Trooper Caught On Tape Tasering Motorist

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: ruksak Notice that I refer to the officer as "pig" and the suspect as "victim". I would think this young piggy is due for some serious disciplinary action at the very least. I would only be satisfied if he were arrested for assault, but that ain't gonna happen. If police continue to use the taser in this irresponsible manner, even I will ardently support the tasers removal from service.

Only one point I would like to make to this, that wasn't already made by someone else. This "young piggy" was a 14 year veteran of the state police.

Not really so young.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn Where did the authority for tasers come from?

State law and certification.

What need were they developed to fill?

To reduce gun related deaths and provide an additional continuum between restraint and lethal force.

Because the federal system wants more control over people, and a lower bar to use force against citizens, to maintain control.

And you're demonstrating how you really don't know how the system works because the federal "system" really has very little influence over local and state police departments. That's not to say that it doesn't have any, but day to day operations are largely autonomous. Case in point, In order to be a cop you get state certified.

Why is the federal government training local police forces in Spec Ops tactics and reactionary teams?

For the most part, they're not. Believe it or not, SWAT teams and the equivalent can function without federal influence, and typically do so. Also, believe it or not, SWAT teams sometimes act in the interest of protecting life and not infringing on others rights. Though if this wasn't what you were talking about, you should elaborate on this segment.

Does this color the local policemans "view" of force being used against citizens?

No it really doesn't.

Lots of relevant context to be addressed with tasers, their role, and how they got where they are.

While I don't disagree with these being valid questions, they've largely been answered.

BS. It is no less founded than our own Declaration of Independence. What in that declaration, or worse, isn't happening today? When "just doing your job" entails upholding and defending the greatest thieves, criminals and turncoats using force, it may be time to question that choice of jobs, unless you support and wish to take part in authoritarianism.

As someone who worked at a police department with other men and women whose integrity I deeply respect, if you're saying that we are the one's who were allowed in because we fit some standard favorable to injustice, you can go to hell and you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Spare me the unfounded mentality which you put forth, which is that they are "acting in our best intrests" at all times, in all deeds.

Then you won't mind quoting where I said that EVER.

Quote by: Me#2 Clearly the tasing was excessive.

Point negated.

[Suburbanite]

This cop needs to die, how sickening. Public torture for a traffic violation? Someone got molested by their daddy!

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: To reduce gun related deaths and provide an additional continuum between restraint and lethal force.

Tasers are lethal force. Tasers have killed multiple people, and calling them anything other than lethal force is an exercise of redefinition of the term lethal force.

Not all people who are shot, die, so does that make guns non-lethal also?

Chaos said: And you're demonstrating how you really don't know how the system works because the federal "system" really has very little influence over local and state police departments.

Really? Perhaps you should tell that to Californians who count on police to aid them in defending their rights, as those same police step aside so armed federal agents can come in and violate state laws? (medical marijuana users, distributors)

There is much more federal influence than I think you will admit.

Why do most states have seatbelt laws? What role does federal funding play in state traffic laws?

Chaos said: That's not to say that it doesn't have any, but day to day operations are largely autonomous. Case in point, In order to be a cop you get state certified.

And in most states, in order to be a cop you MUST have a lower scaled IQ. They claim its because higher IQ people get bored on the job, which has some validity.... but I don't think it makes the case. I alledge they want people who "just want to do their job" and not be bothered by people who question the laws they are expected to enforce.

Chaos said: For the most part, they're not. Believe it or not, SWAT teams and the equivalent can function without federal influence, and typically do so. Also, believe it or not, SWAT teams sometimes act in the interest of protecting life and not infringing on others rights. Though if this wasn't what you were talking about, you should elaborate on this segment.

RAND Review | Spring 2006 | Think Locally, Act Nationally

Losing service-oriented police: state and local police departments, once independent and locally accountable, are succumbing to centralized control through myriad federal grants. - Free Online Library

Funding Squabble Reveals Stresses on Police Departments

Smith (WA09) - Press Release - Smith Announces Federal Funds For Seattle Police Department's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force

Maria Cantwell - U.S. Senator from Washington State

Idaho Observer: Bill would place CIA agents in local police departments

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) › Cops Say

P&MANWO - Jack McLamb

TYSK - Depts - Government Regulation

Most people simply don't know the level at which their local and state police have been strangled by federal regulations, demands and threats of funding or withholding of funding once promised.

