"The man, Bruce Harper, was pulled over for having a crooked front license plate. Whether this is in violation of some Utah regulation is unknown, but let's assume, arguendo, that it's a heinous vehicle infraction.By the glory of the dash cam, we see what follows.

There is an obvious reaction, that had Bruce Harper merely done as he was ordered, what followed never would have happened. It's likely correct. The officers weren't on the road looking for people to taser. They weren't looking to make Bruce Harper's life miserable. If only he had been compliant."

From: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/06/19/the-first-rule-of-policing-a-demonstration.aspx



"Maybe you recall this story, a Utah man was pulled over by the City of Bountiful, Utah police. He got out of his car, unarmed, hands at his sides and implored the police officer to tell him why he was stopped. The cops deployed the TASER on him, mmmmmmmm . . . 8 or 9 or maybe 10 times.
The City of Bountiful is paying,. Hey, that means you, taxpayers. Congratulations."

From: http://badlawyernyc.blogspot.com/2011/06/bountiful-city-pays-man-repeatedly.html


And here's the local news account: http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story/EXCLUSIVE-Bountiful-City-settles-taser-lawsuit/KQEAenKQS02dTF8Q9DTQ3w.cspx

posted by blankfist 2 years 10 months ago • 8,077 views • 4:49
blankfist says...

Cliffs Notes version: Unarmed man refused to comply when the officer wouldn't tell him why he was stopped. Man was tasered 6 times. Man sues police. The city settles.

siftbot says...

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 9:38am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Januari says...

I swear i've heard this one before...

Why take the time to learn and develop quality police officers and effective people skills when you can just light someone up with a taser... again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and...

>> ^blankfist:

Cliffs Notes version: Unarmed man refused to comply when the officer wouldn't tell him why he was stopped. Man was tasered 6 times. Man sues police. The city settles.

JiggaJonson says...

I've been pretty anti-establishment watching these types of videos lately; but in this case, I felt myself empathizing with the cop more than with the driver.

Who gets out of their car and and does a "representin'" pose when they are being pulled over?

ghark says...

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I've been pretty anti-establishment watching these types of videos lately; but in this case, I felt myself empathizing with the cop more than with the driver.
Who gets out of their car and and does a "representin'" pose when they are being pulled over?


At first I thought the same, but honestly, it wasn't too bad, and he was clearly trying to communicate with the cop, who had ample opportunity to simply talk with the guy and answer his questions.

DarkenRahl says...

Communication is key to law enforcement. This guy thinks he's supposed to put the "force" in enforcement. He needs to go back to training school.

EmptyFriend says...

>> ^ghark:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I've been pretty anti-establishment watching these types of videos lately; but in this case, I felt myself empathizing with the cop more than with the driver.
Who gets out of their car and and does a "representin'" pose when they are being pulled over?

At first I thought the same, but honestly, it wasn't too bad, and he was clearly trying to communicate with the cop, who had ample opportunity to simply talk with the guy and answer his questions.


I think you're both right. The guy in the car (maybe with out realizing it) is acting/looking a little aggressive... keeps getting closer, appears angry, etc.

Meanwhile, if the cop had just said "I was pulling you over because your license plate was crooked." The guy might have calmed down.

residue says...

sorry, I reserve sympathy for people who aren't idiots. This isn't unusual, find any situation where the driver gets out of their car and starts coming at the police and they are going to get attacked, and with good reason. I'd say most of the time a driver leaves his car and comes at an officer, he isn't intending to just talk to them.

However, the cop definitely should have reasoned with him once he was in a proper position to defend himself instead of just yelling at him

JiggaJonson says...

>> ^ghark:

At first I thought the same, but honestly, it wasn't too bad, and he was clearly trying to communicate with the cop, who had ample opportunity to simply talk with the guy and answer his questions.
I don't think it's the cop's responsibility to try to find an opportunity to talk out the legality of what's happening in the moment. I think it's their responsibility to maintain control of the situation; which is what this cop seemed to be trying to do.



Also, the reason I didn't like the actions of law enforcement in so many of the other videos I've seen here where they are needlessly breaking down doors in the middle of the night only to find an understandably shaken man carrying a weapon, is because they didn't seem in control of the situation. This situation the police did give plenty of warning to what appeared to be a semi-aggressive man and IMHO he got what was coming to him.

schlub says...

Who the hell GETS OUT OF THEIR CAR when pulled over by the police!? He must've been told to turn around 50 times and he refused to comply. That idiot got what was coming to him.

Psychologic says...

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^Psychologic:
I'm wondering if the driver did anything illegal here. Is there a legal penalty for not getting back in the car?

I'm no law expert but perhaps failure to comply with a lawful order applies here?


What constitutes a lawful order?

This case makes me wonder how much a citizen has to "bend of and take it" from a cop, so to speak. Obviously being less that completely submissive could piss the cop off, but that isn't illegal.

I wonder how the cop would have reacted if the guy stood in one place with his hands on his head but refused to turn around and kept asking why he was pulled. Would that be within the driver's rights?

Mammaltron says...

Lawful orders are ones which would not in themselves be illegal. However I don't know whether a cop in the US could make you put on a silly hat, or sing him a tune for example. In my country the term 'lawful and reasonable order' is used.

Whatever, if you're going to disobey you better know the section and paragraph of the law you're talking about. And don't approach him with your hands in your pockets.


>> ^Psychologic:
What constitutes a lawful order?
This case makes me wonder how much a citizen has to "bend of and take it" from a cop, so to speak. Obviously being less that completely submissive could piss the cop off, but that isn't illegal.
I wonder how the cop would have reacted if the guy stood in one place with his hands on his head but refused to turn around and kept asking why he was pulled. Would that be within the driver's rights?

NetRunner says...

From one of the links in the description:

A traffic stop is viewed by police officers as a potentially life threatening situation, regardless of the impetus for the stop. The cop doesn't know whether the driver of the car stopped for some trivial reason is the nicest guy in town or a mass murderer. He is not about to take any chances finding out.

To the officer, the "threat" initiates with the refusal to comply with commands. There are some basic rules of a safe encounter, that the driver remain in the vehicle with his hands where they can be seen. No, the officer has no reason to believe he has a gun or the inclination to use one, but he's not willing to take any chances finding out.

When the driver alights from the vehicle, the cop immediately feels threatened. When the driver refuses to comply with commands, the sense of threat is elevated. When the driver argues, the threat reaches an untenable position.

Seems like the real problem was what happened at the very end.

I get that it was a tense situation, but from the video and reporting, once they had him subdued they kicked his ass. That wasn't necessary, and constituted excessive force.

They then got sued for exactly that, and wound up settling out of court over it.

Isn't this the way things are supposed to work?

possom says...

