Image 01 Image 03

76-year-old man Tasered by cop over an inspection sticker

76-year-old man Tasered by cop over an inspection sticker

“He just acted like a pit bull”

The incident occurred in Victoria, Texas, a suburb of Houston. A dash camera captured officer Nathaniel Robinson tasering 76-year-old Pete Vasquez.

Vasquez was driving a vehicle owned by the car dealership where he works. Officer Robinson pulled him over when he noticed the vehicle’s inspection sticker had expired. When Vasquez exited the car and attempted to show Robinson the dealer plates—which would’ve exempted the necessity for up to date inspection tags—that’s when the altercation happened.

“I don’t know what his deal is,” Vasquez told an officer that arrived on the scene later. Vasquez went on, “he came over here and got nasty with me and I’m not going to put up with it, I don’t care who it is. Then he grabbed me and threw me on the pavement there and I almost knocked my head on that damn poll and then he start [sic] Tasing.”

The Victoria Advocate reported:

A Victoria police officer is under investigation after a 76-year-old man accused him of using excessive force during a traffic stop.

The officer, Nathanial Robinson, 23, was placed on administrative duty Friday pending the outcome of an internal investigation into whether he violated the use of force policy when he tased Victoria resident Pete Vasquez, said Chief J.J. Craig. The officer was hired after graduating from the police academy two years ago.

The incident happened Thursday after Robinson saw an expired inspection sticker on the car Vasquez was driving back to Adam’s Auto Mart, 2801 N. Laurent St., where he helps with mechanical work.

Vasquez got out of the car, which is owned by the car lot, attempting to get the manager. He pointed out to the officer the dealer tags on the back of the car, which would make it exempt from having an inspection.

Police dashboard camera video shows Robinson arresting Vasquez for the expired sticker.

When the officer first grabbed Vasquez’s arm, the older man pulled it away. Robinson then pushed Vasquez down on the hood of the police cruiser. The two fell out of the camera’s video frame, but police said the officer used the Taser on Vasquez twice while he was on the ground.

“He just acted like a pit bull, and that was it,” Vasquez said. “For a while, I thought he was going to pull his gun and shoot me.”

Vasquez was handcuffed, placed in the back of the police cruiser and taken to Citizens Medical Center, where he remained in police custody for two hours.

Craig said the police department’s dash cam footage “raises some concerns.”

He decided to open the investigation after viewing the footage and has personally apologized to Vasquez for the incident.

“Public trust is extremely important to us,” Craig said. “Sometimes that means you have to take a real hard look at some of the actions that occur within the department.”

[h/t ABC 13 News]

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The cop was way out of control and definitely in the wrong. I hope Vasquez sues them and wins.

    That’s nice but the settlement won’t come out of the cop’s pocket and he most definitely won’t be charged with a crime.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to redbirdacres. | December 17, 2014 at 1:42 am

    If senor Vasquez’s behavior is typical of a “pit bull,” then the days are numbered for the blood sport of dog fighting. He might be all of 125-pounds, too.

    Pit bull? That’s all officer gangsta-rap could come up with?

    The normal reaction should’ve been to talk to Vasquez’s boss and find out the deal, or at the very least, understand the law you’re trying to enforce.

Ok. First mistake was the driver opening the door as the Officer was approaching.

Second mistake was not complying with officer’s lawful commands.

Officers will ask you, then they will tell you, then they will MAKE you.

The officer was super nice. Gave the guy several chances and he blew them all really quickly. When the officer took him by the arm to, I assume, handcuff him, he was RESISTING.

Officer responded as I expect any other officer would. There’s a lot of action that’s happening off camera, so the camera is not telling the entire story.

Hope the officer is cleared.

    Sure, I as a citizen feel so much safer now that that thuggish 76-year-old threat to society has been vigorously neutralized. As I’m sure we all do.


    Paul in reply to TB. | December 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Little tough guys like that are where the pejorative ‘pig’ came from. That punk has no business carrying a badge. He was wrong on the law and in his approach. If that was my grand dad I would whip his ass.

    bvw in reply to TB. | December 16, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    I don’t have a anvil available to drop on your head and knock some sense into it, so a down vote will have to do. If that was excellent police procedure to you, something clearly is wrong with you and whatever learning you have on the manner. Every thing that gum-chewing hot head did was escalation, and it switched to abuse and assault. That young man should be in the jail for that assault. Maybe that’s what “administrative duty” means — let’s hope it does if there is some sanity and regard for peace and reasonable behavior here.

      TB in reply to bvw. | December 17, 2014 at 6:40 am

      Yes, it was escalation.

      Officer ASKED the man to put his hands on the hood.

      The man did not comply. This escalated the situation.

      Officer TOLD the man to put his hands on the hood.

      The man did not comply. This further escalated the situation.

      When the officer attempted to MAKE the man comply, the man RESISTED. Take a wild guess what happens when a subject resists? (which, by the way, is illegal. Regardless of whether the stop is lawful or not, resisting is a crime. )

      So, you see, the officer didn’t do a damn thing to escalate things. That man did. It all could have been prevented had he complied with the officer’s lawful commands in the first place. Instead, he was argumentative and non-compliant. That’s bad juju.

      I’ve always been told ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Seems like it would be a fairly good idea then to educate one’s self on it. Fire prevention is preferable to fire fighting, after all.

        MSO in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 9:51 am

        No ‘i’ without a dot shall be left unpunished.

        Actually, it is NOT illegal to resist an unlawful arrest. See google “John Bad Elk” and read the case law. The court ruled that even deadly force could be used to resist an unlawful arrest.
        The problem we have (and the reasons em A&E thugs like that cop abusing people) is that cops almost always get away with nothing more than a paid vacation for such abuses.

          Milhouse in reply to carlwk3c. | December 17, 2014 at 11:55 pm

          Bad Elk v US was in 1900. The law has changed since then. In most states it is not lawful to resist an unlawful arrest. That includes Texas.

          By the way, even in the days of Bad Elk it was not lawful to use deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest.

        Barry in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

        There is zero reason for the officer to ask this gentleman to put his hands on the hood of the car. Zero.

        You and the Nazi’s are simpatico.

        Barry in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm

        “Officer TOLD the man to put his hands on the hood.”

        Humor me. Where do you hear this? How do you know this? It is not something one can hear from the video sound.

        It would not change much IMO, but I would like to know where your info comes from.

          I am Deaf. I can lipread and pay close attention to body language. It is also routine on every traffic stop for the officer to be assured of his/her safety before conducting business. So you don’t have to be a lip reader or even halfway decent at reading body language to understand what was going on. Look at where the officer is pointing. If you pay close attention to the details, you’ll learn a lot more than what you would with a cursory viewing of the video.

          A traffic stop is always a surprise. The officer does not know who he/she is stopping and what they will do.

          An example would be McVeigh’s traffic stop after the Oklahoma city bombing. The officer was not aware that he had just pulled over the Oklahoma city bomber but McVeigh sure knew.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 17, 2014 at 10:21 pm

          OK, got it. You just made it up. IN FACT, the cop never said any such thing, and you are just full of it. Deaf – add blind and dumb.


          Ad ignoratium aside…

          Is that the best you can do?

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 1:17 am

          Your display of ignorance of the law, claims without evidence of what the officer said, and general inability to look at a simple video and see what is in plain evidence speaks for itself. It really requires no argument from me.

          Which is why the comments run about a 1000:1 against your point of view.

          Keep digging.

          Ignorance of the law?

          USSC decision. Graham vs. Connor (1989). Go look it up.

          It applies here. Also probably going to be the reason nothing happens to the officer.

    Sanddog in reply to TB. | December 16, 2014 at 8:54 pm

    “Officer responded as I expect any other officer would.”

    Where the hell do you live? North Korea?

    The law doesn’t authorize the officer to grab a citizen and throw them on the hood of a car just because the officer is having a bad day or channeling that shit music he was listening to. There was no legal justification for laying hands on that man when he had made no aggressive move towards the officer.

      I live in the U.S.A.

      The man made several aggressive moves.

      The first one was opening the door suddenly on the officer’s approach.

      The second,third, and fourth one was failing to comply with the officer’s commands to place his hands on the hood of his vehicle and arguing with the officer.

      The fifth one was his movements, walking around, gesturing. You can see he is upset and belligerent.

      The sixth one was when the officer took his arm, he forcefully resisted.

      The seventh one was when the officer took him to the hood of the officer’s vehicle and attempted to cuff him, he started fighting.

      The rest of the incident is off camera, so I can offer no comment on that. However, what reportedly happened afterwards with the officer deploying his taser does not come as a surprise as it is consistent with the escalation of events that happened on camera.

        Sanddog in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 12:40 am

        The old guy wasn’t aggressive and nothing in his behavior warranted the cop grabbing his wrist. If it were me, bad things would follow. Remember, this was a routine traffic stop for an expired registration on a dealer tag. You don’t rough up a citizen or put hands on them without a good reason and the old guy didn’t give him that reason.

          Deny it all you like. Bad things would follow? Like what? Felony charges? Time in the pokey to reflect on the error of your ways?

    I’m sorry Gramps got rousted a bit and I don’t particularly care for cops. I avoid interaction with them as much as possible, but I have to agree.


    Sheesh! I thought everybody know that one.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to TB. | December 16, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Ok. First mistake was the driver opening the door as the Officer was approaching.

    He got out with an honest explanation, and no aggressive body language. Fifteen yard penalty against the officer for not LISTENING, and then acting out his own hostility program.

    Barry in reply to TB. | December 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    I watched this again just to make sure I did not miss something, anything in the cops favor.

    Nope, didn’t miss anything. This cop should go to jail.

    If this is how you expect “expect any other officer would” then you are about on par with some of the worst regimes in the world.

    If he did this to my Dad, I’d make sure the SOB suffered as much as possible.

    tphillip in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 6:20 am

    Trolling, trolling, trolling
    Keep that Keyboard rolling
    /singing off

    Got a few bites. Congratulations.

    To defend that behavior you must be another out of control bully cop.
    That cop needs to have his ass beat, be tazed a few times, lose his job and be barred from ever holding a position of authority for life, and spend at least a few years in prison.

    inspectorudy in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Hey TB, do you realize that the perp was a small, 76 year old guy? Are you so stupid that you would treat every person who gives you a hard time the same? Do you know how a man that old might react to being tasered? Please don’t EVER think about becoming a cop!

    thaWalrus in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Not to create a straw man here, but it always baffles me when we conservatives question the powers we vest in the state conceptually then turn our brains off when it comes to supporting LEOs. As far as I can tell, a registration lapse would simply mean the state did not collect taxes it felt were owed to it and basically is using the police force as a collections agency. Resistance to this collections attempt is met with force. Imagine the outrage if a bank did that.

    Also, listening to rap? WTF. Commercialism and violence against women isn’t becoming of “America’s finest”

      it always baffles me when we conservatives

      Who is “we”, Kemosabe?

      If you’re looking for group-think collectivists, you’re on the wrong blog.

        thaWalrus in reply to Amy in FL. | December 18, 2014 at 6:24 am

        I’m sorry, i was really just pointing out that I couldn’t square the unquestioned support for leos in some of the comments. I made a mistake lumping everyone in that bucket.

        How did you know im Native American? Do i have a tell?

      Ragspierre in reply to thaWalrus. | December 17, 2014 at 2:29 pm

      “Not to create a straw man here…”

      Which is exactly what you did do.

      Texas has a valid interest in safety standards for motor vehicles. Texas also inspects vehicles for emissions as part of the same inspections (or used to). It isn’t JUST a revenue scheme.

        thaWalrus in reply to Ragspierre. | December 18, 2014 at 6:20 am

        Yeah, i knew i was constructing a straw man. It just felt right. Anyway, I struggle with the end result of a valid safety interest being the state using force against a citizen. It’s not as if the safety threat appears to be imminent simply because of registration issues. He’s not a drunken mad max cruising down the interstate. Inspectors could walk the streets and lay tickets on cars, if society is so concerned with emissions and whatnot.

