Update: This incident occurred in 2006 and the officer was suspended for three days after an internal affairs investigation. Here is the transcript of the IA interview and here is memo from the chief explaining the suspension.
By Carlos Miller
As Photography is Not a Crime reader Jay pointed out last week, it’s “like fucking Groundhog Day” because all you need to do is change the venue and the name of the cop and it’s the same story all over again.
This time it is an Austin cop who has pulled over a driver for going five miles over the speed limit. Yes, five measly miles. The car also did not have a license plate on the rear, but had one on the front.
The cop demands the guy’s license and proof of insurance and when the guy doesn’t oblige in a matter of seconds, the cop starts yelling at the driver for his license and proof of insurance.
The driver tells the officer that he is looking for the necessary documents, but he is also taken aback by the cop’s aggressive and unnecessary tone.
The officer then orders him out of the car, still demanding his license and proof of insurance.
The driver steps out and the officer starts yelling at him to step to the back of the vehicle.
The driver is not posing any threat but saying something like “I have no idea …”
The officer starts pushing him, then finally uses his Taser gun on him.
This all happened within 45 seconds.
Popularity: 1% [?]
46 responses so far ↓
1 Yeah // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Jesus Effing Christ, why is this allowed to go on. How are people not outraged.
2 Reverend Egg Plant // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM
So, got cite? I don’t see a link to a reputable source article. Am I missing something?
3 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM
You see the video, what else do you need?
A mainstream media source to confirm what you just saw?
4 ClintJCL // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I’m not sure why a reputable source article would be needed, when a video is provided showing it as it happens.
5 Mcubed // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:45 PM
This officer clearly has too short a fuse for his job. I’m sure this won’t be the last time he abuses his authority. Unfortunately he was not terminated. See the links below for the outcome:
Here’s the Chief’s Report to the Director of Civil Service:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/opm/downloads/TempSus_OConnor_06-635.pdf
Here’s the Transcript of the IA interview:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/09/0930video_affidavit.pdf
6 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Thanks Mcubed for those links. I’ve added them to the article.
7 Rob Molecule // Jul 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Found this article about an apology issued by the police force and a 3-day suspension.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/entries/2007/10/02/apologies_help_boost_police_cr.html
8 josh42042 // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM
i dunno about this one… usually i side with the victims but after reading the IA transcript i can see the officer’s side. Getting pulled over for doing 5 mph over the speed limit seems silly, but when a police officer asks for your liscense and insurance, you give it to him. that (and no rear plate on the car) is what made the officer suspicios and led to the tasering. he still used it to quickly though.
9 NYCPhotorights // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Excuse me Josh but people get nervous and hesitate or even forget for a moment- WE ARE NOT ROBOTS!!! A cop asked me for insurance once and I drew a total blank for a few minutes while I had to think about where I put it, after all it is not something I refer to daily. Does that justify tasering? Fortunately he was patient and waited. In fact I handed him a stack of insurance cards that went back 5 years (yes my glove compartment is packrat city) because I could not read without my reading glasses. Would that justify tasering?
10 Carlos Miller // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:56 PM
The irony is that in the IA interview, the cop mentions that he felt rushed because there was some type of hostage situation going on that he needed to respond to.
So what does he do?
He tases the guy and calls for back-up in what should have been a routine traffic stop.
11 Datech // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Just to point something out, the dates on the linked memo are from 2007, and the video from 2008. I can’t figure out what got screwed up here, so I’m merely pointing out the dates don’t match up.
Definitely an unauthorized use of force. The officer did clearly state why the victim was being detained, but considering he tazed him and called for backup within 45 seconds just shows how wrong the situation was.
12 Rob Molecule // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM
When did we become so complacent to police abuse? If he had pulled out a gun and shot him or pulled out a baton and beat the guy in the head with it, hardly anybody would defend him. Why have people decided that tasing somebody is no big deal? It’s potentially lethal force and a torture device. It’s not acceptable in any way where deadly force was not necessary.
13 jones // Jul 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM
After reviewing the tape and statements I think the officer was completely justified.
14 Scott Chamness // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Jones,
Why does that not surprise me?
I don’t care how much the officer felt “rushed”. He was the one who pulled someone over for going 5 mph over.
That was idiotic that he got tazed for talking back. Tazers are horrible weapons anyway, I don’t see why cops are just allowed to use them on just anybody.
15 jones // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:13 PM
He didn’t taze him because he felt rushed, he tazed him because he refused to comply with his lawful orders.
16 genewitch // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I got pulled over in waco in 2006, for going 5 miles over the speed limit.