Seems the officer was trained very well. He continues to repeat the same commands for 4 minutes. That is true discipline. Only when backup has arrived does he alter his strategy.

Still, He should have explained that he was perceiving a threat at the moment, and until he felt that threat has been controlled, he may have to escalate the force of the situation, but he probably was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.

Had the guy not had his hand in his pocket in the beginning this likely never would have escalated. Being just a civilian, I'd be very close to drawing on someone behaving this way to me.

Porksandwich says...

Only "questionable" thing in this video is you can't see what is happening to him behind the car. And it sounds like he's getting tased because he won't let them handcuff him. Whether that's because he CAN'T comply because of the shock or WASN'T complying is up for debate. If it had been on camera we could have seen for ourselves if they were doing anything beyond trying to get him cuffed (punching, kicking, shocking him for shits and giggles).

But that dude earned himself a tasing by the full 3-4 minutes or so he was asked to comply and kept inching closer and closer to the cop car. Plus putting his hands in or near his pockets and repeatedly returning to that stance......

Maybe the cop pulled him over for a crooked license plate to warn him that it looked like it was falling off. Not having a license plate on your car is a bigger problem. Dude in car escalated situation like he had something to prove or hide.

I can see him getting medical bills and legal expenses repaid to make his case, but the guy brought so much of that on himself it seems wrong to pay him anything as it might teach him a lesson he might not have learned at the end of the taser.

gwiz665 says...

Utter nonsense. He didn't implore anything, he demanded and refused to comply with the policeman's instructions. Threatening behavior, refuse to comply with lawful orders. Put your hands on the car, then ask what you're pulled over for. better yet, stay in your fucking car until the cop comes up to you.

This douche cost his city a bunch of money.

"Maybe you recall this story, a Utah man was pulled over by the City of Bountiful, Utah police. He got out of his car, unarmed, hands at his sides and implored the police officer to tell him why he was stopped. The cops deployed the TASER on him, mmmmmmmm . . . 8 or 9 or maybe 10 times.
The City of Bountiful is paying,. Hey, that means you, taxpayers. Congratulations."

blankfist says...

@NetRunner, screw the settlement. I'd prefer a tit-for-tat settlement where a couple of my buddies and me get to taze the officers repeatedly and pummel the shit out of them.

That was a joke. But would certainly be more fair in some respects than robbing the taxpayers every time a cop uses excessive force.

shponglefan says...

Seems like blame on both sides here. On the one hand, the guy should have just gotten back in the car, but instead decided to blatantly disregard the officer's instructions thus creating the somewhat hostile impression.

OTOH, if the officer had just said "I pulled you over because you had a crooked license plate, now can you please get in your car", instead of shouting the instruction over and over, maybe the guy would have complied and this whole tazing could have been avoided.

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'utah, police, bruce harper, taser' to 'utah, police, bruce harper, taser, turn around, put your hands on your head' - edited by SlipperyPete

quantumushroom says...

Bell curve aside, there seems to be a whole generation of idiots with zero respect for lawful authority and an inbred incapability to obey simple instructions, as if these traffic stops are the first time in their entire lives they've been told 'NO' or someone has asked them more than once to comply. Help! My self-esteem has been violated!

Another theory is these a-holes are looking for a payout from the city. They know that--right-or-wrong--they'll get one if they look like big enough victims.

In this scenario, you have an ignoramus wearing a giant pullover which could conceal any number of weapons, and a hatchback where anyone could be hiding with a firearm just under the back window.

Iggy should be billed by the city for the electricity and Taser cartridges for the exact amount of shyster "damages".

Hive13 says...

I love how he got out of the car and acted like a tough-guy douche but cried like a little bitch when he got tasered.

I am all for getting police excesses and abuse under control, but I think the cop in this case handled it amazingly well. I would have tasered him after about 30 seconds of that confrontation.

I got pulled over for having my license plate falling off a few years ago. I stayed seated, waited for the cop to come to my window and he explained that my plate was falling off. He then proceeded to get a screwdriver out of his car and FIX IT FOR ME while I stood by and watched. I guess that beats acting like a fucking douche and getting tased.

blankfist says...

>> ^gwiz665:

Utter nonsense. He didn't implore anything, he demanded and refused to comply with the policeman's instructions. Threatening behavior, refuse to comply with lawful orders. Put your hands on the car, then ask what you're pulled over for. better yet, stay in your fucking car until the cop comes up to you.
This douche cost his city a bunch of money.


I'd like to dig a bit further into some of these reactions. There were three moderately sized officers on the scene pointing weapons at a presumedly unarmed man. I agree that common sense should've told him to stay in the car, and certainly to comply with their orders if he wanted to get to where he was going that night.

But then again the same can be said for those who refuse to go through the porno scanners or be molested at the TSA checkpoints. Common sense says comply if you want to get to where you were going. But does it make it right?

I see two things happening simultaneously in this video. 1. The man wanted to know why he was stopped. 2. The officer reacted as if this man was a threat. I feel both are reasonable responses. The man did eventually comply with the officer's instructions until he was ordered on his knees.

Let's put this into perspective: he was stopped for a crooked license plate on the front of his car. It's important to consider why he was pulled over. Not for a felony, but what's probably an infraction. Is the crooked license a threat of any kind? A danger? What's the purpose of the stop?

When the man asked why he was stopped, and he had his hands out of his pockets, and the officer had his taser sights locked onto the man, at that point I feel it's reasonable to assume a simple explanation isn't too much to ask for. "Why was I pulled over?" "Your front license is crooked. If you'd return to your vehicle, I'll be over to discuss with you further and you can be on your way."

Another thing to note, statistically most female police officers don't have situations like this escalate further. I think it has to do with their approach. And I wonder if they're set on defusing situations while male officers want compliance.

Drax says...

You don't open up a dialogue when you have to conecentrate on possibly defending yourself in a split-second. First, it distracts you somewhat because you're no longer completely focused on deciding if you have to pull a trigger before the other person does. Second, it's more likely to lead to things like, "Oh, you have a problem with my license plate? What kind of BS is that?".. in other words, the person's already clearly not complying with anything thus far. And remember he could be on something, or his wife just left him, or whatever else that would make him more unreasanable to deal with. Explaining things is just going to give them more ammunition to dig deeper into "Why did you pull me over?". First thing should be to get the situation under control (for both partie's sakes).

The dubious part here on the cop's part is what happens after he's tazed. It *sounds* like they're struggling to get him cuffed. If he was actually fighting them then I feel bad for the cop. That must be incredibly frustrating since, as far as I can tell, he was handling things very professionaly up to that point.

edit- @blankfist The other officer's weren't on the scene until just before he was tasered. That's why the cop doesn't do anything else other than shout for him to turn around up to that point. He has his gun drawn, and he can't risk swapping it for his taser.. the cop could get shot in that moment.

