A Wisconsin man making Doordash deliveries in the vicinity of Lake Superior had his world suddenly turned upside-down by a traffic stop gone terribly wrong. Body camera footage of the stop shows police officers barking contradictory orders at the driver, who does his best to comply, before mercilessly using a taser on him. The man, who was later charged with resisting arrest and driving the wrong way up a one-way street, says he was not informed about the reason for the stop before police brutalized him. Police Accountability Report examines the facts and unpacks what this case reveals about law enforcement’s broad powers to deploy force against civilians.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production, Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video. It depicts police using violent force against a DoorDash driver for turning onto a one-way street. But when you watch how this car stop unfolded and how dangerous the situation became, you’ll understand why we need to drill down into all the details and how and why this harrowing car stop happened. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or X at tayasbaltimore. And we might be able to investigate for you.
And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. And you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, one of the most precarious powers we confer upon police is the discretion to use deadly force. It’s a truly terrifying idea to contemplate and something that can lead to irrevocable injury and suffering to the people subject to it. One of the problems with the ability of police to use violent force is how often it is deployed for what could best be described as questionable justifications.
This is why, today, we will be reviewing the video I am showing you now, and it’s an example of how little impetus police need to use it and how easy it is in a situation where force is deployed to completely spiral out of control. The story starts in Lake Superior, Wisconsin. There, a DoorDash driver named Ian Cuyper was en route to make a delivery. He was a bit confused, because he was navigating an unfamiliar neighborhood. And Ian took a wrong turn down a one-way street. Realizing his mistake, he immediately stopped his car, but before he could turn around and right his error, the police pounced. And inexplicably, without even speaking to Ian, they began to order him out of the vehicle. Take a look.
Police:
[inaudible 00:02:43] door. Do it now. With your left hand, grab the door handle, open the door, do it now.
Ian Cuypers:
Come on.
Police:
Unlock it. Keep your hands up. Slowly step out of the vehicle and face away from us.
Ian Cuypers:
What?
Police:
Face away.
Ian Cuypers:
[inaudible 00:03:08] happening.
Police:
Keep your hands up, face away from us. Right now.
Ian Cuypers:
[inaudible 00:03:16].
Police:
All right, put your hands behind your head and interlace your fingers.
Taya Graham:
Now, you’re probably wondering why police were so aggressive from the onset. So were we. So we obtained the officer’s report after the incident occurred. In it, the officer cited furtive movements as the reason for taking such extreme actions, seriously. I just want you to watch as the officers continue to bark orders at Ian and see if his movements are indeed furtive.
Police:
Just listen to his instructions. Move slowly backwards to sound of my voice. You understand? Start moving. Slow down. Keep forward. Keep on walking.
Taya Graham:
The officers continue to escalate, and as you can see, Ian becomes confused. First, I think the instructions are somewhat contradictory and difficult to interpret. And second, there are no less than four officers on the scene making this situation even more chaotic and stressful. Just watch.
Ian Cuypers:
I feel like I’m being assaulted.
Police:
Put your hands on top of your head. Put your hands on the top of your head [inaudible 00:04:25].
Ian Cuypers:
I feel like I’m being kind of…
Police:
Stop moving. Hold up. Let me take over for a second. Keep looking forward. Don’t do anything other than keep your hands on top of your head. That’s it. Put your hands on top of your head. Stop moving.
Ian Cuypers:
Guys, you have guns on me. I really do not feel like I’m being…
Police:
Follow our instructions.
Ian Cuypers:
What are these lasers?
Police:
I want you to get down on your left knee. Get down on your left knee.
Taya Graham:
Still, Ian tries to comply. He’s obviously terrified, but still trying to follow this police-conjured game of Twister. Unfortunately, one of the officers decides he’s not complying enough. Take a look.
Ian Cuypers:
Can I please get an explanation?
Police:
Do it now or you’re going to get tased. Get down on your left knee.
Ian Cuypers:
No.
Police:
Don’t move or you’re going to get tased again. [inaudible 00:05:31] Keep watching the vehicle. Yeah, get this guy dried back. Let’s get this vehicle out of here.