        It most certainly is just a revenue stream.

      Hal Jordan in reply to thaWalrus. | December 20, 2014 at 3:26 am

      A Sheriff’s Deputy once told me that he makes a point to pull people over for traffic violations and vehicle equipment problems whenever he can. The reason is that he gets to talk to the driver and check his driver’s license to see if he’s wanted. He said he had met up with quite a few people who had warrants that way. Timothy McVeigh was pulled over by an Oklahoma State Trooper 90 minutes after his bombing for driving without a license plate, and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. This guy was pulled over for not having a current license tag. It didn’t look to me like he had dealer plates, just a temporary paper license. So the officer was just doing his job.

    Bigurn in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    I’m with TB on this one. I’ve never been a cop, but I’ve had to break people down in the military. The driver should never have exited the car. Then his hand and arm gestures demonstrate aggression, and this is further evidenced by his language after the incident is over..

    The three steps TB writes are exactly right: Ask, Demand, Make. The 70-something gentleman at that point was resisting a lawful order, and got what he deserved.

    Now, I cannot ascertain what takes place off-camera. Tasing someone should have a high threshold, and I didn’t see that, but again I cannot see what is off-camera. I won’t pass judgement on that portion.

    Having said all this, I would re-instruct the officer on community relations, and maybe have him turn off the gangsta rap and switch to decaf. While probably legal from the strictest standpoint, he sure went pretty far over a sticker. Way to go, Officer Fife.

      Miller in reply to Bigurn. | December 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm

      Do you understand that it is not our civilian police force’s mission to “break people down”?

      Our civilian police force’s mission is “to protect and serve”. They are not military invaders whose mission is to subdue and conquer “the enemy”.

      Once civilian police officers start dehumanizing the ordinary American citizen class as “the enemy” to be “conquered” and “broken down”, it’s all over.

      I suggest Radley Balko’s book on the Rise of the Warrior Cop:

        I suggest and , for starters.

        Education is the biggest enemy of ignorance.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Miller. | December 18, 2014 at 3:21 pm

        They have de-humanized us for years, by referring to anyone not in their gang as “civilians”. We are the “other”, not to be trusted unless we have a piece of tin and a uniform. And they see us as all being guilty of SOMETHING. We must be. We’re mere civilians.

          “What precipitated this event we do not know,” the sheriff said. “My officers were simply having lunch.”

          Cop killers are civilians just like you and me. They look just like you and me. Imagine going about 8 hours a day wearing a bullseye that “civilians” will kill you just because you’re wearing it.

          It’s not a “us vs. them” mentality. They’re just fully aware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing and going about their day in denial of that is one of the things that will get them killed.

          The Friendly Grizzly, are you married? Have kids? Can you imagine them answering the door to have somebody tell them you won’t be coming home ever again because you let your guard down for just a moment and got murdered by someone with a twisted grudge? Just because of your career path?

          If you can understand that, then you can understand exactly why it is dangerous to an officer’s health and well being to think as you’re suggesting.

          They don’t get to pick the when, where, and how of the fights. The bad guys do and the bad guys don’t look any different than you and I.

      Sanddog in reply to Bigurn. | December 18, 2014 at 11:41 am

      His body language didn’t evidence aggression. Gramps didn’t put his hand in the officers face, he didn’t point at him aggressively and he showed no indication he was going to escalate to violence.

      Whether you’re a civilian cop, military cop or security officer, it’s crucial to deescalate a situation to prevent misunderstandings and harm to anyone involved. This police officer didn’t want to listen to the guy and he didn’t want to take the time needed to get everyone on the same page. He was lazy and elected to use force. Gramps didn’t rob a bank or kill someone, his real crime was a failure to understand that the police officer viewed him not as a citizen but as a subject of his AUTHORITY. That’s what makes him a bad cop and a crappy human being.

Victoria is a Houston suburb like Cincinnati is a suburb of Cleveland.

Some people should not be police. This appears to be one. Maybe he will make a fireman.

    Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | December 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Forget fireman. Perhaps jail trustee is more appropriate.

    Granted there are big chunks of this event missed by the video but, as someone who has been there but NOT done this, this sunglasses on the head cop needs to be looking at an assault charge.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to Ragspierre. | December 16, 2014 at 8:38 pm

    I concur.

    The cop acted like a total thug.

    And Victoria is a suburb of Houston just as Corpus Christi is a suburb of San Antonio.

    Escaped from RI in reply to Ragspierre. | December 16, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    As my friends on FDNY like to say. What do you call a police officer? A fireman who failed the civil service exam.

OnTheLeftCoast | December 16, 2014 at 6:42 pm

The stop was OK, the Texas DMV says: “Vehicles with Dealer’s or Converter’s Plates
MUST have a current inspection.” Mr. Vasquez claimed that the dealer plates exempted him. Wrong, and the reporter was wrong, too.

But as to getting out of the car: I’m old enough to remember being told that was what you did. Mr. Vasquez is older than I am. Until they ban people our age from driving, cops will have to deal with people who have old fashioned ideas about what to do, or revert to them under stress… like being pulled over. So right off the bat: lousy training, or if the training was good, lousy cop.

Interesting how the tunes mostly keep the audio from picking up the dialogue; I wonder if that’s what they teach in the acadamy these days. Still, watching the video, the belligerence was one sided. Mr. Vasquez was gesturing with the papers in his left hand, no body language of threat or fight. Officer Robinson grabbed the hand with the papers, and then struck Mr. Vasquez’ arm.

I’ll leave it to the LEOs in the readership to interpret that as good or bad procedure.

    Ragspierre in reply to OnTheLeftCoast. | December 16, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    You’re confusing “dealer plates”, which are plates auto dealers put on THEIR vehicles, with “temporary plates” or “paper plates”, which are the items at issue here. I’ve driven vehicles without ANY inspection sticker on them for weeks.

    I was taught that it was good psychology to exit the vehicle and stand on neutral ground to put an officer at ease. Funny how “good psychology” changes.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 18, 2014 at 12:06 am

      No, OTLC is not confusing them, you are. The “items at issue here” are DEALER plates, not TEMPORARY plates. And cars with dealer plates “MUST have a current inspection”.

      Seriously, where on earth did you get the idea the car had temporary plates? How could you possibly read the story and come away with that idea?

    Ragspierre in reply to OnTheLeftCoast. | December 16, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    Scroll down to “Dealer’s temporary cardboard tag”

Just to be clear Victoria is not a suburb of Houston. It is a small city in Texas.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Shane. | December 17, 2014 at 1:29 am

    Awwwww…. forget it. Them folks from “up yonder” don’t know that you can slip half ‘a New England twixt Houston and Victoria. In fact, up yonder you’d drive through about six states to get from Houston to Victoria! 😆

And… another argument in favor of dash-cams and lapel cams. To go with this.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Amy in FL. | December 18, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Dash cams and body cams have a tendency to not work when the reason for viewing the recordings is questioning police procedure. They are worthless.

PIG, that’s what this cop is. No excuse for this kind of policing. It’s an inspection sticker.

I was as troubled with the officer’s taste in music as his conduct toward the senior citizen. What was that? “Gangsta Rap”? This officer should be shown the door.

LEO question – Do departments set any limits or guidelines as to when to use the taser? Are there general rules about who is too young to tase? Too old to tase?

Total civvy here, but the risk of tasing that old guy seems about 1000 X greater than the risk the old guy posed to this young turk officer.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Henry Hawkins. | December 17, 2014 at 2:24 am

    In defense of the officer (without comment on whether or not the use of force was actually justified), he may have felt it was safer for Mr. Vasquez to be taken out by the Taser rather than fight with him and possibly injure him seriously.

      I’m sorry, but precisely what threat to society did this 76 year old man pose that he needed to be “taken out”?

        Regardless of whether the stop is lawful or not, it is against the law to resist and not comply with an officer’s commands.

        The man did not comply despite repeated commands, therefore…

          Regardless of whether the stop is lawful or not, it is against the law to resist and not comply with an officer’s commands.

          I don’t think that’s true. From what I understand, officers who break the law by interfering with citizens who are doing something clearly and completely lawful can’t plead “good faith” immunity against their violation of the citizen’s fourth amendment rights (&/or any assaults they commit in the process of doing so).

          And your reply hasn’t answered the question I posed in my comment as to precisely what threat to society did this 76 year old man pose that he needed to be “taken out”?

          Ragspierre in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 10:59 am

          You are wrong. A LEO making an unlawful stop is, in fact, committing an assault and battery on a citizen if they lay hands on them, and has no more right to do that than a street thug.

          You have EVERY right to resist.

          You don’t want things to go that way, however. Really, really…

          It’s MUCH better to hit them where they hurt, and you don’t die. In court.

          Milhouse in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 12:02 am

          No, Rags, if you know the person who is illegally arresting you is a policeman it is illegal to resist. In Texas and most other states.

          sjf_control in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 8:21 am

          Texas PC §9.31 deals with the use of force in self defense. Section (B) talks about arrest.

          (b) The use of force against another is not justified:
          (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made
          by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

          And section (c) states…

          (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
          (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than
          necessary to make the arrest or search; and
          (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
          is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

        Merlin01 in reply to Amy in FL. | December 17, 2014 at 8:43 am

        A 76 year man or woman of any race or gender can still pull a trigger!

          I hope you get stopped and tasered, since you *might* pull a trigger.


          Hal Jordan in reply to Merlin01. | December 20, 2014 at 3:40 am

          Absolutely! And I’m sure that’s what the officer was thinking when the man started actively fighting him and brought his left arm around in front of his body (at 1:16). It was time right then to take him to the ground for the safety of all involved. Right after that, he says in an excited voice “Step it up!” and right after THAT you start hearing the sirens of the other responding officers.

    Yes, there are lots of limits. Remember after 911 the laser came on the scene and was widely being used. Then the reports of people dying(mostly chronically ill or on drugs) started coming out and law enforcement adjusted by setting limits. You are more likely to die from the Taser than physical force!

    On a side note: I remember everyone saying that they should have used a Taser on Eric Garner. There is no winning for losing. If you use the Taser you are wrong, if you use physical force you are wrong.

    What I seem to hear everyone saying is, there is no reason to enforce the law, what is an officer suppose to do when someone resists and yells ouch, or I can’t breath?

      “What I seem to hear everyone saying is, there is no reason to enforce the law”

      Horseshit. No laws were violated to start with. Courtesy on the officers part would have resulted in what it should have been to start with, either a ticket or nothing. That SOB of an officer was never threatened.

      When some minor administrative violation occurs it is not a requirement for LEO’s to treat it as murder and a dangerous criminal.

      Fucking Nazi’s.

        Merlin01 in reply to Barry. | December 17, 2014 at 12:54 pm

        “Dumbass, F-ing Nazis” Your pretty good at name calling, we are all so impressed with your communication skills.

        You make such a good case for your side of the discussion. It’s why bigots, like you, should be allowed freedom to speak. So we can see how unintelligent you are!

          Barry in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 1:39 pm

          I call you what you are. I have no respect for police state Nazi’s.

          I respect all LEO’s up until they earn my disrespect.

          If you can watch that video and not see a problem, a big problem, with the behavior of this particular cop, you deserve no respect and are worthy of name calling.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 12:09 am

        No laws were violated? At least two laws were violated. Driving without an inspection sticker (no, dealers plates are not exempt), and resisting arrest (no, it is not legal to resist an illegal arrest, not that this was one).

Don’t they teach psychology anymore at the police academy?

This is obviously a racial incident … wait … the victim wasn’t an African-American … oh, Vasquez, close enough. Definitely a racial incident.