No, I don't think anything unreasanable happened on the cop's side up to the point where he was tasered. And even on review, I didn't see the appearance of anyone physicaly beating him (but I can't say 100%), and they seem to get him cuffed in about 30 seconds.

If you have half a brain you realize that cops put their own lives on the line simply because they DO carry guns, and have the authority to use them. That escalates any potential situation into life or death, the cop never knows which stop is going to be the one where they get a gun pointed back at them. That's why a reasonable person should comply with reasonable requests by a cop.. there's a, for lack of a better word, reason for them.

chilaxe says...

@Psychologic

I'd say many liberals and libertarians have weird neurogenetics that make their brains tell them that disputes with law enforcement should be irrationally settled at the time (get tasered) instead of after the fact (go home fine).

MrFisk says...

How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.

chilaxe says...

@ObsidianStorm

If he's acting aggressively and erratically, it doesn't matter that he showed his hands.

It takes less than a second to take out and use a concealed weapon, and people who get stabbed (or likewise get shot or get a knife thrown at them) often never even saw a knife... they just realize that the place they got 'punched' is actually a knife wound.

(But officers should be trained better to diffuse situations.)

marbles says...

"Crooked license plate" is one of those bullshit excuses police make up to pull "suspicious" people over. And considering it was the front license plate here, it's rather convenient since the plate is not visible by the camera.

I don't see a problem with the police hitting the guy with taser in this situation. But... I dunno I think maybe if the police weren't trained to be authoritative thugs then the standoff would've been quickly resolved with little to no conflict. And if there wasn't a war on drugs, this guy would've probably never been pulled over to begin with.

I would be curious to see the police report and see if they found anything after searching his car.

smooman says...

tasered 6 times for having a crooked license? thats not a misleading title at all!

what i saw was a dude get tasered 6 times for being a jackass

excuse me if i cant sympathize with a man who is practically begging for it

NetRunner says...

>> ^chilaxe:


I'd say many liberals and libertarians have weird neurogenetics that make their brains tell them disputes with law enforcement should be irrationally settled at the time (get tasered) instead of after the fact (go home fine).


I dunno, it seems like the case study in "weird neurogenetics" would be the people who refuse to put their hands on their head when a cop has a gun pointed at them.

Also, while it's always fun to imply that people with different political opinions from you are suffering from some physical brain abnormality, I don't think there's really any liberals or libertarians here who wanted the "dispute" was "settled" with tasers instead of "after the fact". It seems to me like the guy at the stop wanted it settled right then and there to his satisfaction before he would comply to simple things like "get back in your car", much less "appear in court on this date".

VoodooV says...

I'm sorry, but I can't side with either side on this one. It's a battle of two guys being pricks.

The civvy had no reason to get out of the car. Everyone knows you're supposed to stay in your car if a cop pulls you over. While he wasn't actively being aggressive, he was still essentially flipping the cop off, the way he was acting.

On the other hand, the cop KNOWS he just pulled this guy over for a fucking crooked license plate, the likelyhood of the guy having a weapon was low at best, even though the civvy was being a douchebag by getting out and not complying with the cop's requests, he still could have resolved this without resorting to the taser

handmethekeysyou says...

In the driver's defense, Simon didn't say turn around and put your hands on your head.

Sorry if this joke was made already. No way am I reading all those comments.

handmethekeysyou says...

Asking "what did I do?" is not "begging for it."

I understand why the cop got upset immediately. Guy got out of his car and started walking toward the officer with a hand in his pocket. Totally reasonable to react strongly to that. But by the 50th time when the cop told him to turn around and the guy was just asking what it was about, you'd think the cop would realize the guy isn't a threat.

Just answer the question, "what's this about?" And if you're not going to answer the question, say, "we'll discuss that in a minute, but for now just turn around and put your hands on your head." I'd say, "I pulled you over because of your license plate, but you started out acting like a threat. If you turn around and put your hands on your head, I assure you we'll walk away from this without a ticket or a problem." If the cop can't be expected to be the voice of reason, he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

This was literally (rewatch it, precisely) three minutes of the cop saying "turn around and put your hands on your head" with smatterings of "do it now" and nothing else. That's not communication. That's ordering and tasering when your orders are not met. That's not law enforcement.>> ^smooman:

tasered 6 times for having a crooked license? thats not a misleading title at all!
what i saw was a dude get tasered 6 times for being a jackass
excuse me if i cant sympathize with a man who is practically begging for it

shuac says...

Fuck that kid and his lawsuit should be filed up his ass.

Mistake #1: He immediately got out of the car with a hand in his pocket

If you do this, then you should not feign surprise that you're being yelled at. Cops are far less interested in talking to you than you might expect when you immediately get out of your car with a hand in your pocket. MUCH less interested than you think. They are more interested in getting control of a possibly hostile situation. There are far too many situations of cops being shot because they failed to gain control (** see below). If this is something you cannot understand, then stop reading this post and go out and get some more life experience. Armchair judging is fun and everything and it's shocking how little effort it takes, believe me...I understand the impulse.

Mistake #2: He failed to follow the cop's orders after being told dozens and dozens of fucking times.

Again, if this is something you feel is okie-dokie, then have at it, Hoss. Just don't get all litigious and expect any support from me (not that that's the gold standard or anything). The cop is under NO OBLIGATION to talk to the perp in such a situation. The kid forfeited the right to talk about why he was pulled over the instant he exited his vehicle with his hand in his pocket. And if you don't understand how hostile it is for someone to ignore a cop's repeated commands like this, then you are a fucking moron. I'm afraid it's that simple.

**
http://youtu.be/qoI4G1fWmEQ
http://youtu.be/rgXQK3NfRY4
http://youtu.be/2sxwvkVzhyA
http://youtu.be/MEpUtoUzE4U

So to sum up: this kid deserved to be tasered and I'm glad he was.

rgnjc says...

Officer acted completely appropriate pulling him over and feeling threatened with this man approaching him.

However, by the end of the video, both parties acted inappropriately.

NordlichReiter says...

Cop should have gone 10-78 and then deployed a tazer, once, after he should have realized that the guy did not pose serious bodily harm. But no, he pulled his gun, which in my mind is much worse than the tazing at the end.

I was always under the impression that the officer should issue a lawful order to drop a weapon before using lethal force; Which means a perpetrator must present lethal force before an officer can lawfully use lethal force. The force continuum etc etc. I guess that has changed they go straight to lethal force. Some jackass getting out of a car being upset isn't life threatening.