They always order you out of the car, it struck me as odd (i’ve been pulled over in texas 3 times, and they always do that.)
of the 3, only one wasn’t “aggressive” in the sense of not being a authoritative prick.
17 Karl Mansoor // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Jones #7,
You are either joking and trying to get a reaction or your attitude towards policing is polar opposite to anything common sense dictates and for which the Constitution stands.
If your statement was generated by the latter, you are too blind to see it.
18 jones // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:29 PM
The officer said he believed the car was stolen, the guy was wanted or something else was going on based on what the guy did and how he was refusing to ID himself.
He has the guy get out of the car, the officer is standing a foot from a busy highway and the guy is refusing his orders. Yes he was justified to use the taser. It even looks like the guy raises his left hand at the officer.
Just because an officer isn’t being polite doesn’t mean you can refuse his lawful orders.
The officer was in a very bad spot, an uncooperative person in front of him and heavy traffic behind him, maybe he put himself in the bad spot, he didn’t use good tactics, but that doesn’t mean the driver doesn’t have to do what he says and that doesn’t mean the tasering wasn’t justified. If the guy would have either produced an ID or stepped to the back of the car he wouldn’t have been tasered.
19 ClintJCL // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM
So why didn’t he just approach from the passenger side window, if that big bad road is sooo dangerous?
Raising your hand is a taserable offense? I thought tasers were to replace lethal force. So, pre-taser, he would have shot the guy for raising his hand?
You’re so myopic, Jones.
If police want to be considered heroes, they need to act like one.
Farmers and fisherman die at a greater rate; stop pretending the big bad road is so dangerous. Don’t let the road get me!
20 josh42042 // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:33 PM
NYCPhotorights #9 i do agree with you, he definitely broke our the taser way to early. But, you can clearly hear the tased man say “no” to handing over his liscense. read through the IA transcript.
21 jones // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Clint-I thought tasers were to replace lethal force
I guess you thought wrong
22 Michaelk42 // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I wondered when jones would show up again to bait & troll.
Really, it should be common sense and common decency to at least allow someone a chance to comply with a request before whipping out the TASER electrical compliance device.
23 ClintJCL // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Well, jones — thanks for proving that police lie to the public. Because that’s how their PR marketed public acceptance of tasers when they first came out.
I thought wrong — because you and your ilk liked to the public you were supposed to serve and protect, but instead torture.
http://delicious.com/clintjcl/tasers
24 Michaelk42 // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM
@ClintJCL Well, you should bear in mind that it’s highly unlikely jones actually is or ever was an actual police officer.
25 the bulldog // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM
BUT highly likely that jones was and is a jackass!
26 Carlos Miller // Jul 8, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Datech,
I thought it said 2008 as well but if you look closely, it’s 2006.
27 Jay // Jul 8, 2009 at 2:08 AM
the bulldog #25,
I love you.
28 Pinandpuller // Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 AM
Wow-who came up with the jones response generator; or is he just phoning it in these days?
You know-even college basketball has a shot clock-sure.
But when a cop makes a “lawful order” it’s totally arbitrary how much time one has to comply. I guess if it’s not immediatly then prepare to be tased.
I think that jones keeps coming back here because these types of videos cured his ED.
29 Pinandpuller // Jul 8, 2009 at 5:37 AM
So what was in the missing pages of the transcript-or did I just not download the whole thing?
The cop says that he pulled the taser out because he felt threatened but how can a driver not feel threatened by this kind of action?
30 Kylie // Jul 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM
One thing I noticed in the transcript was that the cop kept repeating that there were no tags on the car at all, that he only saw one tag in the back seat after he pulled the car over, but in the vid, he tells the driver that there was a plate on the front but not on the back. So, in jones’ book, since he’s a cop he simply “misremembered”, but if he had been a “civilian” that would prove he was a liar and unreliable.
The other thing I noticed was that, while you can’t hear the driver’s response to the first request, to the second request he says “whoa, whoa, whoa, let me get it!” to which the cop ignores the “let me get it” part and only responds to the “whoa whoa whoa”. And that response sounded angry and short-tempered.
I have had so many people tell me that I would love Austin, that it was really laid back. But when I had occasion to spend 3 months there, about 2 years before this incident took place, what I found was that nearly EVERYONE in that town seemed to be perpetually angry and short-tempered. So I’m really not surprised by the cop’s reactions. What I am surprised by is that he felt the need to pull someone over for 5 over and a missing plate (even if he was within 2 car lengths at 70mph), when people regularly commit much more dangerous driving offenses there, such as running a red light (WELL after it has turned red); turning left from a right turn lane, across 2 straight lanes; tailgating less than a car length away at 70 mph; swerving in and out of multiple lanes in heavy traffic, etc. It is because of that experience that we try hard to avoid Texas altogether now.