Any officer in this area caught listening to any music while in their patrol vehicle would be disciplined. It’s a distraction, interferes with your hearing dispatch and decreases situational awareness. But it’s a great way to keep your superiors from hearing what’s said during an encounter. Something a bad cop might like.

No, Vasquez should not have resisted the arrest, but the arrest itself doesn’t seem reasonable and the officer seems to have launched into an Academy-taught takedown script to “take control of the situation” by force alone when the entire situation ought to have been headed off, or at the very least, talked down. His police superior’s response seems appropriate. It may not be a criminal act, but it certainly doesn’t seem like a good implementation of department policy.

    Barry in reply to JBourque. | December 17, 2014 at 1:44 am

    I don’t see that the old man was resisting arrest at all. The cop bastard just grabbed the old man at which point there is a reaction by the gentleman.

      Merlin01 in reply to Barry. | December 17, 2014 at 8:50 am

      Told to say in the car. Ignored
      Get back in the car. Ignored
      Move to the rear of your vehicle. Ignored
      Officer attempted to control defiant suspect. Resisted More control, greater resistance!
      Put hands behind his back. Ignored


      Did we watch a different video?

        Is that an acceptable way for a sane police officer to go about inquiring about the status of a 76 year old man’s inspection sticker?

        Some police officers seem to have trouble understanding that the people they serve are not “the enemy”. Treating people like that just adds to the totally unproductive “us vs. them” vibe out there.

        The Officer Friendly of my youth never would have bashed Grandpa to the ground and then tased him twice over a question of whether his vehicle was required to carry a valid inspection sticker.

          Merlin01 in reply to Amy in FL. | December 17, 2014 at 10:40 am

          I see it completely different.

          The officer never got the chance to inquire about the inspection sticker.

          The police didn’t used to be treated as the enemy either!

          The most important part of your statement is “my youth” , welcome to the new world of crime and violence that the police deal with everyday.

          Hal Jordan in reply to Amy in FL. | December 20, 2014 at 3:48 am

          Your Grandpa never would have tried to fight with Officer Friendly, either. Generally these videos where people try to say that cops are out of control all start with someone trying to fight Officer Friendly. Good Police Officers all start out being “firm, fair and friendly,” but if you start fighting with them, the “friendly” part goes right out the window and the “firm” part takes center stage. That’s exactly what’s supposed to happen, so there’s no use complaining about it.

        I guess you’re another abusive thuggish cop … Or maybe just a wannabe?
        (BTW, in my younger years I was a cop, and I’d never have behaved that way.)

          Merlin01 in reply to carlwk3c. | December 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          You know absolutely nothing about me except I disagree with you on this subject. I, on the other hand, know that you are a childish name calling, mind reader.

        Casey in reply to Merlin01. | December 18, 2014 at 2:03 am

        The police didn’t used to be treated as the enemy either!

        …Aaaand congratulations for highlighting why so many police forces are now seen as the enemy.

        Tazing a 76-year-old man for not cowering submissively before the agent of the State is a terrific way to make friends and influence people.

        Yeah, I know what you’re going to say; Vasquez should have groveled on his belly, mindlessly obeying whatever the cop ordered him to do.

        People in this country are citizens, not subjects.

        P.S. Doesn’t the fact that the Chief of Police personally apologized to Mr. Vasquez register with you at all? As in maybe the officer might not have handled it as well as he might have?

        Casey in reply to Merlin01. | December 18, 2014 at 2:18 am

        I missed the part where the officer told Vasquez to either stay in the car and/or get back in the car?

    DaveGinOly in reply to JBourque. | December 17, 2014 at 2:21 am

    There was a time in this country when resisting an unlawful arrest was considered a right. Lysander Spooner, in his “An Essay on the Trial By Jury” (1852) uses the example of a person killing a sheriff while resisting an arrest with a defective warrant as a justifiable homicide.

      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 18, 2014 at 12:14 am

      There was never a time when it would have been justifiable homicide. Spooner was an anarchist activist, not a legal expert. There was a time when it would have been manslaughter rather than murder. That time ended a long time ago. In Texas, as in most states, it is explicitly illegal to resist an illegal arrest if you know the criminal arresting you is a policeman.

        “Spooner’s The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was cited in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the federal district’s ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, quotes Spooner as saying the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[38] It was also cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago the following year.[39]” —Wikipedia entry for the legal GREAT, the GREAT AMERICAN, Spooner.

Dealing with an old man, definitely poor behavior by the officer. And over an inspection sticker?

Boy is in the wrong line of work.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Estragon. | December 18, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    Lots of towns are broke. I imagine an expired inspection sticker citation has a nice fine to go with it. Many police forces are nothing more than revenuers.

TrooperJohnSmith | December 17, 2014 at 1:33 am

Yeah, this is pretty bad.

Victoria is one of “those towns where you don’t want to speed. On US-59 from south Texas to Texarkansa, there’s about 50 of these little speed-trap villes.

Mr. Vasquez’ attorney should ask that Officer Robinson be tested for steroid use. I’m convinced that some cases of excessive use of force, particularly in situations in which no force is called for, are instances of ‘roid rage. Many cops and prison guards use steroids as part of an “arms race” with criminals doing the same.

    That’s exactly what I was thinking. Are cops subject to routine random drug screening, including that for steroids? If not, they should be. No one who is granted a government franchise to use violence against citizens should be operating impaired.

    You may be on to something. There is more steroid abuse in most police departments than all of professional sports.

    (OK, I have no stats to back that up, but it does sound good.)

Can’t see on the video what reason the officer had for grabbing the old guy’s wrist to cuff him, but as soon as he did that the old guy started resisting, apparently with substantial force. If the initial grab was ok there is no doubt that the COP’s escalation of force was fine.

As to the initial grab, Vasquez puts this squarely on himself: “he came over here and got nasty with me and I’m not going to put up with it, I don’t care who it is. Then he grabbed me…”

So Vasquez was already “not puttin’ up with it” BEFORE the cop grabbed him, which would seem to make the grab legit.

To all the people saying the cop should be sued, fired, whatever: do you have eyes? Can you read? This one is not hard to put together.

If the cop was wrong on the law, you sort it out in court, you don’t resist arrest, or you end up on the ground, with no one to blame but yourself.

Old guys have some special license to resist arrest? I don’t think so.

    A cop who can’t think of any way to question a 76 year old man about his car’s inspection status except by bashing and tasing him doesn’t deserve to be a cop.

    Plenty of police officers are able to deal with misunderstandings like this every day in a perfectly sane and civil manner. Bad apples who apparently just want to get out there and look for excuses to bang some heads in should not be tolerated.

      There are also plenty of police officers that end up injured or dead for being too complacent.

      The man was given multiple lawful commands, none of which he complied with. The reason for the stop is IRRELEVANT. It is REQUIRED by LAW to comply with the commands of a peace officer. It does not matter whether the stop is lawful or not. The street is not a courtroom. The officer is not a judge. On the street, the officer wins ALL the arguments by default. The place to dispute all of that is in a courtroom, in front of a judge.

      The more people that understand that, the better off we’ll all be.

        It is REQUIRED by LAW to comply with the commands of a peace officer. It does not matter whether the stop is lawful or not.

        The police officer loses any claim to “good faith” if he stops you for something which he knows is lawful. If he then assaults you, it’s on him.

        In your ideal fascist world,for instance, no whistle-blowers would be allowed to photograph the police without risking being bashed, tased or even shot to death. All the cop would have to say is “stop filming and let me finish bashing this homeless person in peace”, and if you refused to stop and hand over your camera, he could assault you for it.

        Professor Glenn Reynolds points out (emphasis mine):

        “As attorney Morgan Manning reported in Popular Mechanics, people who photograph police in the process of arresting — or beating, or shooting — suspected criminals often find themselves confronted by officers who demand that they hand over their cameras or delete the incriminating images.

        “Again, the police don’t have any authority to do that. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held in the case of Glik v. Cuniffe that the right to photograph police officers in public spaces is so clearly established that officers who break the law by interfering with citizens who do so can’t plead “good faith” immunity. Good-faith immunity is supposed to protect officers who have to act quickly in areas where the law is unclear. The right to take photographs of police officers in public places, said the Court of Appeals, isn’t unclear. (In fact, it’s so clear that the Justice Department has written a letter to law enforcement agencies making that point.)

        “Public servants all too often come to see themselves as public masters. But they’re not.”

          Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | December 18, 2014 at 12:18 am

          Amy, the law does not agree with you.

          And in this case, at least, the cop did not stop him “for something which he knows is lawful”. In fact he stopped him for something he knew was unlawful, even if Vasquz didn’t. Cars with dealer’s plates are NOT exempt from inspection stickers.

        Paul in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 7:49 am

        How many cops end up dead for acting like gestapo thugs? Many people won’t bow, don’t know how. Cops who only know force are like ticking time bombs rolling around in the community.

          TB seems to be operating under the misconception that we live in a police state. Worse, he seems to think that such a state would be a good thing.

      Merlin01 in reply to Amy in FL. | December 17, 2014 at 8:57 am

      Plenty of dead police officers who thought they could control a situation and didn’t follow policy. I’m glad he followed procedure and got to go home to his family!

        Oh good grief.

          Merlin01 in reply to Amy in FL. | December 17, 2014 at 10:41 am

          I would like to understand what part of my statement you disagree with, maybe you could sway my opinion if you explained?

          Bless your heart. You’re either being deliberately disingenuous, or you really are that much of a small-weenied borderline fascist moron getting off on the idea of being allowed to go around meting out “your” brand of “justice” against those who are to slow to respect your authoriteh. In either case, I’m sorry for your loss. And your Mama’s.

Ok. For the LEO doing his job and the old guy resisting arrest people. Since when is an expired inspection sticker an arresting offense? Its a ticket, its an ask for license and registration and write a ticket.

As near as I can tell with no audio the old guy pulled back into the dealership that owns the car.

LEO follows him in and approaches. Guy gets out because this is where he’s going.

LEO tells him his inspection sticker is expired and it “appears” told the guy to look at it.

Guy does and points out its a dealership tag for a vehicle owned by a dealership and doesn’t require an inspection sticker. Old guy is correct.

At that point the LEO grabs old guys wrist. Whether to handcuff him till he can sort it out or actually arrest him who knows but there is nothing in the guys actions that warrants being handcuffed.

For sure he didn’t need to be tazed.

Bad stop and escalated by the LEO. Put the guy on desk duty for a few years.

    The reason for the stop is irrelevant. The officer’s priority was his own safety. Until that process was taken care of, the other details would have to wait.

    The man opened the door as the officer was approaching. Lots of dashcam videos of the door popping open like that and gunfire a split second after it does.

    So the man exits the vehicle, the officer tells him to put his hands on the hood. Had the man done so, the officer would have likely asked him “Do you have any weapons on you?” and frisked him and the stop would have continued from there.

    Alas, the man failed to comply with the officer’s command. When the officer directed him a second time to put his hands on the hood, the man once again did not comply.

    So the officer took an arm in order to begin handcuffing him.
    The man resisted. What followed afterwards is one of many outcomes one can expect to happen when resisting.

    Being handcuffed does not mean being under arrest. I have been cuffed before on a couple of occasions but not placed under arrest. This is done for the officer’s safety.

      Paul in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 7:57 am

      Police authority is granted to them by the community, and can be taken away by the community. Given the comments and votes shown here, do you think that perhaps your perspectice on this issue is perhaps outside the norm? Or would you rather just taze us and call it a day?

        Merlin01 in reply to Paul. | December 17, 2014 at 9:09 am

        The perception on Mike Brown and Eric Garner was contrary to the law but I suppose the mob mentality is all that’s important!

          Those incidents have nothing to do with this. Nice try though.

