Ask a cop a question...

[geauxtohell]

The point of the stop, and the validity of the stop, became moot when this driver decided to act in a hostile manner to a police officer.

First, being stopped by police while driving is an aggressive action which must be justified. Do you think a crooked front license plate, which poses no threat to life or property, is sufficient cause for a police officer working alone to stop a car on a quiet road at night?

It could have been justified if the driver would have given the officer a chance to do so. The driver chose to provoke the situation and act in a reckless manner that gave the police officer reason to suspect he was a threat.

Unless you think it's reasonable to approach someone with a loaded weapon and yell "are you going to shoot me?"

I think it's absurd to pull someone over for a crooked license plate. That could have been addressed properly if the driver had not acted in a bizarre manner. The second the motorist got out of the car, it was about much more than a crooked license plate.

Next, what is hostile about demanding to know why a police officer has taken the aggressive action of stopping you? Hostile is a flexible word. It does not presumptively suggest menace or threat, whereas drawing and aiming a pistol is distinctly menacing and threatening as well as extremely hostile.

Please. Sitting in your car and asking why you were pulled over is not hostile. Getting out of your care, refusing to comply with an officers commands for three solid minutes, walking up to a person pointing a loaded weapon at you and asking "are you going to shoot me?" is hostile.

What sane person would do that? If I were an officer, I would seriously begin to question the mental status of the person in the car. He didn't have to get out of his vehicle to be a civil libertarian.

 

[oldsalt]

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.

The cop could have easily explained the situation to him, if the driver wouldn't have given the cop reason to be alarmed for his safety (i.e. putting his hands in his pocket).

I am not sure the legalities of the situation, but it's generally known that you don't get out of your car and advance towards a police officer during a traffic stop. The police officer gave the guy multiple opportunities to comply and he refused. The police officer warned the driver that he would be tazed, he refused to listen.

I fail to see how the police officer did something wrong. I guess that makes me a "statist".

I think it's bullshit they handed this guy a nickle in settlement money.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

I almost wonder if the driver provoked this situation simply to sue.

So what if he did? Does that make the cop right?

Does it make the driver wrong?

I don't think the cop did anything wrong, so your question is directed at the wrong person.

 

[oldsalt]

The point of the stop, and the validity of the stop, became moot when this driver decided to act in a hostile manner to a police officer.

First, being stopped by police while driving is an aggressive action which must be justified. Do you think a crooked front license plate, which poses no threat to life or property, is sufficient cause for a police officer working alone to stop a car on a quiet road at night?

It could have been justified if the driver would have given the officer a chance to do so. The driver chose to provoke the situation and act in a reckless manner that gave the police officer reason to suspect he was a threat.

Unless you think it's reasonable to approach someone with a loaded weapon and yell "are you going to shoot me?"

I think it's absurd to pull someone over for a crooked license plate. That could have been addressed properly if the driver had not acted in a bizarre manner. The second the motorist got out of the car, it was about much more than a crooked license plate.

Next, what is hostile about demanding to know why a police officer has taken the aggressive action of stopping you? Hostile is a flexible word. It does not presumptively suggest menace or threat, whereas drawing and aiming a pistol is distinctly menacing and threatening as well as extremely hostile.

Please. Sitting in your car and asking why you were pulled over is not hostile. Getting out of your care, refusing to comply with an officers commands for three solid minutes, walking up to a person pointing a loaded weapon at you and asking "are you going to shoot me?" is hostile.

What sane person would do that? If I were an officer, I would seriously begin to question the mental status of the person in the car. He didn't have to get out of his vehicle to be a civil libertarian.

Well posted.

 

[oldsalt]

This is where we disagree, the use of a Taser is not reasonable.

Would that officer have been justified in using his weapon? If not, he is not justified in usung a Taser. A Taser is not a compliance device, it is a weapon. It should be subject to the exact same rules as using a firearm, and officers should be required to justify it every time they use one.