Taya Graham:
Here’s the question this video raises, what happened prior to deploying the taser, which necessitated using it? I asked this question, because as I said at the beginning of the show, the use of deadly force is a power that police have both the freedom to use and abuse. And it’s up to us to make sure the latter doesn’t happen. Still, as you can see, officers continue to use a taser to send thousands of bolts of electricity through Ian’s body.
Ian Cuypers:
I can’t feel my legs.
Police:
Okay. Do you need medical attention?
Ian Cuypers:
Do I? Fuck, is that going to cost me money?
Police:
Do you need medical attention?
Ian Cuypers:
What does that entail?
Police:
It entails an ambulance coming to look at you to make sure that you are medically okay.
Ian Cuypers:
Can I get some time to collect my thoughts?
Police:
We’re going to need you to stand up now or we are going to stand you up. You either do it yourself or we do it for you. Hands up.
Ian Cuypers:
You can stand me up. There’s one in the…
Police:
Who else is in the vehicle? How many people?
Ian Cuypers:
There’s no one in there. There’s no one else in the car.
Police:
Okay.
Ian Cuypers:
I have shirts in the back seat covering the windows, because I banged in there one time.
Police:
[Inaudible 00:06:49] hands off.
Ian Cuypers:
Look, there’s no one in there.
Police:
So we’re going to sit you up. Take your knees and bring them forward.
Ian Cuypers:
I didn’t think to use…
Police:
We’re trying to get him up and moving. Bring your knees to your chest. One, two, three.
Ian Cuypers:
I give you consent to just put me however you want.
Police:
Ready? One, two.
Ian Cuypers:
Thanks. Yeah.
Police:
Walk him back this way. You okay? We’ll get it. Just walking him back.
Taya Graham:
Now, usually, I would end the video review here. There’s no reason to show more than once the pain and suffering experienced by Ian. However, in this case, there is critical evidence that unfolds as the police effectuate the arrest. First, Ian asks why he was stopped, tasered, and what his charges are. Take a listen. Okay,
Ian Cuypers:
Is my car suspicious or something? I just really would like to know what’s happening.
Police:
Okay, we’ll explain what’s happening in a second. My partner pulled you over and called for more squads, and here we are. And then, we’re in this position, because you were not following our commands.
Ian Cuypers:
Well, I pulled over right away, and then, a bunch more cops showed up.
Police:
You were not following our commands. That is why we are in the position we are in.
Ian Cuypers:
I followed all your commands.
Police:
You sure didn’t.
Ian Cuypers:
What didn’t I do?
Police:
You sure did not follow…
Ian Cuypers:
What did I not do?
Police:
We can discuss that in a little bit.
Ian Cuypers:
Okay.
Taya Graham:
Okay. So nothing from the police that we hear appears to justify the use of force, but now, before I get to more of the evidence about this flimsy justification, I want you to watch something that is rarely witnessed by the public, the painful consequences of a taser, beyond the literal paralysis of your nervous system. I’m talking about removing the barbs that pierce the skin and create the current that electrocute your body. They have to be removed. Normally, that’s left up to a doctor or EMT or at least a medic to ensure less bleeding and that the puncture site is properly sterilized, but the cops in Superior decide they’re superior enough to do it themselves. Take a look.
Police:
[inaudible 00:08:44] the light. Yeah, hold the light. [inaudible 00:08:51] Lift your hands up for me, up. Like that.
Ian Cuypers:
It’s like a lot of commands [inaudible 00:09:02]
Police:
So I’m going to have to get this. I got them. Sorry. We’re just going to have to…
Ian Cuypers:
So am I under arrest?
Police:
At this point, you are not free to leave. You can talk with my partner more about that in a second. You want me to cut one of… Yeah, I want you to cut the wires. Hey, stay leaning against the vehicle. Otherwise, Jason, I know you have shears too. [inaudible 00:09:37] I know. I just don’t want you to fall over or move or any of that kind of stuff. Take a breath. Figure out what you got to do next.
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah.
Police:
[inaudible 00:09:53] Yeah.
Taya Graham:
And now, finally, more evidence of how questionable this use of force was. Unguarded moments captured on body camera. Just listen as the officers try to figure out what to charge Ian with.