          Milhouse in reply to Merlin01. | December 18, 2014 at 12:27 am

          The Eric Garner case has everything to do with this. Like Garner, Vasquez had no legal right to resist arrest, and like Garner, public opinion is irrelevant. Only the law is relevant, and the law sides with the cop. If you don’t like it, campaign to change the law.

        The norm? Bandwagon fallacy. Right. I remember my formal logic professor introducing this fallacy by writing the following on the board:

        “Eat shit ! Ten BILLION flies can’t be wrong !”

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | December 18, 2014 at 12:25 am

        Police authority is granted by state law, not by the local community, and certainly not by the community of blog commenters.

      Milhouse in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 12:24 am

      TB, being handcuffed does mean being under arrest. By definition an arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he was not free to go. The moment the policeman told him to put his hands on the hood, he was under arrest.

        Then I’ve been arrested a few times, but released within 10-30 minutes.

        Thought there was a difference between being arrested and being detained.

        Could you go into more detail about that?

        Hal Jordan in reply to Milhouse. | December 20, 2014 at 3:59 am

        Police can handcuff you if you are being detained prior to an arrest. If the officer decides not to arrest you, he can remove the handcuffs and send you on your way.

    Milhouse in reply to Sheep. | December 18, 2014 at 12:19 am

    No, old guy is not correct.

Police should be aware that the risk of inducing cardiac arrhythmias with the use of a taser goes up with pre-existing heart disease. The risk of heart disease goes up with age. The police in this community are lucky that this inappropriate use of force did not result in a fatal heart rhythm.

    bvw in reply to Mati. | December 18, 2014 at 7:05 am

    Down voted by mistake, meant to upvote. Not only does the Taser more readily cause fatality in the infirm, the obese and the elderly, but here in this situation the rude officer broke a social convention long long established in peaceful communities. That the old be respected for their age alone. Here we have an “inversion” of that proper social order where a youthful thug is ORDERING a senior member of the community, grabbing at him, showing only disdain. Inversion. What you see in ghetto beat downs by roving bands of teenagers of older people. A real sign of social disorder and break down. This “officer” in such behavior contributes to disorder, not order.

People, really?

Monday Morning Armchair Quarterback (MMAQB) all you like. 20/20 hindsight is a nice thing to have, especially when its not your ass and your life that’s being gambled.

A quick look over at liveleak and a few other places have produced videos of similar scenarios with a person of similar age that have resulted in the injury and/or death of the officer.

I’ll provide a couple of examples.

The man, and I don’t give a damn what his age is, was belligerent. The officer directed him to put his hands on the hood of his vehicle. He ARGUED. He should have put his hands on the hood of the car since he was already out, let the officer frisk him and then continue the stop from there. He did not do that. It does not matter if the person being pulled over thinks he is right or wrong. The law says that we all MUST obey a peace officer’s commands. If the peace officer is in the wrong, that is what civil courts and Internal Affairs are for.

What I was taught was that when I am pulled over was to turn the car off, take the keys and put them on the dashboard, turn the emergency blinkers on, and then put both hands on the wheel and to not make any sudden movements. After the officer approaches, do as he/she says from there and to always, always keep my hands in plain view.

I’ve seen too many videos of officers getting shot at on traffic stops similar to this one with people that had a similar demeanor. It doesn’t take but a split second for that door to pop open and the gun to come out.

    Merlin01 in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    You and I against the world brother! 🙂

      Ragspierre in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      Including the Victoria Chief of Police, who has referred the matter to IA.

      When I was growing up, there was always a banner either in the halls or in the classroom at the schools I went to. It read:

      “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”

      I am happy to see that I’m not the only one taking a stand here. Thank you for speaking out.

      Hal Jordan in reply to Merlin01. | December 20, 2014 at 4:06 am

      And me. I have to wonder if we are all looking at the same video, too. The first thing the officer does when he walks up to the car at 0:55 is put his thumbprint on the left taillight. That’s so if he’s killed during the stop, the forensics folks can confirm that car as the one that he stopped. They do that all the time, but it was especially valuable in this case since the car had a temporary tag on it, not a license plate that could be traced to an individual car.

    Casey in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 2:12 am

    Interesting. You cite a logic course you took, but apparently consider repeating the same argument over (and over and over) again a valid strategy. A rhetorical position isn’t strengthened by repetition.

    P.S. Did the ever mention ipse dixit in that logic course you took? Not to mention false dilemma by claiming that the officer had only one course of action once “the door popped open.” He had multiple options available but he failed to use them.

      I do not see you contesting the validity of what I posted.

      I can repeat 2+2=4 as many times as I would like and it would not change the validity of it.

      Please refer to “red herring” and “straw man”. Have a nice day.

      also refer to Graham vs. Connor.

      Every traffic stop can potentially end with the officer losing his life. You cannot sit there and say what options the officer does and does not have because it is not you yourself in that situation, with your life and career at risk. It is not you that has to make a split second decision between your life and the life of someone else.

“Some people don’t understand reality, or rather, their reality involves “call someone and they will solve the problem for me”. Sadly, those people sometimes project their own inability or unwillingness to solve the problem onto the very people that they rely on to solve those problems. The result of that is a police force that becomes impotent, or conversely, one that becomes the epicenter of dozens, if not hundreds of ruined lives, such as in Ferguson, MO.

So, ask yourself…if I do not understand how these problems are solved because I am not in law enforcement and/or do not have at least a beginner’s understanding of the challenges faced by those in law enforcement, and I have chosen not to be responsible for my own person, do I have the right to criticize those who I have nominated by my own lack of action for the methods they sometimes must resort to to insure that my community and person are safe?”

    Ragspierre in reply to TB. | December 17, 2014 at 11:06 am


    Climb out of the hole while you still have a ladder.

      Put the shovel down?

      Is that another way of telling me to check my privilege?

      In other words, shut up?

      If so, I will humbly decline. Have a nice day !

I am completely amazed that so many posters here don’t seem to be objective.

If you comply with officers requests/commands and don’t resist you will always be in the right (meaning you can file complaints and sue). If you don’t comply or you resist you are likely to get what you asked for, arrested by force!

    People like you scare me.

      Merlin01 in reply to Amy in FL. | December 17, 2014 at 10:43 am

      First, what kind of “people” am I? And what part scares you?

        “Fascist thug” is the term that comes to mind.

        What is your definition of Liberty? Think on it awhile.

          Merlin01 in reply to Paul. | December 17, 2014 at 12:17 pm

          So supporting law enforcement and disagreeing with you makes me a “Fascist Thug”. That’s an interesting point of view.

          Bigot comes to mind when I think of you!

          I don’t usually engage in discussions with name calling bigots so I’ll leave my definition of Liberty to some one who wants to have an intellectual discussion without the name calling and insulting commentary!

          Paul in reply to Paul. | December 17, 2014 at 12:33 pm

          Please don’t trot out the “supporting law enforcement” tripe to imply that those of us on this thread who disagree with the cop’s actions don’t “support law enforcement.” That’s typical prog rhetorical bullshit.

          You asked what kind of people you are, and I gave you my opinion based on your comments on this thread. Sorry if that hurt your feeling.

          And yeah, I’m bigoted against Fascist Thugs of all colors and creeds, and I’m proud of it. If that bothers you I would kindly suggest that you go piss up a rope.

        gregjgrose in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 4:28 pm

        The bootlicking kind?

    My role in life is not to be prodded, pushed and abused by any thug with a badge and I’m NOT saying any man with a badge is a thug.

    Abuse of authority is a very serious and potentially deadly situation and this event was clearly an abuse of authority. This ‘officer’ risked another man’s life over nothing of any consequence.

Why in the world would anyone want to be or become a police officer in the environment we have created?

God help us all!

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Well, Officer Robinson would tell you he joined up because he thought he could “beat people up all nice and legal like.”

WTH?! I don’t see anything in this person’s demeanor or actions that warranted the officer’s response.

Oftentimes a citizen’s critique of a video of a police encounter exposes their ignorance of the true nature of dealing with someone that doesn’t want to be arrested. The usual line, “Why not just shoot him in the hand?” is typical of not understanding (1) how nearly impossible outside of Hollywood movies that is to do, and (2) that usually doesn’t stop the threat to you. The Michael Brown case is just such an incident where even though Off. Wilson had shot Brown several times, he still kept coming at him.

Here, however, I didn’t see a single thing the old man did to warrant suddenly grabbing his hand, grappling with him, wrestling him to the ground, and then tasering him. Hey, old men can be just as dangerous as some young punk, but that wasn’t evident here.

Certainly, complying with the officer’s directives keeps the situation from escalating, but an officer also needs to understand proportionality to the level of the threat. There’s little to suggest that this man’s intentions were harmful to the officer, or even that he was trying to escape. Seems the officer could have been a little more accommodating in trying to understand what it was the older man was actually trying to attempt. Harm, escape, or some other interference with the officer’s lawful duties doesn’t seem to be on display here.

    Ragspierre in reply to foolishcop. | December 17, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Coupla thangs to put this in better perspective…

    1. in most Texas jurisdictions, an inspection sticker infraction is healed by getting the hoopty inspected, showing proof, and paying a $10.00 “convenience charge”, and

    2. Victoria is on the invisible line below which you really NEED to have a pretty fair command of Spanish, and not just because of illegals. You have multi-generational American families in South Texas who mostly understand stuff in Spanish. A lot of this incident could have been a language issue, and

    3. I have led a motorcycle cop to a safe place to pull off the road, only to have him all excited because I did not immediately pull over on a dangerous section of road. They are taught to always be in control. I insist on always thinking about my safety and theirs. That could be a problem one day, but I don’t intend to change.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | December 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm

      I have always been told to turn on my blinkers to acknowledge the stop while looking for a place to pull over. I would also call the local NEN and explain to the dispatcher that I am being pulled over by what appears to be a cop.

        I had my 4-ways on, and was signalling with everything I had short of semaphores. (Arm out the window, doing my best “follow me”.)

        The whole evolution lasted maybe 30 seconds, so a call was of no use.

        (I didn’t “down-twinkle” you, btw.)

    Merlin01 in reply to foolishcop. | December 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    I don’t agree with everything you said but I do appreciate the thoughtful way you expressed your opinion. Thank you!

    Yeah. Too bad it was the officer’s career and life on the line and not yours. Real easy for you to say. That armchair comfortable there, Sir?

    I think you’ll find this informative.

    U.S.S.C. Graham vs. Connor

A police officer who, intentionally or unintentionally, obscures the video of audio recording of his vehicle or body cam by means under his control, should be assumed to have done the wrong thing if there is any doubt.

I believe that law enforcement officials should treat civilians as if they were uncles or cousins or nephews, until the need for force becomes explicit. Can you imagine a cop rolling up on a group of guys sitting around with pistols strapped to their hips these days? They’d have SWAT, the National Guard and close-in air support on the horn right after they recovered from passing out. When did we start fearing other citizens just because they are equipped and capable of defending themselves?

    Hal Jordan in reply to Immolate. | December 20, 2014 at 4:20 am

    “Can you imagine a cop rolling up on a group of guys sitting around with pistols strapped to their hips these days?”

    In 37 states where open carry is legal, they wouldn’t worry about it.

@ about 0.25 “He (cop) came up behind me and turned the lights on.) At this point Vasquez was subject to a lawful arrest and did nearly everything possible to escalate a routine situation into physical resistance and the subsequent action by the cop.

I’m 66 and disabled, but I’m smart enough to know when the lights are flashing you don’t challenge authority. Stupid ass got what he was asking for.

    Ragspierre in reply to wukong. | December 17, 2014 at 11:46 am


    Flashy lights = lawful arrest

    Not at the law school I went to.

    Just FYI, there is considerable legal scholarship in Texas about just when you are “arrested”. Generally, a traffic stop is not considered an “arrest”.

    And it gets complicated from there.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | December 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm

      He didn’t say that he was under lawful arrest, he said that he was subject to lawful arrest.

