Video: Hey, who’s up for another 200-comment thread on tasing?
posted at 12:25 pm on April 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
My least favorite subject to write about, but forced upon me this morning by a nasty case of spring fever and the fact that the lead news story in America is the Pope saying Mass. Here you go, then: The driver is drunk, agitated, and resisting arrest with physical force, but he’s also walking away from the cop when he’s zapped, which is an unorthodox posture for the use of a weapon that’s designed for self-defense during an attack. Question for the cops/friends of cops among the readership: What’s the normal protocol for dealing with an angry suspect who’s larger than you and not quite ready to be arrested yet? Call for back-up and make sure he doesn’t go anywhere until it arrives? Or make him ride the lightning and get this show on the road? Whatever happened to good ol’ mace, anyway?
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 2
Back to the topic at hand…
1. Gun (sued)
2. Nightstick (sued)
3. Sap (outlawed 1965 – really sued)
4. Hit em with the car (sued)
5. Use your fists (sued)
6. WWF him (weight disadvantage makes it unlikely + sued if it works)
7. Choke hold (outlawed mid 90s – sued again)
8. Mace (not always effective – choking – sued again)
9. Let him go (fired)
10. Ride the Lightning (branded a Nazi – possibly fired – sued again)
11. Call in a negotiator and moderator. (laughed outta town)
Those are the cop’s choices.
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Seems to me like that cop decided he was going to tase the guy as soon as he refused to be cuffed.
He was probably just doing it to show him who’s boss. Beats me if he did what he was supposed to do. I’d hope we have hard fast rules on that.
Esthier on April 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I looked it up to make sure that I was using it in the way I intended.
So you you suggest that I look up a word before I use it,and when you find out I did (and use it correctly)you belittle me.
Your are truly a piece of work.
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM
So now you speak for everyone else? Now who’s projecting much?
Calling someone stupid just because they have an alternate viewpoint that disagrees with yours is not a positive attribute. It smacks of the way liberals argue, and it does not display intelligence. Note that it was never your goal to try to understand what my point was. You leapt in as a “forum warrior,” flaming as trigger happy as that cop with his taser.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
As we head into the second lap, it looks justified to me.
windbag on April 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Yes. However, all you’ve done is make some really stupid comments.
Blake on April 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
You clearly cherrypicked the definition, so looking it up did you no good the first time. You clearly needed to look it up again so that you could read the entire definition.
You call people stupid who don’t agree with you? And you call me a piece of work?
Classic liberal tactics.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Classic trollish behavior – calling names rather than making an argument. Please quote the argument you made, I’d love to read it.
Oh, wait –
Ah, there you go, calling names again. Please forgive me, you did make an “argument.”
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Until cops have mastered the Jedi mind trick, I say Taze the bro.
sleepy-beans on April 17, 2008 at 3:10 PM
That’s your Mike Tyson riff? That’s it? No gratuitous use of the word ‘ludicrous?’ No ‘I had you sweating like Mike Tyson at a spelling bee?’
At least you got the ‘you’re a liberal’ potshot in.
James on April 17, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Noncontributing as usual, eh? That’s an impressive body of work, big guy. Here’s a thought – care to explain to me why I’m wrong, instead of just making empty assertions? Ah, but first you’d have to know what my position is, right?
You missed this one:
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Since when is mace less harmful than a taser?
Jim Treacher on April 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Does anybody here remember why Worley was pulled over in the first place?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM
BINGO! We have a winner!
Just a little trigger happy, I agree. This tasing thing is just a little to convenient for my taste. How many people have died from being maced vs. being tased?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Run that one by me again? Mike Tyson and I don’t get it. If you use a word that applies by definition, how is that cherry picking?
I was not calling you stupid. I called you deliberately obtuse. That my obtuse friend is what a liberal does. Make an argument out of accusing me of saying something I did not say (call you stupid)and belittle the use of the word obtuse although it clearly fit in this instance by definition.
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Don’t Post Me, Bro
couldn’t resist….
Branch Rickey on April 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Bingo! Besides the choking issues with it, it is non-discrimatory. More often then not the cop is getting it too when he takes down the suspect. A blind man isn’t very effective with a gun.