Police:
Oh, I was under it. Oh, I don’t think… Do you want ask him if he wants his whole wallet or do you just want [inaudible 00:10:24]? He wants that too. So that’s why I was like, “Hey, need another squad.” We were doing our drug court. That’s what I figured. He was diving across the side of vehicle. I was like, “That’s super weird,” because he was like, [inaudible 00:10:39]. Because I pulled off at 28 from Tower and got behind him, because I was way behind him. But his tag light was out, so I started trying to catch up with him. He turns on 23rd, goes up Ogden, turns here, stops, and rolls the roadway. Cars go.
Then he eventually, a car is behind between us. [inaudible 00:10:58] makes a full stop and then he pulls up from here, and I lit him up. Well, he’s going the wrong way on a one way, first of all. Well, I know, but I was really going to… But all the other stuff too is a little bit weird. No, you made a good call. Then I’ll cite him for… Did you search his vehicle at all? Or are we leaving it? I think he wants us to just lock it up and leave it probably maybe try to gain his consent to turn it [inaudible 00:11:18] You can ask. Or is it okay to just leave it? I just don’t want to get towed.
Taya Graham:
So that’s it. End of story. The only other debate they had was whether they could deliver the DoorDash order he couldn’t complete.
Police:
Dang. Really? Yeah. Should we deliver their food for them? Is that what he was doing? DoorDashing. I’m down for doing that. He said he locks the food to just them just get refunded. Otherwise, we could leave it here, and that’s where I was going with that. He said, “I just want it to just get refunded.” So lock up the car and let it be where it is. Yeah. And I don’t think it’s blocking the alley, probably facing the wrong way, but I’m not actually that extremely worried about that. No, we know we’re not going to tow it, and you can put it in your report that you left it facing that way.
Taya Graham:
It’s really just troubling to hear how thoughtless and cavalier the officers are about what they just did, how little they question their own actions, and how casually they try to come up with some sort of charge for a young man who was, simply put, unjustly harmed. But there is much more about how this happened and the consequences which Ian will share with us later. Ian will discuss behind the scenes information about how the legal system is treating him, shortly. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been digging into the case and reaching out to police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So what does the statement of probable cause say? How did the officers justify the arrest and their use of force?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, this is really kind of sketchy, because there’s not much information there. They talk about the furtive movements that you already mentioned. They talk about him driving down a one-way street, but they don’t talk about any other suspicious activity or anything else that would really, I think, justify the use of force. It’s really weird. I’ve seen police sort of not say anything in a statement of probable cause, but given what police did, given that they used a taser, there’s just not justification. There’s nothing in there that says the breaking and entering that you talk about, later on, when you ask about it. Nothing about that is in there. It’s really just he drove down a one-way street and then, very little explanation as to why this happened.
Taya Graham:
So you’ve reached out to the Superior Wisconsin Police Department. What are they saying about how the officers acted?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Taya, apparently, they’re too superior to get back to us, because we haven’t heard from them. But we asked them a lot of extensive questions about use of force, because I feel a lot of smaller rural departments or small town departments do not have the right guidelines. And in this case, we said, “Do you have a use of force report? What is your policy about use of force?” We heard nothing, but we’re going to keep on them. Because I think this is a really important oversight and lapse that needs to be addressed. Also, we got in touch with the public defender’s office in that county to ask them what their criteria is for offering services to people who are indigent or poor. Again, we have not heard back, but that’s another thing we’re going to pursue. Because it seems like this young man certainly qualified. We’re going to follow up on that. We’ll let you know what happened.
Taya Graham:
So tasers are technically known as less than lethal weapons, but you’ve reported on them extensively. What do you think?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Taya, from my reporting, they’re decidedly not less than lethal. I have reported on them being lethal in many situations. At least half a dozen cases during my reporting career in Baltimore, I have investigated and also written about, but one of the things that really stunned me about tasers was how the primary cause of death is ruled when a taser is used. You see, medical examiners are reluctant to rule a taser as being the primary cause of death, because, I was told, they will get sued by the manufacturer. And the manufacturer has made it very clear to the medical examiners across the country, “You make taser the primary cause of death, you will get sued.” Now, when you talk about something that shocks the electrical system and the body, it seems like there are a lot of things that can go wrong. And I have medical examiners tell me off the record, “Stephen, these are deadly weapons, and they should be classified as thus.” But again, in this country, corporate power and corporate money rule. And so, tasers are dangerous, but do we really know, because information is being concealed?