At leasst 400 people have been killed by Tasers in the US since 2001, a number that will only climb the more often the police use them. Unless those deaths were in defense of a life they are completely unjustified.

That makes that cop, and every police department in the country that issues Tasers, wrong. I can guarantee that if the BART police were not issued Tasers Oscar Grant would still be alive and Johannes Mehserle would not be a convicted felon.

That's incorrect. A taser can be lethal, but it is still considered a "non-lethal" weapon. Under the logic of proportional force, the officer was justified in tazing this guy. They didn't do it for convenience, they did it because they had reason to believe this person was a threat. If a taser and a gun were the same thing, why even bother with carrying a taser? This nimbwit is lucky that the "same rules" don't apply to tasers and guns. He'd probably be dead right now.

I think it's easy to imagine yourself in this situation as the driver and assume that your mindset is the same as this guys. That's not a logical assumption. For all this cop knew, this guy could be intoxicated on PCP (he certainly acted like it) and there is no telling what he would do.

I agree with the earlier sentiment, this cop only screwed up because he allowed the driver to take control of the situation. He should have tased him immediately. I wonder if he had the taser on him though as he had his weapon drawn and had to call for back up and the other officer is the one that tased him.

How is it incorrect?

In order to be non-lethal you have to prove that it never kills anyone. That is demonstrably not the case with Tasers, which is why the military classifies them as less lethal. The only people that call them non lethal are the companies that make them, and that is false advertising that would not work for any other product in the United States.

How does the logic of proportional force, whatever that actually is, apply in a situation where one side is not using force? How did this guy represent a threat? The officers could clearly see his hands, and there were more than enough of them there to control him if he had attacked them, something which he had shown no sign of doing.

The fact that you think it is justifiable to use violence to control someone who is not a threat Indicates that you are authoritarian because you believe that someone should be punished for questioning a police officer. The fact that you are willing to misclassify something as non lethal that has been proven to kill people in order to justify police using it saddens me. The implication that you would have had no problem with them using firearms in this situation outrages me.

We have had disagreements before, but this is the first time you ever ignored the truth in order to justify your position. I hope that me pointing out the facts causes you to reexamine your position

The Officer does NOT know that, at the time. He has someone with their hand in their pocket, refusing to comply with the simplest of demands, 'get back in your car'. Your stupidity outrages me.

 

[oldsalt]

Just stay in you're car dumbshit, what the big deal?

There isn't. Stupid guy gets tazed. Thanks for waking me up to the fact that i'm with the Ohh, let's sue crowd. I'm done with this

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Safer for the motorist? Sure. Safer for the public? No. By your logic, it is "safer" for police officers to never make a motor vehicle stop. That means it is safer to simply allow intoxicated/impaired drivers to stay on the street, because if they are stopped the cops might beat on them.

How is it not safer for the public?

This incident ended up taking 4 police officers off the road for the rest of the shift. I can easily make a case that that put the public at risk by reducing the police presence on the streets.

If the driver of the car is not driving erratically, and is not presenting a clear and present danger to the public, it is not a public safety issue to stop him. the on board camera can record the infraction and the officer can sit in a nice, well lit, room and make a record of the infraction and send it out by mail. That is clearly safer than stopping everyone who has a crooked license plate, and frees the police up to cover real problems if they occur.

See there, I have no problem with them stopping drivers who might be drunk, because that is actually a public safety issue. Expired tags and crooked plates are not, especially at night.

I also never said shooting someone with a tazer is "safe". I said it is considered a non-lethal means of force and is justified. Ironically, tazers keep morons like this from getting killed and in the end it bites the cops in the ass because they used "excessive force".

And, as I pointed out, non lethal is false advertising.

I believe that. Don't try and claim that this officer ordered some random stranger to get on his knees without cause or consideration. We both know that is bullshit. This motorist gave this officer reason to believe that he had to take extra precautions when dealing with that.

He ordered a guy that was not dangerous to his knees. The only time police should be able to put anyone on their knees is if they are actively resisting arrest and are alone. Neither of those apply here.