Chaos said: No it really doesn't.

You mean, "no, it really doesn't in MY opinion" don't you?

Chaos said: While I don't disagree with these being valid questions, they've largely been answered.

They have been claimed to have been answered, but, many don't buy the first line sold to them in most cases, so I don't see why this case should be any different.

Chaos said: As someone who worked at a police department with other men and women whose integrity I deeply respect, if you're saying that we are the one's who were allowed in because we fit some standard favorable to injustice, you can go to hell and you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

AS someone who knows police, and has known police personally, as well as served in this nations military, you too sir can go to hell for assuming because I have different opinions, I am wrong, less qualified to have an opinion, or less able to post evidence to show why I feel as I do.

If this were a court case, would you recuse yourself due to your personal bias?

Chaos said: Then you won't mind quoting where I said that EVER.

Didn't I say putting forth a mentality?
Did I claim you said ANYTHING?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber They can run radar while moving. Now if he was driving one handed and holding the relatively heavy laser in the other hand steady enough to accurately read this guy, he's either really really talented, or he didn't do it.

There is no way he radared him. It's all on video. Did you see a radar gun used? I sure didn't. What I saw was a cop park in front of the 40MPH sign setting a speed trap and quickly pulling over the first guy that came by. Technically, the speed limit was still 60. The man wanted to know how fast he was clocked at and got NO ANSWER. Despite asking many many times "How fast was I going". Before and after he was tortured for his insolence. This is vital information if he wishes to take this matter to court. Imagine a cop pulling you over for running a stop sign and refusing to tell which stop sign he thinks you ran.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Nah, you only have to read Miranda if they're about to be interrogated.

The suspect can say anything he wants after being arrested and not Mirandized, and it cannot be used in court against him.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 If I think a cop has pulled a gun on me I'm going to stop moving right there.

You would think so, but then again you never know how you would act in a situation like that. This guy is just pleading his case, and a damn good one at that, and suddenly he's being threatened with what he thought was lethal force. Taking a defensive posture is natural in this circumstance if you ask me. Putting his hand in his pocket was stupid however. But I think he was just freaked out a little by this sudden jump in tempo.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Like I said before, the cop is in the wrong, but this guy is an idiot.

I would normally be the first guy to concur. If not for the egregious procedural violations committed by the officer.

I have expended great effort in defending police in situations like this on this very discussion board. But I will not defend this cop for creating a volatile and potentially deadly situation.

I'd also like to point out the fact that this guy was laying on the road twitching. A busy road, as is apparent when you watch the full video I posted. He could have been run over and killed after being electrocuted over a simple traffic infraction that may not have even occurred.

That could have been a death sentence handed down for simple verbal defiance.

Quote by: Chaossaber To reduce gun related deaths and provide an additional continuum between restraint and lethal force

He pulled his taser out of anger. This is obvious. He didn't reach for his cuffs. He reached for a tool meant to be implemented, as you just said, for use against a threatening or fleeing suspect.

The guy walked calmly with the officer and didn't make any sudden moves. He spoke calmly and started gesturing to indicate his point about the traffic sign placement and this pig just hauls off IN ANGER and draws a weapon, screaming in a hostile manner. This was done out of anger, not necessity. Police ARE NOT supposed to react with anger.

Quote by: Keith Only one point I would like to make to this, that wasn't already made by someone else. This "young piggy" was a 14 year veteran of the state police. Not really so young.

He sure acted like a rookie with no idea how to deal with people.

When I watch my brother handle people and situations like this on his beat, he is calm, respectful and courteous. Even when being shouted at and told to "F*ck off". This is why he has never had a video of himself posted on youtube. Because he does what police are supposed to do. Diffuse the situation and/or bring an argumentative person to reason.

In my opinion the pig/officer in this case could have handled this the way I know my brother would have.

When Massey said "I'm not signing this", the proper thing to do would be to assume this man doesn't know this could lead to arrest. He should have said "Sir, if you do not comply and sign this agreement to appear in court, I will issue you a citation for refusal to sign a traffic citation. If you still refuse to sign I will ask you to exit your vehicle and I WILL place you under arrest".

It's that simple. Calm, respectful and making sure that Massey understands the importance of compliance.

