[LordOpie]

http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386

watch it, form an opinion, then...




Does anyone else think that the driver antagonized the cop on purpose with his delays -- getting info, exiting slowly, walking to back of car very slowly -- in hopes of getting a beating on film and collecting is Lotta Law Suit?

 

[Upgr8r]

I have to disagree on it being deliberate. To me the driver seemed flustered and confused (not uncommon when pulled over). The cop escalated the situtaion very rapidly what with whipping out the tazer in less than 2 minutes

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

Obviously this cop was looking to abuse someone. He pulled them over for 5 miles an hour over the limit.

That little piggy would serve best as bacon. (which could be sold to British McDonalds )

 

[LordOpie]

Obviously this cop was looking to abuse someone. He pulled them over for 5 miles an hour over the limit.

I'm pretty sure the cop's primary concern was the license plate on front, but not the rear. Sometimes suggests that the car is stolen and someone swapped a tag in a hurry to cover up.

 

[Wumpus]

The willingness of various officers of the Austin Police Department, including several members of the Austin Police Union, to offer a personal apology to a driver who was attacked during a traffic stop by an officer with a Taser is heartening. It’s an indication that the department’s rank-and-file will not turn a blind eye to unprofessional conduct by one of its own, and that, in turn, will inspire greater public trust in Austin officers and the department.

“If one person spreads the word that this is how he was treated and got no apology, it’s like an infection that would spread,” Matt Greer told the American-Statesman’s Tony Plohetski. Greer represents the detective rank on the police union board. By now, the facts are fairly well-known: Eugene Snelling, 32, was driving on MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) last Thanksgiving when Cpl. Thomas O’Connor stopped him for going 5 mph over the speed limit.

The video camera on O’Connor’s cruiser recorded what happened next: O’Connor walks up to Snelling’s car window and demands a driver’s license and registration. Snelling’s voice rises, saying, “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!” O’Connor shouts back, “No, not ‘whoa, whoa, whoa.’ ” He orders Snelling out of the car. Snelling complies, but O’Connor shocks him anyway with the Taser — all within 45 seconds of being stopped.

After an investigation, the department’s Internal Affairs office saw no need for disciplinary action. But then-Acting Chief Cathy Ellison reviewed it and ordered a three-day suspension for O’Connor, who served it and then returned to duty.

When Art Acevedo, the new chief from California, saw the video, he strongly disapproved of O’Connor’s action but saw in the footage what some would call “a teaching moment.” He released the video, told officers to watch it, and made it clear that any officer who did the same as O’Connor would be in serious trouble. The chief’s warning was appropriate and welcome.

But what’s genuinely encouraging is the reaction of officers who watched the video and not only disapproved — we think most officers would — but spoke up about the need for an apology, a personal apology. As professional law enforcement officers, they don’t want to be associated with the kind of behavior on display in the video.

The public wants to believe in and trust its police officers. Even law-abiding citizens, like Snelling, might get pulled over occasionally for minor traffic offenses.

But what to an officer is a fairly routine, even if irritating, traffic stop can be a nerve-wracking experience for a driver, particularly for one who is Hispanic or African American and stopped by a white officer. People may drive away from such encounters unhappy about getting a ticket, but they should not — literally — be shocked by it or have cause to complain about an officer’s bullying behavior.

Acevedo said his standard for officer behavior is high. We think most officers already meet that standard. But we applaud the willingness to publicly acknowledge and apologize for failures to live up to that standard.

Such candor can only bolster police credibility.


http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2007/10/02/apologies_help_boost_police_cr.html

 

[Silver]

Pretty quick on the trigger there.

The guy he tased is obviously a terrorist mastermind though, so I'm ok with it. Tasers never really hurt anyone, and should be used like cattle prods...

 

[jasride]

Man, he sounded like a 16yr old white kid.

I think part of learning to drive, there should be a section on what to do when you get pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Have your license, registration and proof of insurance ready to go before mister officer arrives at your door. even if you think you didn't do anything wrong.

the officer was probably wrong for pulling out the taser so quick but with proper "being pulled over, what should i do skills" this incident might not have happened.