It could have been walking into the barrel of a loaded gun and yelling "are you going to shoot me????".

Hate to point out the obvious, but that guy would not have been able to see a gun. Police are trained to stand behind their open door and use the lights of their cruiser and the spotlights to make it impossible for anyone to see where they are or what they are holding. All that guy would have seen is the bright lights shining in his face.

At some point that makes the question about being shot legitimate, and it turns out that he actually got shot.

The right to self defense is inherent. Any officer has the right to deal with persons they suspect are dangerous in a manner the ensures their safety. That has nothing to do with excessive force.

The right to self defense only applies if you, or someone else, are being threatened. Since police are, theoretically, trained to deal with that type of decision, the standard is actually higher for them than it would be for a regular citizen. That means that in a case where a cop shoots someone they actually have to prove that the person had a weapon, or that something they did led them to believe that. You and I, on the other hand, can simply assert that we felt in danger of our lives and that will make it self defense.

They should be held to that standard even if they use a Taser because, despite the claims of the manufacturers, Tasers are not non lethal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I almost wonder if the driver provoked this situation simply to sue.

So what if he did? Does that make the cop right?

Does it make the driver wrong?

I don't think the cop did anything wrong, so your question is directed at the wrong person.

Did it make the people who protested unjust laws in the south during the civil rights movement wrong? It does not make the driver wrong either.

My question is directed at the right person because you are wrong, in my opinion. The cop should be trained to handle people who think they have constitutional rights, because everyone actually has them, even if they broke the law.

 

[geauxtohell]

How is it incorrect?

In order to be non-lethal you have to prove that it never kills anyone.

Obviously they do kill some people. So do defibrillators and aspirin. However, in comparison to the other items a police officer carries, they are considered "non-lethal" and a better alternative for subduing a suspect then a .9 mm.

That is demonstrably not the case with Tasers, which is why the military classifies them as less lethal. The only people that call them non lethal are the companies that make them, and that is false advertising that would not work for any other product in the United States.

Okay, fine. "Less lethal". Whatever. You'll never hear me say tazers are 100% safe. You'll just hear me say "better than getting shot".

How does the logic of proportional force, whatever that actually is,

It's a military term. I'd be surprised if the police don't have a similar concept.

what the doctrines of

apply in a situation where one side is not using force? How did this guy represent a threat? The officers could clearly see his hands, and there were more than enough of them there to control him if he had attacked them, something which he had shown no sign of doing.

Actually, you can't always see his hands. Especially when he puts them in his pockets or has his back turned and hands down. Does the officer have to actually wait for this guy to pull a weapon out before hitting him with a tazer? No, he does not. The perception of a threat is enough.

Did you watch the other video (now shown in police academies across the country)? Kind of eerie how similar the situations are. Yet the outcome is different. The outcome is different because one of the two drivers was a fucking homicidal maniac and the other one was simply belligerent. You apparently think the the police have special mind reading powers to be able to discern who is going to pull out a gun and who is going to whine about civil liberties.

You read this situation differently. I see advancing on an officer with a drawn weapon as hostile and unreasonable. I question the mindset of anyone who would do this.

Finally, until the very end, it was just this officer. It took three of them to subdue this driver (listen for the handcuff clicks in the video).

I think the city rolled over on this. I hope the county goes to court and wins.

The fact that you think it is justifiable to use violence to control someone who is not a threat

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

By proportionality the cop was right to taze him. Shooting him would have been excessive but might have been the outcome 20 years ago.

Indicates that you are authoritarian because you believe that someone should be punished for questioning a police officer.

No, I believe the police have a right to defend themselves against a demonstrated threat.

The fact that you are willing to misclassify something as non lethal that has been proven to kill people in order to justify police using it saddens me. The implication that you would have had no problem with them using firearms in this situation outrages me.

Then be said and outraged. That often happens to people who imply too much.