He did none of this. The pig was angry at the defiance toward the citation.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn Tasers are lethal force. Tasers have killed multiple people, and calling them anything other than lethal force is an exercise of redefinition of the term lethal force. Not all people who are shot, die, so does that make guns non-lethal also?

And while I don't have any stats in front of me I'm willing to bet that the number of people who die from tasers is probably at or less those that simply use their physical body to subdue someone. By your unthoughtful definition all force is lethal force. People can die by simply using your hands to bring them to the ground. Does this mean that using your hands must now be labeled lethal force? Please.

Really? Perhaps you should tell that to Californians who count on police to aid them in defending their rights, as those same police step aside so armed federal agents can come in and violate state laws? (medical marijuana users, distributors)

Violate state laws? Maybe you slept through civics class but Federal law supersedes State law.

There is much more federal influence than I think you will admit.

I didn't say there wasn't any influence, just that it's not to the level you allege.

Why do most states have seatbelt laws? What role does federal funding play in state traffic laws?

Then I suppose if those states feel so strongly against these laws, which I see no indication that they do, then they should reject the funding in regard to their principles. Fact is, this Orwellian picture you tried to paint of a federal government looming over everything state and local police do, just doesn't exist.

And in most states, in order to be a cop you MUST have a lower scaled IQ. They claim its because higher IQ people get bored on the job, which has some validity.... but I don't think it makes the case. I alledge they want people who "just want to do their job" and not be bothered by people who question the laws they are expected to enforce.

Patently false and remarkably insulting.

In fact, most departments now require 4 year degrees, while not exactly a measure of intelligence is something less likely in people with your quote "lower scaled IQ".

Most people simply don't know the level at which their local and state police have been strangled by federal regulations, demands and threats of funding or withholding of funding once promised.

If they are strangled by regulations that would imply they're not able to do anything, including your serial infringement of rights.

You mean, "no, it really doesn't in MY opinion" don't you?

No, I mean as someone who has been there, no it doesn't.

They have been claimed to have been answered, but, many don't buy the first line sold to them in most cases, so I don't see why this case should be any different.

Find a cure for ignorance then, because this is fairly straight forward.

AS someone who knows police, and has known police personally, as well as served in this nations military, you too sir can go to hell for assuming because I have different opinions, I am wrong, less qualified to have an opinion, or less able to post evidence to show why I feel as I do.

I criticize you, not for having an opinion, but for having one that is patently false and insulting to myself and those that I have worked with by questioning their integrity and desire to uphold the constitution. I don't care who you know or that you were in the military. It has no bearing on the fact that largely these people are good people doing an extremely difficult job who you in your ignorance and cowardice have attempted futilely to paint as stupid, authoritarian, sadists. You have no decency.

If this were a court case, would you recuse yourself due to your personal bias?

No, as I have the objectivity to say that this cop (remember the topic we're supposed to be discussing?) is in the wrong, and just because this cop or even ten others did something wrong, that the thousands of others who day in and out patrol our streets and neighborhoods and look out for you and your home and your family, are not guilty by association.

If we painted an entire group based on the wrong actions of one individual, we'd be able to lump yourself together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh as another extremist anti-establishment nut-case continually running their mouths about how they're some uber-badass just because they possess a firearm. Fortunately, I have the lucidity not to lump you in together like that. I wish you had the same clear mind.

Didn't I say putting forth a mentality? Did I claim you said ANYTHING?

So I put forth a mentality that the police are "acting in our best intrests" at all times, in all deeds" by acknowledging in my first post in this thread that the police officer in this case was in the wrong? Misrepresentation or just plain wrong?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak There is no way he radared him. It's all on video. Did you see a radar gun used? I sure didn't. What I saw was a cop park in front of the 40MPH sign setting a speed trap and quickly pulling over the first guy that came by. Technically, the speed limit was still 60. The man wanted to know how fast he was clocked at and got NO ANSWER. Despite asking many many times "How fast was I going". Before and after he was tortured for his insolence. This is vital information if he wishes to take this matter to court. Imagine a cop pulling you over for running a stop sign and refusing to tell which stop sign he thinks you ran.

Two things.

First of all, they don't have to have a radar "gun" to run radar. Even my college town cops use mounted cylindric devices attached by Velcro that they can remove and adjust with ease.

