It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VIDEO: Driver Tased For Asking Why He Was Stopped

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Watch the video again and note how the officer positions himself and the subject before pulling the tazer.

He does the whole process completely wrong and unprofessionally.

You do not tell the person you're going to cuff them or arrest them when they are wandering around in free space. You position them at the front of the patrol car and have them comply in simple steps.

This takes into account the fact that most people are in a slight state of shock at being pulled over and at being confronted by a cop.

The command would be 'turn around', 'place your hands on the vehicle', 'spread your legs'. Then they block the guy with their hip and put the cuffs on, while saying 'I'm not placing you under arrest at this time, I'm just detaining you'.

The subject is a lot less threatened, and he doesn't have time or occasion to start wandering around. Innocent people will also back away and be too startled to comply as well as perps. So that's why you isolate and constrain the situation and give simple, calm commands.

If you've ever seen a police training video where they have other cops playing baddies, they do this very thing. They try to confuse the trainee-cop and mill around and stuff and drive home the point about why you do the stop by the book.

Alternately you can have the subject get in the back of the patrol car if it is equipped with a screen. That way he is confined, the doors don't open from inside and you can talk to him and or call for back up and then have help cuffing him.

OR, you simply have him stay in his own car, you keep the license, and then you call for back up.

When backup arrives, you station one officer at the passenger door to keep the passenger calm and in the car and the other two officers help to cuff the subject.

It's almost completely safe for everyone when you do it by the book like this.

That's why I said before this cop must have slept through his classes.



[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I was "drawn on" twice. 357, 9mm. FYI----------Texas Highway Patrol and FBI

Better freeze up when those boys point at you.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
To the people who say "Oh the police have the taser used on them before they can wield it". Uh, yeah. In a room with all their buddies standing around them to catch them softly and lower them onto some nice padding. Note how in the real world someone who is hit with a taser does a full body spasm and SLAMS their skull down onto the pavement with extreme force.

Let's see the cops take one standing alone on a road surface - they wouldn't do it because it would be 'way too dangerous'. Hmmmmmm!



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


i agree, and that sounds like the civil may to handle the manner. but i fear most cops pin a badge on them and all the suden there above the law.

as on poster said female officers due a better job, is true because they dont have testosterone. this cop obviously felt that his authority was in question so he made sure to let the driver know whos in charge. "imo"
female cops just do there job, by the book, and if they need to use force they dont seem to have a problem with doing so. i would much rather deal with a female officer than a macho map typ male cop. i'm not saying all male cops are bad , i'm just saying there are more bad cops that good cops, and its too bad that it is that way.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


i understand that,yet i believe extreme force such as a taser should only be employed in equally extreme situations.

i dont believe not following someone instructions warrants a tasering.i mean tasers are supposed to be an alternative to the use of firearms....

....tasers are now a method for small time, disgruntled cops to establish their authority over deviants!!,screw that!!!.

i hate the police and they hate me!.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol

Yes the tazer has killed people, but how many of them had preexisting heart conditions or other medical ailments?


That is exactly why they should be considered lethal weapons. The officer should automatically assume that the victim does have some type of condition where a tazer will kill them. Only use it when the situation absolutely warrants it.



Yes tazers can kill, i believe 260 is the most recent figure for number of deaths since 2001. Why don't you compare that statistic to the number of firearm related deaths, or rather the ratio of times used to number of deaths incurred.


Now that would truly be comparing apples to oranges. How can you really compare something that is suppose to be lethal to something that is suppose to be non-lethal? Unless the definition of non-lethal has changed, non-lethal is suppose to mean not able to kill. Apparently, tazers do not fit that description, since they can kill.




He was not tazed because he was a speeder, that's ridiculous. He was tazed because he disobeyed simple commands to turn around while he walked back to his car with his hands in his pockets. Which could mean the person is attempting to get away or reaching for a weapon. That is a threat to the officers safety. What other good reason would the driver have to do that, besides not being very smart?


The person could have put his hands in his pocket because his hands were cold, he was nervous, or out of habit. I would have not thought that to be threatening in any way, shape, or form.