      Merlin01 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 17, 2014 at 12:09 pm

      The traffic stop appears to be lawful. At that point the office has a duty to control the situation to protect himself and the public by all lawful means.

      You are under arrest when the officer tells you are under arrest. Placing you in handcuffs doesn’t mean you are under arrest.

        Barry in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 1:01 pm

        I wish you could live in the police state you so desire while leaving the rest of us out of it.

        The officer has no duty to do what he did. He was not threatened at anytime.

        If he cannot handle the job he should not have it. If he is not willing to be in threatening situations he should not be a policeman.

        I have two good friends in this business, one retired, one still active. They find it appalling. I’ve been pulled over for an expired inspection sticker. The officer was nice and there was no problem. I was pulled over by a butthole in a small town about 30 years ago for having an expired plate (I had just forgotten to put the new sticker in place). Without any explanation I was told to put my hands against the roof and assume the position. Since I had no clue what he was asking, baffled by such a request, it took me a moment to respond. As I placed my hands on the roof the asshole kicked my feet to spread my legs. I was searched and cuffed, then placed in his car. Off to jail I go. No explanation at that point. At the jail I was told my tag was expired. Small town, about 10K population. Sunday afternoon. I’m there at the request of a business owner, manufacturing plant, employs about 2500, nearly half the towns working population. I have a lawyer. My brother in law is a criminal lawyer. Who did I call? The owner of the company. I was out about 5 minutes later with the captain apologizing and telling me it was not normal.

        A month later I got a small note in the mail informing me the PD of X had downsized and one officer was no longer in their employ.

        There are lots, most I think, of good police officers.
        This guy is not one of them. He should be fired if not subject to prosecution. Having a badge is a big responsibility. If you cannot handle it you should not be in law enforcement. If your mentality is to treat every “perceived” threat with immediate force, you are not suited to be in law enforcement. If that is what they are teaching, then they are wrong.

        Ragspierre in reply to Merlin01. | December 17, 2014 at 1:13 pm

        “The traffic stop appears to be lawful.”

        No. It doesn’t. There is NO legal predicate (that we know of) for the LEO to initiate the stop.

        “You are under arrest when the officer tells you are under arrest.”

        That is an idiot statement. First, the words, “You’re under arrest”, are seldom spoken.

        Second, an “arrest” is a complex legal question. Just because a LEO SAYS, “You’re under arrest” doesn’t make it so. Conversely, a LEO can deny placing someone under arrest, and make a very truthful statement that was not his/her intent, and it makes no difference to the analysis.

        Cops sometimes rape women on duty. If they say, “You’re under arrest” so as to subdue their victim, are they “under arrest”?

          Merlin01 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 17, 2014 at 1:34 pm

          Can we have a discussion that excludes the name calling? Unless you meant idiotic statement instead of “idiot”. 🙂

          The article says he noticed the expired inspection sticker. That’s why he was stopped.

          I disagree about being told when you are under arrest, which should be followed by your Miranda rights. He might tell you that you are just being detained.

          The whole rape thing is just a straw argument that I won’t bother to address since it’s not relevant to this discussion.

          Its just my opinion!

          “Can we have a discussion that excludes the name calling?”

          Not with police state Nazi’s. I think the term “idiot statement” was perfect, intentional or not. Not my call on the wording of course.

          Watch the video again. Put yourself in the place of an elderly gentleman that does not deal with the police everyday and is not used to getting pulled over for any reason. There is no law that states one must stay in their car and not everyone knows it is now the best policy as it is what the police teach.

          Now, listen carefully to the audio and see if you can hear anything that the officer has to say before he has knocked the gentleman to the ground.

          When you have done that and can explain your reasoning with something other than “support law enforcement no matter” I will take back the names I call you. Until then my assessment stands.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

          All of us can make idiot statements. SOME of us have a positive talent, however…

          The issue of the inspection sticker is dealt with above. The LEO had NO legal basis for the stop, given the plainly displayed “paper plates”.

          Are you under “arrest” if nobody gives you your Miranda warning? You damn betcha…depending… There are literally hundreds of appellate cases on this issue. Look it up.

          The rape question is one you don’t like. That does not make it invalid. Much of the argument on this thread goes to the idea that you have no right…or power…to resist a LEO’s orders. You DAMN sure do.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 18, 2014 at 12:39 am

          The car belonged to the dealer. Why would it have paper plates?

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 18, 2014 at 12:37 am

      Any time a reasonable person would not believe himself free to leave, it is an arrest.

        Well that clarifies things. Thanks.

        Hal Jordan in reply to Milhouse. | December 20, 2014 at 4:27 am

        That’s not what I was ever taught. As soon as you pull someone over, that person is not free to leave but he is also not under arrest. He is “detained.” A person can be detained while the officer investigates the situation, and then either released or placed under arrest. Search for “detention vs. arrest” for explanations of how it works.

The Victoria Chief has opened an internal affairs investigation, so I guess some of us are supported by the LEOs.


There is the view of what modern police should be, and act, as expressed in Sir Robert Peel’s rules circa 1829. Some thirty plus years AFTER the Bill oF Rights, btw. Here is NYC Police Commish Bratton’s compilation of those rules:

Principle 1 – “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”

Principle 2 – “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

Principle 3 – “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”

Principle 4 – “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”

Principle 5 – “Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

Principle 6 – “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”

Principle 7 – “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Principle 8 – “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”

Principle 9 – “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

“The police are the public and the public are the police” — is a theory, a philosophy at odds with those who demand that citizens immediately and absolutely obey every command by a uniform officer. An officers command is of the same regard as that of any other responsible citizen. It carries force of moral authority, of lawful authority ONLY when it is clearly in line with some necessity of his proper duty in a way obvious to a reasonable law-abiding citizen in that time, place and circumstance.

This officer’s authority was not at all obvious. I mean the lawful and reasonable authority.

Yes, his uniform, his gun and other weapons, his squad car and his swagger convey authority, but it is not lawful or reasonable authority — alone those are the same marks of authority of any place occupied by military forces. And his gum-chewing knee-jerk escalation into extreme violence is more typical of a military occupying a hostile city than that of a fellow citizen with a duty to help keep law and order.

His authority was only that of a willingness to employ force. And even up to and including deadly force. There was not respect for the flow citizen to be seen in his actions. His was the demeanor found in many a rude member of an occupying army, throughout history.

That’s not AMERICAN in a very real sense of that word, American, for is a disrespect of our Founders and who they loathed the “standing army”, that acted as just such an occupying police force throughout the colonies.

Think about it. Consider our history. What is the role demeanor of police in an America that respects it’s own legacy of Liberty?

    bvw in reply to bvw. | December 17, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    Apologies for the typos. “respect for the FELLOW citizen”, “The Founders and HOW they loathed the standing army”. “What is the PROPER role AND demeanor of police”

    For some reason the tips of my fingers have become numb, I am tired and with cold, it is late and the screen is small before my eyes.

    Please explain how the officer was to assure his safety with a non-compliant, belligerent, and combative person?

    The first two parts of a stop always start with the officer’s safety, THEN the business of the stop.

    The officer could not even get to the second part because the man got out of control right away.

    Discussing the why of the stop is pointless because that is not what this video is about. It is about the man’s failure to comply with a lawful command given by a peace officer and his forceful resistance to that peace officer.

    What I see a lot of people here pretty much saying is that it is OK to resist if you think the officer is not acting within the law.

    Unfortunately, what you think and what a judge thinks are usually going to be two different things. So which is smarter? Comply first, file suit later? or do you resist, break a few laws in the process, and end up in the hoosegow and fined?

      Barry in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 12:15 am

      There you go, making shit up again.

      The gentleman never got out of control, as anyone with functioning eyes can see. The only loss of control was by the officer.

      The cop was never threatened and never in danger. According to your way of thinking with BS rules for a cop stop, the cop might as well just go ahead and taser first, to ensure his safety.

      The stop was over a expired inspection sticker. Get it through your leftwing commie control freak mind – there was no reason for this cop or any cop to do what was done. He should be fired and subject to prosecution.

        I never “made shit up”. I stated the obvious and you’re being dogmatic.

        But since you INSIST on making an argument for ignorance, please provide deductive evidence that proves that I was wrong about what the officer was doing. Please.

        I’m assuming you’ve read the case report and/or you were there in person to observe the entire thing.

      bvw in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 7:20 am

      “Assuring his (own) own safety” You’ve mentioned that time and time again. It’s not the role of the police, it’s the role of any person. Both people in this incident. Perhaps Michael Brown thought to assure his own safety he had to kill the officer in Ferguson. Yet being mentally and hormonally impaired his notice and his action both wrong. So too this cop — his attitude was not proper for a good officer of the peace — was that because of some impairment, or bad training or hiring?

      “Insuring the force’s own safety” is a misstatement of mission of any police force, of any military force, even of firemen. Of course safety is a first most concern, but it is NOT a mission statement, For example to insure the safety of firemen, one might burn down the town and force the people into nonflammable tents. The firemen would be safe! But that’s not the mission. The mission is to keep the peace. This officer did not, he instead broke the peace.

… btw, noting the general nastiness and emotional rhetoric being presented, I’m wondering just when LI got flooded with so many liberal commentators?

    Barry in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 12:17 am

    It’s the left that demands strict adherence to every little law. It’s the left that demands absolute obedience to the government.

    You are a leftist. I am a supporter of LIBERTY.


      Liberty at what cost?

      Funny. I don’t see you out there paying the tab for it.

      That armchair comfortable?

        Paul in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 10:19 am

        there you go pulling stuff right out of your ass again. no wonder it smells so much and is rejected by so many. you have no idea what anyone here does or does not do, beyond what they post here.

          What I post stands on its own merits. I would rather be the only one or one of few standing for what is right than stand for what is wrong and be backed by hundreds of idiots.

          You can cite however many people you like that agree with you that 2+2=5 , it will not affect the validity of 2+2=4.

          You can resort to personal attacks all you like.

          “Throw mud and lose ground.”

          It still won’t change a thing.

          Post all you like. Like Professor Jacobson has said, it is better to let you and your ilk post so we can all see what you REALLY are and what you REALLY think.

          It has been an educational experience, to say the least.

Reading these comments, it’s a wonder how half America hasn’t been tasered by a LEO. First of all, it does not matter if the officer is making a mistake when pulling you over, assuming it is a reasonable mistake (see the recent SCOTUS decision Heien v. North Carolina). You have to comply with the officer even if you know that you have broken no laws. If you fail to comply with an officer, you can be subject to arrest.

    Barry in reply to LEOG. | December 18, 2014 at 12:26 am

    There is no evidence the 76 year old gentleman was not complying with any reasonable request by the officer. If you watch the video, you’ll find only a few moments pass from the time the old man gets out of his car and the cop grabs him by the arm and throws him to the ground. There was not a single threat posed by the old man except perhaps trying to explain to an asshole why he did not need the inspection sticker.

    “If you fail to comply with an officer, you can be subject to arrest.” There is no real evidence the 76 year old man did not comply or was given a moment to do so.

    Nazi’s. That is the term used to describe the behavior of people like this cop.

      LEOG in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 1:06 am

      Well he confessed to not complying, that is pretty much all the evidence you should need. “he came over here and got nasty with me and I’m not going to put up with it, I don’t care who it is.” You know, that whole anything you say can and will be used against you thing.

      You don’t need to pose a threat to be arrested. The only requirement is that you break the law. However any use of force needs to be proportional, which seems to be the case here as the 78 year-old “gentleman” was resisting arrest fairly vigorously (at least enough for the officer not to be able to subdue him).

      In any case, going around calling cops “Nazi’s [sic]” only reflects on your objectivity, or lack thereof. Don’t get me wrong, it seems like the cop was being every bit of an asshole, but sometimes it takes two assholes to make a shit-sandwich, and only one of those assholes broke the law.