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
So I guess you’re a liar, too? Or are you using a different definition of the word “intelligence?” I guess I wasn’t getting the nuance.
Who’s the liberal here?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM
How many mace-related deaths have there been vs. taser deaths?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Now that I think I am done arguing with fossten…As soon as that jerked away (resisting arrest) he was rightfully tazed. Pepper spray, tazing or night stick, as soon as you jerk away from a police officer arresting you, he or she has the right to subdue you by any means necessary short of deadly force.
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM
As a military cop, I’m trained to use “contact controls” (place hands on and neutralize without striking) the moment after a subject displays noncompliance.
When the subject pushes away, it’s called “active resistance”, this is when you apply restraint techniques.
To get into a back and forth exchange with the subject undermines your authority and credibility. When the subject in this video pushed away and walked back toward the vehicle, the officer tased him. It could be justified if the officer felt the subject may have been going back for a gun.
I don’t carry a taser (we don’t have them yet), but I do carry the ASP (a collapsable baton/truncheon). The first time this guy pushed me away, I would have pulled my baton and struck him in either the arm or upper leg to disable him. We aren’t allowed to strike the head and back.
It’s a choppy area; the guy turned his back, but objective reasonableness can be interpreted either way. Officer safety is paramount. The suspect had other passengers in the vehicle, the suspect was drunk, too.
Too many factors. But the taser is not excessive force and serves as a means to neutralize the subject.
I think he was in the right. Tase him once, maintain control (and eyes on the suspect’s car), await backup before moving the suspect (don’t let your guard down) back to the patrol car.
Black Adam on April 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Believe it or not, I don’t disagree with your reasoning. I do, however, think that tasing, which causes more than 100 deaths a year in the US, is becoming the “easy” way to do things, and is getting out of hand. I just think it’s a slippery slope.
In the old days if a cop gave you a ticket and you mouthed off, you still got the ticket but the cop didn’t take it personally and decide to “show you who’s boss.”
Police exercising restraint is becoming a thing of the past.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Did you miss the part where he struck at the officer? Or is that considered ‘mouthing off’?
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Oh snap. The ignorance here is your lack of understanding. I gave you too much credit. Deliberately obtuse implies that you you are/were intelligent and trying to make your point through a less intelligent way. D-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e-l-y. You didn’t get it and your feelings got hurt. Sorry. You can call me liberal all day but to quote Princess Bride “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Funny, I’ve seen several comments that indicate others think he was simply jerking his hands away from the officer. I didn’t see him strike the officer, and if he was trying to, he was absolutely inept.
Would you bet your life on your interpretation of that video?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Well, I think by the time the tasing happened that the officer had no choice but to taze him.
However, the run up is not so clear to me from the video.
Why exactly did the officer decide to arrest him?
Because the man used profanity? Now I don’t agree with that kind of verbal abuse, but that’s not grounds for an arrest.
I think that’s the main question in my mind.
Did the officer smell alcohol on the man’s breath? That might justify an arrest, but swearing, or being angry, or refusing to take a ticket are not grounds for arrest.
Or was the officer arresting him because he didn’t have his license with him? That’s probably a technically legal arrest, but I find that it is widely abused. For example in Oklahoma, I believe in Anadarko, a pair of Mormon Missionaries were pulled over, and the driver didn’t have his license on him (he was wearing his Suit and had forgotten to transfer his wallet from his slacks), well the police officer happened to be a Baptist Deacon, so he arrested the Mormon missionary for driving without a license and took him off to jail.
I could see why a Black man could get angry in that situation.
But this is all speculation cause we don’t know what triggered the decision to arrest the man. So I think we need to with hold judgment until we know what the arrest was for.
Sackett on April 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Fossen-In the old days they would have beat your ass silly because there was no cam or camera phones. He would have been smacked with the night stick and the police officer would have called in other officers to help. Believe it or not, things have gotten better.
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Funny is right. Guess which video we see depends on our IP addresses. HA is getting pretty slick.
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You may be right but how do you factor in drunkenness/resisting arrest etc.? After all the drunken guy may have been trying to show that he was boss and was behaving unpredictably.
I’d prefer a baton be applied to the back of the leg (behind the knee). It would have been enough to drop the guy to the ground without involving electricity.
