), this is about a 6 or 7 (with 5 being the point where the balance of blame is equal on both sides).
20 years ago, this would be a situation where a suspect probably lies dead on the concrete (TAZERS and Dash Cams are both excellent developments given the alternatives).
–Jason
Jason Coleman on December 2, 2007 at 6:56 PM
An excellent and clarifying comment, to say the least.
I’ve got friends that are cops (”Hey, don’t get me wrong…some of my best friends are cops!…sound familiar?), and I’d put every one of them in the category you describe in your comment…they’re good cops–AND good people–as I think are the vast majority.
But even a couple of these good cops have an attitude towards “civilians” they encounter while on duty that I think is, well, less than healthy. And it’s that attitude that results in incidents like this one, and even the Utah incident.
I take you at your word and assume you’re a good cop, but your own comments on this thread and the Utah thread assume an “anti-cop” bias on the part of anyone who questions the officer’s actions, and that us “civilians” should never engage in discussion with a cop in the line of duty. The de facto position, then, is that “civilians” should live in fear of cops, and avoid them at all costs.
I just don’t think that’s a good thing.
flipflop on December 2, 2007 at 7:02 PM
That’s what I call an abuse of power. I feel sorry for that woman and that
copguy should be in jail.KCtheKat on December 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Thanks for the clarity and your service to the public.
However, I sleep peacefully at night knowing my home and property is adequately armed.
Valiant on December 2, 2007 at 7:16 PM
As I’ve posted before, I work with police officers in a civilian role. But to me, this was In. Ex. Scusable.
Stands there waiting for backup from where? Maryland??
Captain Scarlet on December 2, 2007 at 7:19 PM
That is why they call it a police state and the Bill of Rights allows the citizenry to bear arms. Not arms against criminals, but a totalitarian government.
Valiant on December 2, 2007 at 7:22 PM
I couldn’t agree with you more.
SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Pam, It’s not when he said it, it’s that he said it at all, that matters. The cop wasn’t dropping n-bombs on him, so there was no reason for all that “why don’t you like black people” crap. Again, it seems that the cop was wrong here, but anyone who tries to play that race card instantly becomes a shady person, which leads me to question what his hands were doing in the car when the cop was insisting he provide his license and insurance. Once more, it looks like the cop was in the wrong here, but once that race card was played, I have to rethink the tazed bro’s character. Also, consider one thing… despite the cop’s attitude, do you ever get any indication that the bro was about to get his license and insurance information out? The woman in the passenger seat even tells him to and he says “no, this guy is yellin’ at me…” We only hear him once say “let me get it” (right before that), but again, we have no idea what he’s actually doing when he said it.
RightWinged on December 2, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Perhaps some are missing my bigger point. I defended the officer in the first “tazed bro” mega-thread. In the above vid, I did defend his actions with the taser, but said repeatedly he seemed quick to use it.
When we watch these vids, all we know of what happened was from the dash cam video. We can’t see in the car being pulled over. So we don’t know, in this particular vid above, if the guy was even beginning to reach for his paperwork. I’ll say he was not…which is why the cop had him exit the vehicle.
I staunchly defend a cops right to defend himself. Allah and others here believe the perp was simply tased too quickly. But both drivers could easily see the taser gun pointed at them. They both gave the cop lip, and both delayed action on a direct order.
The cop doesn’t know you from Adam when he pulls you over. Has no idea who you are, or what you might be capable of. Doesn’t matter if you seem harmless…even Jeffrey Dahmer was a “nice, quiet boy” according to his neighbors. And the BTK killer was a church leader and community activist when caught. You just really never know.
The officer has his life on the line. And I’ll say again…what’s better, a tased bro, or a dead cop? Neither case was preemptive tasing. The tasing resulted from non-compliance of very simple orders….from an obviously angry officer…which is all the more reason to…AGAIN I say….Shut yer yap and do what he says.
I just don’t know how to make it any simpler. Yes…again, I’m glad if this officer was reprimanded for his actions. The police commisioners are civilian, and if they decree it, along with the Chief, and usually an outside investigation…then so be it.
And yes…there are bad cops who blatantly abuse their authority. Some commenters made a point in saying “do you pull your pants down if the cop says so…” etc…In instances ike that, I really don’t know what I would do except ask that more officers arrive at the scene, and I would sit, stand, whatever…put the cuffs on me, but I want more cops present.
But, and yes again…We have laws in this country, and those out there who put their lives on the line to enforce those laws. It’s not up to ordinary citizens to question the cop. That’s what courts are for.