 

[$tinkle]

categorically unprofessional. whatever wealth earned by this officer during his hopefully now terminated career should be transferred to the tazee.

and even though it's probably 1% of 1% of cops, i can understand the sweeping distrust they've earned from a large portion of the public.

 

[Upgr8r]

I think part of learning to drive, there should be a section on what to do when you get pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Have your license, registration and proof of insurance ready to go before mister officer arrives at your door. even if you think you didn't do anything wrong.

I never reach for anything until the officer is at the window. Last thing I want is for him to pull his gun because he see's me rummaging around my truck as he's walking up

 

[jasride]

I never reach for anything until the officer is at the window. Last thing I want is for him to pull his gun because he see's me rummaging around my truck as he's walking up

That's right, rummaging around in your truck and also shouting things like "whoa whoa whoa mister officer wait what did i do," and starting s**t have the potential of getting your ass tasered. It sucks but that's just the way it is. It shouldn't take but a few seconds to pull your registration and proof of insurance from your glove compartment. If more time is needed then I'm probably half asleep where then also following proper procedure might get my my ass home instead of in jail.I'm not even a cop but I can respect what there doing so I would do everything I could to make both myself and the cops situation safe and easy.

 

[MikeD]

I dunno. The taser isn't a compliance tool, but the subject verbally indicated an unwillingness to comply, passively resisted, then actively resisted the officer. Clear grounds for use of a taser. The fact that it happened in under 45 seconds is due to the subject's actions within that span and the officer's choice to control the situation without beating the crap out of the guy and/or getting in a risky hand-to-hand situation in a dangerous place with two potential aggressors.

I think a political chief sold the officer down the river so she could look like ****ing sunshine to her community.

Officers working alone who pull over suspicious cars have reason to be careful. It takes less than a second for a truly dangerous person to go from deceptively compliant to deadly, and they will take advantage of any gap in an officer's control of the situation. Officers WILL control the stop, whether it's comfortable for the subject or not.

 

[valve bouncer]

Anyone who thinks that was even remotely justified is a f*cking fascist who needs to have their own shrivelled raisins continiously tasered for a full ten minutes. What the f*cking hell is wrong with people who think that sort of thing is OK?

 

[MikeD]

The facts of the stop justify it, legally and morally.

It was not the best PR move or the only possible course of action, but it was legal and logical.

When a cop tells you to move to the back of the car, comply. Don't mouth off, don't stand still, and if he moves you when you're failing to comply, don't actively resist.

 

[$tinkle]

The facts of the stop justify it, legally and morally.

It was not the best PR move or the only possible course of action, but it was legal and logical.

When a cop tells you to move to the back of the car, comply. Don't mouth off, don't stand still, and if he moves you when you're failing to comply, don't actively resist.

while i agree with this, a measure of realism is needed. outside of the military, who in their every day travails gets barked at & complies immediately? everyone talks shi7 to everyone else in the daily course of events.

civilians don't get briefed.

 

[Silver]

I dunno. The taser isn't a compliance tool, but the subject verbally indicated an unwillingness to comply, passively resisted, then actively resisted the officer. Clear grounds for use of a taser.

Of course the resistance was due to the fact that the dumbass cop couldn't keep his own cool, and knew he had a taser on his belt to zap the guy (who knows lots of people in the PD!) when he got mouthy. The newspaper article as written doesn't actually represent the facts on the video. Damn left wing media...

I do actually think that the officer has a thin legal justification to use the taser when the guy pushes off, but at the same time there is no way that a routine traffic stop needs to escalate that quickly. I deal with people every day who are more agitated than Snelling was. Being a cop doesn't mean that people are required by law to be nice and friendly and polite, as far as I know.

Doing a little googling, it appears that there are more than 800,000 LEOs in the United States. 57 of them died on duty last year, 11 of them during traffic stops.

According to Wikipedia, there were 43,443 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2005, with a population of 296,507,061. That gives a death rate of 0.0147%.