That said I don’t condemn the police officer. There’s no way of divining his thoughts or motivation and from what people are saying he seems to have followed protocol well enough.
aengus on April 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Well, if you were using nuance, “you failed miserably and may want to consider retiring that aspect of your personality. You are not good at it.”
By the way, you called me a liberal, so that proves you are ignorant. Or did you just imply it? Well who knows what nuance you are using in any of your posts?
Keep it up, you’re accomplishing two things:
1. Looking like an ass by hijacking the thread
2. Helping Allah achieve his 200 post goal
Have a good day, I’m getting off work.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:38 PM
DUI.
aengus on April 17, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Ha !
BowHuntingTexas on April 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM
You make good points. I cannot say that I’m totally sure what to think here, I am just a little disturbed by what seems to be an increasing number of tasings at traffic stops. It’s unnerving.
Suburbandad, you may think tasing people is a good thing, an improvement, I do not necessarily think so. I don’t have all the answers, but I don’t see in that video an effort at self restraint.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Thanks fossen. You have a good day also!
Sam Sheepdog: Goodnight Ralph
Ralph Wolf: Goodnight Sam
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Read what you just said. You just acknowledged that traffic cops in the old days were corrupt brutalizers.
Wow.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Oh, and Fosten….the striking comes at 03:17:30 to 03:18:00 (time on the dash cam).
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 3:43 PM
No…what I said was that cops in the old day used less restraint. Hit a cop, get your ass beat. And yes I am advocating violence against those that strike a police officer.
Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Isn’t that borrowed from Legally Blonde?
Just curious; because using rationale from a movie starring Reese Witherspoon makes me laugh beyond belief and I’m just checking to see if you are not just yanking everyones’ chain here with your Obama-Hope-To-Sound-Intellectual but are in essence vapid. Thanks for the laugh though. Have a great day!
Branch Rickey on April 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Don’t tase me, yo!
Tase him again. The public is too willing to throw down with authority and reject consequences for their actions.
Make an example out of some of them.
Grafted on April 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I’m still trying to figure out how it is that people walk away from a cop who is trying to arrest them – and then expect … not to be beaten into submission, tased, or shot.
Cop says “stop”. The intelligent person stops. The moron gets tased.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
One Angry Christian on April 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM
For those who keep on moaning about why didn’t he mace him, mace doesn’t immediately subdue a drunk like a taser will. If anything, it’ll agitate him even more, and make him even more uncooperative. There’s also a good possibility it’ll end up affecting you too when you use it.
ViperPilot on April 17, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I didn’t have time to read all the comments but I know Police training. The taser is not used specificly by police for self defense. It is used to prevent using physical force. The Officer was faced with getting in a knock-down dragout fight with a very large man who could hurt him or get hurt, or use his taser and then handcuff him without anyone getting injured. No injury to anyone is perfered.
mpax on April 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
142 comments. You’ll definitely get your 200 comment goal by tonight AP.
mram on April 17, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Brilliant, Limerick. As an ex-cop I can vouch for this…
Claypigeon on April 17, 2008 at 4:36 PM
He struck the officer and was resisting arrest. Tase him, bro. Tase him.
Next case …
paul006 on April 17, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Both my parents were cops, so I had help.
Limerick on April 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Does the 200th commentor win anything??
Rod on April 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I’ll take door no.2
James, Suburbandad . . . check the website assocated with fossten’s name and repeat after me “it is not worth it, it is not worth it . . . ” or if you prefer “don’t cast your pearls before swine”
That being said . . . I’m jumping in.
No one needs to address James; most seem to be in agreement with him that your position in this case is meritless.
Fossten starts by making outrageous statements. See,
His logic is rejected by a user. See,
At which point Fossten goes off topic by calling the disagreeing user a troll. See,
Blake says give it a break, but fossten insists James fits his definition without citing any evidence. See,
I’ll skip my play by play ahead a bit.