Second, at least in Missouri, they don't have to tell the individual how fast they were going, but just have a reasonable conclusion that they were going too fast. Though in this area, we additionally have the "Too fast for conditions" citation, but that is a separate matter. Granted, I don't think this applies in this case since the officer was in the wrong. However, speaking generally, these two points apply.

The suspect can say anything he wants after being arrested and not Mirandized, and it cannot be used in court against him.

That's right.

You would think so, but then again you never know how you would act in a situation like that.

I actually kind of do. I participated in a live fire training thing with our SWAT team. They had us playing bad guys and random civilians. The first thing I did when all of the sudden there's a guy pointing a Glock19 at me was to stop and put my hands up. Of course that was when I was playing the civilian. When I was a "bad guy" I tried to take a shot. The differentiation is pretty important and somewhat typical.

This guy is just pleading his case, and a damn good one at that, and suddenly he's being threatened with what he thought was lethal force. Taking a defensive posture is natural in this circumstance if you ask me. Putting his hand in his pocket was stupid however. But I think he was just freaked out a little by this sudden jump in tempo.

Perhaps, though if he had any thought for the safety of his family he wouldn't be trying to antagonize things further. Was he in the right to do so? Yes. Was it smart? Hell no. If you think a cop isn't all together and willing to draw his weapon on you, it doesn't matter how right you are if you end up shot or tasered. Which, to an individual is just stupid, but when it comes to endangering your family, is damn low.

I would normally be the first guy to concur. If not for the egregious procedural violations committed by the officer. I have expended great effort in defending police in situations like this on this very discussion board. But I will not defend this cop for creating a volatile and potentially deadly situation.

I agree with you however, I'm taking this beyond blatant procedural and moral error on the cops part to say that if an individual is in a situation with a stressed or pissed off individual who has a weapon drawn at you, and you have family present, you resolve the matter as calmly as you can. You don't piss them off more. It doesn't matter if it's a cop or some random thug demanding your wallet. Sure he doesn't deserve or have a right to your wallet, but how terrible of a person do you have to be to endanger your wife and child nearby, just because you had to have a big ego and piss them off further.

I use this example (and another I used earlier) because I feel that the moment this cop got out of line, he was the equivalent of an armed thug.

I'd also like to point out the fact that this guy was laying on the road twitching. A busy road, as is apparent when you watch the full video I posted. He could have been run over and killed after being electrocuted over a simple traffic infraction that may not have even occurred.

Yes, I noticed that as well. There was nothing about the cops actions that were right.

He pulled his taser out of anger. This is obvious. He didn't reach for his cuffs. He reached for a tool meant to be implemented, as you just said, for use against a threatening or fleeing suspect. The guy walked calmly with the officer and didn't make any sudden moves. He spoke calmly and started gesturing to indicate his point about the traffic sign placement and this pig just hauls off IN ANGER and draws a weapon, screaming in a hostile manner. This was done out of anger, not necessity. Police ARE NOT supposed to react with anger. He sure acted like a rookie with no idea how to deal with people.

When I watch my brother handle people and situations like this on his beat, he is calm, respectful and courteous. Even when being shouted at and told to "F*ck off". This is why he has never had a video of himself posted on youtube. Because he does what police are supposed to do. Diffuse the situation and/or bring an argumentative person to reason. In my opinion the pig/officer in this case could have handled this the way I know my brother would have. When Massey said "I'm not signing this", the proper thing to do would be to assume this man doesn't know this could lead to arrest. He should have said "Sir, if you do not comply and sign this agreement to appear in court, I will issue you a citation for refusal to sign a traffic citation. If you still refuse to sign I will ask you to exit your vehicle and I WILL place you under arrest". It's that simple. Calm, respectful and making sure that Massey understands the importance of compliance. He did none of this. The pig was angry at the defiance toward the citation.

100% Agree.

[ruksak]

The key to understanding all this occurs between when Massey first says "I'm not signing anything", and the moment the taser was drawn.

To understand why the officer was guilty of a serious procedural violation, this must be broken down verbatim between these key moments I mentioned.

Officer; "You're going to sign this"

Massey; "I'm not signing anything"

Officer; "OK, hop out of the car"

*Massey exits his vehicle and walks calmly and non-evasively in compliance with the officer. The officer stops at the front of his vehicle, RIGHT NEXT TO A BUSY HIGHWAY. The man stops with the officer and begins pointing at the traffic sign in question, calmly gesturing with his hand. The officer pulls his taser AS he begins to shout "TURN AROUND AND PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK".

