Ask a cop a question...

[Quantum Windbag]

get tazed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SktFRLJ5BBs]YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏[/ame]

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

Boo Hoo Hoo. If the cop was wrong then there will be consequences.

Personally I think anyone STUPID enough to argue with the cops deserves what ever non lethal thing happens to them. They have a job to do and we have no business harassing them while they do it.

It is simply amazing that when you do not harass them nothing happens.

 

[Jos]

The last seconds of that video was like watching someone being Tortured by six big bullies

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

get tazed.

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

I'm a huge civil libertarian, but sorry, you're just plain wrong on this one. That guy was being unnecessarily confrontational and that police officer exhibited the patients of Job before he used any action against him. If I were that cop I would have perceived him as a threat as well. The police were justified on this one. You need to exercise common sense.

 

[Liability]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

 

[BlindBoo]

Interesting read. Thanks

"What this serves to do is shift the burden of choice to the citizen, to the Bruce Harpers. Do we comply with the unlawful commands of the police officer, who has no lawful authority to tell us how high to jump in order to apply the first rule of policing, or do we assert our right to be left alone?

Make no mistake about it: Should you be bold enough to believe that law-abiding citizens are entitled to go about their lives without seizure by the police, or acquiescence to their commands, and thereby challenge the first rule of policing, there will be a price to pay.

On the other hand, it may come to pass, long after the fact, that there is some compensation for the pain suffered. Harper and the City of Bountiful, Utah, settled his civil suit for an undisclosed amount. Whether it was worth it is unknown."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

Boo Hoo Hoo. If the cop was wrong then there will be consequences.

Personally I think anyone STUPID enough to argue with the cops deserves what ever non lethal thing happens to them. They have a job to do and we have no business harassing them while they do it.

It is simply amazing that when you do not harass them nothing happens.

There were consequences, the city settled a civil suit with the guy. that, by your definition, makes the cop wrong.

Why is it stupid to expect the police to justify themselves when they stop you? Last time I looked they are actually required to justify every stop they make, they cannot just stop you because they feel like hassling you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

get tazed.

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

I'm a huge civil libertarian, but sorry, you're just plain wrong on this one. That guy was being unnecessarily confrontational and that police officer exhibited the patients of Job before he used any action against him. If I were that cop I would have perceived him as a threat as well. The police were justified on this one. You need to exercise common sense.

Unnecessarily confrontational? Where does that line exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

 

[George Costanza]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

All of the parties to this were idiots. This was obviously a test of wills between the suspect and the cop. The cop let the suspect win the test of wills, by not taking action IMMEDIATELY when the suspect refused to comply with his demand to get back in the car. The cop sounds like a young officer. Police are trained to yell loudly at people, over and over again, repeating the same phrase, in order to take command of the situation. This young cop did that, but it clearly was not working.

Notice how the suspect kept walking closer and closer to the officer? The suspect was winning the confrontation, not the cop.

The suspect kept asking the officer to justify the stop. "What did I do?" The officer owed the suspect an explanation, but NOT THEN. If the cop had told the suspect what he had done, the next thing out of the suspect's mouth would have been an argument as to why he didn't do whatever it was the cop stopped him for, and the situation would have gone downhill from there and, at the same time, the guy still would not be back in his car. Get him back in the car and THEN discuss things. So the cop was correct in not justifying the stop when the suspect was asking for the justtification. But still, the cop let the whole thing go on WAY too long. He should have threatened the guy with the taser right off the bat and hit him with it if the guy didn't comply.

Now, having said that, even this old liberal has trouble being sympathetic to the moron who got out of his car. You just don't get out of your car when you get stopped. You sit there with your hands in plain sight on the wheel. But then, I'm not a 28-year-old, probably a little drunk, asshole kid with an attitude, as the driver of this car obviously was.

He's going to lose his federal suit. At least he would if I was on the jury.

 

[MikeK]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

I agree. There is something very wrong with that scenario. The cops will not be faulted because they behaved in accordance with "Procedure," which they will justify with the standard excuse that it's done for officer safety. But I consider it extreme and/or excessive in many examples.

