Officer Misconduct

[kwlyon]

I was on the youtube and responding to a comment to a video displaying some rather poor police work. The video is found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqbmasNeOmM
The comment was from some random user:

How did the officer know that the man was not going to bolt and run into traffic or his car? Take into account that you have someone who is highly agitated and disagrees with the situation. As an officer he has to plan and act to prevent the worst possible outcome.
--cbabrown

To which I of course responded in my usual asinine manner with the following:

How does the officer know the man was not going to seize control of the government, build concentration camps, and try to exterminate the jews? He should have just shot the man in the face. As an officer he has to plan and act to prevent the worst possible outcome.
At this point a rather nice, though horrifically ill-informed woman responded and we have had a rather interesting conversation. I am posting it here for lolz and input if anyone is interested in such things. She claims to be the wife of an officer living abroad however I do find this claim rather dubious for several reasons which I think will become evident. But then I am used to coming across people on the Internet claiming to be “quantum physicist” who argue vehemently that power is not a unit of measure. At any rate here is the exchange.

Your logic is flawed. The possible immediate outcomes have nothing to do with concentration camps or jews. There are many cops that are killed in this very scenario. Maybe tasing this man is not what you would have done, but what this cop did was 100% legal. Sorry. Maybe if you educate yourself on the laws and tragic events you will have more of an understanding of the video.

Okay obviously the jewish reference was intended to be ironic. This cop could not have handled this worse. There was absolutely NOTHING legal about his behavior. He could have killed that man. The man was obviously not a threat. This officer should not only be fired (and he may have been) but arrested (he was not).

What SHOULD have happened: It is not unusual for people to refuse to sign a ticket. All they are being asked to sign is an agreement to appear in court however some people simply mistrust officers for whatever reason and fear being duped. After all, it is NOT illegal for an officer to lie to you. Usually when someone refuses to sign the ticket, the officer will tell the individual to wait in the car and will proceed to call another officer over to serve as a witness to the serving of the ticket. This is certainly inconvenient however it gets the job done. Technically the officer does have the right to arrest someone who refuses to sign a ticket, however this inevitably leads to paperwork and a possible escalation of the encounter. This is certainly not desirable, thus most officers will opt to call for a witness and just serve the ticket unsigned. There will then be a witness to the service that will serve the same purpose as the signature would have. Except now TWO officers must appear in court which is certainly also undesirable.

What this officer did: This officer was undoubtedly having a bad day and this individual was being remarkably disrespectful. Now this guy has every right to be blatantly disrespectful to an officer of the law. You have every right to call an officer a pig fucking donut eating fatass fucktard if you just feel so inclined. The officer will remain obligated to handle you professionally. I don't understand why someone would be so inclined to insult someone who has chosen to put their life at risk to protect us and it is certainly not conducive to earning any leniency however, if you feel so inclined, you have every right. This officer was offended. He asked the man, who was agitated though clearly not a threat, to get out of the car. This is an excellent way to escalate a situation unnecessarily and anyone with proper training would know better. When the man did as he was told, the officer proceeded to immediately point a potentially lethal weapon at the man. Then, when under no clear threat, he discharged said weapon. There is NO justification for this officer’s actions. This officer did not just violate the rights of this man, but also imparted great damage to the public trust. You see every time an officer saves someone's life, or helps a lost child find their parents, it MIGHT make it on the evening news for 5 minutes. But every time an officer acts in such an inappropriate manner and assaults a civilian, it ABSOLUTELY DOES end up immortalized on the Internet. The public trust is greatly damaged by these men and it is high time such behavior receives proper reproach. It is also high time we put in place proper universal guidelines and standards for officer training. It disturbs me to hear civilians (or even more so officers) defend this behavior under the guise of perceived imminent threat.