JetBoy on December 2, 2007 at 7:51 PM
And btw…I don’t know if anyone has ever visited the Police/Law Enforcement Memorial in Wash, DC….with the names of over 15,000 officers killed on duty.
Might make ya think…
JetBoy on December 2, 2007 at 7:58 PM
‘
Faulty question. Do you think things would have gone better had he resisted, like the Utah man?
eforhan on December 2, 2007 at 8:08 PM
AP writes:
I don’t know whom you’re referring to, AP, but I was the first to comment on yesterday’s taser post and this is what I wrote:
I stand by that. Nothing in today’s video alters my view.
I have never suggested that all police officers are saints, or that their conduct is never above reproach or sanction. I said compliance with their orders is not optional. If, as here, the officer scarcely affords you an opportunity to comply before resorting to force, he ought to be disciplined.
Now I have a question for you: If you disagree with my assertion, is it your view that compliance is optional? And if so, is it always optional? If not, can you articulate a rule by which every man may know when compliance with law enforcement is discretionary?
paul006 on December 2, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Yep, everyone on the other side of the thin blue line is a complete saint. That’s why there’s no such thing as Internal Affairs departments.
rokemronnie on December 2, 2007 at 8:23 PM
He probably should have said something like “I fully intend to comply with your order. Please give me adequate time to do so.” But then, how many people would say something like that when they’re stressed out?
Farmer_Joe on December 2, 2007 at 8:23 PM
It makes me think that Darwin applies in many of their cases.
rokemronnie on December 2, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Thought experiment: A cop pulls over a woman. He orders her out of the car and directs her to remove her clothes. Is she obligated to comply?
Compliance with the officer is only mandatory if those orders are lawful.
Farmer_Joe on December 2, 2007 at 8:27 PM
“Instantly” is an interesting word to use, given that the person had already been forced out of his car, tased, and made to stay on the ground while the officer continues to point the taser directly at him. I think the race card might perhaps be overused, but if something so sudden and inexplicable happened to me as happened to this person, you can bet I’d be trying to come up with any possible reason why the officer acted so drastically. And if you’re a black person in Texas and this happens to you, I think it’s perfectly reasonable–given the rashness and randomness of the officer’s actions–to wonder whether that would have happened if you’d been white. Maybe it would’ve, maybe it wouldn’t have, but the point is: racism exists! Just because someone mentions it doesn’t make them “shady.”
Just a short P.S.: Silverstar, almost as much as the officer in the clip, you’re doing your profession a disservice by behaving incredibly antagonistically. You don’t like what you see so you are caustic and overbearing about it (calling those who disagree with you things like “toots”), then seem to assume that people are more annoyed by your point than by you and your manner of making it. Then, you drown yourself in self-congratulation and call it a day.
Yoosaion on December 2, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Interesting.
Pablo on December 2, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’ll probably regret asking this…but what exactly do you mean by that? I’m sincerely going to hope it doesn’t mean those officers are somehow less evolved, or not “fit” enough to “survive”…
JetBoy on December 2, 2007 at 9:03 PM
What I mean is, until the “oh it’s cuz I’m black?” BS, I was largely willing to take the guy’s side… That sort of crap calls his character in to question, unless the cop had done something to indicate it was a race thing. Therefore, while I still think the video shows the cop going overboard, we don’t know what the guy was doing in the car. There was potential that the guy did something that escalated the situation, and I believe him pulling out the race card causes me to lose a lot of potential sympathy for him. It wasn’t like he was having a conversation and just asking the cop. He was being an agitator and trying to scare the cop with threats of crying racism. You know the second he said that the cop was like “oh crap”, and you know that’s why the guy said it. I can’t count the amount of times black guys would come up, without IDs (most of whom were clearly underage), to the club I worked at in Nashville for a number of years, and upon me saying they couldn’t come in would say something to the effect of “oh, it’s because I’m black?” and they’d try to stare hard at me, etc. Usually I’d just look 5 feet over to my coworkers (who were black themselves and say) “you wanna let this guy in?” They’d obviously agree with me, then usually get called “uncle Tom” for simply doing their jobs. But never once was the “it’s cuz I’m black!” a reasonable thing to say to us, and as far as anyone can tell, there was no reason for it here.
