Fredericksburg police release video of taser, pepper spray incident

When I first watched the video, I thought the cops were overreacting but then I read the article (oops) and realized that the guy had apparently been involved in a hit and run. Now I'm confused how far away the hit and run happened, and if the officers should have realized this guy was having a medical emergency.

That officer, Shaun Jurgens, resigned from the city police department on May 14. But in a statement to the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Jurgens says he did not violate any policies in the May 4 incident.

However the police department decided that Jurgens’ use of force was not in line with department policies or training.

The department is still reviewing whether the two other officers seen in the videos Cpl. Matt Deschenes and Sgt. Crystal Hill will face any departmental charges or reprimands stemming from the incident. They remain on duty, according to the department.

The three officers responded to calls for a hit-and-run and driver traveling in the wrong direction in the northbound lanes of Jefferson Davis Highway near the University of Mary Washington pedestrian bridge.

I'm not sure how to feel about this one, basically because I want to know more about the hit and run. If the guy hit someone and was actually trying to flee, I think I can understand why the cops were so aggressive. If he had a medical emergency, hit a car and barely traveled any further it's very different. There's a big difference with a guy that's running and a guy that was involved in a traffic accident but kept going due to a medical problem.

The three officers responded to calls for a hit-and-run and driver traveling in the wrong direction in the northbound lanes of Jefferson Davis Highway near the University of Mary Washington pedestrian bridge.

A Hyundai driven by 34-year-old David Washington hit a Jeep, crossed the median and hit a street sign. The Hyundai eventually stopped in the middle of an intersection.

So was the Jeep the hit and run, or was it something before? I may just be having a slow morning, but it seems a bit vague. Considering he didn't have a valid license I can see why he would want to run.

In a situation like this, where the cops don't know if the guy is armed, he isn't responding but doesn't appear "out" and for all they know just committed a serious crime, I don't really think a taser and some mace is brutality or even overboard really. I don't know department policy, and what exactly the officer did that was deemed to not follow it.


Anyway, here are the videos.

The guy that ended up quitting after apparently failing to follow correct procedure is the first camera, he's annoying (so is the female officer). I'm thinking people were displeased with the "I'll smoke you" comments and that may have had more to do with him getting in trouble than deploying less lethal.







Link

I saw this earlier. And due to the stroke while driving, medical emergency, it seems that the most likely events occurred due to the medical emergency. When someone is unresponsive, the correct procedure is not to grow angry at their "noncompliance" but ask: ARE YOU OK? ARE YOU INJURED? and then if the person still seems to be physical unresponsive and can't nod, there should be some standard procedure for them to pull him out and check his vitals and perform CPR.

Not the way it was handled. That is obscene abuse of power.

a reply to: Domo1

Most (I say most because I'm not omniscient and don't know every agency's policy) departments specify that a Taser be deployed when a subject is "actively resisting." Actively resisting is usually defined as actions that are geared towards making an escape or preventing an arrest. I think one could theoretically argue that this guy was passively resisting as opposed to actively, in that he just wasn't complying with commands. My guess is that may be where the agency is coming down on this.

As for the OC deployment: this is a good example of somebody who doesn't have much of a reaction to it. He clearly didn't like it, but he didn't appear to be terribly perturbed by it either. OC isn't always as incapacitating as people like to believe.

a reply to: Domo1

Ya him saying if you don't get out of the car I'll kill(smoke) you is pretty bad.

And if his state was due to a stroke then that is even worse.

a reply to: Unity_99

Where exactly is that "procedure?"

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Unity_99

Where exactly is that "procedure?"

Thanks for reminding me to go back and star Unity_99's post.
The guy had a stroke while driving.
I suppose that a stroke is a valid reason to have an accident and not be responsive to others.

Here is what happened:

The police 'protected and served' a stroke victim by trying to Tase him, blasting him in the face with pepper spray, dragging him from his car... which they did not secure and letting the car run over his foot.

They were really helpful.

He is lucky that they didn't 'smoke' him.

a reply to: butcherguy

Welcome!

How, exactly, were they supposed to know he had had a stroke?

Oh. I get it. Police should treat everybody they encounter as if they're simply having a medical issue and can't possibly be non-compliant.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Domo1

Ya him saying if you don't get out of the car I'll kill(smoke) you is pretty bad.

And if his state was due to a stroke then that is even worse.

Shows how out of touch with reality some officers have become.

Like beating up a deaf person because they didn't hear.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: butcherguy

Welcome!

How, exactly, were they supposed to know he had had a stroke?

Oh. I get it. Police should treat everybody they encounter as if they're simply having a medical issue and can't possibly be non-compliant.

I know it sucks when people get to see it for what it is.
Noncompliance gets you 'smoked' , even if you are having a medical emergency.
The bright cops jumped to the conclusion that he was trying to kill them..... it never entered into their minds that people have medical emergencies.
He was doing nothing active.... including driving the car.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that something is wrong with the man.... but then we are dealing with public servants here.

a reply to: butcherguy

Sweet hyperbole man! I missed the part where dude got smoked. Can you give me the time stamp for that?