        Barry in reply to LEOG. | December 18, 2014 at 1:29 am

        The video speaks for itself. Regardless of the way an old man put it after the fact, he never poised a threat to that officer. The only resisting that can be seen is after the cop grabbed him by the arm. To me, that appears to be more of a reaction to the sudden attack, but that is just a judgment on my part. I see zero evidence of anything in that video to cause the officer to take the action he did.

        He broke no law by the way, in addition to not poising any threat.

        Calling a Nazi thug a Nazi thug is just being objective. Most officers do not act that way. This one did.

          LEOG in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 9:50 am

          Barry, why do you think someone needs to pose a threat in order to be arrested? This simply isn’t true. If you got pulled over for speeding and refused to display your ID, do you think the officer has to just walk away unless you threaten them in someway?

          What I see in the video is Vasquez clearly refusing to comply with the officer right before the officer grabbed his wrist, apparently to arrest him. Then Vasquez resisted which resulted in proportional force.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm

          “Barry, why do you think someone needs to pose a threat in order to be arrested?”

          I never made any comment even remotely like that. If those who insist LEO’s are allowed to do anything and are always right could read, understand common courtesy, and watch a video with some circumspection they might get the point being made.

          There are good cops (most are)
          There are bad cops (this one is bad)
          There are those unsuited to be cops (many reasons)

          One more time, regardless if the gentleman broke any law, there was no reason for this cop to act the way he did. The gentleman was not a threat and was not resisting arrest.

          Evidence: The video – from the time the old man got out of his car, to the time the cop grabbed him by the arm is less than 30 seconds, it is actually around 25 seconds. You are trying to tell me this cop smells like roses when he stinks to high heaven. Do you not think this officer of the law could have given it a minute or two? If you insist he poised a threat to the officer somewhere in that 25 seconds, please watch the video again and let us know the time and the actual threat you see.

          LEOG in reply to Barry. | December 19, 2014 at 12:56 pm

          Berry, you keep implying that he had to be a threat in order to be arrested. Every single time you mention, “he posed no threat” like it is relevant. The guy wasn’t complying, so the officer moved to put cuffs on him, at which point the guy resisted. The officer had every right to do so, and the guy had no legal right for non-compliance or to resist. Plain and simple. If you don’t think a person has to be a threat in order to be arrested, then why keep mentioning that he “posed no threat.”

        Casey in reply to LEOG. | December 18, 2014 at 2:27 am

        I respectfully suggest that the officer lost control of the situation when Vasquez got out of the car, and escalated to physical confrontation because he didn’t know how else to react. There’s ways to defuse a situation like that.

          LEOG in reply to Casey. | December 18, 2014 at 9:33 am

          The officer probably isn’t a good cop, but that doesn’t mean he broke the law or abused the old man. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and if you fail to comply with an officer during a traffic stop and get arrested, saying “well I was mad and they failed to calm me down” isn’t a compelling narrative of police abuse.

        Using the statement of “I’m not going to put up with it” as an admission of “not complying” is an unwarranted conclusion.

        I took it as simply a statement of “that’s why I got exasperated and told him why he was wrong, rather than meekly going ‘yes sir, whatever you say sir'”, and his statement is entirely consistent with that interpretation. That’s how I took it.

        In short, it’s “I argued with the jerk-wad officer because…”, not “I refused to cooperate with lawful orders because…”

        You’re asserting that it can only mean the latter, but that’s not the only possible interpretation.

          This is about as explicit a statement that you can get that he had no intention of complying with the officer. What in the video suggests that he was complying with anything the officer was requesting that would support your interpretation of his statement?

      Too bad you’re not a judge. The evidence is on the video. You’re just being dogmatic and rejecting it.

      You can keep repeating yourself all you like, it will not change a damn thing.

      Nothing’s going to happen to the officer because he did nothing wrong and acted in accordance with his training. If the city does do something, then the officer can file a lawsuit and get a nice fat check out of it.

      That is what is so great about these political appointees. They willingly bend themselves over the barrel in their attempts to pander. They don’t mind doing so because it isn’t them that are getting screwed, it is the taxpayers.

    Rest assured, a lot of the comments I’ve seen on this article alone are not coming from typical LI readers.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think I was reading a comment thread at or something.

      Barry in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 1:23 am

      I guess when you are loosing an argument by about a 1000:1 you resort to claims the commenters are from somewhere else. Anyone reading can look at other threads and see many if not most of the commenters are there as well.

        You do not understand what an argument is. You also do not understand that no matter how many people back an invalid argument, it will not change the fact that it is invalid.

        George Carlin had something to say on this subject. Blast if I can remember, probably because he’s covered it in so many ways.

        I’ve been following LI since the beginning of the Zimmerman trial in Florida. I found Andrew Branca’s coverage and analysis of it to be exactly what I was looking for. I’ve been a follower of LI since then. I know who the regulars are. With the exception of ragspierre, a lot of the handles I am seeing here and the content of the posts are relatively new people.

        I’m also aware that many leftist sites are furious with LI’s coverage on a multitude of issues and seek to flood the comment threads with their garbage. The Professor addressed this a good while back.

        A lot of these comments and their content I would expect to see in places such as salon or thinkprogress, not LI.

          Barry in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 2:13 pm

          More BS from you. Being in the minority, a slim one at that, does not mean you are correct just because you can find a quote that says so. Pathetic argument.

          The fact that the commenters here are 1000:1 against you does not prove you right or wrong, but it says they see what you plainly cannot. When you find yourself on the loosing end in this “poll”, you resort to calling the polled “the wrong kind”, not regulars here. Whatever you think that proves is beyond me. The fact is the regulars here at LI think you are nuts.

        The thing is Barry, like the Professor, I used to be a liberal.

        I used to think and say the things many like you are saying. I can understand your side of the argument perfectly and I can argue it better than you yourself can.

        The difference here, frankly, is that you are ignorant. There is that and you care more about being right and “winning” the argument than you do about the facts and coming to a correct conclusion.

        I’ve provided you with multiple resources and examples to help you understand where I and a couple of other commentators are coming from. You made no attempt to make use of it, instead resorting to childish personal attacks and red herrings. Attempting to have a discussion with you is like arguing with some preteen brat with severe ADHD. You’d rather I shut up and leave you to your delusions.

        It does not take 25 seconds for a cop to be killed. It can happen in a split second. That means less than one second. One small opening is all it takes. There have been PLENTY of stops of what are supposedly harmless old men that ended up in a shootout and in a few cases, the death of the officer.

        The fact is that man did not obey the lawful commands of the officer, he was being argumentative, and when the officer finally attempted to arrest him, he forcefully resisted. This is obvious to any layman watching the video. He is pulling against the officer’s hand. When he began to fight, the officer did what he was trained to do.

        I suggest you go over to the officer down memorial page and start reading through it. Complacence gets officers killed.

        In a previous comment you described some associations you had and an incident you had in a small town.

        The marked difference between the incident you described and the one shown in the video is that you complied first, complained later.

        In the video, the man chose to complain first and showed no signs of complying.

        In addition you are repeatedly passing judgement of the officer without being the one in that situation, without your life and career in the balance, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

        Which is harder?

        1.) Carrying a weapon and deciding when to use and not to use it while wearing a bullseye. (and that is what a uniform and badge is. A giant bullseye.)

        2.) Not wearing a bullseye, not carrying a gun, and not having to make split second decisions involving your life and another’s.

        Graham vs. Connor aside, don’t you think you’re being even a little bit condescending judging the officer based on a dashcam video and no other facts/evidence on hand?

          Barry in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm

          “is that you complied first, complained later.”

          1. A person is allowed to complain.

          2. I doubt the old man has any training in how to deal with such a situation.

          3. I have been trained and an important part of that training is restraint. That particular situation would have resulted in a different outcome had I not had that training. That particular officer had no reason to do what he did, just as in this particular case.

          LEO’s have to put their selves at some risk to do the job. You are trying to justify bad behavior by hiding it behind the safety of the officer above all else.

          There is nothing that can justify what this particular cop did. As already pointed out, from the time the old man gets out of the car to the point when this cop grabs him by the arm, is less than 30 seconds. There has been NO physical threat posed by the old man. ZERO. If there was in your opinion, and since you claim to read lips and “body language”, please point out the physical threat and the time it occurs so the rest of us can be clued in to your perceptions.

          As to the old mans reactions to the cop grabbing him, it is just that, a simple reaction, reactions normal people have. It requires training not to instantly react to getting your feet kicked or twisting/grabbing of your arm. That is the only “resistance” I see and it is perfectly normal.

          I’ll call out when I see someone get mistreated, by the police or anyone else. When it’s an organ of government doing the mistreatment and involves physical coercion those of us who value freedom refer to it as Nazi treatment for a reason.

        Opening the door was the first aggressive move.

        Go google dashcam police shootings. I noticed the officer tense up as he was approaching. Note what he does at the start. He touches the back of the vehicle to leave his fingerprints on it, then his hand moved near his gun, which is typical, but indicated he had his guard up. When the door popped open was an “OH SHIT” moment, but the officer kept his composure. But that door opening was the first physical threat and it was a huge one. I can guarantee that when it happened, the officer’s heart skipped a beat. Still, he kept his composure and did not overreact. The same can not be said of some of his peers in previous encounters where that happened and in most of those cases, the “overreaction” was justified.


        When the man gets out you can clearly see the officer pointing at the hood of the man’s vehicle. What is the man doing? Is he complying? How many times did the officer command him? Watch the hands.

        Note the officer radioing in. He knows he has trouble on his hands.

        The man walks to the rear of the vehicle. Keep watching the hands.

        Where was the officer pointing and how many times did he do so?

        All the while the man is going on about the reason for the stop and talking and talking and talking and ignoring the officer.

        So at 1:23 , we’re well past ask and tell, so the next step is to make. Officer moves to cuff him and watch the man. Look at the hands. The man’s tensed up.

        By the time they move to the hood of the officer’s vehicle, the man is putting up a fight. Want to look up the statutes in your state for resisting arrest and use of force in effecting an arrest?

        You know this already. You have eyes. You watched the same video. You allegedly have two friends with background in law enforcement and a brother that happens to be an attorney.

        Yet you reject this… why? (That’s a rhetorical question btw. Don’t answer that.)

        Body language is used as part of grammar in American Sign Language. It also goes without saying that deaf people use their hands to communicate. We even use tension in our hands and the motion of our hands (fast, normal, slow, exaggerated, etc.) to convey anger, irritation, sympathy, etc. Unconsciously, so do hearing people. Some deaf people are very good lip readers. So we give a lot of attention to those things.

        If you want to know more about reading body language, I recommend

        “What every BODY is saying” by … Joe Navarro I think it was. Very good book on reading people.

        After reading that book and watching this video again, you’ll see things you didn’t notice before.

        In conclusion, not complying with an officer’s lawful order can mean getting put in handcuffs. Resisting the officer during the handcuff attempt is illegal and the officer is authorized to use force to overcome that resistance by law.

        Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It does not matter if you are 15 or 90 years old.

        So, if you are stopped, comply with the officer’s commands. If you are arrested, do not resist.

        If the courts determine that the officer was in the wrong, enjoy your payday. I know the lawyers will. The taxpayers won’t.

        The streets are not a courtroom. The officer wins all the arguments by default.

        That will only change when the law is changed.

        It is in everyone’s best interests to be educated and informed about their local statutes and ordinances and in the event of a stop and possible arrest, have a plan, know what to do, and know who to call. The man in this video didn’t have a clue. It would have been a totally different outcome if he had. Don’t be that guy.

        I’m not going to repeat myself after this point, I already have multiple times, Barry. I’ve made an effort to spell it out as much as possible. I can’t spell it out any further. If you choose to continue being dogmatic after this point, then there is just no reasoning with you. Unless you have something new to add or ask, this is the end of the discussion between you and I.