The question remains, if the cop didn't have a tazer, would he have shot the person? I do feel tazers should only be used if the cop would have normally have pulled his gun and shot the person before tazers ever existed.



Tazer article

Taser stun guns issued to police forces across the country have been declared broadly safe, following the largest independent study of injuries inflicted by the weapons.

A medical review of nearly 1,000 cases in which the controversial weapons were fired found that 99.7% of those hit were either unharmed or suffered only mild injuries, such as scrapes and bruises.


I would like to know exactly what portion of the population was being studied. Did they study strong, healthy, young adults that would be more than likely to take these kids of electro shocks? Did they include the middle aged, who are known to have more health problems than young adults? Since the cops are tazering young kids and the elderly, did they include that group of people in the study? Did they include people who are not healthy and have medical problems? Statics can be manipulated in many different ways.

This is only physical harm done. What about the emotional harm done not only to the person being tazered, but also by the family member or friend who witnesses the tazering?



But the study suggests there is a strong link between those more seriously injured and the number of times they are shocked by a Taser. The weapons incapacitate their targets with a 50,000-volt electric shock.


Well, duh!!!! What do they think is going to happen? The taser will not affect them any more than an initial shock or affect them less? It should be obvious to anyone intelligent that the more shocks given, the more harm it is going to cause.



The guns are set to deliver a five-second shock before resetting, but in some cases officers have discharged them repeatedly to subdue people.


Major problem. This is a very good reason why tazers should be considered leathal weapons, and only handled as if they are handling a gun. The cop will go for the tazer in a serious situation if at all possible before having to grab a gun. By serious situation, I mean a situation where a cop would have normally pulled a gun before tazers ever existed.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Mystery_Lady]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

That is exactly why they should be considered lethal weapons. The officer should automatically assume that the victim does have some type of condition where a tazer will kill them. Only use it when the situation absolutely warrants it.


You're right, they should assume everybody they meet has a preexisting condition. They also shouldn't tackle people because they could have injured their knee playing football senior year. I could go on...



Now that would truly be comparing apples to oranges. How can you really compare something that is suppose to be lethal to something that is suppose to be non-lethal? Unless the definition of non-lethal has changed, non-lethal is suppose to mean not able to kill. Apparently, tazers do not fit that description, since they can kill.


Well then you can call a lot of stuff lethal. Rocks are lethal, stairs are lethal, anything that can cause death is lethal. Tazers are a less than lethal force because the large majority of the time they don't kill people. You only hear about the events where someone is harmed, not the hundreds of other times that a fight, shoot-out, or some other crime is averted.




The person could have put his hands in his pocket because his hands were cold, he was nervous, or out of habit. I would have not thought that to be threatening in any way, shape, or form.


He could have been cold, I agree. And I agree that you wouldn't have seen it threatening, but you aren't a police officer. You haven't seen people reach into their pockets to grab a weapon or had a fellow officer attacked when someone reached into their pockets. It's all about perspective, you have to view it from the police officers point of view.



The question remains, if the cop didn't have a tazer, would he have shot the person? I do feel tazers should only be used if the cop would have normally have pulled his gun and shot the person before tazers ever existed.


People, please stop thinking the cop would have shot him if he didn't have the tazer. And if you truly believe that then the tazer saved the driver from being shot. Without the tazer the police officer would have had to physically restrain the driver. Now, if you thought someone might be reaching into their pocket for, let's say a knife, would you want to put yourself in a position to be easily stabbed, or would you rather use a device that allows you to subdue him from a distance?

It is about immobilizing the offender in order to avoid any conflict, it is prevention. Police officers are trained only to use their weapons when fired at, drawn upon, or other extreme conditions. It is an ultimate last resort. The tazers are a line of defense before that so that hopefully no one pulls out a lethal weapon.




I would like to know exactly what portion of the population was being studied. Did they study strong, healthy, young adults that would be more than likely to take these kids of electro shocks? Did they include the middle aged, who are known to have more health problems than young adults? Since the cops are tazering young kids and the elderly, did they include that group of people in the study? Did they include people who are not healthy and have medical problems? Statics can be manipulated in many different
ways.