31 xdamousex // Jul 8, 2009 at 2:15 PM
A cop uses a taser on an unarmed and non-aggressive speeder, and he gets punished with a three-day paid vacation? No wonder there are so many abusive cops. Unlike every other profession in America, you can act however you please.
32 xdamousex // Jul 8, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I also find it telling that even this slap-on-the-wrists punishment came only after the police chief reviewed it when the internal affairs office said his actions were perfectly fine. It’s why people don’t bother filing complaints to the internal affairs office: people know it’s a joke investigative unit that rubber-stamps virtually any behavior by fellow police officers.
You can’t have an investigative unit like that in-house. That’s just asking for corruption.
33 Zack S // Jul 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM
The driver didn’t react in seconds of his command. I mean, it shouldn’t matter that the driver just might be nervous being pulled over, like any one would be. And gosh, why should he expect to get shown any respect and not get yelled at. I mean, it’s not like he’s dealing with a professional…. Oh wait! Thank goodness police officers have tasers!
34 Nemo // Jul 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The lesson of the video? Cops have the right to demand compliance, they have the right to yell and scream.
You have the right to be polite and submissive, the right to obey promptly, and the right to go without any pesuasion or explanation whatsoever, even if you are flustered by the eventuality of the cop deciding it’s your day to get a ticket.
Failure to understand these right can and will be used against you as justification for tasering in the court of the cop’s mind.
HTH.
35 Nemo // Jul 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Since the TASER commonly comes up here, I thought I’d air this: While using the device isn’t commonly lethal, there are problems inherent in the technology. First, it isn’t totally safe, but has had a mental image of “safe” built up around it. Unfortunately, too many people (including the police, IMO) equate “safe” with “harmless”, unless convinced otherwise.
The above leads to overuse and misuse. The TASER was never intended to be a tool of compliance, nor of field punishment. Yet the fact that it leaves virtually no marks (certainly nothing on the order of a fist or baton) IMO make it very tempting for such uses, especially if there’s no video.
Worse, the TASER is a very tempting substitute for good people skills, which IMO are the basis for god police work. The video above is an excellent example of this. Others have commented sufficiently on the details, but in short: Should a cop really go from zero to taser in 60 seconds or less, save when a weapon is evident?
Finally: while the TASER might be a useful tool, what I believe we are seeing isn’t the fault of the device, but rather it is showing up the underlying problems in the law enforcement trade, itself. With a perfect Force, the TASER is a perfect tool. With an imperfect Force, the device acts as a magnifying glass for the Dark Side of law enforcement…
36 Ariel // Jul 8, 2009 at 6:57 PM
This is a link to the Austin Statesman as supplied by Karl Mansoor: Austin Police think jones is full of it.
The title to the link is self-explanatory. This goes along with Carlos’ update above, but gives reaction from the police themselves. The incident was considered a training moment, or in other words, what not to do.
37 Ariel // Jul 8, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Nemo, in the link supplied by Karl Mansoor (my #36) one commenter calls the Taser the new nightstick. Reading what you wrote in #35, the Taser has allowed police to develop the mindset of jones or 10-8, one nanosecond after order, if no compliance, then pain. It leaves no mark, so its safe for the cop to use. It is perfect for those who have a less than desirable psychology. It is expanding the Dark Side, the brutality, the sadism.
38 Ariel // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Oops, read my #36 and realized someone could read that link as being K. Mansoor’s wording. It isn’t, its mine. His post “Police Transparency and accountability in action” at Blue Must be True is in praise of the Austin PD by the way.
39 Pinandpuller // Jul 9, 2009 at 6:26 AM
The taser doesn’t directly leave a mark but when someone has an uncontrolled fall to the pavement that’s gonna leave a mark.
40 Ariel // Jul 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Pinandpuller #39,
You’re likely right. My mistake. I thought there was always two guys just behind and to your sides to make sure you didn’t fall. No?
41 Karl Mansoor // Jul 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Ariel #40,
Good point – and funny too!
Not only two guys keeping you from falling but also a comfortable padded surface as one is gently eased down by friends. No repeat cycles either and you probably can go chug down a beer or two afterward.
Pure scientific safety testing in action.
42 Nemo // Jul 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Ariel:
Good link, and good on Art Acevedo for making a stand against that sort of thing. I credit him, because of the implication from the comments that he’s trying to initiate a policy change in the APD.