Taya Graham:
Okay. And now to learn about the events leading up to his arrest and how the police justified it to him and what the legal system has done to him since. I’m joined by Ian. Ian, thank you so much for joining me.
Ian Cuypers:
Oh yeah, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk.
Taya Graham:
The incident that we witnessed on camera shows a great deal of force being used on you. Can you tell us how this began? This was a traffic stop, right?
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah, so what was happening is I was delivering for DoorDash. I’ve been up here in Minnesota for a couple of months and I’ve been mostly making money through DoorDash. I had to take a delivery from Duluth over to Superior, just right across the bridge. It was a Taco Bell delivery, and it was actually two orders. And it was just nighttime. I was sort of confused about where I was, because Superior was a new area. And there was a one-way street. It was dark. So I turned onto it, and right when I turned on, I saw that there was a one-way sign. So I was about to make a U-turn. And there was an officer behind me, I guess. He turned on his lights, and then, I pulled over pretty much right away.
And then, I was just looking for my insurance. And by the time I had my ID and everything ready, there were officers like a bunch of, I don’t know, two more squad cars pulled up, and there were a bunch of officers shouting at me to put my hands up. So I put my hands and my face out of my window to greet them and try to show them that I wasn’t a threat. And then, they told me that I had to open the door from the outside with my left hand, which was immediately just kind of distressing, because that’s a lot to take in all at once. And so, I was trying to open the door, and it was locked. And yeah, that’s how it started.
Taya Graham:
Did you follow the officer’s instructions during the traffic stop? The officer says to use your left hand, open the door, and leave the vehicle, which you did. They said to move backwards with your hands behind your head, which is difficult, but you did it. And you stopped when you were told, and then, the officer shouts for you to get down on your left knee. And you were still complying and only took a moment to ask a question, and in under a minute, you were tasered. Do you have any idea why the officers chose to use force, even though you have been compliant the entire time?
Ian Cuypers:
Well, no, I have no idea. I have no idea why they, in the first place, even told me to get out of my car. I especially was surprised when they tasered me. Even before that, I was really shocked when I just saw that there were laser sights everywhere. It was just mind-blowing to me.
Taya Graham:
I guess another thing I’m trying to understand is why so many officers were called to the scene. At no point in the video did I see you offer any resistance. Why do you think there were so many officers there?
Ian Cuypers:
No, because I pulled over right away. And so, the only reasonable situation that I can imagine is like, “Oh, if this guy is dangerous, maybe I should have someone here with me to see what’s going on.” But then, six people showed up, and they just immediately assumed I was armed and dangerous and started treating me like a criminal, which didn’t seem rational to me.
Taya Graham:
Well, I think it was because they suspected you of another crime, possibly a B&E. I listened to the dash camera footage very closely, and the initial conversation with dispatch mentioned a B&E, which might explain why he called for backup. And I think at least some criminal history could have been shown with your tags. It seems like they could have realized that you weren’t a real threat, but at the time, weren’t you actually working?
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah, I don’t want to override the conversation or anything, but it did seem to me, while it was happening, about halfway through, it was very surreal. But I do remember thinking to myself, “This really seems like, are they conducting an exercise on me or something? It seems like they’re just sort of ignoring the situation that’s actually at hand and just sort of doing something that they wanted to.”
Taya Graham:
So when did the officer decide to use force? Do you have any idea why she decided to use it? She gives you a brief warning, and then, in less than a minute, she’s tasering you. Do you have any idea why she thought this was necessary or why another officer had a gun trained on you?