That's right, cops are just going around tazering children and old people for no reason. I know there have been stories in the news about this, but again, you only hear about the few instances where this happens. How many times have you read a news story about someone with a weapon who was tazed, and as a result, averted a more violent confrontation. Or how about how many cops are killed in the line of duty when a tazer, a stun, not even a bullet, could have saved them. I say that you are manipulating the few statistics of an elderly person being tazed or the like.



This is only physical harm done. What about the emotional harm done not only to the person being tazered, but also by the family member or friend who witnesses the tazering?


What about the safety of the officer who swore to protect your communities and family? The person who wakes up everyday and sacrifices a part of their lives so that you don't have to worry about your personal safety? What about the cops who have been killed in the line of duty? Heaven forbid another person WATCHES someone get tazed. I understand emotional harm but you can not weigh that against the safety of police officers (i'm speaking in general, not going to argue the safety of the officer in this case because it's been done and done)


[edit on 24-11-2007 by Parabol]

Um, I edited it and it didn't show up so I'll try it again. Just wanted to say nothing personal, i appreciate a good debate and i'm willing to change my views if you can convince me otherwise, i just currently disagree. Hope you're having a good night


...so if you edit and preview it doesn't save the edit if you just hit "edit post" after that?

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Parabol]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Traffic stops are among the most potentially chaotic and dangerous things a cop has to handle.

The person stopped is driving a 2-ton deadly weapon and they can have a weapon on them in the car.

The cop also has weapons and may behave in an unpredictable manner also - as we see. He probably failed to follow about 10 departmental guidelines in this video.

So it's a good idea before you get in the car to think about this and to know the law - though few bother to do so and get by due to (mostly) dumb luck.

What if the cop had tazed the guy at the edge of the berm and the guy spazzed and staggered out into traffic and got run over? Or the driver swerved to miss the tazed guy staggering around and hit the cop and the car with the pregnant mom?

What if the passenger had a CWC permit and they were transporting the company payroll? For all she knew, this 'cop' could have been an impersonator and she needed to kill him to save her husband?

This cop should be beaten over the head until bloody with the departmental manual.

Maybe the driver should also be smacked in the head with the Traffic laws manual. Sheesh.

The bottom line is the COP is the one in control and he did NOT control the situation. He put himself in jeopardy about three times and the passenger in jeopardy twice and the driver in danger several times and there was no reason for it.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Hi everyone,I have been following this post with great interest.I have just started posting on ATS it's a great site.I was just thinking (although I don't want anyone to run off topic here)would'nt it be good if there was some kind of voting system where each member had a vote either in favour of massey or in favour of the police officer.I would love to see how a poll like that would go down afterall there are lots of strong views on this topic.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Too often we get used to the patience shown by the cops and feel it's OK to talk back.

But what we don't realize, maybe, is that the cops do not have to be that patient, they don't have to struggle to cuff people and they don't have to give a command twice.


When I get pulled over only one of us is on the payroll and as a civil servant no less. Only one of us decided to be a cop. Because someone decides to be a cop does not mean they have the new right of being able to treat me like crap AT MY EXPENSE. Cops are not upholding the peace by terrorizing the mainly law abiding tax payers.

The power balance between cops/citizens has gotten way out of hand.

It is basically OK for cops to violate your constitutional rights, lie to you, beat you and kill you. It matters not if these events are captured on tape because most likely the cops will keep their jobs and another innocent person will be screwed.

Cop != Judge, jury and executioner



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
What if....what if....what if.....what if.

OK, since none of us were there, it's really hard to pass any judgement on either party, cop or driver.

This is what I know:

1. "Wyatt Earp Syndrome". A friend of mine is a cop. He said that a lot of new guys on the force have this syndrome. Happens when a new guy gets a gun, badge, and power. The older cops are on the lookout for it, but sometimes, guys slip thru the system. Most cops grow out of it on their own.

2. When pulled over, be polite. What harm is it to be polite? It's not kissing their butt, and nine times out of ten, it can actually help in your favor. I've known guys that, just by being polite, got a ticket either reduced or were just given a warning.