Suburbandad addresses his argument but slips the “L” word in, fossten latches onto the “insult” without addressing the substance, instead he insists he stands behind his first statements while personally attacking people for assuming he was sarcastic or for disagreeing with him. See,
Finally he admits that he was not being serious as he agrees with Esthier. See,
On to the subject. As an attorney, I would say that the officer acted will within his legal rights unlike the officer in the linked Austin clip.
don’t fossten me bro . . .
infidel2 on April 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Due to the silliness of this topic, I refuse to leave a comment.
29Victor on April 17, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Well played.
This thread amused me.
The irony of the only troll in the thread kindly posting the definition of a troll while fitting the definition perfectly … right after he got done constructing a few painfully dishonest straw men and beating the tar out of them …
It was all delicious.
For the record, I’d rather be tased than fosstened.
Professor Blather on April 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM
OK, I’m not sure I entirely agree. Worley starts off sounding respectful, calling him sir and complying.
For whatever reason (the video doesn’t show enough) the officer is threatened by his gestures, moves back and warns him. At that point it looks like Worley is pleading with him.
Worley begins cursing and says “Do what you gotta do”.
The big issue, if it is one, is the cop first grabs his arm then says put your hands behind your back.
That’s the point he jerks away from the cop and starts to walk away.
I’m not saying he didn’t ask for it, but it appears the cop could have handled it better.
Again, not enough vid for me to tell and I’m neither a cop nor a lawyer.
SouthernDem on April 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM
And there’s my 200 count contribution.
SouthernDem on April 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Allah:
Where you been? Mace is no longer the standard, cops are eco-friendly now and use pepper spray. Unfortunately you have to get it in the person’s eyes to be effective, and it can take several seconds to start working.
Limerick nailed it.
I take issue with “the cop grabs him”. Looks like the cop is reaching for his arm at the same time telling him to turn around and put his hands behind his back.
When the suspect turns away and you can’t see his hands, all bets are off.
“Call for back-up and make sure he doesn’t go anywhere until it arrives?” And how do you “make sure he doesn’t go anywhere”? Engage in dialogue? Plead to his better sense? Say “Please” alot?
The guy is in custody, no one got shot, no one got “beaten”, so where’s the beef?
GarandFan on April 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Then do tell how you would have envisioned the situation to be better handled?
ViperPilot on April 17, 2008 at 7:36 PM
As for the stat of Tazers killing 100 people a year, I would like to know how many lives are saved because of their use. As a friend to a couple of officers, troopers, and the daughter of an ex-officer, NO stop is routine. Not a speeder, a weaving driver, a distracted mother with two kids fighting in the back seat. I never argue with an officer, whether over a speeding ticket, insurance checkpoint, or traffic accident. For one, it’s not the place or time, and two, given the fact that there’s the probability of someone on the road with me smuggling drugs, being wanted for a crime, driving drunk, etc., an officer who stops me for a reason has every right to be defensive from the word go and approach every situation with caution. I’ll fight whatever I have to fight in court and let the officer do his job while on the roadside.
LickyLicky on April 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Interesting reference, I don’t watch such airheaded movies. Obviously you do.
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Hillary Clinton couldn’t have spun it better. What was your contribution to this thread?
fossten on April 17, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Please taze me bro! What an idiot. Just do what the nice man says.
Mojave Mark on April 17, 2008 at 8:21 PM
My overall point is that the video may create controversy mainly because it’s incomplete.
Certainly Wolsen lost his cool and yanking away from a cop is a big no no. I could, under a certain circumstance, envision a gut reaction to pull away.
Either way, from the woefully incomplete video, it looks as if the cop somewhat overreacted by first grabbing Wolsen’s arm, then saying put your hands behind your back.
I’m in no way excusing the suspect’s behavior.
SouthernDem on April 17, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Der, *Worley*. Where’d I get Wolsen?!
SouthernDem on April 17, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Actually, as far as use of force is concerned, Tasing someone is the next step up from verbal commands – The risk of injury to both the subject and the officer is much higher when you go hands-on with someone, and this guy is large, drunk and quite uncooperative.
Tasers are more effective by far than Mace or pepper spray, and there have been far fewer injuries from people being tasered than have occurred with the chemical stuff.
As the incident escalates, and Worley is becoming quite aggressive, it automatically means an arrest will happen. Since he is headed back to the vehicle, and the officer has no idea whether or not there’s a weapon in the vehicle, he’s obligated to control the situation before the passenger gets involved.