Ian Cuypers:
See, like you were saying, I thought also to myself briefly that maybe they think maybe my car looks like the car of someone who’s recently done something terrible. And at that point, I was like, “Oh, okay, that sort of would explain what’s happening,” but I think they would tell me you’re under arrest or something like that. And so, the way they were treating me, it was confusing, because they were just giving me orders, and I didn’t know that I was under arrest until after they tased me. And I think I asked them a couple of times, and they didn’t give me a clear answer at first. And then, they did. But yeah, it was confusing.
Taya Graham:
It seems, from what you’ve described, they were quite relentless with the use of the taser. What kind of pain or injury did you suffer from it? Did they have to pull the barbs out of your skin? It sounded incredibly painful. Can you describe what it was like?
Ian Cuypers:
Just in case you think the officer that pulled me over is the one that tased me, he did not. It was one of the people who called for backup is the one that tased me. He was holding a gun, not a taser. I can explain how it felt by saying, I’ve explained this before, it’s like my body sort of turned into a vapor. It felt very painful, as though I exploded into a mist. That’s how it felt when I was electrocuted. And then, after that, I was just in shock and in so much pain. I think I was still being electrocuted when I hit the ground. But anyways, when I did hit the ground, my head hit pretty hard and I couldn’t even feel that, because of how much pain the rest of my body was in.
So I had some bruising on my chin. It was a pretty nasty bruise. I took a picture. And yeah, it hurt really bad. Also, I think it was six barbs went into my skin. And I don’t know if this is important right now, but they didn’t take pictures of the ones on my legs, even after I asked them to. They brought me into the station, I think, mostly for that reason. And then, when I asked, “Can we take the pictures for insurance purposes?” He was like, “No, we don’t have to do that.”
Taya Graham:
I’m pretty certain a medic is supposed to take those barbs out with sterile tools. That really doesn’t sound right, Ian. So you didn’t have access to your personal property. Did you consent to let them go and search your car or trunk? I believe you consented to them turning off the lights in your car, is that correct?
Ian Cuypers:
No.
Taya Graham:
So what happened next? Were you given medical treatment? Were you taken to a hospital? Or were you taken to jail? What happened?
Ian Cuypers:
Well, they asked me if I needed an ambulance, but I have heard things about ambulances and I didn’t have insurance at the time, so I said no to the ambulance. Because I didn’t want to get stuck with two grand of medical bills, that I have no way of figuring out how to pay. But then, yeah, after that, they didn’t really give me any time to think. I did ask them if I could just have a minute to breathe, which they didn’t give me a second to gather my thoughts or anything. They just said I had to get right up, and then, they ripped the probes out of my back.
Taya Graham:
That’s terrible.
Ian Cuypers:
She just yoinked them out, like she was starting a lawnmower or something, through my jeans.
Taya Graham:
So one aspect of this assault, an unjust arrest you endured, that really bothers me, is that, on camera, you can hear the officers realize that you were driving food delivery, and they laugh, joking that maybe they should finish the delivery for you. How does it make you feel when you hear that?
Ian Cuypers:
So when I got the USB drive with the footage and I was able to watch everything, it was, yeah, it really was a little bit gut wrenching to see the transition from they’re willing to annihilate someone to they’re chuckling about that same person who they’re about to do some things that they don’t even know how they’re affecting that person. The fines that they charged me with are more than I could imagine being able to afford with a month of what I do for work. And it’s probably not even that much money to them. I don’t know. Yeah, it’s just sad to me.
Taya Graham:
I can only imagine what was going through your mind. One moment you’re working, providing for yourself and maybe your loved ones, and then, you’re engaged in a simple traffic stop for going the wrong way, and the next, you’re being shouted out on the ground, surrounded by officers, being repeatedly tasered. How are you coping with that? Because honestly, this really does seem traumatizing. How has this impacted you physically, emotionally, or even financially?
Ian Cuypers:
I definitely don’t feel comfortable driving around the police anymore or for DoorDash. I’ve been getting, I don’t know if it’s tremors, but I’ve been getting shaky whenever I think about it. And my blood pressure, I went to the urgent care clinic four or five days after I got tasered, and they took some diagnostics, anyways, my blood pressure has been high. And they sent me to the emergency room right away after I told them that I got tased a couple of days earlier. They said that I should go to the emergency room, where it turned out my body is functioning properly, just under a lot of stress. But anyways, yeah, it’s been very distracting. I think about it during the day and at night, and I just think about if I could… At first, I was thinking a lot about if I could have done anything differently, because sure, if I would’ve just shut up and done everything they asked me to do, I don’t know.