We have had disagreements before, but this is the first time you ever ignored the truth in order to justify your position. I hope that me pointing out the facts causes you to reexamine your position

I have ignored the "truth"? Where?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's incorrect. A taser can be lethal, but it is still considered a "non-lethal" weapon. Under the logic of proportional force, the officer was justified in tazing this guy. They didn't do it for convenience, they did it because they had reason to believe this person was a threat. If a taser and a gun were the same thing, why even bother with carrying a taser? This nimbwit is lucky that the "same rules" don't apply to tasers and guns. He'd probably be dead right now.

I think it's easy to imagine yourself in this situation as the driver and assume that your mindset is the same as this guys. That's not a logical assumption. For all this cop knew, this guy could be intoxicated on PCP (he certainly acted like it) and there is no telling what he would do.

I agree with the earlier sentiment, this cop only screwed up because he allowed the driver to take control of the situation. He should have tased him immediately. I wonder if he had the taser on him though as he had his weapon drawn and had to call for back up and the other officer is the one that tased him.

How is it incorrect?

In order to be non-lethal you have to prove that it never kills anyone. That is demonstrably not the case with Tasers, which is why the military classifies them as less lethal. The only people that call them non lethal are the companies that make them, and that is false advertising that would not work for any other product in the United States.

How does the logic of proportional force, whatever that actually is, apply in a situation where one side is not using force? How did this guy represent a threat? The officers could clearly see his hands, and there were more than enough of them there to control him if he had attacked them, something which he had shown no sign of doing.

The fact that you think it is justifiable to use violence to control someone who is not a threat Indicates that you are authoritarian because you believe that someone should be punished for questioning a police officer. The fact that you are willing to misclassify something as non lethal that has been proven to kill people in order to justify police using it saddens me. The implication that you would have had no problem with them using firearms in this situation outrages me.

We have had disagreements before, but this is the first time you ever ignored the truth in order to justify your position. I hope that me pointing out the facts causes you to reexamine your position

The Officer does NOT know that, at the time. He has someone with their hand in their pocket, refusing to comply with the simplest of demands, 'get back in your car'. Your stupidity outrages me.

He had 5 minutes to asses the situation and defuse it, he chose to escalate it.

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

 

[geauxtohell]

So what if he did? Does that make the cop right?

Does it make the driver wrong?

I don't think the cop did anything wrong, so your question is directed at the wrong person.

Did it make the people who protested unjust laws in the south during the civil rights movement wrong? It does not make the driver wrong either.

Oh lord. Talk about your non-sequiturs.

Here's a major difference, the Freedom Riders did exactly what the cops told them to do. They made the police look stupid by complying with them.

That's a far cry from a lone, belligerent driver "without a cause".

My question is directed at the right person because you are wrong, in my opinion. The cop should be trained to handle people who think they have constitutional rights, because everyone actually has them, even if they broke the law.

In your opinion...... You don't have fiat on the issue of "right and wrong".

Again, this guy could have made a constitutional argument without provoking a police officer.

Is it illegal to provoke a police officer? Absolutely not. Does it give the police a reason to suspect you might be altered or possibly dangerous? Absolutely.

 

[geauxtohell]

He had 5 minutes to asses the situation and defuse it, he chose to escalate it.

He tried to defuse the situation. The driver was non-compliant. He choose to diffuse the situation by evoking "less lethal" force. I don't think he was wrong.

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

LOL. What are you even talking about? What your attorney told you to do and what this guy did are diametrically different.

I'd like to find the attorney who would tell you that behaving the way this guy did was smart or legal.

My wife is an attorney. She watched the video and basically thought the cop had justification to taze him the second he stuck his hands in his pocket.

Out of curiosity, have you ever followed that lawyers advice? How did that turn out for you?

 

[oldsalt]

How is it incorrect?

In order to be non-lethal you have to prove that it never kills anyone. That is demonstrably not the case with Tasers, which is why the military classifies them as less lethal. The only people that call them non lethal are the companies that make them, and that is false advertising that would not work for any other product in the United States.

