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.

infidel2 on April 17, 2008 at 5:09 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

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,

Professor Blather on April 17, 2008 at 5:51 PM

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.

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

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.

Since when is mace less harmful than a taser?

Jim Treacher on April 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM

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…

thanks for serving

TheCulturalist

I thank you, sir.

CapitalistPig on April 18, 2008 at 1:13 AM

thanks for serving

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

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.

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.

ViperPilot on April 17, 2008 at 7:36 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.

infidel2 on April 17, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Hillary Clinton couldn’t have spun it better. What was your contribution to this thread?

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

Interesting reference, I don’t watch such airheaded movies. Obviously you do.

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

Then do tell how you would have envisioned the situation to be better handled?

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?

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.

infidel2 on April 17, 2008 at 5:09 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.

Okay, you’ve convinced me: You are either the real troll or mentally ill. Regardless of whatever you are, you add nothing to the discussion with your silly comments.

Blake on April 17, 2008 at 2:48 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.

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM

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,

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM; fossten on April 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM

His logic is rejected by a user. See,

James on April 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM; James on April 17, 2008 at 1:50 PM

At which point Fossten goes off topic by calling the disagreeing user a troll. See,

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Blake says give it a break, but fossten insists James fits his definition without citing any evidence. See,

Blake on April 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM; fossten on April 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM

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,

Suburbandad on April 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM; fossten on April 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM; fossten on April 17, 2008 at 2:23 PM;

Finally he admits that he was not being serious as he agrees with Esthier. See,

fossten on April 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM

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 . . .