Being generous, and counting all 57 LEO deaths, the death rate on the job was ~0.0071%. If you take into account traffic stops, the death rate was ~0.0014%. Unless my math is wildly off (and it may be, please double check it) a police officer is 10 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident outside his work than in a traffic stop.

A 1/10 risk compared to the risks taken driving to the job in the morning do not seem to me to be an adequate justification for taser use, and is at best a red herring.

 

[sanjuro]

This is a subtlety issue. While the officer make his demand for papers obvious and any delay or complaint by the driver could be interpreted as a threat, I have to believe a good officer could handle this without causing pain.

This cop f'ed up.

 

[skinny mike]

that cop was a douche. anyone else notice the license plate in the rear windshield?

 

[MtnbikeMike]

Man, he sounded like a 16yr old white kid.

I think part of learning to drive, there should be a section on what to do when you get pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Have your license, registration and proof of insurance ready to go before mister officer arrives at your door. even if you think you didn't do anything wrong.

the officer was probably wrong for pulling out the taser so quick but with proper "being pulled over, what should i do skills" this incident might not have happened.

Funny you mention this, because the driving school I went to did tell us how to act when pulled over: make no sudden movements keep your hands on the steering wheel. And that's for the exact reason Upg8r said.

Getting your license and reg ready before the officer gets to your window is asking for more than a tazer being pulled on you, contrary to your backwards logic.

 

[MikeD]

Of course the resistance was due to the fact that the dumbass cop couldn't keep his own cool, and knew he had a taser on his belt to zap the guy (who knows lots of people in the PD!) when he got mouthy. The newspaper article as written doesn't actually represent the facts on the video. Damn left wing media...

I do actually think that the officer has a thin legal justification to use the taser when the guy pushes off, but at the same time there is no way that a routine traffic stop needs to escalate that quickly. I deal with people every day who are more agitated than Snelling was. Being a cop doesn't mean that people are required by law to be nice and friendly and polite, as far as I know.

Doing a little googling, it appears that there are more than 800,000 LEOs in the United States. 57 of them died on duty last year, 11 of them during traffic stops.

According to Wikipedia, there were 43,443 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2005, with a population of 296,507,061. That gives a death rate of 0.0147%.

Being generous, and counting all 57 LEO deaths, the death rate on the job was ~0.0071%. If you take into account traffic stops, the death rate was ~0.0014%. Unless my math is wildly off (and it may be, please double check it) a police officer is 10 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident outside his work than in a traffic stop.

A 1/10 risk compared to the risks taken driving to the job in the morning do not seem to me to be an adequate justification for taser use, and is at best a red herring.

On my way out so this will be short...

By your logic, no officer ever has justification to consider his own personal safety until it's apparent that someone, say, has a gun pointed at him.

LEO deaths are not the same as the number of both lethal-force and non-lethal-force assaults on officers, which are quite common, and it's the officer's own ass out there. A lot of LEOs win fights...your stats are counting only the direst of the losers, and ignore the actual dangers/chances of getting in a fight.

LEO safety is pro-active.

This cop was a DICK. Don't get me wrong. I think he could have handled the stop much more smoothly. He doesn't seem like a guy I'd like to work with from this short vid. Others could learn how not to run a traffic stop by this. None of that changes the standards for the use of force.

 

[jasride]

Funny you mention this, because the driving school I went to did tell us how to act when pulled over: make no sudden movements keep your hands on the steering wheel. And that's for the exact reason Upg8r said.

Getting your license and reg ready before the officer gets to your window is asking for more than a tazer being pulled on you, contrary to your backwards logic.

The officer can be at the same risk if you wait until he gets to your door and asks you for license and registration and you then begin "rummaging" through your glove box.

but:

After reading this post I decided to search this out and yes, i have found that it does say keep hands on the wheel until the office asks you to do so.i guess I'm just going on personal experience and I'm used to usually doing things with backwards-logic. But i will continue the use the backwards-logic method because with a little bit of common sense I think makes the routine stop safer for everybody involved. To me, there's no reason why you can't have your registration and proof of insurance in your hand with also, both hands on the steering wheel before the officer arrives at your door.

back to the subject at hand. I do believe both the officer and the man in the car where both being a**bags and at fault in this incident and I guess that is why the police department has decided to use the vid for training.