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods,

Sorry I havent been online for a few days. Thank you for actually taking the time to write a civil response instead of immature name calling like so many of the others like to do. My husband is a police officer so that is how I know a lot about the laws and the reasons why police officers do the things they do. I do agree that this cop could have handled the situation better. My husband did tell me that he would do a few things different in this case, but it is not excessive force or police brutality. I also want to know where you got the $40,000 settlement other than what it says in this video? I havent been able to find proof anywhere and yet that is the argument many of you make. Also you keep saying "this man was obviously not a threat." It's when cops start making THAT assumption that in many cases leads to death. How do you know that the man wouldn't have gotten back in his car and driven away, causing a chase, and potentially killing someone? There is nothing routine about a traffic stop and you have to view everyone as a potential threat. You cannot make assumptions. I'm sorry I have just known too many officers to get shot and killed because they let their guard down for one second. This man was not cooperating and acting like an idiot. I am an American but I dont live in the US. The cops in my country can legally beat the living snot out of you for something similar to what this man did. Be thankful the US has a better system than that. Cops are not paid to powder are asses and be our best friends so I dont expect that from them.

I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Take care.

--missarizona25

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. He refused to sign a ticket. I have no doubt that your husband has, or will at some point in the near future, have to deal with this exact scenario. I HOPE he has received proper training on how to deal with the situation. If he does not believe this was an incident of improper use of force, however, I dare say it may end in a lawsuit and his termination. This individual in the video certainly could have been more cooperative in regards to signing a ticket, however beyond this refusal, he followed the officer’s instructions. Watch that video again. Please tell me what prompted the officer to pull a potentially lethal weapon on this man? Officers should aim to diffuse such situations...this officer was directly responsible for escalating this situation. The man did choose to refuse to sign the citation. Because of this, the officer would have no proof that the citation was served. The officer, in an attempt to defuse the situation, should have first EXPLAINED to the man what his options were (sign the ticket, wait for another officer to come witness the citation, or be placed under arrest). The officer had the right to just arrest the man if he so chose. This was likely unnecessary however if he chose this course of action he should have asked the man to get out of the vehicle (which he did) and then requested that the man lean against the car and place his hands behind his back. At which point you cuff him, read him his rights, and proceed to take him under custody. If you want to talk about officer safety, AT NO POINT DURING THIS EXCHANGE SHOULD THE OFFICER HAVE TURNED HIS BACK ON THE DRIVER. To say the officer could have handled this better is an immense understatement. This was absolutely grounds for termination. And any lawyer in his right mind would jump on such an easily won case of police misconduct. As for the danger of traffic stops, well, first of all I disagree with that little diatribe. Most stops are quite routine. This is just something officers are taught as a sort of mantra to remind them that even a routine stop can turn ugly and they need to remain on their guard. Traffic stops are, statistically speaking, one of the more dangerous duties of law enforcement. Their job is dangerous...this does not mean they have the right to behave unprofessionally or to place the well-being of private citizens at risk. I don't expect an officer to be my "best friend" nor powered my ass. I do expect them to treat the public with respect and dignity. I am sorry you live in such a country. If I were you I would move back home. We do not accept such behavior form our law enforcement officials whom WE financially support.

I have no idea if this resulted in a settlement. However I find the title a tad dubious as well as 40,000 is a bit light. This would likely yield a six figure settlement. That is our money going to this man because an officer was not properly trained. That gets a good ways under my skin to say the least. If you would like to know the details of this case I'm sure you could turn up a location for the event. Such things are public record. Call the station and they can provide you with the officer's name. This should be all you need to search for any resulting lawsuits. Personally I don't want to know. Again that is my money going towards a settlement rather than keeping our communities safe.

"How do you know that the man wouldn't have gotten back in his car and driven away, causing a chase, and potentially killing someone?"

I would also like to, once again, directly address this argument, as it is the second time you have made it. Godwin's law can be a useful rhetorical technique. For example, what if the man runs for office and becomes president? What if, having obtained this office, he refuses to step down when his term is complete? What if he begins to collect the Jewish population into concentration camps? What if he then begins a mass extermination campaign? By this argument the officer is certainly justified in summarily executing the man on the spot. But this is of course absurd as is your identical argument. You can NOT deal in worst case scenarios when dealing with the public. You cannot treat someone like a criminal just because they MAY be a threat.