He never said ANYTHING about arresting this man. The man never had a chance to comply before he was threatened with what he thought was a gun. Deadly force because he didn't want to sign a ticket. Flat-out is what Massey saw. He mistakenly took a few steps away from the cop. But I understand his confusion and panic at the fact he was being threatened with deadly force over something so minor.

Tasers should not be pulled on a calm, non-evasive and compliant persons. Yet this is EXACTLY what happened. You don't pull a potentially deadly weapon as a first means to gain compliance. It is a procedural violation. HANDCUFFS first. If he refuses to comply, then you resort to the threat of less-than-lethal means.

Massey was 100% complaint, other than his refusal to get out an ink pen and sign a ticket. 100% compliance and he gets a potentially deadly weapon drawn on him. He had no chance to offer compliance further before being threatened with assault.

Perhaps, though if he had any thought for the safety of his family he wouldn't be trying to antagonize things further. Was he in the right to do so? Yes. Was it smart? Hell no. If you think a cop isn't all together and willing to draw his weapon on you, it doesn't matter how right you are if you end up shot or tasered. Which, to an individual is just stupid, but when it comes to endangering your family, is damn low.

I would say imagine yourself standing on the side of the road calmly discussing a ticket that is going to cost you about $100, and all of the sudden, without warning, he starts shouting at you that you are under arrest and he's pointing what you think to be a gun at you.

I would not have walked away and put my hand in my pocket. Dumb. That enabled this pig to electrocute him.

The real issue happened before hand. Why didn't he just say "You're under arrest" and get his cuffs out?

I know the answer; He was angry. That is bad policing.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: Does this mean that using your hands must now be labeled lethal force? Please.

Isn't that the case if you have defense training? Haven't the "courts ruled" that a person who has extensive training is "supposed" to be viewed as having hands that are "lethal weapons".

My point still stands. Deaths have occurred from many taser incidents, therefore it is a fallacy to say "tasers are non-lethal."

I think tasers have a place, that place being in the hands of those who refuse to own a gun, but refuse to be unarmed. I don't think police should be issued tasers unless they are held to the same measure as firearms in their usage.

Chaos said: Violate state laws? Maybe you slept through civics class but Federal law supersedes State law.

Maybe you slept through Constitution class, but there is such a thing as STATES RIGHTS, as there is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Chaos said: I didn't say there wasn't any influence, just that it's not to the level you allege.

All I am alledging is that theres much more federal control than most realize, and I am betting many wouldn't be comfortable with the level there was 10 years ago, let alone 10 years from now, on the current path its taking.

Chaos said: Then I suppose if those states feel so strongly against these laws, which I see no indication that they do, then they should reject the funding in regard to their principles.

In an ideal world where people had time for politics, the sense (education) to pay attention and where we all understood the depth at which government affects our daily lives, that would be the case. Those three things have been long controlled by the corporations and corrupted officials in the states and fed.

Chaos said: Fact is, this Orwellian picture you tried to paint of a federal government looming over everything state and local police do, just doesn't exist.

I didn't say everything, I said more than people realize.

Drugs laws are a prime example of where the state is a minor player of the choice to affect the laws that affect them. There are many other examples.

However, if you want to see some of that Orwellian picture solidified, here is a prime example which just aired last night on PBS.

Big Oil's Influence in Washington . NOW | PBS

Chaos said: Patently false and remarkably insulting.

Good, that means I achieved an equal response in you, to what your statements provoked in me.

Chaos said: In fact, most departments now require 4 year degrees, while not exactly a measure of intelligence is something less likely in people with your quote "lower scaled IQ".

Have you looked at the required and optional texts being issued? Can you say BIASED, and in many cases, Constitutionally questionable.

Two examples:
"Justice Administration: Police, Courts and Corrections Management"
4th addition. Kenneth J. Peak, University of Nevada, Reno.

"Criminal Investigation" Wayne W. Bennett, LL.B., Karen M. Hess, Ph.D.

I'm sorry, but I have little faith in what new and recent recruits are being taught.

Chaos said: If they are strangled by regulations that would imply they're not able to do anything, including your serial infringement of rights.

You could interpret it that way, but you would be wrong in my opinion.