How does the logic of proportional force, whatever that actually is, apply in a situation where one side is not using force? How did this guy represent a threat? The officers could clearly see his hands, and there were more than enough of them there to control him if he had attacked them, something which he had shown no sign of doing.

The fact that you think it is justifiable to use violence to control someone who is not a threat Indicates that you are authoritarian because you believe that someone should be punished for questioning a police officer. The fact that you are willing to misclassify something as non lethal that has been proven to kill people in order to justify police using it saddens me. The implication that you would have had no problem with them using firearms in this situation outrages me.

We have had disagreements before, but this is the first time you ever ignored the truth in order to justify your position. I hope that me pointing out the facts causes you to reexamine your position

The Officer does NOT know that, at the time. He has someone with their hand in their pocket, refusing to comply with the simplest of demands, 'get back in your car'. Your stupidity outrages me.

He had 5 minutes to asses the situation and defuse it, he chose to escalate it.

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

Get in trouble much? The cop gave a simple order. get back inside your vehicle. For the Civ's safety as much as his. Civ doesn't comply, civ gets tazed. Simple,no? YES.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to ssearch my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

That would be the appropriate response now in light of Kentucky v King, where the Court in essence instructed citizens to do just that.

 

[oldsalt]

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to ssearch my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

That would be the appropriate response now in light of Kentucky v King, where the Court in essence instructed citizens to do just that.

And did this tool do that? No. He got tazed. Guess what, you see me acting the fool like this, and you are LE, taze me, I won't sue, I'm not a pussy like this jerk.

 

[geauxtohell]

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to ssearch my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

That would be the appropriate response now in light of Kentucky v King, where the Court in essence instructed citizens to do just that.

How so?

A vehicle is not a house.

 

[Sunshine]

By the way, I was once told by a lawyer that I should always turn off the engine, get out of the car, lock it, and put my keys on the roof whenever a police officer pulls me over for anything. He told me this would be a direct assertion of my right to refuse to allow the police to ssearch my car in the guise of a traffic stop. When did the police get the right to demand I not follow the advice of my attorney?

That would be the appropriate response now in light of Kentucky v King, where the Court in essence instructed citizens to do just that.

And did this tool do that? No. He got tazed. Guess what, you see me acting the fool like this, and you are LE, taze me, I won't sue, I'm not a pussy like this jerk.

Given the coarse and vulgar manner in which you post, I could easily see you doing exactly what this guy did and getting your ass tazed.

 

[MikeK]

Type B was never charged with anything but having a crooked front license plate, and won his lawsuit.

So it is a crime for your license plate to be crooked?

I didn't even know you could get a ticket for it. My guess is it was an excuse to stop him and find out if the car was stolen.

A ticket could be issued but it would be dismissed in court (as was the ticket I got long ago for a burned out headlight).

As for the reason for stopping him, too few Americans are aware of an important consideration in the matter of car stops. One of the most insidious components of the War On Drugs are the subsidies handed out to civilian police departments whose performance statistics satisfy a minimum requirement of anti-drug activity (arrests). In fact, the S.W.A.T. activities of most police departments, including the paramilitary weapons, gear and clothing are included in the subsidies.

Because the vast majority of drug arrests are facilitated by car stops the police have developed profiles upon which their stops are selected. These profiles are based on statistics that reveal consistent factors in car stops which have resulted in past drug arrests. Some of these factors are an older, shabby car with a younger driver, moving suspiciously within the speed limit. In some places a Black driver rates high as a profile factor.

The police have learned that stopping cars which fit the profile increase their chances of making a "drug collar" and because of the federal subsidy the pressure is on to make those arrests. So some cops will look for any reason to stop a profiled car while others will invent a reason (speeding, etc). Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here need only watch a few (educational) episodes of the tv documentary, COPS, in which the process is seen time and time again.