I couldnt find anything on public record that shows this officer was fired/lawsuit anything. Taser guns are considered non-lethal weapons, and the only reason why I want to move back home is because I am homesick. I am not worried about the police here because I'm not going to make the choice to resist them.The only reason why you think this man was not a threat is because he got his ass handed to him before he was able to do anything. I watched the video again. The man started walking back to his car. There is nothing on record about this incident because it's not police brutality. My husband has 11 years in law enforcement, investigations, and counter terrorism. He has had plenty of training. This officer could have acted better but it's not brutality. If it is truly illegal excessive force and brutality enough to make a case of several hundred thousand dollars awarded to this man, why is there no record of it out there? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
--missarizona25

Dear, you are horrifically ill-informed. It disturbs me greatly that an American citizen could watch this and attempt to defend the officer's behavior. This is the behavior typical of totalitarian governments...if you currently reside in such a state, you should be concerned. I do not believe this man was a threat as he did not behave in a threatening manner. Other than refusing to sign a document, he followed the instructions of the officer. He began to retreat back to his car AFTER the officer pointed a weapon at him--he was scared. And yes, tazers are considered potentially lethal weapons. They are only to be used in situations where there is a clear and imminent threat. This is a textbook example of excessive force. I don't believe for a second you have attempted to find any information whatsoever on this incident. Can you tell me what jurisdiction it occurred in? If not then you haven't even begun to inquire.

You see I will not agree to disagree because YOU are actually exacerbating the problem. Every time an officer behaves so horrifically it sails across the internet. The public trust is violated and it is difficult to reverse the damage. This incident is completely atypical of police behavior. However when people like you actually DEFEND the behavior and proclaim it to be the status quo less informed individuals take you at your word and this brews an undeserved mistrust, even hatred, for our men and women who dedicate their lives to serving their communities in what is already a primarily thankless employ.

Incidentally, I am going to share this exchange on my forum so that others in my local community can express their thoughts on the issue. As I am sharing this exchange, it is only fair that I invite you. I will send you a link to the thread when it is up.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Kevin Lyon

Those crazy situations are irrelevant to this case.

"You can NOT deal in worst case scenarios when dealing with the public."

You may not agree with that, but it is what the officers are trained to do.

--missarizona25

Absolutely it is not. Case in point, the officer did not execute the individual...that would be absurd. It was also absurd to discharge a potentially lethal weapon on the man. If you would like to continue this conversation, I will send you a link to the forum.

I am curious.. do you have any background training in law enforcement at all or do you watch cop dramas all day long? What qualifies you to form these opinions?

The only info I have to go by is that this took place in Vernal County Utah. I haven't found anything. I will never back down on my stance on this issue unless I find proof in this particular case that suggests this is excessive force and this cop was either fired or charged. And no a taser gun is not considered a lethal weapon.
I found another video that talks about the incident. Since the man filed a formal complaint there was an investigation opened on the cop, but I cannot find anything as to what the outcome was. They also did say in the video that the officer did have a right to tase him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ifEvD2P ... re=related

If you find anything else out let me know.
--missarizona25

Yea, this video is interesting. I wonder if that man speaking in it watched the same video I watched. The officer pulled the weapon BEFORE giving the man any instructions. You now know what county. I suggest you call The Vernal County police department (they may refer you to the state highway department if this was a state trooper incident) and begin your search for information there. Surely I do not need to hold your hand through the process? In answer to your question, no I do not have any training in law enforcement nor do I particularly enjoy "cops" type TV programming. As for what qualifies me to form these opinions, I am a highly educated individual who is proud to live in a free society. I wish my children to grow up in such a society where civil rights and human dignity are highly valued. If we are to ensure such a future for those who come after us, we must expect excellence form those we intrust with the task of defending our freedom and enforcing our laws.

You have not addressed a single point I have put forward. You have just belligerently insisted that this officer was acting within his rights. You have not addressed the point that it was the OFFICER who, at every turn, acted exactly as one would act if one were attempting to create an explosive situation. This was HORRIFIC police work. Such inept quality of law enforcement has no place in this country.

Edited by Savonarola on 20110213 1745: fixed quote tag

[missarizona25]

Hello Paul. Thanks for inviting me. I actually did find out info about the case here.