RightWinged on December 2, 2007 at 9:21 PM
After the suspension, which is an admission of culpability, hit, if I were the victim - the tased guy, I would have hired the best ‘ambulance chaser’ in the area, after I developed health problems from the tasing, maybe that Edwards guy running for President, and ‘jackpotted’ this unbvelievable excuse of a ‘thug with a gun and badge’ for everything he owns and a good chunk of the department. This happens in rural departments when they hire their goofy relations and friends who can’t hold a job doing anything else. Paying off lawsuits puts an end to hiring wonderful creatures like this relation in the video. Usually supervision gets changed also.
countywolf on December 2, 2007 at 9:23 PM
He should have been fired and then charged with assault and battery. The Austin force should be sued and punitive damages awarded. Law enforcement is out of control, too many cops with not enough to do.
roux on December 2, 2007 at 10:49 PM
You are out of your mind! A reasonable, sensible, sane person is even more polite (or sheeplike, if you prefer) if the cop has an “attitude problem” than if he is acting calmly and professionally. If the cop has an “attitude problem” the last thing any rational person wants to do is provoke him even further and possibly get hurt. The “predictable consequence” of reciprocating the discourtesy of a rude officer is that you will likely be tased, arrested, and spend some time in jail, at the very least. Only a complete moron thinks that he is ever going to win a verbal confrontation with a cop, or that such a confrontation is justified no matter how rude the cop is.
Lehuster on December 2, 2007 at 11:20 PM
The list of improbable scenarios is endless. In the one you offer, I take it for granted that no reasonable person would fault the woman for resisting.
Do you have a thought experiment with orders that police officers ordinarily issue (e.g., show me your license and proof of insurance; step out of the vehicle; keep your hands where I can see them; stop moving)? Is compliance with ordinary orders of law enforcement discretionary?
If not, what should the officer do when a motorist refuses to comply? Myself, I don’t see what choice a cop has except to compel compliance. Otherwise, how do we maintain the rule of law?
(In this video, the officer is attitudinal from the get-go. And though his orders are not unusual, unlawful or immoral, he doesn’t provide the driver with a reasonable opportunity to comply. But that doesn’t undermine my original assertion — and the one that I think AP may have been referring to — that compliance with the orders of law enforcement is not optional.)
paul006 on December 3, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Excellent!
The cops can do what ever they like………….I must OBEY.
God bless Amerika!
My fav sheep saying, “Do what the cop says and keep your trap shut”……So my freedoms cease to exist when a cop stops me for a GD SPEEDING VIOLATION????
“Do what he says”…..”Do not argue”….????……….”Fight it in court”??????
The cop went to school to learn the laws, I DID NOT. So who is supposed to explain WHY I am being ticketed???
If I go to school long enough………….will I be allowed to “render justice” like a cop even though I never got a badge?
Do ya’ think that JUST MAYBE SOME cops are going for the “Non-Lethal” taser a bit too quickly BECAUSE it is non-lethal??? IS THAT NOT A POSSIBILITY???!??!?
Notice I said “some”….not ALL.
Cops, whether they like it or not, are people….and people screw up. This cop proves it.
Defend him and all like him if you want……………….but mark my words…………someday they will be coming for you.
Talon on December 3, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Wow, I wasn’t aware we were on a 9/11 Truther site! Lol. Hey, I still think it looks bad for the cop based on this tape, but you’re losin’ it Talon. The “Amerika” with a K, calling people “sheep”… How did you find the time to do that in between posting “Ron Paul 2008!” all over YouTube and Digging every Ron Paul story you could find? I know, I know “WTC7!!!”
Oh by the way, what’s with the quotes around “non-lethal”… It is extremely rarely lethal, and I think in most cases deaths were the result of other medical conditions… but either way, I think the point is to avoid lawsuits from someone who might get choked out or smacked over the head with a baton. If brutality were the goal, the cops would much rather get dirty with them, rather than just drop them with a device who’s effect are almost always very temporary.
Anyway, I also wanted to let you know that you’re not just paranoid, you really do have a chip in your head and we are constantly monitoring you. As we speak we’re watching everything you’re doing on your computer and listening to your phone calls through “warrantless wiretaps”, because we’re trying to take away your constitutional rights and make this a police state.
RightWinged on December 3, 2007 at 12:39 AM
So we’re applying a “reasonable person” test?
Farmer_Joe on December 3, 2007 at 12:53 AM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I’m glad SJPD is as good as they are.
If I counted right it was about 16 seconds he told Eugene to get out of the car and 23 seconds for the break-dancing lesson.
I think these discussions need to happen. How do we know how far is too far. No one wants to see police officers hurt, but they also don’t want to be hurt by them either.
liquidflorian on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 AM
For five miles?!
And to make it worse, he misuses the word lay (for correct lie).