Chaos said: No, I mean as someone who has been there, no it doesn't.

So, if this were a court case, you would have to recuse yourself?
Do you think this has a hint of bias?

I haven't directed anything toward you as far as personally attacking your character if you served, but I think that if I was a pipe-fitter and a discussion came out of how pipe-fitters handle a certain joint, I could,, as most people, be biased in my replies to that conversation. Are you saying thats not at all possible here?

You seem to think I am saying all police are bad, which I haven't, ever.

I respect police who respect individual rights and Constitutional protections, but don't respect those who abuse their power.

This asshat abused his power, blatantly.
Many who use tasers, have been abusing powers blatantly.

This isn't about a personal dislike I have for police men and women. This is about the nature of power, corruption and the slippery slope that always exists between the governed, and the governors, and those that serve them both.

Chaos said: Find a cure for ignorance then, because this is fairly straight forward.

Really? I thought I had an opinion too. And gosh, look, I have an argument too, as well as some supporting facts and evidence.

Gee, must not be so straightforward?

Chaos said: I criticize you, not for having an opinion, but for having one that is patently false and insulting to myself and those that I have worked with by questioning their integrity and desire to uphold the constitution.

Too bad, I have every right to question their understanding of the law, their "implied" duties, and their integrity. If you find that insulting, I really don't know what to tell you.

Chaos said: I don't care who you know or that you were in the military.

So why should I care who you know, or if you served? Seems as if you think respect is a one way street, going your way only.

Chaos said: It has no bearing on the fact that largely these people are good people doing an extremely difficult job who you in your ignorance and cowardice have attempted futilely to paint as stupid, authoritarian, sadists. You have no decency.

HA...

So now you think I am some type of cop hater?

Gee, no bias over there from your employment history, is there?

Chaos said: No, as I have the objectivity to say that this cop (remember the topic we're supposed to be discussing?) is in the wrong, and just because this cop or even ten others did something wrong, that the thousands of others who day in and out patrol our streets and neighborhoods and look out for you and your home and your family, are not guilty by association.

Where and when did I say that? Where and when did you assume I said that, by implication?

I simply stated that its natural to assume where there is power, there is likely abuse in a predictable percentage, based on factors and evidence that is available. Does that mean I am accusing some? Yes, but no finite percentage. Does that mean I am accusing them all? No.

I have dealt with, and known both types.

Chaos said: If we painted an entire group based on the wrong actions of one individual, we'd be able to lump yourself together with the likes of Timothy McVeigh as another extremist anti-establishment nut-case continually running their mouths about how they're some uber-badass just because they possess a firearm.

I am used to that, many already do that. Doesn't make them right, nor is that what I did.

No different than calling a person who is skeptical of the official story on 9-11 being called a conspiracy nut, a whackjob or a loon, is it?

Chaos said: Fortunately, I have the lucidity not to lump you in together like that. I wish you had the same clear mind.

Where have I lumped you or any ENTIRE group this way? Other than my elected representatives, and the use of the word sheeple, which is mostly in jest at the apathy of a large percentage of people, I try not to do much "lumping".

Chaos said: So I put forth a mentality that the police are "acting in our best intrests" at all times, in all deeds" by acknowledging in my first post in this thread that the police officer in this case was in the wrong?

No, you just often side with the policemen and legal agents in these debates, and often you and I bump heads on this same issue with authority figures, usually police.

Much like "some folks" who are in legal training take offense to lawyer comments.

Chaos said: Misrepresentation or just plain wrong?

In that reference, it would be wrong. I made a post, you took fault with it, and I quoted you and replied to you directly.

[Chaossaber314]

Osborn, how can you claim that you're not trying to generalize all police officers with comments like...

Quote by: Post #17 right now the people with integrity are being weeded out of the forces where corruption rules the system, and vice versa

Indicating that the ones who remain are lacking integrity and favor the police state and corruption.

Quote by: Post #24 And in most states, in order to be a cop you MUST have a lower scaled IQ.

And now we're stupid too.

Yeah, I'm the one with the bias. You know, except for the fact that I was one of the first people to acknowledge this cop was in the wrong and regardless of the issue you're the first one to condemn all cops with the claims demonstrated above.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Yeah, I'm the one with the bias. You know, except for the fact that I was one of the first people to acknowledge this cop was in the wrong and regardless of the issue you're the first one to condemn all cops with the claims demonstrated above.

