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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
i wonder i wear wolverive work boots all the time they are supposed to protect you from eletrical shocks because it keeps you from being grounded i wonder if it would keep u from taser shocks hmmm!




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Hah, while riding I came up with a great, even humorous solution.

What we need is a robotic ride-along lawyer, sorta like the popup guy in Men In Black, or the robot taxi-driver in Total Recall.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Badge01]


I think that is a great idea , maybe implemented through an "ON STAR" type system. This could be further enhanced by a citizen band video surveillance network, like a kind of streaming youtube

..although now as i remember another futuristic movie "The Running Man" the bad guys will just doctor the video anyway !



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
Well now I speak from experience when I say that I have
3 years law enforcement experience and I'll try to explain
my viewpoint of this incident.

"explains why the guy deserves to be electrocuted


You have all lost the plot... Im so glad I only visit the states occasionally. Its getting more and more an unpleasant experience.

Good luck in 08...



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
the guy knows exactly whats going on. The cop said in the beginning that he was going kind of fast. Also, a lot of the conversation is lost because of outside noises, like cars going by and wind.

There is nothing wrong with what the cop was doing. The guy was not following the saftey procedures and was disobeying the cop. He wouldnt sign the citation, or ticket, whatever it was. He also couldnt take all the hints the cop was giving him that he was speeding. Including the one that said "You were going a little fast." Then he couldnt follow the cop saying "Turn around and put your hands behind your back"

He was told multiple times what he was charged with, but couldnt remember it.

And for gods sake, WHACH THE WHOLE VIDEO!!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Wheres the victim in this CRIME to justify force?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


What does that mean?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
LOL .... it is just amazing to me to read these type posts
from folks who think they can manhandle an encounter
with a cop. A cop is an extension arm of law. A cop has
the legal right to take away your freedom (temporarily)
and a judge has the right to take it away permanently.
Both of those rely on a certain set of conditions.
If the arrestee thinks he can bypass all the rules or
somehow they don't apply to them, then they get what they
deserve. No Gestapo tactics there, just laws created by
the politicians whom the populace elects. If there was no
law in place then there would be nothing but anarchy.
If there was anarchy then you just try going to the store
and get run off the road by vigilantes and robbed, raped
and murdered. Then let's hear how much you wish you had
the law system back. Try living in South Africa where
apartheid rules and see if you got more rights there or
here. The average citizen here in the US has got it good
if they would only consider other regions in the world where
the populace is really oppressed. Then you really have
something to cry over.

And yes, a Cop does deserved to be respected whether or not
you believe in what he is doing or how he is doing it. It is left
up to a jury to decide whether he was right or wrong and not left
up to an individual arguing on the side of the road.

As a cop I have heard many times from fellow officers:

"It is better to be judged by 12
than carried by 6"

The guy in this video did not obey the officers commands
repeatedly AND when told to raise his hands started returning
to his vehicle. If I had of been in that situation and I was
still a cop, I would have tasered him as well. As I'll be damned
if I would have let him get back in his vehicle to get access to
anything which may have been hidden from view.

The tasing was warranted in my opinion and I'm sure a lot of
people feel the same way including those arm extensions of
the rule of law.

One last thing I'd like to point out. I noticed in the video
that the officer only pulled out his taser cuz of the movements
and actions of the driver. The driver moved back behind the officer
and did it fairly quickly. His left arm was raised which blinded his
right hand in his pocket. This is called a shielding or diversion
maneuver. I have seen it in my training as the upper arm toward
the officer prevents the officer from seeing what his right hand is doing.
The officer was aware of this movement which is why he pulled
out his taser in the first place. He aimed it at the guy and told him
to raise him hands. He refused and started moving back toward
his own vehicle which sets off another set of alarms of other hidden
weapons. The cop's reaction was warranted as his safety was in
jeopardy whether the driver knew it or not.

The tasing was warranted for officer safety, NOT BECAUSE OF A DARN
SPEEDING TICKET but cuz of the driver's actions. The title of this thread
is NOT accurate. The speeding did not get him tasered nor was it the driver
asking WHY he was stopped, it was his actions toward the officer.

And I hope the officer is still on the highway protecting and serving
if I should happen to go thru UTAH. Hell, I'd like to buy the cop a beer

Off-duty of course



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


Exactly what I said, where is the victim here that would justify the use of force? whats person or persons rights have been violated which would justify the suspension and violation this mans rights as a free man?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The cop was not MAN enough to walk over and take charge of the guy, thats all. these days cops want all of us totally passive and either laying face down on a hot street or worse while they lean all their fat gut weight on the back of some poor suckers neck. WHY didn't the cop just walk over, take the guy by the shoulder and place him up against the car and handcuff him? Because he didn't want to get close enough to take a chance at all.