 

[sanjuro]

The officer can be at the same risk if you wait until he gets to your door and asks you for license and registration and you then begin "rummaging" through your glove box.

but:

After reading this post I decided to search this out and yes, i have found that it does say keep hands on the wheel until the office asks you to do so.i guess I'm just going on personal experience and I'm used to usually doing things with backwards-logic. But i will continue the use the backwards-logic method because with a little bit of common sense I think makes the routine stop safer for everybody involved. To me, there's no reason why you can't have your registration and proof of insurance in your hand with also, both hands on the steering wheel before the officer arrives at your door.

back to the subject at hand. I do believe both the officer and the man in the car where both being a**bags and at fault in this incident and I guess that is why the police department has decided to use the vid for training.

I agree with your general assessment. I use the "Yes Sir/No Sir/Thank You Sir" approach with the police, and I rarely have a problem.

One time though, I was driving with my father around Xmas when we got pulled over in a DUI trap. I was using my Y/N/TY approach until he asked us where were we. My father and I immediately started to kvetch about going to Circuit City to buy a computer, and the nice officer realized we weren't drunk but just irate New Yorkers and let us go.

 

[ATOMICFIREBALL]

So,he tazed the guy & got 3 days off !
What a fun job...

 

[Dartman]

I too have found it best to not be argumentative and be polite and cooperative. The time to argue is in court and the times I've been there the judge asked the officer if I was "good". Pull over promptly and keep your hands on the wheel when he approaches. When he asks for my DL and reg I tell him I'm going into the glove box for the registration.

One cop pulled me over and as he walked up and saw my hands on the wheel asked me do you have a gun? I said "No" and he said he asked since my hands were on the wheel. I said "Well you're the only one with a gun here I just wanted to make sure we both understood that." He laughed and the rest of the process went smoothly.

He told the judge later in court that I pulled over quickly and I was cooperative with him. I requested traffic school and the judge granted it.

You'll also notice that many cops will touch the rear quarter of your car to leave fingerprints as a positive ID just in case. It's a tough job and I wouldn't want to do it.

All that said the cop in the vid was a little too quick on the draw IMO.

 

[laura]

while i agree with this, a measure of realism is needed. outside of the military, who in their every day travails gets barked at & complies immediately? everyone talks shi7 to everyone else in the daily course of events.

civilians don't get briefed.

Outside of the military who gets barked at like that in general.

Combine a strong distrust (generally leading to fear and defensiveness) of the police with the hostility exhibited by a barking police officer and you have a recipe for disaster. Let's not even look at other factors that add to trouble, like confusion. Who knows if he was even aware that his rear license plate was missing.

Of course it is an officer's duty to assure his own safety, HOWEVER it is his professional duty to recognize and understand how his actions affect a altercation. That should be a requirement for any "civil servant". You have to understand and respect the population you work in. Tazing someone after a 45 second interaction is evidence that he never intended to try to diffuse any situation before it escalated. IMO.

 

[Upgr8r]

Outside of the military who gets barked at like that in general.

Combine a strong distrust (generally leading to fear and defensiveness) of the police with the hostility exhibited by a barking police officer and you have a recipe for disaster. Let's not even look at other factors that add to trouble, like confusion. Who knows if he was even aware that his rear license plate was missing.

Of course it is an officer's duty to assure his own safety, HOWEVER it is his professional duty to recognize and understand how his actions affect a altercation. That should be a requirement for any "civil servant". You have to understand and respect the population you work in. Tazing someone after a 45 second interaction is evidence that he never intended to try to diffuse any situation before it escalated. IMO.

A very good point. People react funny in high stress situations, which a traffic stop very well can be. Add the officers attitude and most people would get extremely flustered, which is the reaction of this driver IMHO. He wasn't deliberately being obstructive.