This is what really bothers me about cases like this. Most cops don't do sh*t like this. But when one does, many people start to make sweeping generalizations.

I'll tell ya another thing most cops won't do. That is turn their back on someone that they're about to arrest, for so long as this idiot did. Judging by his angry reaction and over-assertion of force, he must have deemed Massey as a threat, right? So whats up with turning his back on a suspect he's about to arrest at taser point?

This is yet another egregious procedural violation seen here. As an officer, you never turn your back. EVER! I've watched my bro pull over countless dozens of people. And never will he turn his back. He walks back to his car sideways, almost backward, always watching the driver and occupants. Making sure they don't get out and pull a gun or start reaching for sh*t in their car.

I think this mistake was a Freudian slip of sorts. Indicating that he really didn't see Massey as a threat. Rather, as he walked back to his car about to draw his taser thinking "I'll show this as*hole who's calling the shots here".

This is bad policing. Just awful in so many ways. Yet we're expected to blame this guy for acting shocked when he's drawn down on at gunpoint?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: Indicating that the ones who remain are lacking integrity and favor the police state and corruption.

You have every right to disagree, which I don't fault you for if you do, but its not like I am saying something that isn't true in some areas.

Those areas that have a lot of corruption are getting worse, while those who are trying to fight it are having no problem finding places to fight it.

Overall, I think its hard to make the argument that individual rights haven't been being infringed more and more over the last 10 years, and lo and behold, who is at the frontlines of enforcing that infringement? Police. Who is at the front lines CREATING the process for that infringement? Politicians, almost exclusively republicans and democrats.

If you notice, I also said that the states and fed are expecting too much from police, in general. I feel thats obvious by simply looking at the laws they are asked to enforce, and the order of priorities assigned to them.

Chaos said: And now we're stupid too.

Do you deny that some police departments seek an IQ range?

Do you deny that some police departments have IQ targets they don't want to exceed, because they think its a liability on the job?

Ideas & Trends; Help Wanted Invoking the Not-Too-High-IQ Test - New York Times

Do you know of the wonderlic test?
Wonderlic Personnel Test: Measure cognitive ability.

Chaos said: Yeah, I'm the one with the bias. You know, except for the fact that I was one of the first people to acknowledge this cop was in the wrong and regardless of the issue you're the first one to condemn all cops with the claims demonstrated above.

If you think that, so be it.

I thought I made my point pretty clear, and hopefully the above clarifications will remove that opinion.

I have no disrespect or any problem with police who understand and uphold the rights of citizens. I respect the job, and the character it takes to serve in that job.

Regardless, I hope I have made my point, and didn't intend to "lump you in" to any group you shouldn't be lumped in with, as it was not my intention.

[shawmutt]

Hey guys, I'm a little late to this thread, but here's what a couple cop buddies of mine wrote about the issue:

The Policer Officer's problems: 1. He had a laxidasical attitude, which was evidenced by his casual approaches to, and departures from, the vehicle. 2. He seemed arrogant and had poor communication skills. The Driver's problems: 1. He was argumentative right from the start. 2. He refused to provide his driver's license upon request. 3. He refused to sign the ticket. 4. He refused to put his hands behind his back. 5. He resisted further verbally and by walking away. 6. He was reaching into his pocket while walking away. 7. He showed no signs of complying. Legally, the Officer did NOTHING wrong. The officer is required to advise the person that they are under arrest, unless the person is resisting. This guy was clearly resisting/ obstructing. The TASER was used in accordance with training. There was no abuse of it. The TASER is very low on the Use Of Force scale. Anyone who is actively resisting (this guy was) can legally be TASERed. The use of the TASER in this case prevented more serious injuries. Everyone agrees that this guy would have fought the officer had the officer attempted to grab him, right? The officer avoided a physical confrontation by using the TASER. Thats what its for. Also, a person does not have the right to be read their Rights upon demand or under every occasion. There is no requirement for a person to be read their Rights immediately after they are arrested. TV shows can be blamed for this. Miranda Rights apply to a person in custody AND subjected to questioning whether they are read to him or not. In this case, Miranda rights were not required to be read, as the guy was not being questioned. If the officer wanted to question the guy while he was in custody, Rights would have had to been advised AND waived. Basically, if there is no interrogation while the person is in custody, then there is no requirement for Rights to be read. This whole thing could have been avoided by the guy just signing his ticket and driving away. He could have contested the ticket in court. Just as the officer told him, the roadside is not the place to contest what happened. In Michigan, the driver is not required by law to sign their ticket. They are however, required to be "served" with it. If they refuse to physically accept it, they can be arrested for obstructing. I've had drivers over the years refuse to take their tickets, and I just place it on the dashboard in front of them and walk away. There's really no need to push a situation like that. Bottom line, the driver is going to lose in court.