It is rare to watch an episode of the tv documentary, COPS, without seeing an example of subtle but plainly unnecessary brutality exercised by police who are operating within the guidelines of "Procedure." It is one thing when police are dealing with a belligerent and assaultive individual, but I have seen many situations in which a completely passive and cooperative arrest subject, one who has obediently turned around with hands-on-head, is unnecessarily tackled by four or more cops, thrown to the ground and has a knee slammed forcefully onto his head, driving his face onto the pavement. The proper designation for such conduct is gratuitous, opportunistic cruelty. But the police will call it "Procedure."

The fellow in this example is probably a decent, law-abiding individual who, until now, had the utmost respect for the law and its enforcement bodies. But now, because the cops need to cover themselves by arresting and charging him, will end up with a criminal record for disorderly conduct, failure to comply, and resisting arrest.

Such examples, of which there are many, in addition to the approximately 80,000 no-knock S.W.A.T. raids conducted every year in the U.S., some of which are mistakes and most of which are conducted for minor drug offenses, leave little doubt in any reasoning mind that the U.S. is well on its way to becoming the kind of police state we once heard about in places like the USSR, Chile and Argentina.

 

[MikeK]

get tazed.

YouTube - ‪Federal Lawsuit after Guy Tasered 6 Times for not Complying after Routine Traffic Stop‬‏

Watch the statists line up to justify this get getting tazed for not following orders.

Guess what, police do not have the power to give orders, all they have the power to do is make requests.

Some back story and thoughtful commentary is found here.

Simple Justice: The First Rule of Policing: A Demonstration

I tend to agree with the idea that the police need to protect themselves first, but this had obviously reached the point where the guy was not a danger to anyone, and there was no need to use force to walk away from the encounter safely. The cop could simply have explained to the otherwise law abiding citizen that he was pulled over because his front license was crooked. Instead he shot him with a deadly weapon.

All of the parties to this were idiots. This was obviously a test of wills between the suspect and the cop. The cop let the suspect win the test of wills, by not taking action IMMEDIATELY when the suspect refused to comply with his demand to get back in the car. The cop sounds like a young officer. Police are trained to yell loudly at people, over and over again, repeating the same phrase, in order to take command of the situation. This young cop did that, but it clearly was not working.

Notice how the suspect kept walking closer and closer to the officer? The suspect was winning the confrontation, not the cop.

The suspect kept asking the officer to justify the stop. "What did I do?" The officer owed the suspect an explanation, but NOT THEN. If the cop had told the suspect what he had done, the next thing out of the suspect's mouth would have been an argument as to why he didn't do whatever it was the cop stopped him for, and the situation would have gone downhill from there and, at the same time, the guy still would not be back in his car. Get him back in the car and THEN discuss things. So the cop was correct in not justifying the stop when the suspect was asking for the justtification. But still, the cop let the whole thing go on WAY too long. He should have threatened the guy with the taser right off the bat and hit him with it if the guy didn't comply.

Now, having said that, even this old liberal has trouble being sympathetic to the moron who got out of his car. You just don't get out of your car when you get stopped. You sit there with your hands in plain sight on the wheel. But then, I'm not a 28-year-old, probably a little drunk, asshole kid with an attitude, as the driver of this car obviously was.

He's going to lose his federal suit. At least he would if I was on the jury.

You are ignoring the fact that the driver did at one point comply with the cop's commands by reluctantly but obediently turning around, then he followed the next command to put his hands on his head. But the next command to get on his knees was one step too far -- and I agree. That is beyond being reasonable and may (correctly, in my opinion) be perceived as demanding a gratuitously submissive gesture.

Hands-on-head and turn around is understandable. "Get on your knees!" is quite another thing.

I just hope the kid has a lawyer who knows how to get that point across to a jury.