Cops get paid to take chances and it is part of the game. If we citizens have to be treated badly so some cops take less chances, thats no good. Any cop should be willing to place his hands on someone and direct them into an arrest; if they cannot or will not then they are just cowards and willing to sacrify our dignity, and LIVES, for the sake of their ' safety '.

This cop used the Tazer in place of hgis hands..and that is the disturbing trend that is going on all over.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol

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...


A knee injury is no where near the same thing as having a pace maker interrupted and your heart stopping. It isn't the same thing as having the electric shock jump starting a deadly heart attack. There is much more trauma in receiving electric shock than having an old injury re-injured.



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.


Well, the police don't use rocks or stairs now do they? Tazers can be less lethal, but they are not non-lethal. If anything they should at least be called semi-lethal.



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.


It is also all about how the police officer does his job. The officer should have never put himself in danger in the first place by having the driver get out of the car and then turning his back on the driver. I seriously wonder if the officer did that just so he would have an excuse to tazer someone, knowing the driver would wonder around or do something else while his backed was turned.

If the driver really wanted to do something to the cop, he would have done it while the cops back was to him. Then the cop would not have had any chance to tazer the driver. The cop put himself in danger as soon as his back was turned.




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?


I never said or implied the cop should have shot the driver. What I am asking is what would have the cop done if he didn't have a tazer? I seriously wonder if the cop would have even tackled the man if he didn't have a tazer. If the cop didn't have a tazer, I seriously doubt that he would have asked the driver to step out of his car and turned his back on the driver.



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.


Sorry, but the driver did not fire upon the officer, did not draw a weapon, nor was this an extreme condition.



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.


Very sarcastic, but the point is that it has happened.



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


So, the safety of the officer is more important than the safety of the innocent citizens whom they terrorize when they wrongly tazer someone? They replaced common sense with the tazer, so they are more apt to tazer someone and then think clearly and ask questions afterwards?

How are they protecting their citizens when the situation get to the point where the citizens are so afraid of the cops, that the citizens feel like they have to protect themselves from the cops? Just look at the responses on this board. People are starting not to trust cops. I have seen a you tube video where a person put live feed cameras in the car incase he got pulled over by the cops.

The first time he had a run in with the cops, he went to court and won. Now he feels it is so bad everywhere he lives he has to have the cameras to protect himself. You would have called him paranoid, since it was only that one cop. But it turns out he was right to put the cameras in the vehicle, because he did have another run in with the cops. The cops tried to feed him a like of BS saying it was illegal to film cops, and tried to confiscate the cameras. Yes, there were several. The cops were in the wrong, and they only backed off when they found out the cameras had a live feed to somewhere else.

I recently had a minor run in with the cops. I home school, and had my three kids with me going to an appointment. The cop car comes by and asks playing hookie today aren't we? I was very close to being smart back to him, but was polite instead. I didn't want to miss the appointment. He was suppose to be looking for kids playing hooky, and not kids who are legally walking with their parents out side of public school hours, which many homeschoolers don't follow those hours anyhow.

That was a small town cop, and they are usually nice and polite. People are not trusting them any longer because of their attitudes towards us.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mystery_Lady
 


Excellent post.

These people rant about the danger's police officers face, and it's true, it's a dangerous job. That's why we have professional police, they KNOW it's a dangerous job when they sign up, they know the risks they are taking.

But I fail to see how the safety of the police outweighs the safety of the citizens they are supposed to be protecting. The police have to adjust the level of force they use to what is appropriate for the situation. It's nott always easy to determine what that is, which is why they are trained for the job. If they can't do that, then they should be looking for a new line of work.

If the police assume everyone they encounter is a violent psychopath, and act accordingly, then average citizens are going to be as much danger from the police as they are from the criminals, and the whole point of having a trained, professional police force goes out the window.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
i wonder i wear wolverive work boots all the time they are supposed to protect you from eletrical shocks because it keeps you from being grounded i wonder if it would keep u from taser shocks hmmm!


I doubt it. I think the the purpose of the two wires/barbs is to ensure continuity and complete the circuit. The officer holding the weapon may have something to do with it too, but I doubt it. If both barbs don't make contact, the weapon is ineffective. That's why they're taught to shoot at the chest. It increases the chance of two good contacts in case the barbs spread to far apart. Now maybe a thick leather vest or a one inch hard rubberized shirt would prevent shock, but that would get awful hot. And the minute you shirt/vest got soaked with sweat, the whole area would be conductive. (speaking from experience here, my TENS unit, used for back pain has to pads to place the electrical flow. One day, I turned it on while wearing a sweat soaked shirt and couldn't get it turned off fast enough to suit me.)