The trooper was first cleared because the taser use was justified but the investigation was still pending.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6952 ... .html?pg=2

"On March 12th, the Deseret Morning News also reported that the UHP internal investigation has now been concluded and Trooper Jon Gardner received a letter of counsel for failing to communicate adequately with motorist Jared Massey during the traffic stop, and for failure to follow UHP protocol when he removed the Taser probes from Massey's back. In the latter case, Gardner did not use latex gloves to remove the probes or clean the wounds with alcohol wipes, as required by department policy.

A letter of counsel is not the same as a letter of reprimand. It will remain in Gardner's file while he works in the UHP's Section 5 — the section that covers Duchesne, Uintah and Daggett counties — but will not follow him if he transfers to another section."

http://voice-of-deseret.blogspot.com/20 ... cepts.html

This cop was not fired. Jared was awarded $40,000. Not because of the taser, but because he did not follow proper protocol after the taser was deployed.

[kwlyon]

First of all, on behalf of the beautiful northern Arkansas town of Fayetteville and its resident freethinkers, welcome! And my name is Kevin Lyon. Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac is just one of my many heros. He is dead so I don't think he minds me using his name on my youtube account. Now, on to business. You are aware of what a settlement is are you not? This is a great deal of money. And congragulations on the detective work there. You have just verified the validity of the settlement. Remeber this statment?

"@TyroneDeChimp
LMAO!.....WOW You must know a lot of cops personally to know this much about their personal lives. Where do you get your statistics? How would you know this cop is a fag? BTW this man did not receive $40,000. That was a lie made up by the video poster for dramatic effect. "

Now I must admit that I am on your side regarding the inappropriate accusations that the officer was a "fag" and am rather offended by the implication that there would be something wrong the officer being homosexual. However this is exactly what I was referring to earlier--the tendency to assert information and knowledge you do not possess.

As for the settlement, which you were so kind as to verify, I think it is pretty clear why the department would be willing to settle an "aggressive force" lawsuit out of court to the tune of $40,000. This is NOT a case they wanted to go to court. First of all, they would very likely loose, probably a great deal more than $40,000. Second of all, the mass majority of the officers on this force are well aware of the effect this has on the public. They know all too well how important it is to maintain public support and trust. This officer violated that trust, and though they would prefer not to "throw him to the wolves" as he is, after-all, their colleague, they are not about to attempt to defend his actions in a court of law.

Also, I would like to point out that the two articles you linked seem to support my position, well I mean, once you read beyond the titles... I am happy the officer's career may be salvaged. Despite my initial response, that he should be terminated, it is always preferable that a resolution can be reached that does not include destroying someone's career. However I can only hope that measures were put into place to avoid a repeat occurrence. No mention was made of such measures...I find that disturbing. I'm guessing you do not.

I'll guarantee you next time, the officer will just rely on the video evidence of the stop and write "refused to sign" on the ticket. Forty Thousand in taxpayer dollars...tell me that doesn't stick in your craw....then try to tell me how it could not have been easily avoided.

And, just for the record, once again, I want to make my position clear. This person was being a complete idiot and treating that officer with blatant disrespect. A traffic stop is NOT the time to argue about a citation--that is what the courts are for. And he absolutely should have just signed the damn ticket as it was well explained to him (and it is pretty clear from just reading the citation) that it is not an admission of guilt but rather just verification that he was, in fact, served the citation. This fella was completely out of line. However, he was not violent nor behaving in a way that endangered the officer or anyone else. A well trained officer, even an acceptable yet exceedingly mediocre officer, would have had no difficulty in handling this situation and preventing the escalation that was ENTIRELY the fault of the officer. His inept police work put that man in harms way and violated the public's trust and confidence in their department. This is unacceptable. We should all expect a greater degree of professionalism from those to whom we impart power. I hope, however, that people understand this is NOT typical of our law enforcement officers. Most officers are well trained and professional. They have a difficult, dangerous, and exceedingly important job and as such should be held in the highest regard. My greatest concern in your defending this officer's horrific behavior is that some might come to believe this is typical or accepted behavior among law enforcement officials. It certainly is not. Thus the settlement.

[kwlyon]

One of the reasons I invited you here was I am SURE someone here will be more in line with your opinion on this issue. Stick around a bit and maybe we will hear from them. For a little more entertainment...here is a little word from our next door neighbors:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKK ... ature=fvwp

[Alan Wortman]

I think I understand the officer's thought process here, but using a tazer to subdue a non-threatening individual was wrong. Brandishing the sidearm was the event that escalated all this to stupid proportions. If he wanted to arrest him for non-compliance with a reasonable request, (quite legal), the sidearm should've stayed in the holster.

