Young Father Tased For Refusing To Sign Speeding Ticket In Utah
This young cop loses it very quickly. I thought tasing was a last resort kind of thing. Not in this case. The release of this on YouTube has triggered an investigation into the policeman's actions.
Hat tip to Crooks and Liars
Tags:
10 comments:
Both the cop and the driver come off here has jackasses. The cop probably should have handled the situation differently and probably should have never pulled the taser to begin with. As I see it the main mistake the driver made though was turning around and walking back towards his vehicle. At that point he was not complying with the officer's instructions and in fact was probably resisting arrest.
I'm not a fan of the taser and it is probably being used more than it should. In this case however, because the driver was resisting arrest the cop will likely be cleared of any wrongdoing. I suspect the driver knows this and this explains why he had the video posted, in an attempt to garner sympathy.
I'm not a fan of the taser and it is probably being used more than it should. In this case however, because the driver was resisting arrest the cop will likely be cleared of any wrongdoing.
I agree that the father shouldn't have walked away, but don't agree that the cop will get off because the man was "resisting arrest".
The use of the taser should surely be one of last resort. The policeman used it incredibly quickly in this instance.
And maybe the man did post this on YouTube to "garner sympathy", however, there's also the possiblity that he did so simply to show what happened to him and how freely - in this instance -the taser was used.
This is why the founders created the 2nd Amendment. Not the 3rd, 5th, or 10th. The 2nd. Right after free speech. Read between the lines and you'll see what I would have done in the father's situation.
Will,
I find it hard to believe that a pacifist like yourself would have drawn a weapon! Is that what you are implying? :-)
In all my life, I have never seriously considered walking into a store and buying a gun. Or on the street, or from a friend, or anywhere else. But there have been a good handful of times when I have read something or heard something and felt a raging, revolutionary spirit welling up from deep inside my genome. It's a primal feeling. I was watching this video on your blog, and my girlfriend was sitting next to me, and she reacted to my comments the same way you did. She couldn't believe I would say something like that. I said something righteous-sounding in retort, as I was still in the throes of my grisly revolutionary fantasy, but really, in practice, I would probably not get tased in the first place. I would not willingly put myself in the position to be tased. I wouldn't walk around like that father did. But even now as I write this, I second-guess my pacifism. Hypothetically, my DAUGHTER is in the passenger seat. This cop is crazy and he's got the law on his side, not to mention popular sentiment. He's immune from natural law. There is no Wild West showdown. Just a lopsided contest between a man with an all-powerful badge and a man in a t-shirt. That is fundamentally unjust and it just kills me to pieces inside. It hurts and it makes me want to cry. Anyway, so hypothetically, the crazy cop with virtual diplomatic immunity tases me and starts walking toward my daughter. Let's say I'm packing. What do I do? Would do YOU do?
It boils my blood and I need to take a breath. In real life, though, I'm more cautious. So far, nothing I have ever done (or not done) has ever led to a loved one of mine going down. But what if the time comes when I really, SERIOUSLY need to protect a loved one (i.e., my girlfriend)? Do I, in the moment, second-guess myself, and say, "Well, it'll probably turn out OK if I just do nothing"?
I don't know. I don't have the answer. Really, I don't.
But this post was so thought-provoking that I think I can just consider myself lucky to have the ability to contemplate these puzzles.
Will, Thanks for that. I suppose the only sensible answer is to ensure that the cop does not have diplomatic immunity, as will hopefully prove to be the case in this instance. The idea that we respond to disproportionate violence against us by arming ourselves is an understandable first reaction, but in the words of Gandhi: "An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind".
I would hope that the policeman would be severely punished for what he did as I would argue that he has proved himself untrustworthy to be allowed to roam the streets with such power and such weaponry. Hopefully, his punishment would act as an example to other policemen that these weapons are only to be used when totally necessary.
And, of course, there will always be right wingers who seek to justify what the policeman did, but there are enough sensible people to shout them down. After all, the video speaks for itself. And I think our reaction would be the reaction of most people to watching what took place there.
It's nice to be reminded about Gandhi's timeless observation ("An eye for an eye...") I sometimes forget that that is truly the only way to achieve "peace", if such a thing is even possible for a race of psychotic primates like us. Here's another I saw on a placard at an early protest against the then-looming Iraq invasion: "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."
A propos, below is a web page I found after watching this post a couple of days ago and doing some subsequent (heretoforth established blood-boiled) research, from Human Rights Watch. It concerns my old hometown of Minneapolis, once nicknamed "Murderopolis" circa 1995 for topping the United States in per-capita homicides, and well known as a hot spot for police brutality. This excerpt is amazing for the fact that it quotes a former (1980-1988), well-liked Minneapolis police chief by the name of Tony Bouza:
Minneapolis's police force has a history of using excessive force. Said former police chief Tony Bouza (1980-88): "Police will abuse their power....They feel themselves leashed. They want to be free to `thump,' free to handle assholes. When someone gives them lip, they want to be able to kick their ass[es], and when you don't let them, they feel shackled. I do not let them [the police officers] `handle' assholes."2 Bouza says the force was "damn brutal, a bunch of thumpers," when he took over as chief in 1980.3 Bouza was followed as chief by John Laux, who made fighting the crack-cocaine trade a priority. In officers' zeal to pursue drug traffickers, raids were sometimes conducted on the wrong houses. In a mistaken raid in January 1989, a stun grenade - designed for use in hostage situations - caused a fire at an elderly African-American couple's home, killing them.4 Gleason Gloverof the Urban League stated at the time: "The whole issue of police brutality is nothing new to the city of Minneapolis. It almost gives the impression that if you are black and poor, it doesn't really matter if you lose your life. The police did not say `we are sorry.' There was no remorse at all! It was just a cold thing. It happened, that's the way it is sometimes. I hate to say this, but I just don't see that happening to a white couple."5 Just after the botched raid, there was a police raid at a hotel where black college students were having a party, and party-goers were reportedly roughed up by officers. The minority community (African-Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and Asians made up about 14 percent of the city's population in the early 1990s) demanded improved accountability for the police, leading to the creation of the Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) in 1990, as described below.
Link: http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo84.htm
Will, Thanks for that. Police brutality is something that all societies have to guard against. After all the police have to do their job with the backing of the local community and can only do that as long as they have the community's trust. Here in the UK there have been commissions looking at the way the police have been operating - especially after the death of Stephen Lawrence - and the police were found to be "institutionally racist".
Commander Cressida Dick admitted that the police's behaviour had "changed dramatically" since Sir William MacPherson published his report on the failed investigation into Lawrence's murder, and in which he highlighted the "institutional racism" in the Met.
I think the way forward here is to hold the police to account. We must never forget that they work for us. We do not live in police states. Therefore, in principle - if not always in actuality - we should be able to hold them to account.
Of course, society is always willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt, which makes holding them to account especially hard, but in the case we are talking about here I am sure most reasonable people would concur that this officers behaviour was simply disgraceful.
Oh, and I visited your web page, which I loved. It's fascinating to have been talking to someone online for almost two years and then see pictures of your environment. I'll look forward to pictures from Yonkers.
Right on, Kel. It's great to be back in touch with you. I'll be back soon.
I'll look forward to that, Will. You are always a sensible contributer, which makes a very welcome change from arguing with the right wing loons.
Come back soon my friend. Don't get lost in Yonkers!
Post a Comment