          TB in reply to TB. | December 19, 2014 at 12:52 am

          This dashcam video is similar. Since they’re on a highway, deputy had a good reason to approach from the passenger side, but he certainly did not have his guard up as much as the officer did the article’s video. Just another example of just how fast things can go down and just how much time a LEO gets to make a decision.

          Barry in reply to TB. | December 19, 2014 at 1:45 am

          One more and I’ll be done with this 🙂

          Your explanation of the fact that the officer was all bent out of shape the moment the door opens is not evidence the old man posed any threat.

          It is not illegal to open your door and get out of the car. The officer may not like it. He may ask you to get back in the car, but I have no idea if that is the case. Neither do you.

          Every thing else you have written is your opinion about what the officers intent was, but let’s assume some of it is correct. He pointed towards the hood when the old man exited the car.

          Q1. So, if I have you correctly, as soon as the old man got out of the car this officer commanded him to put his hands on the car? If so, why. No threat has occurred other than your mystical citizens must not exit there car, ever. Or what? I’ve been driving for 45 years, stopped a few times. Other than once, mentioned earlier, never searched. And I present a much larger and greater threat than this old man.

          Now, the old man first starts walking towards the entrance of the store, stops, apparently from a command given by the officer, then walks to the back of the car and points to the tag. During that time it appears to me the officer has his finger pointing to his own throat, then near the end point somewhere towards the car. What is said is not known but we can assume he told the old man to put his hands on the back of the car.

          This all happens in 25 seconds or less.

          There is never, not anything done by the old man that is even slightly threatening. Nothing. And even you cannot find it. All you can do is deduce the officers commands and believe one must comply immediately and if not, well you need to be brutally assaulted because. Because the cop perceives you, Mr. civilian, as a threat. All because you got out of your car apparently since that is all you could possibly have.

          Q2. Is it your opinion that getting out of the car when you have heard no command to stay in the car is evidence of a threat? Not a police perceived threat, but a true threat. If my wife gets out of the car, my daughter gets out of the car, they should receive this treatment?

          Q3. Could this officer have kept his hand near his gun for protection while waiting, say another 15-20 seconds, for the old man to finish his explanation and then advise him further? Would you like this courtesy extended to yourself, your wife, your daughter, your son? How about your 80 year old father that maybe doesn’t hear so well, or has a bit of attention span issues, that doesn’t know the latest police advised procedure for a ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP.

          As far as your point about the old man resisting arrest, I have said that once the cop grabbed him by the arm, he was resisting that use of force. If a cop should grab my father by the arm that way, quite unexpectedly, he would have the same reaction. In fact there is not a lot of resistance until the cop trys to twist his arm behind his back. Lots of older people are going to feel pain when this occurs and resist.

          As for your platitudes about “spelling it out” and your silly links to prove your point, they are the same as they have been, BS.

          This cop was out of control. No way he should not have given the old man a bit of room and this would never have happened.

          This is what you see in a police state which is why so many of us find it absolutely appalling. So, we point it out and we call it what it is. You hide behind “danger to the cop” as your justification for the cops behavior. You say it is illegal to resist arrest as justification for this cops behavior.

          This “crime” was for an expired inspection. Even that is wrong since it apparently wasn’t required. Doesn’t matter. If you believe that routine traffic stops should be conducted in the manner of the Gestapo, then I call you a Nazi. I find little difference in your tactic and theirs.

          I have an elderly father. He still drives and has no issues. Were he treated in such a shabby and potentially fatal matter, I would not be very happy. I don’t think you would be either.

        The officer does not know who he pulled over, does not know whether that person has a weapon or not. He has no clue what he’s walking into. So yes, the alarm bells go off big time when the door suddenly pops open like that, because in some cases, there is a gun barrel being pointed in their direction immediately after. Knowing this, put yourself in the officer’s shoes. What’s going through your head? You want to go home that night or do you want to be pushing up daisies because you didn’t react to the threat in time? Other officers did not react to the threat in time. You’ve seen the videos. Those officers are dead and gone now, often leaving behind a widow and children. Killed by men of varying ages and races.

        For question 1.

        Please tell me, without the benefit of hindsight, what the man has in his pockets when he exits the vehicle. Does he have a pocket knife? A gun? Needles?

        Is he HIV positive? Does he have hepatitis?

        Does he have any mental health issues? Alzheimers?

        Any question that has an answer that poses an immediate risk to the officer.

        If a person steps out of a vehicle, they are not getting back in. They are going to be frisked for weapons, needles, and the like before the stop continues.

        This is not modern. It’s been the usual since before I was born and I’m pushing 30.

        The officer’s mic is located on his lapel. Look closely and you’ll see that black box looking thing on his chest.

        Your perception of what a threat is and what a law enforcement officer and a judge’s perception of what a threat is are two different things. In addition, it has been decided by the supreme court that an officer’s actions cannot be judged with 20/20 hindsight.

        The man is mobile, he’s belligerent, gesturing, and doing everything but complying with the officer’s commands. There are videos of people behaving in a similar manner and suddenly there’s a knife or a gun and the officer is in a fight for his life.

        The officer does not have the benefit of 20 20 hindsight and if you were in that situation, neither would you. Would you have played it safe like the officer did or would you have taken a gamble with your own life in assuming the guy was harmless? Would you do that in every stop? What would your criteria be? Would that criteria introduce the possibility of you getting killed?

        So you’re saying you want officers to take that gamble so they don’t risk roughing up folks and offending people’s tender sensibilities?

        Hypothetically, lets wave a magic wand and make it so. Under one condition. For each line of duty death from that point forward that happens because a LEO followed your perception of how things should be, you get to knock on the door of his home and deliver the news to his wife and children. You get to stand there and explain why the officer had to die.

        You also get to attend the funeral.

        Every single one.

        Try imagining living in that particular twilight zone.

        Question 2.

        When I was in elementary school, we had all sorts show up. I saw my first Apache helicopter when I was in first grade. We had the D.A.R.E. program as well. So, of course, there were police officers there to explain their job, stranger danger, that sort of thing.

        Later on in high school, in Driver’s Ed, my instructor covered the rules for emergency vehicles and traffic stops. When he got around to this coverage he had a guest speaker come in, a local police officer. The officer explained the dos and don’ts on a traffic stop along with other details like tickets and the standard stuff like wearing a seatbelt. One of the don’ts included opening the door, the reason being it presents a threat to the officer’s safety and if pulled over on the side of the highway, the driver’s safety.

        So yes, opening the door presents a genuine threat, especially since in previous traffic stops, there have been times where the officer has been shot at immediately afterwards. Some don’t even open the door. Officer walks up and looks straight down the barrel of a gun. So you can bet the farm they are on their highest alert when approaching the vehicle. Lot of questions they need to answer and in a hurry to ensure their safety.

        Everybody in my family knows to comply with an officer’s commands the first time they are given. The officer will only give out that command twice. There will NOT be a third time. My stepfather ran the household the same way. He only gave out a command twice. There was not a third time. There was an ass whupping.

        So if you’re concerned about your daughters or wife getting the same treatment, it would behoove you to advise them if they are already not aware to comply with an officer’s commands the first time they are given and if they are being placed under arrest, to comply and not resist.

        My family has always been about personal accountability. Taking responsibility for my own behavior and actions. The man’s behavior and actions from start to finish is what determined the outcome, not the officer.

        Question 3

        I would not tell an officer what to do or not do in any situation where his life is in the balance and neither should you. See my answer to question 1. I don’t want that blood on my hands.

        I was a bit of a delinquent as a juvenile. Judge always told me that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so if I want to stay out of trouble, I better read up on it. I followed his advice.

        The basics of a traffic stop are just as I explained in my earlier comments.

        The officer will ensure his own safety first before continuing the business of the stop. This includes asking if I have any weapons on me. If I step out of the vehicle, I already screwed up and I will be frisked, that is a given. Once the officer feels that it is safe to do so, he will continue to the business of the stop.

        The behavior and actions of the person being stopped is what will determine how the stop goes. Being argumentative and non-compliant will not help things at all. Never has.

        I’d call this common sense, but it seems that “common” sense is so rare these days its almost a superpower.

        As to the rest of your commentary:

        That resistance, whether it is natural or not, is against the law. In my state, it is a class 6 felony. If someone resists like the man did in this video, the law authorizes the officer to use force to overcome this resistance. That is exactly what the officer did in this video.

        This will not change until the law is changed. Until that happens, that is how things are.

        It is a shame that your perception of the time I have spent explaining things to you and the resources I have provided for you are “B.S.”. Like I stated previously, if you insist on being dogmatic, then you cannot be reasoned with. You can moralize and fall back on emotional rhetoric all you like, it will not change the law. It will not change how officers approach risk to their lives in the course of carrying out their duties, and it certainly won’t win over the hearts and minds of more rational, down to earth folk such as myself.

        I see the world as it is and I adapt to it. I accept it.

        There are some, such as yourself, that don’t see the world as it is, they don’t accept it, and have trouble adapting to it.

        With someone such as myself, with a physical disability, adaptation is an absolute necessity for survival. I don’t get the luxury of living my life deluding myself, especially if I make a mistake due to those delusions, people I care about get hurt in the process as well as me.

        You should not make excuses and try to defend the man’s behavior. Sure, it is easier to identify with the man than with the officer, but it does not change the fact that the man was out of control and non-compliant. It does not change the fact that what the man did was illegal and he himself is responsible for escalating the situation, not the officer.

        I am fully aware of the possible consequences should I fail to comply with a peace officer’s lawful commands. Like the judge told me in my teenage years, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

        That same standard is applied to each and every citizen in this country. Has been since long before I was born.

        So if someone such as this man or yourself or anyone else fails to comply with a lawful order, they can expect a 100% probability of being put in handcuffs. Should anyone in this country try to resist being placed in handcuffs, the law, which is backed by society as a whole, authorizes that officer to use force. Whether that officer uses force or not is up to their individual discretion, but if they choose to use it, they are not wrong in doing so by law.

        This will not change unless the law is changed. So target the law and the lawmakers, not the police. We have a judicial and legislative system for a reason.

          TB in reply to TB. | December 19, 2014 at 3:11 am

          Also one more point I forgot to mention.

          There are things officers can and cannot do.

          There are also things they have to do and do not have to do.

          A lot of opinion that I have read discuss things that would be nice for officers to do , but they do not have to do them.

          It just appears to me that the discretion and courteousness of LEOs has been taken for granted and somehow they’re supposed to magically fit the specific perception of whatever individual they encounter at any given moment of what a LEO should be.

          Hard to imagine doing my job dealing with people like that.

          Barry in reply to TB. | December 20, 2014 at 12:51 pm

          This is a bit unfair, like shooting fish in a barrel.

          “The officer does not know who he pulled over, does not know whether that person has a weapon or not. He has no clue what he’s walking into. So yes, the alarm bells go off big time when the door suddenly pops open like that, because in some cases, there is a gun barrel being pointed in their direction immediately after.”

          Officers walk among people doing their job every day. Many of those they walk among look a lot more “scary” and threatening then this old man. They have no clue then what they are walking into or among. We know the old man didn’t exit the car with a gun in hand don’t we? And they do not stop and frisk every person that gets near them, do they?

          “Please tell me, without the benefit of hindsight, what the man has in his pockets when he exits the vehicle. Does he have a pocket knife? A gun? Needles?
          Is he HIV positive? Does he have hepatitis?
          Does he have any mental health issues? Alzheimers?
          Any question that has an answer that poses an immediate risk to the officer.”

          See the above. Officers walk among people all the time that may have a knife, gun, or needles in their pockets.

          “This is not modern. It’s been the usual since before I was born and I’m pushing 30.”