The barbs are about one inch in length. I believe the lions share of the electric charge flows from one barb to another. The old path of least resistant theory. That's why others can hold someone being tazed in training to prevent them from falling and not get shocked themselves.

I missed my chance to get tazed due to a scheduling screw-up, so I'm speaking from my talks with the Local PD's Tazer training officer.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceBits
reply to post by Parabol
 


i can say definatly "yes" as i posted earlier i was arrested for possesion and had about 12 officers all pointing loaded guns at me and 2 others with me. yes i was scared and yes i was moving around a bit. want to know what was going on in my mind at the time?...



I cliped the remainder of the post to save space. I did just the opposite. I had done nothing but buy a coke and candy bar and walk out of the store and was met by a police office with his gun pointed at me. I instantly stopped and followed all his instructions without question. I knew I hadn't done anything wrong so I wasn't afraid of being shot by him, I assumed he had a reason for doing what he was doing. Someone had tripped the stores alarm, it was cleared up and I was on my way in about 5 minutes. But the cop had no way of knowing if I had robbed the store.

I've seen people come into the police department screaming about there rights and most didn't know what they were talking about. But on the other side, I've seen cops tell a suspect "I just want to get this paperwork done and get you home." Knowing full well they were lying to the suspect to get something they could use to convict the person.

In the video, the driver left as though he was going to get in his vehicle and drive away. The cop could have used physical force to restrain him, (and probably should have) but the driver caused the cop to react. Had he complied from the beginning and signed the ticket, he'd have been on his way. And for those who would say he wanted to know what the charges were, all he had to do was read the ticket.

It never ends good for the civilians or cops when civilians use "in your face" tactics on a stop. And repeatedly asking what did I do, let's go look, or turning and walking away while putting hands in your pockets are all ways bad guys confuse or delay the officer until they can come up with some way to strike out and or get away.

If you haven't done anything wrong, fight the battle in the courts and press if you have to. If you have done something wrong, you gambled and lost, go to jail peacefully and get someone to bail you out.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


I ment simplify that.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


There is a line between taking a chance and being cocky.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
How many more times does the misuse of a taser have to go on before police officers get it. This is not a weapon of compliance. They don't make such a thing as a weapon of compliance unless you look at the guillotine or electric chair. Those are weapons of compliance. The taser is a non - lethal weapon which was designed as a option to be used in place of a lethal weapon like a gun. It was designed to capture a violent suspect and not have to kill them in a violent situation so they could face the legal system. It was then adapted to be a personal defense device to ward off violent attackers and marketed towards women. Police are now using the taser as a means of control and making an arrest easier as this video shows. This is not the intended use of this weapon.
After watching this video several times there is no reason why this guy should have been tasered. Every person has the right to ask the police officer questions even if they are rude and disrespectful to the police. This is part of the job of being a LEO. This doesn't mean the police officer has to give him any breaks but being rude and disrespectful is not grounds to be arrested. If the officer had really used a radar on the vehicle he would have proof of his speeding and should have been willing to show the motorist his speed. People have the right to ask to see the radar at a suspected speeding stop by a law enforcement officer. I believe Massey had every right to know why he was pulled over and it is the duty of the police officer to explain to him exactly everything that gave the officer reason to pull him over. This is part of serving the public. If the officer felt the situation escalating beyond his capabilities then he should have not asked Massey to exit the vehicle and instead requested back-up. It is obvious that Massey was not intending to be violent with the officer because he points at the speed limit sign. He has every right to argue and be upset with a police officer if the officer never radared him, and will not show him or explain to him why he was pulled over and why he is getting a ticket. The officer is the one who ordered him out of the vehicle. Why? IMO the officer wanted this to get out of hand because he was upset that Massey was arguing and the officer had no way to prove him wrong. The officer wanted to arrest Massy and he had to have a more serious charge to do it. How about assault on a police officer as the camera will show him coming up behind the officer and the officer can later say he felt threatened. This is proven later as he is heard lying to a fellow officer about the incident. Using a weapon on a person is a serious crime and this officer should be punished to the full extent of the law.
By getting the issue of the taser solved only half of the problem is being addressed. The other half of the problem is this police Ego that seems to be running rampant throughout police departments world wide. The only true way to protect one's self from the police is to carry a video camera with you always and a digital voice recorder that can be hidden in your car and can capture the officers voice. If the officer does their job then they have nothing to worry about and you are protected. If the officer is abusive and/or threatening you will be protected. This is the only way to be safe anymore from the police.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

"I would have grabbed the guy and threw
him onto the hood of my cruiser and cuffed his ass before he walked
back toward the vehicle. His hand in his pockets were plenty enough
threat in my opinion to warrant the force."