Cops have a ****ty job sometimes and it can be dangerous, but a majority of the time they control the situation and their attitude is a big part of that. I've been pulled over and had it be an almost pleasant experience because the officer, while doing his job, was pleasant. The golden rule applies here, do unto others, etc. If a cop wants my respect and civility, he better show the same to me

 

[Dartman]

Tazer cop could take a lesson from this guy...

Patience of a saint.

 

[Silver]

By your logic, no officer ever has justification to consider his own personal safety until it's apparent that someone, say, has a gun pointed at him.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the hysteria about officers needing to protect themselves appears to be extremely overblown, if my math is correct.

How often does the statement, "They put their lives on the line every day!" come up in a discussion like this. You yourself made essentially the same claim in this thread.

Also, comparing deaths is apples and apples. I can't very well compare vehicular deaths to officer injuries, can I? Deaths are also very precise. There's no arguing about the severity of them...

 

[syadasti]

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the hysteria about officers needing to protect themselves appears to be extremely overblown, if my math is correct.

How often does the statement, "They put their lives on the line every day!" come up in a discussion like this. You yourself made essentially the same claim in this thread.

Also, comparing deaths is apples and apples. I can't very well compare vehicular deaths to officer injuries, can I? Deaths are also very precise. There's no arguing about the severity of them...

Police and firefighters never make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs in America. You are ten times more likely to die on the job as a fisherman versus a police officer.

The top three most dangerous jobs are fisherman, airplane pilot, or logger - the position varies by year but usually only the pilot and logger trade spots.

 

[ohio]

I think a political chief sold the officer down the river so she could look like ****ing sunshine to her community.

Or she did what she could to maintain as positive a relationship as possible between the rest of her staff and the public, in hopes that future stops don't escalate for purely emotional reasons.

 

[MikeD]

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that the hysteria about officers needing to protect themselves appears to be extremely overblown, if my math is correct.

How often does the statement, "They put their lives on the line every day!" come up in a discussion like this. You yourself made essentially the same claim in this thread.

Also, comparing deaths is apples and apples. I can't very well compare vehicular deaths to officer injuries, can I? Deaths are also very precise. There's no arguing about the severity of them...

Your math isn't correct--that's what I'm saying. It shows the risk of being killed on duty as absolutely miniscule. The math takes no account (and can't take account, being math) of the situations that officers avert every day by being proactive about their safety, controlling situations where someone might otherwise choose to attack them. It also makes no note of the number of *assaults,* deadly or non-lethal, won or lost, against police every day. The very act of a police officer preventing or winning a fight keeps such an incident from possibly appearing on the "officer deaths" list. It's simply not a valid way of looking at the issue at all.

 

[MikeD]

Tazing someone after a 45 second interaction is evidence that he never intended to try to diffuse any situation before it escalated. IMO.

No. It's merely proof that the subject actively resisted the officer within 45 seconds. I am aghast at the number of people who seem to think that an officer has to have some sort of time requirement before taking control of a situation.

That said, this officer was a jerk. I don't think he's the kind of guy I'd like to work with, or encounter on or off duty. I think, in accord with you, that had he used a different attitude, he might not have gotten the reaction he did from the citizen.

But that does not change the fact that this was an absolutely textbook use of a taser. It allowed the lone officer to control the subject instantly and without causing him permanent damage or hospital time. It prevented the officer from getting in a dangerous physical tangle with a resisting man, which might lead to a gun-grab situation. It allowed the officer to control the subject while keeping an eye on the second subject and the general situation, including the traffic whizzing by, feet behind his back. 100% perfect use. The fact that he was a penis is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his use of force.

 

[Silver]

Your math isn't correct--that's what I'm saying. It shows the risk of being killed on duty as absolutely miniscule. The math takes no account (and can't take account, being math) of the situations that officers avert every day by being proactive about their safety, controlling situations where someone might otherwise choose to attack them. It also makes no note of the number of *assaults,* deadly or non-lethal, won or lost, against police every day. The very act of a police officer preventing or winning a fight keeps such an incident from possibly appearing on the "officer deaths" list. It's simply not a valid way of looking at the issue at all.

The risk of being killed on duty IS absolutely miniscule. Unless I'm way off on the number of LEOs in the country, or the number that died.