          I’m beginning to think your pushing 10. I’m pushing double your years, have a bit more real world experience and have been pulled over for routine traffic stops on many occasions. I have been “frisked” once as outlined earlier, and that was just as wrong as the case here. It is not the norm, never has been. Not where I live anyway. I travel all over the world and it is the norm in other places. Those can be characterized as POLICE STATES.

          “The man is mobile, he’s belligerent, gesturing, and doing everything but complying with the officer’s commands. There are videos of people behaving in a similar manner and suddenly there’s a knife or a gun and the officer is in a fight for his life.”

          No, he’s not belligerent, he is explaining to the officer that he doesn’t need an inspection sticker. At no time does he threaten the officer. Period. A knife or gun was never shown. No threat ever occurred.

          “So you’re saying you want officers to take that gamble so they don’t risk roughing up folks and offending people’s tender sensibilities?”

          Yes. It is part of the job description. If you cannot handle that then policing is not for you.

          “Q2 – So if you’re concerned about your daughters or wife getting the same treatment, it would behoove you to advise them if they are already not aware to comply with an officer’s commands the first time they are given and if they are being placed under arrest, to comply and not resist.”

          In your perfect world they need to be sent to the re-education camp. It would fit perfectly in the police state you so desire. Once again, the time that passed between the old man getting out of the car until the cop grabs him is less than half a minute. Perhaps an old man doesn’t hear so well, or because he is an old man, he is a bit agitated about getting pulled over and needs just a few minutes. There is simply no excuse for what occurred. None.

          “Q3 – The officer will ensure his own safety first before continuing the business of the stop. This includes asking if I have any weapons on me. If I step out of the vehicle, I already screwed up and I will be frisked, that is a given. Once the officer feels that it is safe to do so, he will continue to the business of the stop.”

          Once again, it is not against the law to get out of the vehicle. Period. No one has received your police state training. You are right, common sense is rare these days. It just doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          As for the rest of your rambling, it is what I have often characterized it, BS. Means nothing.

          Your pathetic attempt to characterize the law to mean what you think it means is also just more BS. No need for me to frisk it. A law passed does not make it just by the way. According to you it is OK for the state to execute jews since the law requires it. After all, if it’s the law…

          The reality is your response simply proves what I have said about you all along, you are a police state Nazi. You might want to contemplate the role of the police in a free society. If you think their first obligation is to protect their selves at the detriment to the old men and women of the world, you are way off. My friends are police for just the opposite, to protect and serve those that are too weak to do for their selves.

        Barry, I don’t believe in coincidences. You might want to take a look at this. He just recently posted it.

        Thanks for the discussion.

      Paul in reply to TB. | December 18, 2014 at 10:22 am

      nope, wrong AGAIN. i recognize many of the people who are pummelling you relentlessly as regulars. when you said you are blind, did you mean that metaphorically?

I thought Rags and I came up with a positive outcome of the discussion. Thanks Rags!

But if anyone thinks you can have a adult discussion with people like Paul, Barry and Amy. Just remember that the whole of the argument is that I don’t like your opinion, I don’t like you and you are a “Dumbass, Nazi, Fascist, moron, and are small weenied!”

None are willing to have an adult back and forth. For some reason they think that their derogatory commentary reflect poorly on their opponents but convincing them that it really reflects poorly on them is futile. It’s like trying to convince a child that there is a difference in fantasy and reality.

I dare them to try the same tactic this man tried anywhere across the country and see what is the outcome.

I will admit that the officer could have chosen a less physical way of dealing with this individual but none of us have to walk in his shoes and if you don’t resist you probably won’t have any issues.

    I’m fascinated by how people think that name calling supports their argument in anyway. Hyperbole and insults inserted into arguments are only a indication that logic and reason are lacking.

    Oh for chrissakes please stop. In my view cops who beat up little old men for no reason are fascist thugs. you’ve contorted yourself in support of that cop which, in my view, also makes you a fascist thug. But then you cry about a label being applied. YOU asked what label applies. Don’t ask questions you can’t handle the answers to. Do you ned a tissue?

      Merlin01 in reply to Paul. | December 18, 2014 at 11:22 am

      When did I ask you or anybody “what label applies”? I asked Amy what she meant by her clearly racist and bigoted comment of saying “People like you” and what scared her. You are the person who decided that you would chime in with childish name calling, please excuse me I meant “labeling”.

      For the record I don’t support cops ever beating up anyone. This is the part where your mind reading skills comes into play. What comes out of your mouth based on your misinterpretation of my words is more about you than it is about me!

      If you want to understand my interpretation you should ask before calling me a fascist thug. I tried asking people what they meant and what I got was childish gibberish designed to make them feel better about themselves and halt the conversation, not to get a better understanding so that we can improve life for all of us. Just ask Amy she would rather insult than resolve just like you!

        And THERE IT IS… he played the race card. How utterly pathetic.

          Merlin01 in reply to Paul. | December 18, 2014 at 1:03 pm

          Just for clarity, I played the race and bigot card, by your standard of course! At least try to get it right when it’s right in front of your eyes. Oops…I forgot that doesn’t work for you!

          I’m still waiting for Amy to clarify what she meant by her statement of “people like you”. Being black and female (weenerless), I think I know what she meant.

          By there way there’s a photo of Barry, Amy and you over at TruthRevolt!

          Paul in reply to Paul. | December 18, 2014 at 1:37 pm

          I told you before you stupid fucking idiot, what was meant by “people like you” is Fascist Thug.

          I don’t give a shit what color you are or what you’ve got between your legs. You’re no better than the Obamas crying “RAYCISSS!” whenever somebody disagrees with you. Stupid pathetic racist prog projecting your bullshit on others.

          How in the hell would I know what color you are? And why would I give a shit?

          See you fucking dipshit, the fact that you cried RAYCISS!!! when there is no way in hell I could have possibly known your race proves that YOU are the racist idiot.

          Now go fuck yourself well and hard. You need it.


          Is that the best you can do Paul?

          Hahahaha… score one for LI.

          Well played, Merlin01, well played.

I went ahead and voted myself down so I could be part of the group! 🙂

The police have become tax collectors with stupid laws about inspection stickers. Bobby Jindal promised to eliminate the inspection sticker but the La. State Police get $15 million annually from them. We still have them in Louisiana.

    Ragspierre in reply to Roux. | December 18, 2014 at 7:28 pm


    Now I bow to nobody in deploring the use of the criminal law as a revenue generator, and that’s all most municipal and JP courts are. It’s the way they do their procedural stuff that I find most galling.

    But is there a reason for vehicle inspections? Of course there are. Reasons. The most apparent being safety.

    You may say, “Wul, everybody wants to drive a safe vehicle”. To which I’d say, “Horseshit”.

    I’ve been a professional driver, and I can assure you that a lot of commercial drivers…much less anybody else…would willingly drive dangerous vehicles any day they could get away with it. Some would do it out of ignorance.

      “But is there a reason for vehicle inspections? Of course there are. Reasons. The most apparent being safety.”

      I doubt you and I disagree on much, but (always a but) with regards to personal motor vehicles, safety inspections are of very little value. Commercial vehicles are probably different.

      The state of SC did away with safety inspections several years ago. Doesn’t seem to be a big spike in accidents or deaths 🙂 In fact, as I recall around a third of states have no inspections and some only inspect for emissions.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 18, 2014 at 11:12 pm

        And were people not ticketed and fined for safety violations at about the same rates?

        When was the last time you inspected your car to see that all the lights were working as they should?

        But the larger point is that annual safety inspections are not without some sound basis, and are not “just” a revenue generator.

          “Safety” inspections occur once a year. If your lights burn out, etc., not much chance it’s going to happen only within a day or so of the inspection. In other words, you are responsible for checking your car and operating a safe vehicle.

          I disagree, the safety inspections for private vehicles rarely make us safer. But they do generate revenue:)

Happy Happy Joy Joy, my day is complete! 🙂

    Barry in reply to Merlin01. | December 18, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Must really suck to be you.

    25 seconds from the time the old man got out of the car until a thug took him down. Not one threatening gesture by the old man in that time period, not one.

    It is the classic fascist video in evidence for anyone with half a brain.

Word is the the LEO is facing both an administrative investigation by his department and an investigation by the Texas Rangers.


Yes, judges and legislatures, and the magically birthed “administrative law” system have been bending over backwards for a few generations (that is in excess of three score years) to indemnify the police from not only misbehavior, but more and more malicious behavior. It’s not an AMERICAN thing of law and legal philosophy. It is, as Phillip Hamburger lays out in “Is Administrative Law Unlawful”, a German thing, a grounding of legal philosophy of the State’s Adminisrators (or the Regent) as an absolute authority in areas, and an indemnified actor in nearly all actions, excepting only the most egregiously wrong or beyond sufferance.

Modern police and district attorneys act as agents of the court, not agents of the people. The court and the government, at local levels, at county levels, at state levels and at the federal level act as one, a unity. And a unity combining the bureaucracies of each level as well. No longer are they of the people, rather the Administrators have become a caste. A true class, not the Marxist claptrap of classes. Much like the combination of the ecclesiastical classes and the nobility in the Dark Ages.

Welcome to the New Dark Ages?

I hope not. For then that makes us, the once free men and women, the serf class. And even if we join the new nobilities of wealth and property, or administrative power, or the church-like academic establishment we even then are still the less, All men are less free, less able, no matter what their station in such a caste-ing of society. That’s why it was indeed a Dark Ages.

    Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | December 18, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    There are sound points in what you said, though historically more than a bit ‘iffy’ in some respects. Police departments of American history were not as good or careful as they are now, and were often the chief organized crime outfits in a city.

    I agree with a lot of your gist, however.

    There WERE some other really significant causes of the Dark Ages besides the caste system, and not a few.

      I wonder if it was America’s greatest DA, Hogan, of NYC, who with and almost perfect record of convictions over many decades who established in America the sense that the police must be fully indemnified and also fully respected as some sort of super-citizen. I also wonder if his was the pattern of plea bargaining which has come to ruin the original nature of the Jury and Grand Jury?

Police Forces are modern. New York;s is the primal model of American policing, and there the Police were the armed dying wing of Tammany Hall, indeed most recruits were gang members or heavily influenced by the brutal culture of lower Manhattan of the era — the mid-1800’s. Yet Philadelphia had an older model of policing, that more akin to citizen watchmen, It was the firemen, the departments in pre-Revolutionary War Philly which were full of gang members where the gang-like nature of urban social life for young men was redirected into some public good, albeit not without extortion under the color of fire insurance.

For all the talk of “this old man was never a threat”, well let’s just be truthful. When an officer goes out on any call, there is always a threat. Now we understand there is a threat when they are sitting in their patrol car!

Let me be the first to call out Paul and Barry…you are part of this group, using angry rhetoric to demonize police and create the environment that leads down this road! The tactic of dehumanizing so that it is easy to attack is deplorable!

In light of resent killing of two police officers I wanted to show what Barry and Paul call this police officer. Before the investigation and before all the facts are in.

Just a few examples:
Barry: Nazi’s, I’d make sure the SOB suffered, cop should go to jail, PIG, Dumbass, SOB of an officer, Fucking Nazi’s, bastard, Nazi’s, Nazi thug, thug,

Paul: ‘pig’, punk, I would whip his ass, How many cops end up dead for acting like gestapo thugs, fascists, fascist thugs,

And that doesn’t include all the other name calling directed at other commenters and by other commenters directed at the police.

    Barry in reply to Merlin01. | December 23, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Fuck you merlin, you deranged creep.

    There are bad cops. There are criminal cops. When I see one I call it out.

    The murder of the police officers in NYC had nothing to do with a bad cop beating and tasering an old man over an expired inspection sticker in Texas, and those of us who see it on video pointing out what it is.

    You simply expose yourself for the true Nazi you are.

    If you sit back silently and fail to point out bad behavior you are part of the problem.