No wonder you are no longer a police officer. The Force probably recognized you as a liability and a loose cannon and cut it's losses.


" The cop's reaction was warranted as his safety was in
jeopardy whether the driver knew it or not."


Who's safety was in question. Looks to me like Massey's safety was in question getting tasered on a busy highway shoulder partially in a lane of traffic. Walking on the shoulder of a busy highway or road is always dangerous. Lets make the situation better and taser the guy. The officer was never in danger and you can tell by Massey's body language. Does he honestly look like he is going to attack the officer? He points at a sign like is is making a point about his side of the story, and the officer doesn't like it. If the officer needed help then call another officer to assist. Why get him out of the car on a busy highway for arguing over a traffic ticket unless you are going to show him the radar gun. If you are going to arrest make a call for backup it is simple.


"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. "


Couldn't agree more because I have heard the same from several police including some here on ATS. Does "Wyatt Earp Syndrome" really go away or do they just never get caught? The Blue wall of silence and the ego make it difficult to weed out these "bad apples" as some like to call them. Another excuse that police use is "he/she must of had a bad day". Funny how when police have "bad" days someone gets hurt or killed.

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Eye_Of_Truth]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeta115
The driver's wrongdoing:

1) Rule #1, never ever argue with a cop. If you do, you're going to jail
or else you're gonna get the # kicked out of ya before you get there.

2) Be courteous to the officer EVEN if you think he is wrong as that
sort of stuff can be worked out later in court with a lawyer present.

3) He did not follow the commands of the officer. He DID have the right
not to sign the citation. But he DID NOT have the right to disobey his
verbal commands for movement no matter what he thought he didn't
do.

4) The guy was an asshole in my opinion and got what he deserved.



[edit on 23-11-2007 by Zeta115]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Zeta115]


great analysis zeta but I disagree.
1) you have every right to disagree with a cop and even argue. Resisting arrest and threatening the officer aren't allowed. The driver did neither.

2) you don't have to be polite. I'd highly recommend it, and throw a few insults at someone who wasn't, but not being polite is no crime.

3) on an interview later, the driver said that he thought the officer asked him to get out of the car so that the driver could point out the speed limit sign that was right down the road. The driver did that and when he turned around the cop had drawn a weapon on him. The driver thought it was a gun, that's why he was walking back to his car. he though the cop was a psycho and was gonna shoot him.

4) asshole? yea I can see that. Deserving the taser? nope.


We have a contract with the police. We obey them according to the law because the uphold and follow the law. What happens when we break our end of the bargain? We get arrested. What happens when cops break the agreement? They get arrested...by other cops.

To what point are we required to tow the line if we feel the police aren't doing there job? A step farther, to what point are we obligated to obey the police when we feel that they are a direct threat to us? All of these incidents arise from that gray area.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by avingard

Originally posted by Zeta115
The driver's wrongdoing:

1) Rule #1, never ever argue with a cop. If you do, you're going to jail
or else you're gonna get the # kicked out of ya before you get there.

2) Be courteous to the officer EVEN if you think he is wrong as that
sort of stuff can be worked out later in court with a lawyer present.

3) He did not follow the commands of the officer. He DID have the right
not to sign the citation. But he DID NOT have the right to disobey his
verbal commands for movement no matter what he thought he didn't
do.

4) The guy was an asshole in my opinion and got what he deserved.



[edit on 23-11-2007 by Zeta115]

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Zeta115]


great analysis zeta but I disagree.
1) you have every right to disagree with a cop and even argue. Resisting arrest and threatening the officer aren't allowed. The driver did neither.

2) you don't have to be polite. I'd highly recommend it, and throw a few insults at someone who wasn't, but not being polite is no crime.

3) on an interview later, the driver said that he thought the officer asked him to get out of the car so that the driver could point out the speed limit sign that was right down the road. The driver did that and when he turned around the cop had drawn a weapon on him. The driver thought it was a gun, that's why he was walking back to his car. he though the cop was a psycho and was gonna shoot him.

4) asshole? yea I can see that. Deserving the taser? nope.


We have a contract with the police. We obey them according to the law because the uphold and follow the law. What happens when we break our end of the bargain? We get arrested. What happens when cops break the agreement? They get arrested...by other cops.

To what point are we required to tow the line if we feel the police aren't doing there job? A step farther, to what point are we obligated to obey the police when we feel that they are a direct threat to us? All of these incidents arise from that gray area.


sure. You follow that and we'll sit back and wach the next youtube vid of you getting tazered, or worse.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by shiman]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


The cops want the simplest and quickest way to get things over with with minimal TOTAL injuries to all people involved including the cop himself.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join