I've seen a few people mention that the guy was a "threat" and in essence, had this treatment coming. To you, I can only say that if a man walking away from you declaring you insane is a threat, then you may well deserve the moniker. The judgment in evidence by the officer was spotty at best, and resulted in his choice to use force to control a situation which did not require it. Had the motorist been violent, the use of this degree of force would have been absolutely appropriate.

Now was the motorist in the right? Well he certainly had the right to refuse to sign. In fact, he complied with everything the guy asked him to do BUT sign the affidavit ... up until he drew his weapon on him. This whole thing boils down to the officer mishandling peaceful non-compliance. The arrest was not necessary. Kevin's suggestion to allow the backup officer on the scene to witness the ticket would have been sufficient. The decision to make an arrest at gunpoint may have been entirely an ego trip.

So under what conditions would the officer's actions been appropriate? Had the motorist brandished a club or taken a threatening step toward him, I could see this. Even if the motorist had made threatening remarks this would have been an entirely different story.

Refusal to sign something is never a crime. Telling someone they're irrational or crazy is not a crime. Discharging a weapon at an unarmed and non-violent motorist who's trying to walk away ...

...you're not going to shoot me are you?

[kwlyon]

Well, Allan, this is kinda my position in a nutshell. Allen usually disagrees with me, at least to some extent, on such issues. Allan, what do you think regarding the officer being terminated (he was not by the way). I have come around a bit on this one. I vote he gets to keep his job however should be "warned", ehhem, that a repeat incident will not bode well for his career. I think I am being abundantly reasonable with this assessment.

[Alan Wortman]

I believe a reprimand was in order, and the resultant damages reported seem to be in line with fair compensation. I don't think he should be fired, but a token suspension (maybe a week, max) would not be off the table. Should a similar situation arise again with this officer, then harsher sanctions should be imposed.

Now that we've answered whether it was moral, let's discuss what we ought to do about it.

In a nutshell, everybody has a bad day at work. While I believe the officer made a mistake, there was no real lasting harm done and no measurable property damage. But thinking about it, perhaps a counselling session about the prudent use of force at his precinct might do some good.

As to your second video, those boys should be dismissed from the force. That was pure unprofessional hubris and retribution.

[kwlyon]

I came to the same conclusion regarding the original video. Besides just having a bad day at work, that kid was a tad agitated, and he did have his hand in his pocket. This tends to put officers on edge. Now the officer immediately pulled a weapon on him and this was certainly inappropriate, however I ultimately was willing to cut him some slack in that as you stated, "everyone has a bad day at work". For all I know he has lost a colleague in such a stop and is just generally on edge. Whatever the case, if I were his superior, I would keep an eye on him for a while.

As for the other video, I came across it while searching for stuff on the original video. Wow....just wow. I have no idea what the hell that was all about. Just...wow.

[Dardedar]

The following may be instructive here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqvijdxnHxI

[Alan Wortman]

Agitated? Are you kidding me? Annoyed, yes. Agitated, no.

Wait. I'm measuring this by my my own rubrick again. The kid didn't seem to display even a hint of violent intent or even raise his voice.

At least until the cop shot him. THEN, my friend, the guy became agitated. The incoherent screaming is always a dead giveaway. Write that down. It's a tip.

[kwlyon]

First of all, Michael Moore is an Uber Douche. Second of all, "It's my job to enforce crime".