When I became a police officer in 1988, the only weapon we had was our sidearm, a .38 Special revolver. So, anything short of a deadly force situation required us to grab people with our hands. There was nothing in between. We got into A LOT of fights and wrestling matches. Some were easy, some were not. We got injured, so did suspects. When in hands-on proximity to a suspect, having your gun grabbed is not only a fear, but a reality. I've seen numerous videos of officers who've had their guns grabbed, scary. Many prisoners train for this, there are videos of that as well. A few years later, my department issued nightsticks. I've used that weapon once. Not a very effective tool in my opinion. Too much risk for serious injury. Shortly after that, my department issued mace (pepper spray, OC, CS..). That was the best thing since the LT1 Caprice. I can't remember the number of times I have used it. Not a single injury resulted from the use of mace, and instances of fights and wrestling matches went down drastically. However, mace does not affect the central nervous system, just vision and breathing. The desired reaction is for the suspect's eyes to close from the burning sensation, and while he's dealing with his own pain, the officer has the opportunity to take him down. But it doesn't always take the fight out of the person. And it doesn't always affect just the suspect. Most times I've still had to follow-up with taking the suspect down, as they've still be able to punch, kick, spit, run. And when used indoors, normally everybody in that same room breathes the mace vapor. That's my short version on mace. Now the TASER. I've only had it since this summer. It's biggest advantage over all other weapons is that, given a two-prong hit, will incapacitate the suspect immediately (in most cases). This will give the officer the opportunity to close in on the suspect and apply restraints. The biggest risk in using the TASER is on a standing suspect, who will fall the the ground and probably sustain some type of injury. But I've foot chased people who have run into things and also tripped over their own feet and gone face first into the dirt or pavement. Back to the TASER, the problem I see in a lot of the videos on youtube is that multiple officers will stand there while the suspect gets zapped repeatedly. I was trained to restrain the suspect WHILE the TASER was delivering the jolt, not after its done. The only thing that the officer has to worry about at that time is coming into contact with both wires, then he can be incapacitated as well. I do not agree with multiple officers standing around while one officer delivers multiple zaps to a person who is simply rolling around on the ground. With use of force come risk of injury. I've never caused injury to someone who was cooperative. Police work is risky business.

I think the misunderstanding is that nowadays cops are NOT trained to wrestle. I for one do not like scrumming about with some idiot who at a moments notice could go for anything on my belt.... You want to see a situation escalate? Grab a baton or OC from an officer.... and be prepared for deadly force response. Sure we get DT training.. takedowns, blocks, parrys, etc. But those are just some of the tools. As police- we are authorized to meet force with force. You stand idle and do nothing, I can apply hand control techniques and pressure points. You resist, and I can do arm-bar takedowns and other moves. You swing, expect to be sprayed or batoned or shocked. There are two types of resistance- active and passive. Passive is sitting in the middle of the road, ignoring everything, not moving. (like a protester) Active is walking away, putting your hand in your pockets, tensings, pulling away, swinging, hitting, kicking, biting, etc etc. Ask yourself this- what would have happened if the officer ran up and went hands on to the guy, when his hand was in the pocket. What if that guy pulled out a knife or gun? The officer is at a disadvantage- hands on on the bad guy, and the bad guy has a weapon out. Sheep will attest to this- I go home every night, and will never put myself in that situation. In our world of debate and controversy, there is no room for such tactics on the roadside. Like Sheepdog has said, if he had complied, there would have been no issue. Take it up at the court house. Now- if it had been me, and he had refused my orders to stop or turn around, he would have been sprayed... since we don't have tasers. I have no idea what he or his wife had for weapons in the car. What if he was returning to get one?

And a follow up of how exactly the video got on youtube:

Deseret Morning News | Taser victim says UHP is 'stonewalling'