In my head, I was thinking, “If I make a wrong move, I’m going to end up with bullets inside me.” So my fight or flight instinct kicked in, and I decided that the best thing to do would be to figure out what was actually happening and not just get myself ready to be shot. Because that’s what I felt like was about to happen. Yeah, that’s, I guess, it is pretty traumatizing. It’s difficult to talk about, because I haven’t been able to get a therapist or anything yet. So I guess, if this isn’t a very good explanation, I guess it is just still difficult to talk about, for sure, as far as explaining it properly.
Taya Graham:
Another thing that gets me is that, on the car ride, they try to justify your treatment. The officer says, “I pulled you over for going the wrong way up a one way.” And then, he says he called the other officers and gave you commands because you made furtive movements, which you explained to me you were just trying to get your insurance ready for them. Furtive movements have been used to excuse a great many tragedies of police violence. Does it make any sense to you that they responded with such aggression and force for a traffic stop like that?
Ian Cuypers:
It doesn’t. No. Even if I was armed or even if I was dangerous in some way, I don’t think that the way that they treated it was reasonable at all. I think, before you escalate to an immediately deadly situation, you need to have someone there to negotiate terms like, “Is this person about to do something dangerous? We’re here. You’re here. What’s about to happen?” before, “We’re telling you what’s going to happen, based on little to no evidence.”
Taya Graham:
So what was the end result of this interaction with police? What were you charged with? And what are your next steps? And what sort of financial costs are you looking at?
Ian Cuypers:
So I was charged with resisting arrest.
Taya Graham:
I can’t believe you were charged with resisting arrest.
Ian Cuypers:
With going the wrong way down a one way, which that one is fair, if he wants to be really picky. I just made the turn, and the street is designed in such a way, there’s a little passageway in between the two one-way streets, just in case somebody does make that wrong turn, I’m sure, is why that’s there. It’s immediately there, and I was about to correct myself. And I’m sure people do that all the time. But yeah, that’s a fair charge. I did turn the wrong way. Anyways, as far as costs for that, those fines were, it was $350 for resisting arrest. Or no, it was more than 350, it was $375 or something like that. And then, it was 170 something for going the wrong way down a one way. Altogether, it’s around $800, there’s 700 something dollars.
I don’t make that much in a month with what I do lately. And as far as other costs, I did have to go to the emergency room, but I got insurance recently. So I don’t know how much that’s going to be able to cover. And then, I’m going to, of course, have to try to hire a lawyer, because they won’t provide me one, which I thought they were supposed to. But they will not. I will have to buy a lawyer or figure that out somehow. And lawyers are expensive, but if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I have a GoFundMe that I just set up actually. And if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I don’t know, it’s probably like a couple thousand dollars at least.
Taya Graham:
Has this changed the way you perceive law enforcement? Or perhaps I should ask, how has this experience changed you?
Ian Cuypers:
So it’s actually a really interesting phenomenon, I guess. On the bridge on the way over to Wisconsin, I was thinking to myself, “Wisconsin cops are probably nice.” I thought to myself that while I was on my way there that night, and I proved myself wrong. I was like, “Small town areas, people know each other. Should be a friendly basis with the local law enforcement,” but it was not a friendly basis. So yeah, my worldview sort of did change a lot after that happened. I’d always heard about this sort of stuff happening and I knew that there were issues in the system that need to be looked at, at the very least, but yeah, definitely having it happen somewhere where I just assumed that it was safe and now, I know that it’s not safe. And looking into it, the Superior Police Department, I guess nobody likes them. They’re not friendly, I guess, and I didn’t know that.
Taya Graham:
Last thing, something that really disturbed me was the reaction to your compliance. They even blamed you, saying that your movements were furtive, that you searching for your insurance was a furtive movement, and therefore, somehow, the force was warranted and deserved. I recently reported that people who have an impairment or disability, like being hard of hearing or an intellectual or mental health challenge or being on the spectrum, are much more likely to experience police brutality, because of their stress response or inability to follow commands perfectly. And it really scares me, because I have family members with these issues. And I’m really fearful for them to have an encounter with police.