The Taser is not a ‘self-defense’ item, it is used to control a combative suspect, and bring them into custody with as little risk to the suspect and the officer as possible. As such, there’s no requirement for the officer other than the need to control an uncooperative subject, and the refusal of a subject to follow verbal commands. Once that happens, the officer can pretty much tase away.
RustMouse on April 17, 2008 at 9:50 PM
3:17:58 on the tape
Cop advises the subject that his is under arrest, tells him to put his hands behind his back, reaches for his arm. Subject pulls, swings, and resists arrest, then turns and is walking away. He is stopped by being temporarily incapacitated, and is placed in custody without injury.
I’ve been maced and flash-grenaded in training, and was still able to fight. I’ve been pepper-sprayed and still been able to fight. I’ve seen drunks who purposely ate the pepper spray without being affected. I have not yet been tasered, but have seen it work every time.
The cop made a legal, required arrest of a combative person without injuring him or becoming injured, himself. I’ve been training cops for 24 years now. He gets a pat on the back from me.
AmericanDad on April 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM
It seems that AP is a bit naive about life on the street at night. A large, confrontational black man, obviously able to whip your butt shows such contempt & aggressive behavior towards a representative of the state law enforcement is a setup for serious injury or death for the cop. I’ve seen enough videos of cops getting beat badly and maimed for life or killed by similar behavior of a subject on a traffic stop. It was a judgment call to protect both the dui perp & the cop as this dude was not about to comply with further directives from an officer of the law carrying out his sworn duty to protect the public, including AP, from dangerous drivers. To get close enough for mace might also have endangered the officers life.
wepeople on April 17, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Lotsa comments from friends of cops and family…but…as a current LEO I can say that many a time that little yellow gun has saved my arse from having to fight (which, contrary to what people believe, they don’t pay me to do, as it’s not supposed to be fair out there between me and the maggots)If I wanted to be a wrestler, boxer, super bad street fighter..etc i wouldve picked that career choice. Granted, no one is advocating unnecesary force against anyone, but God knows that in every encounter, there is a gun in play (mine), and I’m not about to start rasslin w someone and getting into a 3-4 minute fight for my life (been there, done that) OR quick tase, cuff him up, enroute to jail.
CapitalistPig on April 18, 2008 at 1:13 AM
you know…
i’ve been pulled over a number of times in my (cough) short life, in quite a few states actually, usually for going just a tap faster than posted speed and i’ve never, repeat never, been beaten, maced, or tased…
i wonder why?
bro
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 1:14 AM
thanks for serving
TheCulturalist on April 18, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I thank you, sir.
CapitalistPig on April 18, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Aside: Danger Room’s Noah Schachtman is gay for not tasing criminals. Not entirely sure why. Just a head’s up.
Kevin M on April 18, 2008 at 5:40 AM
Not less harmfull… just less effective and it gives the suspect a chance to fight back. As stated above… I have seen people fight through mace/CS/OC… but never a taser. our sue happy culture has kinda narrowed the options for those that keep us safe…
BadBrad on April 18, 2008 at 7:55 AM
Just curious…
Why does it matter that he was black? Does that make him more of a threat? Because that’s what you seem to be implying by including that descriptive term.
fossten on April 18, 2008 at 8:19 AM
My contribution is the post you quoted. Fortunately, you are not my judge. However, I do appreciate (and actually pay attention to) judgment of my post from someone who was not involved. See,
I offered my opinion as an attorney who has worked for judges on trials regarding resisting arrest and claims of police brutality. BTW you didn’t respond to my post other than to make a baseless comparison and personal attack.
How many comments are we up to now? 170? Just a little more effort and we can make it.
infidel2 on April 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM
I wonder if the bleeding hearts would be satisfied if the cop just got back in his car and drove away?
Considering they want the cop to be a mind reader, and not only that but an intention reader, perhaps they wont complain when the guy injures one of their family members after leaving the scene? Or would they complain that the officer didn’t do his job?
They find it empowering to judge the event after the facts. hat you need to do Allah is put up a video scenario that stops midway through the confrontation and ask these guys what they would do. Then let the video finish and see how smart they are.
csdeven on April 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2