3. Keep your hands in sight! This is a no brainer. Sure, as someone posted, he might be nervous, or his hands cold, etc. Or he might be going for a weapon. What does the cop know?

4. Again, as someone posted, approaching someone for a traffic stop is dangerous for the police. It might be some little old lady who made a mistake, or it might be a gangbanger on Angel Dust. The police have to be careful.

I've been pulled over numerous times for one reason or another. I've dealt with MPs, SPs, and police in a bunch of foreign coutries. All have been polite, professional, and ready to help.

And for those that think cops are just Nazis, etc, just keep that in mind when you or your family is robbed, attacked, or somehow need the assistance of the police force. When that happens, just tell the cops that you don't need them, and they can leave. No skin off their nose; they have plenty of other things to do than to help you out.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   
So, we are supposeed to let cops abuse and kill us because they have a hard job? The people here trying to defend cops are way off base. The last post sounds like we are supposed to forgo our taxpayer paid protections if we disagree with police murder and brutality? I am SICK of reading this drivel: If you don't want cops abusing you and killing you then just leave them alone when you need them...insane!! Thats just nuts.

If you do get robbed or assaulted, the cops will do nothing but take a report anyway...and badger you while there for disturbing theior donut fest. Cops do NOT prevent crime to any real degree. they just investigate and shuffle off to abuse more drivers at traffic stops, asking us to give consent to searches and hassling us. There is a line drawn and if you are on the cops side don't be suprised when you get their fate someday when the people wake up to the police state we are now in.

Boo hoo, some poor cop has to earn his paycheck..lets all cry for the poor piggies..please..they deserve nothing but a paycheck and a lawsuit if they cross the line, nothing more.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by gottago
Every law enforcement officer who is issued a taser should have it used once on him or her during training.


They do, and at least in most major police departments it's standard practice.

There are obviously people that just don't like cops, regardless of if they're doing their job right or not.

This 'tard got himself tased and put his family in a terrible position over a worthless traffic ticket. I'll even be willing to bet that his wife was in the car telling him to just sign the damn thing and let's go. He was probably just putting on a show for her, a show she wasn't even interested in seeing.

Peace


DL, as always you're right on the money: I do agree with your characterization of the driver, but unfortunately he met up with a moron/bully cop and it was a match made in Heaven, at least for the cop.

I have a great deal of respect for those cops that do their job well; it's a very tough, dangerous and mostly thankless job and deserves our respect. BUT we all know there are a lot less Sheriff Andys out there than there are the likes of this cretin with a badge.

I mean really, we could have a board here just for taser incidents alone. Tells you somethin', no?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I bet that if a citizen tazed a cop they would face attempted murder charges, like if the wife in the video had a tazer and zapped this out of control officer with it.

If the cop would have followed his departments rules, I bet no one would have been tazered.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86


Yep, you're right. Heck, just today, while driving down the road, I saw cops taking potshots at kids in a school bus.

Think of how many police officers are out there on the streets. Think of how many traffic stops they make a day. Most of them don't end with the cop hitting the guy with a tazer, or the driver shooting the cop in the stomach.

Sure, they investigate. And did you think that because of that investigation, YOU weren't robbed or murdered in your home?

Police state? Don't make me laugh, the US isn't a police state, not by a long shot. If it were, no one would be posting on this board, we'd be in a jail.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
DL, as always you're right on the money: I do agree with your characterization of the driver, but unfortunately he met up with a moron/bully cop and it was a match made in Heaven, at least for the cop.


You hit the nail on the head, I think. A bully cop met up with an ass hat.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I bet that if a citizen tazed a cop they would face attempted murder charges, like if the wife in the video had a tazer and zapped this out of control officer with it.


Probably assault, not attempted murder. Would have made for a funnier video, I think.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Its a friggin traffic violation already...

Anyone who argues that the use of the taser in this situation is right is so close to being sub-human it aint funny...

Join the queue to become an usher for the NWO and their lackeys why don't you. ..?


Geez...If people get tased for simple traffic violations, maybe the cops need better training as to judge what is a dangerous situation and what is not...