 

[Liability]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

 

[oldsalt]

The guy was a douche bag. Shoulda shot him.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If I was a cop I taze somebody every day. No need carrying that crap around unless you're going to use it. I'd shoot somebody every couple of days too just to make sure my gun still worked.

 

[oldsalt]

The guy had more than ample opportunity to comply. Douchebag=taze

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you were keeping score at home, and want the answer to how many times that driver failed to comply with the police officer's perfectly clear directions, then you probably lost count.

Cops can be wrong, too. But that driver brought this shit down on his own dumb ass.

Cops have EVERY right to want to make it home at the end of their tour of duty each work day, and when they make ANY traffic stop, it could be their last. This leads to a very simple rule. Pull the fuck over. Turn on the inside dome light. Put your hands ON the wheel so the cop can SEE them. Let the police officer feel perfectly safe and do and say whatever he needs to do and say. (What's the fuckin' big deal? You're gonna get a damn ticket you can fight in Court? Give me a break. Just take the fuckin' ticket and suck it up.)

That driver COULD have and should have stayed in the car and, going out on a wild limb here, complied with the officer's perfectly reasonable directions. He wouldn't have gotten tazed. End of story.

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

 

[Liability]

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Wrong.

Cops most assuredly DO have the right, the power and the valid Constitutionally based LEGAL authority under certain circumstances to tell you what to do and what to REFRAIN from doing.

The officer in the case we are discussing TOLD the dopey driver NOT to get out of the car. That SHOULD be the end ofthe discussion. It wasn't because the driver was a dick.

And it escalated when the aforesaid dick continued in many ways and innumerable times to refuse to do the things he was VALIDLY being told to do.

He -- not the cop -- was in the wrong.

That's where the period belongs.

Period.

 

[oldsalt]

The cop could easily have explained why he stopped him and simply written a ticket. Instead he chose to escalate the situation, call in backup, and deliver a potentially lethal shock to someone simply because he was annoyed.

Nope.

The idiot got out of his car when directed not to do so. He COULD have done something as simple and intelligent as listening and complying promptly AT ANY TIME prior to the taser finale.

Why should the cop NOT be allowed to direct an idiot driver to STAY in the car? It is not an arrest. It is not a threat of violence. It is not jackboots stomping on the Constitution. It is a simple, easy, rational SAFETY need for the cop. Experience teaches cops [and so does training which is informed by collective experience]. The idiot in the car has less opportunity to pull out a gun and level a clean shot at a wary cop. He has almost no chance of pulling a knife. And none of that will be necessary if he sits there like a good boy and waits to see if the cop is going to give him a ticket.

Once the guy got out and then refused to go back AND THEN refused every single direction to turn around, OF COURSE the cop resorted to his training. And if you or I had been trained as cops, we would have done likewise.

I like cops on balance. I detest the ones who cheat and lie. But the majority of them don't. They just go out and perform a sometimes very dangerous public duty. Some do it with more finesse and style and grace. Some with far too little. But I still think a guy that runs TOWARD gunfire -- when instinct tells the rest of us to GET AWAY -- deserves some consideration from the rest of us.

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Believe it or not, cops are actually in more danger if the driver stays in the car than if he gets out, so trying to argue that from a safety point means that you have to deal with the fact that the driver can run the cop down or shoot him. Once the driver gets out of the car the officer has a batter view of the driver and has a better chance of seeing potential danger. Police do not want you to stay in the car for their safety, they want you to stay in the car because it gives them a position of dominance by standing over you, and it also allows them to visually search your car. If they were honestly concerned about their safety they would want everyone to pull off the street and step away from their car.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Yes, they do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because cops do not have the right to tell me what to do. Period.

Correct. One is only required to identify oneself.

Unless there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state should have no interaction with private citizens.

And this ‘traffic stop’ nonsense is the source for most of the problems. There’s no need to pull the citizen over. Simply check to see if there are any warrants and if clear send the motorist a citation in the mail.

I do not blame most cops for this, this is the way they are trained. That does not make them right.

Training is an issue, yes. However there are many attracted to law enforcement who have no business being in law enforcement.