Tzetzes on December 3, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Actually paul006, Farmer_Joe completely destroyed your assertion. He gave an example of a case in which compliance is optional which you were unable to refute. He gave an extreme example because it illustrates his point most effectively and since your statement was an absolute, any example to the contrary is good enough to refute it. You mocked his example, but you didn’t refute it.
frost on December 3, 2007 at 1:28 AM
I say we let speeders go and taze Teddy Kennedy.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 3, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Throw in Jimmy Carter and its on!
liquidflorian on December 3, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Frost, supra:
Indeed I did make an absolute statement, to wit: “When the police issue a command, your compliance is not optional.” I made that statement in the context of the Massey case, and I had in mind only the ordinary orders of law enforcement (e.g., step out the vehicle, put your hands behind your back, etc). I did not intend to say — nor do I think that most readers would have understood me to say — that compliance is compulsory in the unlikely event that an officer orders you to disrobe at the roadside, or fellate him, or drop kick your infant over the hood of the car.
Still, your point is well taken, and I’m happy to amend to my assertion. How’s this? “When the police issue an ordinary command, your compliance is not optional.”
paul006 on December 3, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Oh, you don’t have to obey. Argue all you want, demand - I say, DEMAND - all the explanations you want. It is up to you to gauge the costs and benefits of this relative to complying with the cop and being on your way as soon as possible. But, if you choose to argue, don’t run whining to me for sympathy when you get tased and arrested.
“Whether or not to argue with a cop who stops you for a routine traffic offense” is a very basic IQ test, which seemingly some people are happy to fail. This is all the more amusing because there is a 99% chance you are guilty as hell of what he stopped you for, and you know it.
Lehuster on December 3, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Bro’s need to do what the cops tell them too…lol.
“I’m thorry you’re having a bad day but thith ith uncalled for”
ballz2wallz on December 3, 2007 at 8:48 AM
I’m not worried. Many cops from Texas would probably agree with my statement. I’m a strong advocate of cops! If you’ve read my previous comments on other posts, I’m always on the side of the cop even when I’m in the minority. I won HotAir bragging rights and kudos from Allahpundit on the previous taser post. Whenever I hear a story about cops being abusive, 99% of the time, I side with the cop. After every taser video I’ve ever seen (until this one) I’ve always sided with the cop. Cops are underpaid heroes as far as I’m concerned that are constantly being held back by political correctness and typical anti-authority attitudes. All I meant was that the reputation of AUSTIN’s police among Texas citizens isn’t very good. That’s a matter of local news and politics, not a matter of my opinion. Austin is a sanctuary city among other things.
Joshua P. Allem on December 3, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Farmer Joe has it right. I’ll obey LEO commands that I consider lawful. I will be the judge. If I err, I will answer for it in court. However, even if the cop is being pushy, or a total dick, it ain’t worth getting tasered or shot for…go along and file a loud complaint afterwards.
Cops need to be aware that they are _armed men_, and as _armed men_, if they act unlawfully and aggressively and threateningly, they should be dealt with in the same manner as any other armed threat. Your badge earns you no special favor.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 10:53 AM
So you’re going to shoot at them as you would “any other armed threat”? Good luck with that. I look forward to the video of them shooting you down like a mad dog.
So much chest-thumping in these threads from people who would no doubt act like the sheep they profess to despise if they were actually pulled over.
Lehuster on December 3, 2007 at 11:25 AM
What else should I do? Subject myself to brutality at the hands of an armed man? Of course I’ll _try_ to defend myself.
Thanks. I’m well trained, both physically and psychologically. I give myself better than even odds. Cops aren’t supermen.
Thanks again. Nice to know which side you’ll be cheering for.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Wrong again. I’ve deflected many bullsh!t attempts by cops to pull rank. None of them needed more than a firm lecture on exactly what their authority is…and _isn’t_
It’s a matter of confidence. Sheep need not apply.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Ochlan, if nothing else, you have an active fantasy life. I bet you totally dominated those cops, and if they hadn’t backed off you would have beaten them senseless with their own nightsticks. Uh huh, sure thing, buddy.
Poseur.
Lehuster on December 3, 2007 at 12:10 PM
lol You have quite a vivid imagination yourself ;-)
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I know this is no longer on the front page, but
I actively participated in the disarming and a$$ kicking of two out of control cops once many years ago. They were found in the parking lot cuffed, with their service weapons on the hoods of their respective cruisers, unloaded, secure, and oddly free of any fingerprints. They deserved every bit of it, and more, and there was no fall-out for us “scofflaws”.
Just sayin’….
HerrMorgenholz on December 3, 2007 at 6:36 PM
(sigh) Another poseur talking smack on the internet about what a badass he is.
Just sayin’…
Lehuster on December 3, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]