Tasers have taken the humanity out of police work to a greater or lesser extent, IMO...

The continued reckless use of tasers will only foster more of a distrust of police the world over where these things are used...

Which ironically, might just work against those who support the NWO and its implementation...

Surely these guys would love a gradual passive acceptance of same ?

hmmmm....

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I don't know about this video, it smells a little fishy in a way.

Heres what I'm seeing, and keep in mind I'm coming from someone who isn't a fan of cops or bad drivers. On the other hand, I'm also liable to give people in general the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a cop, and have never been. I'm a computer guy with a few tickets in my past.

1 - The Driver wasn't acting the best here. Maybe its how he acts to a rightfully stressful situation, maybe he was trying to buffalo his way out of this becuase he had previous tickets or something.

2 - The cop lost some control of the situation. This will make a cop or really any person very nervous. This isn't a cop mad with power thing, this is anyone in a potentially dangerous situation thing.

3 - Refusal to sign. That would have been my initial reaction as well if I didn't know the reason. Being told to step out of the vehicle could have meant a few things in my mind. Either I was going to get cuffed and tossed in the back of he patrol car, or the cop was pulling me over on teh side to talk this one out and explain the what and why of signing away from any distractions. Also getting teh person alone is a negotiating technique. I can easily give the cop teh benefit of the doubt on this one based on his positioning. Look at teh video, he was standing in a position to get te driver behind his own vehicle and looked like he was ready to show him the ticket again. if the cop wanted to bust him, he would have done it against the drivers vehicle as he got out of the truck, or got him to a position where he could have thrown him on teh hood of his cruiser.

4 - The command to roll over to assume arrest position or get shocked again (my paraphrasing) could have been handled better. Considering the situation, I might have started yelling stay still or I'll shock you again, and dragged teh guy a few feet to get him from his proximity to possible traffic. Myself, not knowing any police rules would have (loosely) cuffed and carred him for his own safety. In this case, that being I wouldn't let him drive or be unobserved for a bit after being tased, regardless of there being a substitute driver (the wman).

5 - The woman rushing out of the car. Ok, maybe slightly dumb, but completely natural and automatic reaction on her part. I think that not pulling his gun was a sign of the cop tryign to control himself in an already out f control situation. Also, intelligence to me dictates you don't have a weapon in each hand unless you really really REALLY need to.

6 - Cop was in teh wrong in my eyes about not representing things as accurately as possible to the other officer. Did he in his head think he warned the guy? Don't know.

7 - the after interview on the news, the excuse the guy gave about not being pulled over seems a little too practiced and neutral. That definitely sounded coached. Maybe its a lawyer manouver, but it doesn't add credibility to his side.


honestly, I think this one is hard to say, and theres facts missing that could sway things. Im against teh use of tasers, even possibly in this situation, but theres department rules, and also if you have a tool, you'll use it. I do stay mindful of the tremendous pressure cops can be under. its something to keep in mind here. They're professionals but they're still human, and they're armed. I think this was a rather routine stop until the cop lost control of the situation after teh guy got out of his car and started basically flailing around an walking away being unresponsive.

Enough gray area here where whatever is in your mind about the cop or person will dictate how you color it. My trick, watch it with the sound off a few times, then what do you see. might be too late for this video but for the next (theres always more) watch it wih teh sound off a few times first, then with it on and see what you see.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
This traffic stop was handled improperly.

The officer should have allowed the driver to become more confused and angry then allowed him to enter the vehicle and exit the scene. This would create an opportunity to call for back up due to a fleeing vehicle at a traffic stop. This then allows for a least a dozen police cars to join in the pursuit, at high speeds, across the county side. The good news here is that units from the next county may be able to join in. There will also be the opportunity to practice deploying the strips used to flatten tires on a moving vehicle. Once the vehicle is stopped, there will be several dozen officers to work together to physically subdue this man. Most likely 4 to 5 hand guns will be used instead. Bonus; the PR guys have more to work with in their press release.

In reality, may be the officer should of called for assistance and waited, even though he would look like a failure at making a difficult traffic stop.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join