>> ^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

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!

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

>> ^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.

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."

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?

>> ^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?

>> ^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?

The validity of the law classifying memorials as "nonpublic" is potentially a legitimate question. However, there are legitimate ways to question it (say through representation) and illegitimate (say by picking fights with cops). If people showed up at the WH, in numbers, at midnight, you better damn well believe they'll get what's coming to them. You have to understand the nerves of a law enforcement official (particularly in DC). They can't know your intentions. There are times and places that other constitutional mandates, such as to provide for national security, trump the first amendment. If you don't believe me, see my sift here. Also, please don't shoot back with "deserve neither." Like you point out, it's more complicated than simple aphorisms.

That's why we have courts. The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the law in question. Frankly, that the arrests were so physical had more to do with the attitude of the demonstrators than the cops. Refusing a lawful order repeatedly won't end well for you. They asked the demonstrators to leave nicely. The kids refused. When you disobey the law, as it is currently written, especially after being peacefully warned, reasonable states employ physical force. Saying that arrest is "violence" again over simplifies law enforcement. Those protesters knew what they were doing the whole time. Frankly, the force employed was the minimal force necessary to enforce the law. No weapons were used. Oscar Grant this wasn't.

As for Jefferson, if people flash mobbed his bed chambers, he'd most certainly ask them to leave. It's manners. If they refused, as these kids did, by yelling "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at him, you better believe there would be some Jeffersonian body-slams.
>> ^cosmovitelli:

Understood. The question is whether there should be such a law, and what a reasonable state would do if it were challenged. Presumably the same thing applies to thousands of spots, like the front of the White house. What if a couple of dozen people turned up there and silently flash mobbed it with a little peaceful jigging for 10 minutes? Do you want to see them violently attacked and arrested? Do you think the white house PR staff would ever dream of letting that happen? This is not as cut and dried as you guys would like to think. As for respecting Jefferson, does anyone really think the dude would have said anything other than let them get on with it?

>> ^dag:
The earlier protest may have been for a pretty lame reason, but they could have been issued citations without the bodyslams.


They were issued citations. Then they sued. Then when their lawsuit was dismissed they came back and yelled "you hate freedom, you hate the constitution" at cops, proceeded to ignore numerous lawful orders for them to disperse, and further, through physical resistance they clearly escalated the situation. Then they call it police brutality, when really it was all a PR campaign to attract the youth to a policy platform that systematically exploits working class people to the benefit of the rich. All this action does is cheapen claims of police brutality for people like Oscar Grant.

It was a stunt from the get go. Honestly, I'm kind of sickened by the whole thing.