Furthermore the excuse that it's dangerous, is a cop out, they know what they're getting into when they put on that badge, and gun. If they don't then they shouldn't be police officers. Using fear as an excuse to make rash decisions is dangerous, it endangers the lives of fellow officers and the public.

http://www.policetest.info/FORCE_CONTINUUM_POLICE_USE_OF_FORCE.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

Furthermost, just because they're cops doesn't ever mean they should be given leniency in any case, no matter how right they were to use force. They police the people and as such should be held to the highest standard of justice, which is clearly not the case in the United States, citation? Heh, take a look the failed war on drugs.

maestro156 says...

Here's that study you wanted

Assuming a mid-range estimate of 120m stops per year, the likelihood of the cop being killed in a traffic stop is 1 in 20 million.

Your chances of being attacked by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million, according to the University of Florida’s International Shark Attack File. Lightning strikes are a bit more common even than that.

>> ^MrFisk:

How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.

MarineGunrock says...

To presume anyone is unarmed is a quick way to die when you're a police officer. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
Utter nonsense. He didn't implore anything, he demanded and refused to comply with the policeman's instructions. Threatening behavior, refuse to comply with lawful orders. Put your hands on the car, then ask what you're pulled over for. better yet, stay in your fucking car until the cop comes up to you.
This douche cost his city a bunch of money.

I'd like to dig a bit further into some of these reactions. There were three moderately sized officers on the scene pointing weapons at a presumedly unarmed man. I agree that common sense should've told him to stay in the car, and certainly to comply with their orders if he wanted to get to where he was going that night.
But then again the same can be said for those who refuse to go through the porno scanners or be molested at the TSA checkpoints. Common sense says comply if you want to get to where you were going. But does it make it right?
I see two things happening simultaneously in this video. 1. The man wanted to know why he was stopped. 2. The officer reacted as if this man was a threat. I feel both are reasonable responses. The man did eventually comply with the officer's instructions until he was ordered on his knees.
Let's put this into perspective: he was stopped for a crooked license plate on the front of his car. It's important to consider why he was pulled over. Not for a felony, but what's probably an infraction. Is the crooked license a threat of any kind? A danger? What's the purpose of the stop?
When the man asked why he was stopped, and he had his hands out of his pockets, and the officer had his taser sights locked onto the man, at that point I feel it's reasonable to assume a simple explanation isn't too much to ask for. "Why was I pulled over?" "Your front license is crooked. If you'd return to your vehicle, I'll be over to discuss with you further and you can be on your way."
Another thing to note, statistically most female police officers don't have situations like this escalate further. I think it has to do with their approach. And I wonder if they're set on defusing situations while male officers want compliance.

draak13 says...

I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.

I *dare* anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will *still* hate the officer for what they did.

Drax says...

>> ^maestro156:

Here's that study you wanted
Assuming a mid-range estimate of 120m stops per year, the likelihood of the cop being killed in a traffic stop is 1 in 20 million.
Your chances of being attacked by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million, according to the University of Florida’s International Shark Attack File. Lightning strikes are a bit more common even than that.
>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.



An interesting correlation to add (and there might not be any info on this) is to add how many traffic stops resulted in an arrest for something AND there was a weapon in the car. Any such case is a potential shoot out that didn't occur (well, except for when a shoot out occured).

Exclude Texas though, because there's pretty much guns laying out on street corners. "Timmy put that pistol down, you don't know where it's been!".

bareboards2 says...

I thought almost every viewpoint while watching this vid. The only thing I have to add is:

1. The guy was standing there facing a police officer with a pistol drawn on him. For three minutes. Facing a PISTOL BARREL. And he would rather argue than follow simple directions.

I think that is why the cop was stayed so tweaked -- that is completely irrational behavior and every moment shouted "alarm alarm."

2. Now we need a link to a study on how difficult it is to regain rationality after a flood of adrenaline and testosterone -- because the cop was wired on both substances. He was locked and loaded and was doing his training.

3. There is further proof that we aren't in a police state, blankie. This guy wasn't afraid of getting shot. He knew he wouldn't get shot. Can you imagine behaving that way to an SS officer or a brownshirt in Nazi Germany? No way.

JiggaJonson says...

>> ^draak13:
I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.
Are you ignoring the dozen or more posters in THIS VERY VIDEO who stood up for what the cop did and said he was justified (including myself)?

Or is this just a case of TLDNR?

Drax says...

@JiggaJonson he's clearly not addressing everyone (???)

"Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one.."

He's reinforcing that even critics of cops are siding on the cop in this case, and yet there's still those who are siding with the other guy. He's only addressing them.

peggedbea says...

meh, yeah... sometimes we're called anti-authoritarians... it's not cop-hate on a personal level... it's cop-hate as an ideological platform. google that shit.

was the dude a dumbshit for getting out of his car? you bet.
do i still dislike police and find this traffic stop/ the societal punishment paradigm we exist in abhorrent? you bet.
do i hate the culture that constructs these kinds of scenarios? absolutely.

>> ^draak13:

I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.

draak13 says...

Only a little bit TLDNR...more than half of the posts here seem to sympathize with the cop more than the civilian, but I was commenting that the minority in this debate isn't very minor.

I'm frustrated that I have friends in real life who all have some chip on their shoulder about police officers...even when a police officer has done nothing unprofessional to them. I'm just seeing that people everywhere are the same, I suppose =P.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^draak13:
I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.
Are you ignoring the dozen or more posters in THIS VERY VIDEO who stood up for what the cop did and said he was justified (including myself)?
Or is this just a case of TLDNR?

MarineGunrock says...

Maybe you missed the earlier comment where @Hive13 was pulled over for a crooked plate. Maybe all the cop wanted to do was fix the plate for the guy before he lost it and would have to incur a replacement fee. Maybe he was pulling him over as a simple personal courtesy to say that, much as I would tell someone at a stop light. The difference is that the cop has the benefit of the lights to get they guy's attention.>> ^peggedbea:

meh, yeah... sometimes we're called anti-authoritarians... it's not cop-hate on a personal level... it's cop-hate as an ideological platform. google that shit.
was the dude a dumbshit for getting out of his car? you bet.
do i still dislike police and find this traffic stop/ the societal punishment paradigm we exist in abhorrent? you bet.
do i hate the culture that constructs these kinds of scenarios? absolutely.
>> ^draak13:
I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.


draak13 says...

Haha! Thanks; you made my day =). I think that's what I needed to see. I finally get it now.

Cheers!