 

[oldsalt]

That would be the appropriate response now in light of Kentucky v King, where the Court in essence instructed citizens to do just that.

And did this tool do that? No. He got tazed. Guess what, you see me acting the fool like this, and you are LE, taze me, I won't sue, I'm not a pussy like this jerk.

Given the coarse and vulgar manner in which you post, I could easily see you doing exactly what this guy did and getting your ass tazed.

Seeing how your posts are diametrically opposed to your surname, I'll dismiss your comment. Thanks for playing, though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously they do kill some people. So do defibrillators and aspirin. However, in comparison to the other items a police officer carries, they are considered "non-lethal" and a better alternative for subduing a suspect then a .9 mm.

If they kill they are not non lethal.

End of discussion.

Okay, fine. "Less lethal". Whatever. You'll never hear me say tazers are 100% safe. You'll just hear me say "better than getting shot".

Tell that to the people they kill.

It's a military term. I'd be surprised if the police don't have a similar concept.

what the doctrines of

And this was clearly disproportionate use of firce.

Actually, you can't always see his hands. Especially when he puts them in his pockets or has his back turned and hands down. Does the officer have to actually wait for this guy to pull a weapon out before hitting him with a tazer? No, he does not. The perception of a threat is enough.

That occurred near the beginning of the encounter, and was dealt with the command of "Let me see your hands," or whatever it was he actually said. So, yes, the officer should actually have to wait for him to pull a weapon before he shoots. You might not like it, but that is the rules, and that cop knew it when he took the job.

Did you watch the other video (now shown in police academies across the country)? Kind of eerie how similar the situations are. Yet the outcome is different. The outcome is different because one of the two drivers was a fucking homicidal maniac and the other one was simply belligerent. You apparently think the the police have special mind reading powers to be able to discern who is going to pull out a gun and who is going to whine about civil liberties.

I think no such thing. I fully believe police should take the steps they need to protect themselves and the public. I also expect them not to shoot people just because they are having a bad day. It ain't fair, but life ain't fair.

You read this situation differently. I see advancing on an officer with a drawn weapon as hostile and unreasonable. I question the mindset of anyone who would do this.

Does that mean you think the police should be able to shoot anyone who approaches them, even if they are confused, dazed, deluded, or just plain crazy? Doesn't it make more sense to make sure the police are actually facing a danger before they shoot than to give them blanket permission to shoot people just because they might be a danger?

I can post plenty of stories of cops shooting people who are deaf and did not obey a command. I understand it happens, but it should be avoided. I want to do that by training officers to be better at judging situations, and to be ready to walk away of they are the only ones in danger. You want to allow them to shoot people who argue with them.

Different approaches, but I will take mine.

Finally, until the very end, it was just this officer. It took three of them to subdue this driver (listen for the handcuff clicks in the video).

He was being shocked by 50,000 volts of electricity, it he wasn't subdued it would have taken a lot more than 3 people to hold him down. On the other hand, if they had just stopped shocking him, a 4 year old could have put the cuffs on him.

I think the city rolled over on this. I hope the county goes to court and wins.

The county is probably being sued because one of their officers responded. I would have to know how long he was there and what he saw before I could judge the degree of culpability.

I viewed him as a threat. As I said, I don't think a cop has to wait for someone to start shooting to be perceived as a threat.

They don't, but they do have to wait until they have a weapon.

By proportionality the cop was right to taze him. Shooting him would have been excessive but might have been the outcome 20 years ago.

No he wasn't, because the guy did go beyond being verbal. Police should not use force unless they are responding to force.

No, I believe the police have a right to defend themselves against a demonstrated threat.

What threat was demonstrated? Remember that police are, theoretically, trained to deal with people who are simply angry. I had people yell at me as a customer service rep and never responded with violence, or even yelling back at them. And I wasn't trained for that.

I have ignored the "truth"? Where?

You backed off from your position that Tasers are non lethal. You do, however, seem to believe that police should react the same way you do to a problem.

They shouldn't.