Ian Cuypers:
I tell you what, this is something else that went through my mind, and I do believe perhaps I was profiled a bit, because my car, I can’t afford a car wash. It’s covered in dirt. It looks dirty. Who’s to say maybe drug dealers drive dirty cars is what people think, but regardless, I can’t afford a car wash. So my car is dirty, even when I go to work. I work with disabled adults, and I drive them places. So if that scenario happened and I had one of my low functioning people with me, that went through my head, that that would’ve been absolutely, like they wouldn’t have taken a second to think about that.
Taya Graham:
I have to say that this really hits home with me, because the hidden minority that is most often the victim of police violence is a person with a disability. The estimates range from 33% to 50% of people killed by police have at least one disability. That’s just one of the reasons why these judgments of furtive movements can be so dangerous. Okay. Usually, during this part of the show, I focus on a broader theme that I connect to the incident we covered earlier in the program, something that links bad policing back to bad policy, so that we can ponder how both can be addressed. But today, I’m going to narrow it down a bit. In fact, I’m going to literally boil down my entire rant to the import of one single word, namely “furtive.” Okay. Now, before you start saying, “Taya, what is this some sort of PAR word game? How can you even boil down a rant on American law enforcement into a single term or phrase? How can you discuss the extremely pervasive overreach of law enforcement by playing YouTube Scrabble? Are you even serious, Taya?”
Again, I’m talking about furtive. Furtive, adjective, attempting to avoid notice or attention or being secretive. You know the term thrown about by cops and statements of probable cause used to characterize almost any movement or action by a supposed suspect, the word that sounds vaguely menacing and overly judgmental, that can be used to justify almost any action by police? In my hometown, it was the word used to excuse the killing of Edward Lamont Hunt. In 2008, Hunt was shot three times in the back after he walked away from an officer who had patted him down at least twice. The officer said he had the right to shoot the young man in the back, because he made so-called furtive movements. Mr. Hunt died. The officer was charged with murder, but was acquitted at trial.
And likewise here in Ian’s case, the police again used the completely vague idea of a furtive movement to justify the deployment of a taser and one I would note was used long after he had exited the vehicle and was clearly not a threat to anyone. But of course, the charging document used this highly charged word to justify a range of behavior that is as hard to understand as it is to rationalize. But that brings me back to the word itself. What does it mean? Why is it so potent when it comes to policing? Well, to understand it, I think perhaps we need to use a little bit of literary theory to unpack how this word became shorthand to describe behavior, to justify almost anything. So first, let’s just go back to the meaning of furtive.
It’s a technical definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, and it’s behaving secretly or dishonestly. But of course, that definition leaves much of the work to the beholder. In other words, it’s a purely subjective characterization, and I think that’s the point. Because the word imbues the person who uses it with the power to define the actions of the others in the most deleterious way possible. In other words, subjectively speaking, a furtive movement can be almost anything and in the end, almost always bad. Let me show you. If I lower my glasses, is this furtive? If I hold my hands together, is this furtive? If I look into the camera and then, quickly glance away, was that furtive? Well, how can you really know? And that’s my point. The word itself defines something normal as threatening. How can you really know what my intentions are?
How can you know, when I reach down to my pocket like this, that, somehow, this discreet movement actually portends something harmful? This shows, in an indirect way, the real, but less tangible, power of law enforcement. Literally, a cop can define reality with a simple word, that has a purely subjective meaning. And not only can an officer use this nebulous descriptor to imply criminality in the most innocuous behavior, but as we saw in the video we just watched, use it to justify deadly force. I want you to think about that, how utterly it is that we have constructed a law enforcement industrial complex that can take our lives by invoking a word with a definition that is as subjective as it is ill-defined, meaning the entirety of our existence can often sit upon the threshold of an officer’s personal and really non-objective assessment of behaviors that could be just as innocent as they could be menacing.