>> ^peggedbea:

meh, yeah... sometimes we're called anti-authoritarians... it's not cop-hate on a personal level... it's cop-hate as an ideological platform. google that shit.
was the dude a dumbshit for getting out of his car? you bet.
do i still dislike police and find this traffic stop/ the societal punishment paradigm we exist in abhorrent? you bet.
do i hate the culture that constructs these kinds of scenarios? absolutely.

peggedbea says...

like i said, the cop-hate isn't personal. and it's not even really about this particular event. i know some cops personally, i don't hate them at all.
it's a societal paradigm that makes these things possible.
sure, that dude's unstable and a jackass. he handled it totally wrong. but cop lights = punishment in the modern pysche. living in a punishment/coercion paradigm make us all a little sick in the head. do you NOT get a sick feeling in your stomache whenever you see a cop flash his lights at you?

edit: the "quote" function broke so... @MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock says...

@peggedbea: If by "sick" you mean that "stomach is falling" or "nauseous" feeling, then yes. If you meant the "I'm sick of eating these leftovers for the 5th day in a row" sick, then no. You are absolutely right in that red+blue strobes = FML, though.

smooman says...

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Asking "what did I do?" is not "begging for it."
I understand why the cop got upset immediately. Guy got out of his car and started walking toward the officer with a hand in his pocket. Totally reasonable to react strongly to that. But by the 50th time when the cop told him to turn around and the guy was just asking what it was about, you'd think the cop would realize the guy isn't a threat.
Just answer the question, "what's this about?" And if you're not going to answer the question, say, "we'll discuss that in a minute, but for now just turn around and put your hands on your head." I'd say, "I pulled you over because of your license plate, but you started out acting like a threat. If you turn around and put your hands on your head, I assure you we'll walk away from this without a ticket or a problem." If the cop can't be expected to be the voice of reason, he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
This was literally (rewatch it, precisely) three minutes of the cop saying "turn around and put your hands on your head" with smatterings of "do it now" and nothing else. That's not communication. That's ordering and tasering when your orders are not met. That's not law enforcement.>> ^smooman:
tasered 6 times for having a crooked license? thats not a misleading title at all!
what i saw was a dude get tasered 6 times for being a jackass
excuse me if i cant sympathize with a man who is practically begging for it



asking, no, demanding "what did i do?" is most assuredly "begging for it" given it's context.

You certainly have a strange reasoning in assuming a man who is utterly uncooperative, suspicious, erratic, and at times irate, is somehow not a perceivable threat.

"just answer the question"? jesus titty fucking christ do some people just have an abject lack of respect for judicial process? i'll let you be the one to leap out of your car on your next traffic stop and act surprised at the rate of escalation. Ya, the "voice of reason" certainly was working with the offender wasnt it? Guy gets pulled over, guy immediately gets out of car and approaches officer, guy is sternly and directly instructed to back the fuck up and at gunpoint even, guy refuses......ya thats a reasonable man right there

the only reason it was three minutes of "turn around and put your hands on your head" is because for three fucking minutes that asshat was overtly defiant and wholly uncooperative.

you know i hated authority too....then i graduated fucking high school

smooman says...

ps: having been tased before (among other things) it definitely doesnt tickle, but given the reaction of the man in the video he either has an embarrassingly low pain threshold or is being wildly dramatic

my money is on the latter

MarineGunrock says...

I laughed SO hard when that bitch started screaming. Way to go from "super-ultra tough guy" to little bitch in .02 seconds. I've been hit with that same taser and you're right. It's not just a flinching pain but it's certainly not the agony this punk is acting like it is.


>> ^smooman:

ps: having been tased before (among other things) it definitely doesnt tickle, but given the reaction of the man in the video he either has an embarrassingly low pain threshold or is being wildly dramatic

blankfist says...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

To presume anyone is unarmed is a quick way to die when you're a police officer.


It seems like if we're going to make police officers so scared of the people in our rhetoric, then we need to just follow Europe's rule and get rid of the 2nd Amendment. You game for that?

MarineGunrock says...

Oh, come now, @blankfist. You of all people should CHERISH the 2nd Amendment. After all, it was written expressly for the reasons you hold your personal views: to protect the people from a government saturated with power and attempting to enact complete control over its people.


Also, do you honestly believe that if we banned all guns, that criminals would no longer have them? By definition, they'd be the ONLY people to have them. Herion is illegal, but people still posses it. Larceny is illegal but people still do it. Murder is illegal but people still do it. This could go on, ad nauseum.

blankfist says...

@MarineGunrock, obviously I'm playing devil's advocate. I just want to drill in the point that fear of the people having guns isn't a reason for cops (or civilians) to act poorly. This kind of thing is the EXACT reason why so many want to regulate away your right to own a firearm.

ForgedReality says...

His first mistake was getting out of the car like a fucking idiot.

His second mistake was not fucking listening.

Cops have a duty to not only protect citizens, but themselves. This guy had FAR more than ample warning. Being an indignant fuck doesn't make you a hero, or some kind of righteous warrior. It just makes you a goddamned idiot.

MaxWilder says...

I don't know why, but I read the comments before watching the video.

I don't see how anybody can defend the driver. Clearly he was either on drugs or has a mental disorder. He showed absolutely no respect for the cop, which is understandable. Lots of people hate cops, always have. What is NOT understandable is how he showed absolutely no fear of a man pointing a gun and shouting at him. That is not normal. I'm not using hyperbole when I say that the guy might be a psychopath. He recognizes that the guy with the gun might hurt him, but it doesn't trigger the fear response.

A normal person might accidentally get out of the car due to lack of experience with police procedure, but once they saw the gun drawn they would have trouble not soiling themselves. A normal person falls over themselves to comply when a gun is pointed at them.

So you have here either 1) a man on drugs, 2) a psychopath, or 3) a criminal who is so hardened that they no longer react normally to the immediate threat of deadly force. Possible all three.

And some of you have the balls to say he isn't presenting a threat to the officer? That's bullshit.

chilaxe says...

If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:

I'd say many liberals and libertarians have weird neurogenetics that make their brains tell them disputes with law enforcement should be irrationally settled at the time (get tasered) instead of after the fact (go home fine).

I dunno, it seems like the case study in "weird neurogenetics" would be the people who refuse to put their hands on their head when a cop has a gun pointed at them.
Also, while it's always fun to imply that people with different political opinions from you are suffering from some physical brain abnormality, I don't think there's really any liberals or libertarians here who wanted the "dispute" was "settled" with tasers instead of "after the fact". It seems to me like the guy at the stop wanted it settled right then and there to his satisfaction before he would comply to simple things like "get back in your car", much less "appear in court on this date".

CreamK says...

The cop didn't want to do anything the guy said in fear of losing his authority. He made up his mind and wouldn't back down, no matter what the guy did. And the guy did comply at one point but when asked to stand his back against a gun and forced to be put on his knees then he got frightened; you can't trust every cop like you can't trust every person. There is something very weird in police procedure like this; never back down even if you realize you are wrong...