Oh. No, you can't. Because he didn't get smoked, did he? Thought not.

What really sucks is when people have to resort to hyperbole and distorting "reality" in an effort to be right.

Was the situation handled well and properly? No, it wasn't. Not in my opinion and many others. The guy wasn't "obviously" doing anything other than not being compliant. He didn't need to be Tased or sprayed. He needed to be pulled out of the vehicle, secured, and then given whatever medical attention was needed. To advance the notion that law enforcement should somehow be required to stop trying to secure a suspect to check on their medical status in the middle of a situation is just plain ignorant.

Rocket science indeed.

a reply to: Shamrock6
The cop.... the guiltless one that RESIGNED.... he threatened to smoke the stroke victim.

Who are the good guys again?

a reply to: Shamrock6


The one that they need to be following ASAP or they should be in jail.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: butcherguy

How, exactly, were they supposed to know he had had a stroke?

Oh. I get it. Police should treat everybody they encounter as if they're simply having a medical issue and can't possibly be non-compliant.

How about assess the #ing situation instead of going in half cocked?

And why is unresponsive automatically non compliant?

Oh I get it. The citizens should treat every cop they encounter as a murderer.........

It works both ways.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: butcherguy

Welcome!

How, exactly, were they supposed to know he had had a stroke?

Oh. I get it. Police should treat everybody they encounter as if they're simply having a medical issue and can't possibly be non-compliant.

It should be on their minds as at least an option when someone's not behaving quite right.

a reply to: Domo1

One thing seems to be consistently ignored by Americans when it comes to use of force and the things police are getting away with...

This is very important...

Cops have a very simple job:

1. Prevent crime where possible
2. Investigate crime.
3. Deliver those SUSPECTED of a crime to the legal system.

Regardless of what someone has done, what they are perceived to have done, what someone believes they have done, or what the evidence suggests they have done, AT NO TIME is a police officer to treat that person with any less respect or decency as anyone else they encounter.

It is not the job of any police officer to assume that someone has done something, or to treat them according to their beliefs. They are to treat everyone as though they are innocent, it is NOT FOR THEM to decide guilt.

Until America works out this one simple fact you will never get your nut case cops under control. They are not judges, juries or executioners. They are to deliver all those suspected of crimes SAFELY to the court system, until a court, judge or jury decides they are guilty, all cops are to treat them as though they are entirely innocent.

a reply to: Domo1

Well, this is what I gather.

1. The man apparently hit a Jeep, then crossed a median and hit a sign. We have no idea why he did this. Mechanical failure, drunk or drugged, or with some medical issue that caused driving difficulties.

2. The police showed up, ran up to his car, yelled at him, and then used a taser and mace, even though he made no move at all that would indicate any threat to police or bystanders. For all they knew, and logically, he could have been dazed from the accidents, from perhaps hitting his head.

3. The police, after using the taser and mace, demand he leave the car immediately, which clearly he cannot do at that stage, and then drag him out and onto his face on the pavement.

4. The police fail to secure the vehicle, and it sounds like it might have hit his foot/leg before the female cop notices it moving.

5. After all of this, the cop has the nerve to tell the guy it's alright, he's there with him, and they are taking care of him.

Where is any indication that he was a threat, other than the accident, for which we don't know a cause? Do the police now have the right to tase, mace, and drag fro their cars anyone involved in a car accident? Non-lethal or not, from the video, I can't see any reason or justification for their actions. Is there something we didn't see?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: butcherguy

Welcome!

How, exactly, were they supposed to know he had had a stroke?

Oh. I get it. Police should treat everybody they encounter as if they're simply having a medical issue and can't possibly be non-compliant.

It should be on their minds as at least an option when someone's not behaving quite right.

You're absolutely right, it should be. But it's not going to trump gaining control of a person, and then administering whatever aid is needed. Just as a person still gets handcuffed after being sprayed, Tased, or shot.

The problem in this instance, to me, is the methods used to gain control. They were over the top and very arguably completely unnecessary. But I'm not going to fault the officers for not walking up to the window and asking the guy if he was in medical duress as opposed to uncooperative.

This is the part that gets me.

Charges have been filed against Washington for hit and run, reckless driving and driving on a revoked license

They charged the guy who had a stroke but of course the officer gets to just resign. What a ridiculous double standard.

But I'm not going to fault the officers for not walking up to the window and asking the guy if he was in medical duress as opposed to uncooperative.

Why?

The ONLY thing he had done at that point was be in an accident. He wasn't being combative. Just non responsive.

I hope you're never in an accident and some jerk.....I mean cop thinks you're being noncompliant.

BTW....when exactly did it become standard procedure to cattle prod us into compliance?

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Oh I get it. The citizens should treat every cop they encounter as a murderer......... 

The cops kill a lot more citizens than citizens kill cops. The part that the cops don't want you to know... most cops that are killed 'in the line of duty' are struck accidentally by cars. The same thing happens for tow truck drivers.... but they don't get a parade.