Again, I'm comparing deaths to deaths. Of course, the number of deaths on the road due to driving isn't really an accurate number either, because it doesn't take into account the actions that people take on the freeway everyday to avoid accidents, right? Things like braking and turning corners? Y'know, proactive accident avoidance. Without that, the stats would undoubtedly be horrific...

 

[MikeD]

But the risk is minimized by the very police actions you're criticizing. And the stats are altered by fights the police win instead of lose.

And although it's not mathematically neat or even possible, you can't simply ignore assaults against police. They are undoubtedly extremely common in many places, despite police training and actions on the spot.

Edit: Dammit, my edit disappeared. Allow me to re-type... Your math also homogenizes the risk to officers nationwide. It ignores variations in risk and the number of officers in a given place. In some places, risk is likely near zero. In others (like big cities), it's significantly higher.

 

[$tinkle]

do cops get a gold leaf device on their marksmanship ribbon if they land a probe in each eye, or nipple?

 

[Silver]

But the risk is minimized by the very police actions you're criticizing. And the stats are altered by fights the police win instead of lose.

And although it's not mathematically neat or even possible, you can't simply ignore assaults against police. They are undoubtedly extremely common in many places, despite police training and actions on the spot.

Edit: Dammit, my edit disappeared. Allow me to re-type... Your math also homogenizes the risk to officers nationwide. It ignores variations in risk and the number of officers in a given place. In some places, risk is likely near zero. In others (like big cities), it's significantly higher.

Which are all criticisms that can be made about the driving statistics as well.

Or the use of hardhats and steel toe boot and backup alarms and visibility vests by construction workers...

 

[MikeD]

Since I think 89% of statistics are completely useless, I fail to see how the inaccuracy of other stats makes a compelling case for verity in yours.

ed: aDD Fun lnk 4 yooze: http://www.badcopnews.com/

 

[Silver]

Since I think 89% of statistics are completely useless, I fail to see how the inaccuracy of other stats makes a compelling case for verity in yours.

What? You're the one trying to compare apples to kiwis. I'm just pointing out that I can whine about driving stats and inflate them the same way you are attempting to inflate LEO stats.

But, at the end of the day, deaths don't lie. And being a LEO is simply not a dangerous job, especially compared to piloting, logging, commercial fishing, and construction.

 

[MikeD]

I never used statistics at all, inflated or otherwise...I don't think they're relevant.

And yes, the fact that the actions with which you often take issue influence the circumstances which contribute to police death, injury, and assault is always relevant. You're saying the job's not dangerous (and by extension, police attention to safety is overblown and hysterical) because of a small number of deaths, while the number of deaths is small because of the very actions you criticize.

Nor, again and again and again, are a statistical number of deaths in *any* way the only reliable measure of danger on the job.

 

[Silver]

I never used statistics at all, inflated or otherwise...I don't think they're relevant.

And yes, the fact that the actions with which you often take issue influence the circumstances which contribute to police death, injury, and assault is always relevant. You're saying the job's not dangerous (and by extension, police attention to safety is overblown and hysterical) because of a small number of deaths, while the number of deaths is small because of the very actions you criticize.

Nor, again and again and again, are a statistical number of deaths in *any* way the only reliable measure of danger on the job.

So, since we can't use statistics, we go with your gut? I hope it's better than BMXman's gut feeling on epidemiology...

 

[MikeD]

It's not a gut feeling; it's inherently obvious that the a job require the confrontation and apprehension of criminals and other various wackos is dangerous. A job that requires you to move into danger rather than away from it is dangerous. I'm not hystrionic about it; it's a fact, and the people who've signed up for it should themselves be aware and accepting of it. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't take every available opportunity to keep themselves as safe as possible in a dangerous world.

I've looked at every incident we've questioned through the lens of the legal system, not through emotion. This particular incident is quite clear. (To VB--it's not "remotely" justified, it's entirely so.)

Plus, your quick bit long division hardly constitutes a thorough statistical analysis; I've already pointed out why it's really, really flawed.