In this country i have to applaude police, in this situation they would've said something that makes sense than order complete submission. Like, get back in your car before you're run over..

Also i'm so surprised that they always yell: "put yor hands against your back" WHEN tazing, i think it hurts and you can't control your muscles, plus the panic and basic selfpreservation kicks in.

Opus_Moderandi says...

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I tried googling this. Not a single report or study devoted to "
how many traffic stops per year result in shootings
" on the first page. Unsurprisingly, many sensationalist news stories.>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.



Try googling "cop killed during traffic stop"

CreamK says...

This is more humane way to do it, no guns, no overuse of authority: link

The guy got 10 months on probation and the police with broken lip got 1400€. Again, no over-sentencing but fair.. It's good to live in this kind of society.

bareboards2 says...

Did anyone else think this might be a self-link?

Is it a self-link if you are the subject of a video but you didn't actually make it yourself?

NetRunner says...

I can't speak for the libertarians who disagree with the state's near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but for the most part people with the liberal mindset just don't like violence, period. Those among us who are familiar with the concept of a state monopoly on the use of violence tend to agree it's a necessary component of having a civil society.

But I'm puzzled by your comments about after the fact vs. at that moment. Which dispute are you referring to? Legal charges, or simply the refusal to comply with lawful orders? How would you resolve the latter after the fact?

>> ^chilaxe:

If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?

Chaucer says...

i've seen dozens of these bad taser videos and of all the ones, this one is the most justifiable. The guy that got pulled over is a dumbass. I thought the cop was extremely patient and forgiving. I would have tased the guy after the 12 time I told him to turn around. I definately wouldnt have spent 4 minutes telling him to turn around. If you get pulled over, its not your job to question the cop in an aggressive manner like that. Its your responsibility to follow orders so that both parties remain safe.

rogueWRX says...

>> ^JiggaJonson:

I've been pretty anti-establishment watching these types of videos lately; but in this case, I felt myself empathizing with the cop more than with the driver.
Who gets out of their car and and does a "representin'" pose when they are being pulled over?

Agreed completely.

This guy is given instructions over and over and over and OVER and over and then some more for THREE MINUTES. I couldn't count how many times he was told simple things: get back in your car, turn around, hands on your head. He refused.

The cop doesn't know that he's unarmed. We see dashcam videos of shootouts from this same perspective.

I've been pulled over half a dozen times in my life for speeding or minor infractions. I stay in the car, roll down the window, keep both hands on the steering wheel, answer questions politely and make no sudden movements. I GET OFF WITH WARNINGS AND THANKS FROM THE OFFICER.

Quboid says...

The stupidest thing here is the claim that he is tasered for having a crooked license plate. He was tasered for being uncooperative and arguably aggressive. Big difference.

chilaxe says...

When liberals and libertarians makes themselves get tazed, it's because they're trying to resolve whatever complaint they have at the moment instead of after the fact.

If they believe they shouldn't have to comply with lawful orders, or that cops should be nicer, they could deal with it after the fact or before the fact by making legislative efforts, and if the voting population agrees with them, they'll be successful.

>> ^NetRunner:

I can't speak for the libertarians who disagree with the state's near monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, but for the most part people with the liberal mindset just don't like violence, period. Those among us who are familiar with the concept of a state monopoly on the use of violence tend to agree it's a necessary component of having a civil society.
But I'm puzzled by your comments about after the fact vs. at that moment. Which dispute are you referring to? Legal charges, or simply the refusal to comply with lawful orders? How would you resolve the latter after the fact?
>> ^chilaxe:
If neurogenetics isn't why many liberals & libertarians disagree with the state's monopoly on violence, wouldn't they over time begin advocating settling disputes after the fact instead of at that moment?


bobknight33 says...

Fuck the cops. They are disrespectful towards the people. The jack off cop could have answered his question and handled this a lot better. Again Fuck the COPS

smooman says...

>> ^bobknight33:

Fuck the cops. They are disrespectful towards the people. The jack off cop could have answered his question and handled this a lot better. Again Fuck the COPS


your 16 year old self called, he wants his teenage angst back

NetRunner says...

And I'm no nearer to understanding your point, it seems. Most of us are talking about the specific events in the video, but you seem to be making a sweeping generalization about adherents of certain political philosophies.

I do agree that confronting a cop at a random traffic stop isn't a way to affect societal change. It's also not likely to result in you being let off the hook for whatever thing they stopped you for.

But I don't really think that's something high-level like political ideology, so much as a more fundamental question of emotional self-control, and learning the requisite social skills for dealing with authority figures.

>> ^chilaxe:

When liberals and libertarians makes themselves get tazed, it's because they're trying to resolve whatever complaint they have at the moment instead of after the fact.
If they believe they shouldn't have to comply with lawful orders, or that cops should be nicer, they could deal with it after the fact or before the fact by making legislative efforts, and if the voting population agrees with them, they'll be successful.

chilaxe says...

@NetRunner

If we assume emotional self-control is relatively unchanging (there doesn't appear to be any societal trend toward increasing levels of self-control) then people's natural temperaments will continue to drive significant variance in rates of self-caused tazing.

My original point is that these temperaments that cause individuals to get themselves tazed represent weird neurogenetics (not streamlined / aligned with incentives).

enoch says...

this is what happens when people without guns stand up to people WITH guns.
you dont have to respect the badge nor the position but you should have the common sense to respect the 9mm pointed at yer noggin.

NetRunner says...

>> ^chilaxe:

My original point is that these temperaments that cause individuals to get themselves tazed represent weird neurogenetics (not streamlined / aligned with incentives).


That's what I meant when I said:

>> ^NetRunner:

I dunno, it seems like the case study in "weird neurogenetics" would be the people who refuse to put their hands on their head when a cop has a gun pointed at them.


Which is probably a long way of saying "I don't think you should infer only liberals or libertarians are this stupid."

I don't even think it's genetic. I think some people just aren't taught self-control or manners as a child.

chilaxe says...

@NetRunner

1. The temperaments that self-cause tazing correlate with political attitudes.


2a. Liberalism's 100 years of resisting genetics won't be of much use once reprogenetics kicks in in a few decades.

2b. If people's temperaments are in disagreement with their rearing environment or sub-culture, they just rebel, think their parents were dumb, and find people who represent what they like.

swedishfriend says...

Reality!!!

Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?

Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.

Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.

Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.

Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).

The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.

The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

Lawdeedaw says...

Facts? Okay, 1 out of four go bad for cops as opposed. K. But there are 1000 or more citizens than cops. So, individual cops get the bad end of the stick most often than individuals by and large--thanks for the stat you just provided.And the death ratio is far high for cops too. (I am not saying abuse doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as death...)