I try to follow Karl’s blog, as I think it’s a good one, but (sorry Karl) the formatting is problematic – in IE I can’t really seem to get the new stories at a glance, I gotta massage it through the calendar. I’ll check it out after posting this.
Good point about the training, it’s one I’ve tried to make before (tie in the mental preparedness – always helps if you know it’s coming), but you made it more succinct, and funnier, too
I tend to the verbose, as you’ve likely noticed.
I hate you forever for one-upping me
43 Behind Enemy Lines // Jul 11, 2009 at 2:07 AM
People are outraged but it’s the people who give these clowns guns and tasers to want to actually do something about it, and they don’t. What someone people don’t realize is that THEY are the ones with the power. Now you can’t vote who become a cop but you can vote on who becomes the head honchos. Make enough noise and hold them accountable. I shed no tears when a cop gets shot (sorry). But if I know them personally, maybe and that depends what kind of person they really are. I know some really good cops, they know they don’t always have to make an arrest to prove a point. And I know some bad cops, they feel they should be worshipped. And it’s the bad cops that overshadow the good ones. And the head honchos who don’t want to do anything. Well…it’ll be open season on cops soon. Wow.
44 Behind Enemy Lines // Jul 11, 2009 at 3:26 AM
Hey jones,
After read one, a couple, of your comments, it sounds to me that you idolize cops or feel that at any point in time they are justified to do whatever they please. New flash: The first thing an officer is going to say is “the car was reported stolen”. Remember, I work with these chuckle heads. But, you’re right, somebody felt it was better to taser than to shoot. But guess what, tasing incidents out numbers shooting. IT NOT JUSTIFIABLE. Also, I saw the video myself and in no way was the person raising his LEFT HAND to the officer. The officer asked for his info on the car and the person had to get it. Now I don’t know where you keep your insurance information but the majority of the public keeps it in the glove compartment. And if you have a habit of shoving everything else in it, yeah! it’s going take a little bit to find it. And here’s something you probably didn’t know: if you ask an officer why he or she is stopping you, he or she has to tell you. The officer stopped the person for going 5 miles over the speed limit. If that was the case then he should have stopped at least 100 cars before he stopped this particular one. States (just about all) allow up to 10 miles over the speed limit. Just as long as you, the driver, isn’t weaving in and out of traffic. And that’s even if you are going the speed limit. But to be fair to the cop: if he felt that the car was stolen, HE should have called for back up, especial on a highway. Heck, nowadays, some cops call for back up on a simple traffic stop.
I got stopped by a cop on time. Why? Because I past him. He said he was doing 65 and I MUST to have been doing 70. I told him that I was told as long as you are going with the flow of traffic, no problem. He wanted to know who told me this. I said the cops that I work with. He asked where did I work. I said with the DA’s office. Only then did he see my work ID hanging from my mirror. I still gave my proof of insurance and registation. You know what he said: It was MY lucky day, he forgot his ticket book. Heck maybe he did; but he also realize he wasn’t dealing with a fool. I know just enough and I do work with attorneys. The officer on his part, had no name tag or anything, just a uniform and a bike. Oh and by the way, an officer has to have his or her name tag on their uniform. If they don’t, they’re in violation of the rules.
To say all this, a lot of officers do what they do because, again, they feel they should be worshipped and that they are above the laws themselves. And they go after people who they feel don’t know their rights. And to say, that’s a a lot of people. The law is for anyone except them. Open season anyone?!
45 Rob Molecule // Jul 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I was pulled over for going 5 miles above the speed limit in Texas. He claimed I was going 65 in a 60 (60? I’m pretty sure it was 65) But I know I was actually going 60 because my car did not go faster than that. I suspect that is just a common excuse to pull someone over in Texas when they have no other reason. The real reason appeared to be my New York State plates. And this was also right at the border as I was leaving. I could see the “Welcome to Arkansas” sign from where I was pulled over. He brought the dog out and everything, searched the whole car. He asked if he could search the trunk, but trying to answer no brought him to repeat the question. I gave in as it was late at night with almost no traffic and big dude with a gun and a dog had already lied to me about why he pulled me over. Who knew what else he would fabricate? The situation was overall terrifying as I had done nothing to be in that situation except have the gall to cross state lines to travel. I ended up being let go with a written warning. Just stupid.
46 Kylie // Jul 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM
I just saw something on Surviving the World that I think fits this story (and many others) quite well. Check it out: http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson388.html
And no, I am not connected with STW in any way other than being a regular reader.
Leave a Comment