Video Shows Police Officer Firing Stun Gun at Unarmed Man Sitting on Curb

[ThatRobGuy]

Video Shows Police Officer Firing Stun Gun at Unarmed Man Sitting on Curb

Not a stellar week for PA law enforcement...

Unarmed black man tasered by police in the back while sitting on pavement


It would appear that certain members of law enforcement have found a crafty new way to use force. Just have two officers shouting conflicting instructions, and then no matter what, they can always claim "he wasn't following orders".

In the video you can hear one officer telling him to straighten his legs, and a female officer telling him to cross them.

This guy was going to get tasered no matter what he did.


<Sarcasm>
Of course, I can understand why the officers were worried, he was unarmed and sitting down with his back facing toward them, and they only had guns and outnumbered him 3 to 1...they were probably deathly afraid for their lives.
</Sarcasm>

 

[Non sequitur]

Video Shows Police Officer Firing Stun Gun at Unarmed Man Sitting on Curb

Not a stellar week for PA law enforcement...

Unarmed black man tasered by police in the back while sitting on pavement


It would appear that certain members of law enforcement have found a crafty new way to use force. Just have two officers shouting conflicting instructions, and then no matter what, they can always claim "he wasn't following orders".

In the video you can hear one officer telling him to straighten his legs, and a female officer telling him to cross them.

This guy was going to get tasered no matter what he did.


<Sarcasm>
Of course, I can understand why the officers were worried, he was unarmed and sitting down with his back facing toward them, and they only had guns and outnumbered him 3 to 1...they were probably deathly afraid for their lives.
</Sarcasm>

The female officer says "straight out and cross (th)em".

 

[Hank77]

And then two of them try to block the video view, why, what do they think might need to be hidden?

It's behaviors like this unnecessary tasing that causes people not to trust the police. It also feeds racial unrest. It's when the police actually become a danger to society.

 

[DaisyDay]

The female officer says "straight out and cross (th)em".

Oh well, then. He stuck them straight out, sure, but didn't cross them fast enough. Yeah, he got what was coming to him.[/sarcasm]

 

[Goonie]

The female officer says "straight out and cross (th)em".

And the other says straight out. So yes conflicting instructions.

 

[Non sequitur]

Oh well, then. He stuck them straight out, sure, but didn't cross them fast enough. Yeah, he got what was coming to him.[/sarcasm]

I think you are looking at the wrong video.

He never stuck them straight out.

Not straight out:
O
|__
^ /
O
|__
^ |
O
|__
^ \

 

[Goonie]

I think you are looking at the wrong video.

He never stuck them straight out.

Not straight out:
O
|__
^ /
O
|__
^ |
O
|__
^ \

I have just seen the video, he was obeying police orders and was then criminally assaulted.

 

[Non sequitur]

And the other says straight out. So yes conflicting instructions.

"and cross them." Straight out is the starting point.

"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."
"Drop the gun, down on your knees and face me..."
"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."

Face officer with gun, then knees? Knees, face officer, then drop gun? WHEN DROP GUN?!?

Very confusing...

 

[Non sequitur]

I have just seen the video, he was obeying police orders and was then criminally assaulted.

If it's not too much trouble, can you tell me the time stamp where his legs were straight out?

 

[Goonie]

If it's not too much trouble, can you tell me the time stamp where his legs were straight out?

.25/.26. Pretty straight, then he hears cross them and appears to do that and is tased. Multiple instructions from different officers confused and led to his being assaulted.

 

[Non sequitur]

.25/.26. Pretty straight, then he hears cross them and appears to do that and is tased. Multiple instructions from different officers confused and led to his being assaulted.

1) "Put your legs straight out and cross them now".
2) He pulls them all the way back in.
3) He is tased.

Every command is "straight out" or "straight out and cross them". No instructions are in conflict.

Unless you're arguing for what I posted earlier:

"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."
"Drop the gun, down on your knees and face me..."
"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."

Face officer with gun, then knees? Knees, face officer, then drop gun? WHEN DROP GUN?!?

 

[Hank77]

He wasn't a threat to anyone therefore, tasing was excessive force.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The officer holding the taser was going to tase him. It did not matter if he complied with their commands or not.

 

[Goonie]

1) "Put your legs straight out and cross them now".
2) He pulls them all the way back in.
3) He is tased.

Every command is "straight out" or "straight out and cross them". No instructions are in conflict.

Unless you're arguing for what I posted earlier:

"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."
"Drop the gun, down on your knees and face me..."
"Drop the gun... drop the gun..."

Face officer with gun, then knees? Knees, face officer, then drop gun? WHEN DROP GUN?!?

Multiple cops yelling instructions seems to be the issue, his legs straighten in response to the first part, then he’s hearing another cops then cross them which draws them in.

Really in situations like this the police need to have one person giving orders.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I hope we learn the outcome of this one. I just hope the poor guy lives to give his testimony.

 

[Non sequitur]

He wasn't a threat to anyone therefore, tasing was excessive force.

Not complying with officer instructions is a threat.

 

[Moral Orel]

Every command is "straight out" or "straight out and cross them". No instructions are in conflict.

Yes, "straight out and cross them" is in conflict. The only way to have your legs "straight out" is for them to be parallel. I know what you're thinking, that if his knees are locked, then his legs are straight out, right? But in order to cross his legs at the ankles, at least one leg needs to change it's angle and not be "straight out" anymore. Bad instructions.

Him failing to comply with your instructions, while not acting in any threatening manner, but simply making somewhat similar movements to your requests, and failing to match exactly what you want him to do means: try different instructions. It does not mean: tase him because "I just don't have time for this". If he started to try and stand up you all might have something. If he was refusing to do anything even remotely similar to what the officers asked or was sitting motionless you might have something to complain about him doing. This defense is nonsense.

Like this: "Put your legs straight out and lock your knees. (Repeat orders until he gets it right) Now with your knees locked cross your ankles". See? This was not a situation where time was a factor and they had to react quickly.

 

[Non sequitur]

The officer holding the taser was going to tase him. It did not matter if he complied with their commands or not.

Seriously, you can't know that.

Comments like these are not helping anything...

 

[wing2000]

Not complying with officer instructions is a threat.

Do you think the officer's use of taser was justified?

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, "straight out and cross them" is in conflict. The only way to have your legs "straight out" is for them to be parallel. I know what you're thinking, that if his knees are locked, then his legs are straight out, right? But in order to cross his legs at the ankles, at least one leg needs to change it's angle and not be "straight out" anymore. Bad instructions.

Right. The guy was taking time contemplating legs being parallel vs ball-and-socket hip joint angles.

Nowhere would this ever fly, as an excuse. Nowhere. Ever.

This is a garbage argument, and I won't entertain it.

Him failing to comply with your instructions, while not acting in any threatening manner, but simply making somewhat similar movements to your requests, and failing to match exactly what you want him to do means: try different instructions. It does not mean: tase him because "I just don't have time for this". If he started to try and stand up you all might have something. If he was refusing to do anything even remotely similar to what the officers asked or was sitting motionless you might have something to complain about him doing. This defense is nonsense.

His legs and feet moved almost to the curb, which one would do when about to stand up. That's when they took action.

Like this: "Put your legs straight out and lock your knees. (Repeat orders until he gets it right) Now with your knees locked cross your ankles". See? This was not a situation where time was a factor and they had to react quickly.

They took 28 seconds.

Should there be a Time Law or Accommodating Speech Law?