So when you say, "Clearly the individual should have more to fear" you are, clearly incorrect (By your own stat.)

Additionally, "Fear" and "blind power" can never go together. It has to be one or the other.


I agree some cops act either-or, which makes them thugs. They should be prosecuted. Did you also know who the more likely applicant for suicide is? Cops... Why? Who knows. Probably the same psychological reason that more commit crimes.



>> ^swedishfriend:

Reality!!!
Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?
Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.
Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.
Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.
Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).
The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.
The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

jwray says...

Most of the time when somebody stopped for a routine traffic violation gets out of the car with one hand in their baggy jacket pocket instead of following the normal protocol, it's because they're going to pull a gun on the cop. That freaks the cop out understandably. The cop has a valid self defense reason for giving those orders, and you have to understand that he's having an adrenaline rush for the first couple minutes of the video because he thought he was about to get shot at the very beginning. Completely ignoring every single thing the cop says and disobeying all his orders gets you tasered. The cop overreacted, but guy who got tasered was a naive idiot who should have seen it coming. By 2:00 or so the cop should have realized what was going on and come to his senses enough to defuse the situation by talking instead of continuing down the same path that obviously wasn't working.

jwray says...

10-78 means send ambulance. At the very beginning of the video the cop is calling an ambulance for himself because he thinks he's about to get shot.

swedishfriend says...

statistics, physical reality:
no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails.

No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian.

If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop.

At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop.

It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.

jwray says...

>> ^shuac:

Fuck that kid and his lawsuit should be filed up his ass.
Mistake #1: He immediately got out of the car with a hand in his pocket
If you do this, then you should not feign surprise that you're being yelled at. Cops are far less interested in talking to you than you might expect when you immediately get out of your car with a hand in your pocket. MUCH less interested than you think. They are more interested in getting control of a possibly hostile situation. There are far too many situations of cops being shot because they failed to gain control ( see below). If this is something you cannot understand, then stop reading this post and go out and get some more life experience. Armchair judging is fun and everything and it's shocking how little effort it takes, believe me...I understand the impulse.
Mistake #2: He failed to follow the cop's orders after being told dozens and dozens of fucking times.
Again, if this is something you feel is okie-dokie, then have at it, Hoss. Just don't get all litigious and expect any support from me (not that that's the gold standard or anything). The cop is under NO OBLIGATION to talk to the perp in such a situation. The kid forfeited the right to talk about why he was pulled over the instant he exited his vehicle with his hand in his pocket. And if you don't understand how hostile it is for someone to ignore a cop's repeated commands like this, then you are a fucking moron. I'm afraid it's that simple.

http://youtu.be/qoI4G1fWmEQ
http://youtu.be/rgXQK3NfRY4
http://youtu.be/2sxwvkVzhyA
http://youtu.be/MEpUtoUzE4U
So to sum up: this kid deserved to be tasered and I'm glad he was.


Those links of yours are so sad and very instructive of the kind of shit cops have to deal with and why they feel so threatened when someone comes out of the car aggressively with a baggy jacket and their hand in their pocket and ignoring lawful orders. I sifted all of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Two-cops-killed-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Texas-ranger-shot-at-point-blank-in-routine-speeding-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Police-officer-murdered-by-two-men-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Cop-shot-in-face-during-routine-traffic-stop-survives

jwray says...

>> ^peggedbea:

meh, yeah... sometimes we're called anti-authoritarians... it's not cop-hate on a personal level... it's cop-hate as an ideological platform. google that shit.
was the dude a dumbshit for getting out of his car? you bet.
do i still dislike police and find this traffic stop/ the societal punishment paradigm we exist in abhorrent? you bet.
do i hate the culture that constructs these kinds of scenarios? absolutely.
>> ^draak13:
I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.



>> ^peggedbea:

meh, yeah... sometimes we're called anti-authoritarians... it's not cop-hate on a personal level... it's cop-hate as an ideological platform. google that shit.
was the dude a dumbshit for getting out of his car? you bet.
do i still dislike police and find this traffic stop/ the societal punishment paradigm we exist in abhorrent? you bet.
do i hate the culture that constructs these kinds of scenarios? absolutely.
>> ^draak13:
I'm really quite impressed with people who really hate cops soooo much; anything of or being field law enforcement seems to immediately evoke feelings of loathing in some people, to the point where a police officer cannot be without fault. Myself and many people who admittedly lean a little anti-cop end up siding with the cop on this one, but there are so many anti-cop people who are so far polarized against police that they still can't see any cop doing right...even when the officer deserves commendation for sticking to their training so well.
I dare anyone to post a police confrontation video in which they feel the cop was completely justified. Try posting a video where the police officer was not covering any sort of gray area of correctness in handling the situation, but in which every action was completely justified and necessary. Try posting a video where we feel empathy and satisfaction for the cop. I bet you'll be amazed at how many people will still hate the officer for what they did.



How are cops supposed to deal with people who endanger others by driving at ridiculous speeds? Please tell.

And if those people resist when they're pulled over, what's a cop to do?

smooman says...

you can fucking talk about statistics all damn day it still doesnt change the fact that the dude consistently showed a dismissive, cocky, defiant, and at times bullying posture, language, and body language. The escalation has its genesis in the civilians actions not the cops. furthermore the escalation was perpetuated by the civilian not the cop.

this dude was that statistical 1 in the cops eyes and very rightfully so.

jwray says...

>> ^swedishfriend:

statistics, physical reality:
no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails.
No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian.
If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop.
At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop.
It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.


And what percentage of those civilians who die are killed in valid self defense? 90%?

jwray says...

>> ^peggedbea:

like i said, the cop-hate isn't personal. and it's not even really about this particular event. i know some cops personally, i don't hate them at all.
it's a societal paradigm that makes these things possible.
sure, that dude's unstable and a jackass. he handled it totally wrong. but cop lights = punishment in the modern pysche. living in a punishment/coercion paradigm make us all a little sick in the head. do you NOT get a sick feeling in your stomache whenever you see a cop flash his lights at you?
edit: the "quote" function broke so... @MarineGunrock


What do you suggest? Giving people cookies for _NOT_ speeding?

Jerykk says...

>> ^swedishfriend:
statistics, physical reality: no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails. No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian. If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop. At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop. It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.

You have a very strange sense of logic. Let's look at the facts:

1) The man immediately got out of his car, confronted the cop and then put his hand into his pocket.
2) The man was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and baggy pants, both of which could easily conceal a weapon.
3) The man completely ignored the cop's orders.
4) While ignoring said orders, the man actually approached the cop.