It’s really, in a way, frightening to contemplate that such a flimsy justification can be used literally to administer street justice. And I think it should give us all pause, because like police describing a motorist as nervous to justify dragging them out of a car or bystander’s actions being suspicious to initiate an arrest, how we treat this word has massive real world implications. I liken it to another less obvious word that our legal system uses regularly, but also deserves scrutiny. It’s so common we hardly think about it, yet it has equally devastating consequences when misapplied. “Crime,” that’s right, the most serious and commonly used word that describes an almost incomprehensibly wide variety of human behavior, a term that serves as an umbrella for so many different actions. It’s probably one of the most broadly defined terms in the English language. Think about it, what we define as a so-called crime has huge implications.
Some things that seem minor, like using a drug or failing to feed a parking meter, are crimes. Not mowing your lawn or rolling stop on red are technically crimes. But I want to focus on where it seems to come up short, activities that should be crimes that aren’t and how this speaks volumes about how our country uses and misuses law enforcement. I’m going to start with a story that should have been big news, but really didn’t get much attention. It starts with an obscure government body, that rarely makes headlines, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC. Now, just to give a little bit of background, MEDPAC is a body authorized by Congress in 1997 to advise Congress on how to make Medicare, the program that provides healthcare to senior citizens, more efficient. Last week, that body released a report that got hardly any notice, but has huge implications.
In an extensive study, it found that Americans enrolled in private insurance companies through Medicare Advantage cost $83 billion a year more to the government, compared to the people directly enrolled in Medicare. So translated into percentages, each person who was covered by private insurance was 22% more expensive than a person who simply had Medicare directly. To put it simply, private insurers were charging significantly more for the same service and getting away with it. And this was no minor expense. $83 billion is just 20 billion shy of what the government spends on food assistance for poor families. And it’s roughly 30 times the budget of our entire national park system. But of course, has there been any mention of this by the mainstream media, which nightly recounts all the chaos and mayhem and fear generated by crime? Has the constant drumbeat of bad news, that’s supposed to make us feel unsafe in our homes and unsure of our future, been interrupted by news of an $83 billion overcharge for healthcare?
Now, I’m not downplaying the adverse effect of crime in my community or others. I’m not saying that theft or dealing drugs or even carjackings are something to be ignored, but there do seem to be actions that I would consider crimes, that are rarely reported on on the nightly news. What I’m pointing out is how our choice of words to describe actions does not always equate to the harm being described, meaning too often, the word does not fit the misdeed. Think about it, overcharging seniors for vital healthcare really isn’t a crime. It’s an accounting problem. Ripping off the taxpayers of this country does not make a company or a person a criminal. It makes you a savvy business person. It’s so interesting to me how these contrasting behaviors are characterized by words. Moving your hands when a cop has pulled you over is reaching for something. Literally absconding with $83 billion in government money is overcharging. Acting confused when a cop is pointing a gun at you can be described as furtive. Knowingly ripping off the federal government is simply good business.
The rights in the Constitution are malleable, debatable, a statement of probable cause, solid, true, and always accurate. You get my point. While we often think of the justice system as some sort of immutable paragon of reason, it is often defined by subjective interpretations of words and laws that can be bent, warped, twisted by those who control its meaning. Essentially, we are often subject to the whims of language constructed by the people who wield the power to define it. It’s a phenomena that I don’t think we acknowledge enough or really understand its potentially devastating implications, but it’s also at the root cause of much of the unequal treatment under the law that is so often the topic of this show. It’s why it’s important that you see the videos that we showed you today. It’s why it’s important that every encounter with police and every incident is viewed with the proper context, why every decision by police to use force needs to be scrutinized, and why every word police use to describe our behavior must be accounted for and must be fully examined and must be fully understood by all.
That’s why we do this show, why we painstakingly review every video, every charging doc, and every law to give the most accurate and most transparent rendering of the truth. That’s a promise I make to you each and every show. I want to thank my guest, Ian Cuyper, for coming forward to speak with us, and we hope that, by sharing his experience, he can help prevent this type of excessive force from happening again. Thank you, Ian. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Laci R for their support. Thank you both and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers Johnny R, David K, Louis P, and super friends, Shane B, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True. And I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.
You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Like I said, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Speaker 8:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