[missarizona25]

I dont agree with either of their actions and that has been my stance from the very beginning. I have said this cop could have handled this situation a lot better. However when the man did not comply with the officer's demands and kept walking away even when the officer told him to turn around about 4 times he did have the right to deploy the taser, as I have been saying all along. The reason why the man was awarded $40,000 was because the cop did not follow proper police protocol when he removed the prongs. The taser use was already deemed justified, and the cop was not fired, because it's not considered police brutality. It's considered bad (really bad) communication and not following proper procedure when shooting a taser at worst. A good police officer has the ability to defuse a bad situation, not make it worse. The reason I had written my comment about the $40,000 being a complete lie, was because I knew that the man getting tasered was not police brutality and would not hold up in court. I was right. The $40,000 didnt come from the taser itself, but failure to follow protocol after the taser was shot. I deleted my comment after I found it was misleading..which is what happens when you jump the gun. Anyways it bugs me most when people see a video like this and them automatically start trashing every cop in Amercia and have this smug attitude like they are entitled to special treatment. I know there are a few bad apples out there but most cops in the US are not dirty, and people who think that have little knowledge of what goes on outside their own bedrooms let alone the US.

[kwlyon]

I dont agree with either of their actions and that has been my stance from the very beginning. I have said this cop could have handled this situation a lot better. However when the man did not comply with the officer's demands and kept walking away even when the officer told him to turn around about 4 times he did have the right to deploy the taser, as I have been saying all along.

Yes, however the officer did not instruct the man to turn around until AFTER drawing the weapon. If an officer randomly pulls a weapon on me, I will likely behave differently than this man did, however I assure you I will become somewhat agitated. It would scare the hell out of me. Your defense of this officer's "right" to use potentially lethal force here is difficult for me to understand.

The reason why the man was awarded $40,000 was because the cop did not follow proper police protocol when he removed the prongs.

Absolutely not. The officer failed to use latex gloves when removing the tazer prongs. This is considered improper procedure for obvious reasons. These are barbed metal prongs and they cause a fair amount of bleeding when removed. The use of gloves is primarily to protect the officer from potential blood-born pathogens. It is also to protect the individual who was tased from a significantly lesser risk of infection. However you cannot possibly believe that the man was awarded FOURTY THOUSAND DOLLARS simply because the officer failed to wear gloves when removing the taser leads. This would be even more ridiculous than the actual tasing occurrence! The man was offered the settlement, quite obviously, to prevent the matter from going to court. Your assertion that it was just a mater of prong removal protocol is patently absurd.

The taser use was already deemed justified, and the cop was not fired, because it's not considered police brutality. It's considered bad (really bad) communication and not following proper procedure when shooting a taser at worst. A good police officer has the ability to defuse a bad situation, not make it worse.

Of course it was police brutality...and of course it was utterly inept police work in general. Just because the department deemed it justified does not make everything alright! These are sensitive situations and there is a tendency for other officers to side with their colleagues, particularly where potential lawsuits are involved, as they don't want to create a situation where every tazing occurrence ends in a lawsuit. However the fact remains, it is unacceptable to discharge a potentially lethal weapon on a citizen when there is no imminent threat.

The reason I had written my comment about the $40,000 being a complete lie, was because I knew that the man getting tasered was not police brutality and would not hold up in court. I was right.

Evidently the department did not share your optimism as was evidenced by their willingness to settle out of court for a rather substantial sum of money.

The $40,000 didnt come from the taser itself, but failure to follow protocol after the taser was shot.

I have already addressed this patently absurd assertion. This would be like me being awarded $40,000 dollars because an officer failed to wash his hands after wiping his ass and then proceeded to hand me a ticket thus potentially putting us both in harms way...assuming of course this violated proper ass-wiping procedure.

I deleted my comment after I found it was misleading..which is what happens when you jump the gun.

It happens to the best of us. I certainly will not hold it against you.

Anyways it bugs me most when people see a video like this and them automatically start trashing every cop in Amercia and have this smug attitude like they are entitled to special treatment. I know there are a few bad apples out there but most cops in the US are not dirty, and people who think that have little knowledge of what goes on outside their own bedrooms let alone the US.

EXACTLY!!! This is exactly why we cannot have people doing what YOU are doing here--defending an officer who has acted deplorably. As I have made very clear, my goal is to lead people to the understanding that this IS NOT typical. This was exceedingly poor police work that ended in a huge sum of tax money being diverted away from serving the public and into a private pocket. Your arguments all along have made it clear that you SUPPORT the officers behavior. Such instances of officer misconduct violate the public's trust and impart great harm on officer-citizen relations leading to undeserved mistrust and even hatred toward every other officer in the pubic service. Please get a clue--YOU are contributing to this attitude you hold in disdain.