Given these facts, it's very clear that the man was neither calm nor rational. Do you really believe that the cop should have ignored these facts and thought "Well, statistics show that there's only a 20% chance that this guy is going to attack me so I guess I should holster my weapon and relax"? And even if the cop did indeed do that, how do you think the man would have responded to being told that he was pulled over for a crooked license plate? Given his already belligerent behavior, do you think he would have just said "Oh, okay" and suddenly become compliant? I doubt that very much. In all likelihood, he would have only become more hostile and the situation would have been escalated.

Cops can never assume that a suspect is harmless, especially when that suspect is acting aggressive and confrontational. You can cite all the statistics you want but common sense will always prevail. Like it or not, the police hold a position of authority over you. They have the right to shoot or taser you should you present yourself as a threat. As such, you need to think logically. Don't want to get tasered or arrested? Don't present yourself as a threat. It's that simple. Almost every one of these videos is the same. Someone acts confrontational, ignores police orders and/or resists arrest, then they suffer the consequences. If you believe you have the right to ignore the police and do whatever you want, by all means, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when you get tasered or shot. It's like acting outraged after walking onto the freeway and getting run over. Common sense, please.

smooman says...

if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

hpqp says...

If this scenario were to take place in western Europe, where gun owning is the exception and not the rule, the cop would have walked up to the car window, not drawn a weapon. I find it highly irresponsible (and irrational)that some people defend the right to bear arms tooth and nail, but then complain that law enforcement agents are so on edge and trigger-ready.

Jerykk says...

>> ^hpqp:
If this scenario were to take place in western Europe, where gun owning is the exception and not the rule, the cop would have walked up to the car window, not drawn a weapon. I find it highly irresponsible (and irrational)that some people defend the right to bear arms tooth and nail, but then complain that law enforcement agents are so on edge and trigger-ready.

I don't think the officer's response would be any different if guns were banned. Firstly, he wouldn't have walked up to the window because the suspect wouldn't be inside the car. He'd be standing outside the car, hand in pocket, blatantly ignoring the officer's commands and behaving in a hostile manner. Secondly, as was mentioned in a previous comment, criminals will still have guns regardless of gun laws. That's why they're criminals. They don't follow the law. Statistically, the majority of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally to begin with.

luxury_pie says...

>> ^Jerykk:

I don't think the officer's response would be any different if guns were banned. Firstly, he wouldn't have walked up to the window because the suspect wouldn't be inside the car. He'd be standing outside the car, hand in pocket, blatantly ignoring the officer's commands and behaving in a hostile manner. Secondly, as was mentioned in a previous comment, criminals will still have guns regardless of gun laws. That's why they're criminals. They don't follow the law. Statistically, the majority of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally to begin with.

Statistically there are dying more people of gun-related injuries in America than anywhere else. Surely this has nothing to do with the MASSIVE amount of guns in the homes of America.

@hpqp in Eastern Europe on the other hand the cop would have shot him a hole in his tire, punched him in the nose and demanded his belongings, oh and of course the cop would be a bear. In uniform though.

Jerykk says...

When you say "gun-related injuries," are you including accidental injuries? If that's the case, I think teaching people how to properly handle and store guns would be more effective than trying to ban guns outright.

luxury_pie says...

>> ^Jerykk:

When you say "gun-related injuries," are you including accidental injuries? If that's the case, I think teaching people how to properly handle and store guns would be more effective than trying to ban guns outright.


Are you implying that the Americans in general don't already know that?
What a great combination! Man, I really have to allow guns in my country when I have my own.

Jerykk says...

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^Jerykk: When you say "gun-related injuries," are you including accidental injuries? If that's the case, I think teaching people how to properly handle and store guns would be more effective than trying to ban guns outright. Are you implying that the Americans in general don't already know that? What a great combination! Man, I really have to allow guns in my country when I have my own.

If the number of accidental gun injuries is high, then yes, many Americans obviously don't know how to handle guns properly. Hence the need for mandatory training.

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^schlub:
Who the hell GETS OUT OF THEIR CAR when pulled over by the police!? He must've been told to turn around 50 times and he refused to comply. That idiot got what was coming to him.


Here is my own personal story.

I almost plowed into a cop car in another state. My wife got out when the cop ordered just me to get out (After my car almost plowed into his mind you...) Long story short, he drew his gun because he was now facing two people. I told my wife to get her dumbass back in the car but noooo, don't listen to me.

Well, the cop and I joked afterwards and told me how fucking scared he was--I said "ditto!"

smooman says...

you know, something i had to explain over and over and over again to my afghan counterparts while i served there was that security has literally nothing to do with trust or probability and everything to do with security. They had a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that we would search their vehicles when they entered our FOB. to them it was because we didnt trust them and didnt want to be friends. trust has nothing to do with it

as a police officer, if you cant control the situation then your job is essentially meaningless.

bamdrew says...

BTW, I was not-long-ago pulled over late at night (4 a.m.) while going 32 in a 35 (though"speeding" was the warning he gave me), and the first question after license and registration was where was I going, what was I doing out... just pulled me over cause I was out late driving slow... this crooked plates bullshit sounds similar... out looking for drunks or illegals...

handmethekeysyou says...

You're right, still not a single study or report devoted to statistics.

Lots moe sensationalist stories, though.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^handmethekeysyou:
I tried googling this. Not a single report or study devoted to "
how many traffic stops per year result in shootings
" on the first page. Unsurprisingly, many sensationalist news stories.>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.


Try googling "cop killed during traffic stop"

Opus_Moderandi says...

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

You're right, still not a single study or report devoted to statistics.
Lots moe sensationalist stories, though.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^handmethekeysyou:
I tried googling this. Not a single report or study devoted to "
how many traffic stops per year result in shootings
" on the first page. Unsurprisingly, many sensationalist news stories.>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.


Try googling "cop killed during traffic stop"



Weird... I guess you'll have to do it yourself.

dag says...

Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!
Turn Around! Apply directly to the forehead!



w1ndex says...

Turn around, those two words don't sound right after this video. Turn around, turn around, turn around turn around, turn, turn, turn...arounddd.

coolhund says...

Well, if you know all these videos of excessive police force, I understand why he doesnt want to turn around, put his hands on his head and get on his knees. I am German and if an police officer here would ask that of me and I didnt even know what I was doing wrong, I would refuse aswell and wanted to know what for first because I would fear to have some rampage guy in front of me.

Sorry, but the reputation of the police (not only in the USA, also here in Germany and Europe) goes down every day. Especially in your semi-police state after 9-11 I understand such an reaction completely - at least if youre not some kind of sheep.
I know more than enough horror stories of cops abusing their power and have experienced many myself.

ulysses1904 says...

Why does the description say he was tasered for a crooked license plate? Was that for a different video? In this one the guy was tasered for being uncooperative.

playlists with this video:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

 • view