Pennsylvania State Police Clary Shootout Road Side
Previous Post
Next Post

On November 7, 2017 a Pennsylvania State Police officer pulled Daniel K. Clary over for speeding. All went as expected until . . .

The video showed Seiple hand Clary a ticket and begin to drive away, before the motorist motioned for him to come back. As he talked more with Clary, Seiple became suspicious of whether he was driving impaired, leading to field sobriety tests and Kelly’s arrival at the scene on the side of the highway.

As the video shows, Clary couldn’t put one foot in front of the other without stumbling and when the officers tried to cuff him, he resisted and a hell of a struggle took place.

Despite being TASERed, Trooper Ryan Seiple and Cpl. Seth Kelly couldn’t get him under control. After trying to grab one of the officers’ guns, Clary eventually broke loose, grabbed a handgun from his car and opened fire on the officers.

Here is the video:

Kelly was hit in the leg during the exchange of gunfire, severing his femoral artery, and almost died. Clary drove himself to a hospital despite a bullet in his head. He was tried and convicted in June.

After less than two hours of deliberations, the jury convicted the 22-year-old Chestnuthill Township, Monroe County, man of nine crimes that could send him to prison for decades, including attempted murder of law enforcement officers, disarming police, resisting arrest and escape. Jurors acquitted Clary of driving under the influence of marijuana, the charge for which the troopers sought to arrest him last year.

Now, after a legal battle, prosecutors have finally released dashcam video of the traffic stop, the struggle and the shootout. But that didn’t happen until a suit was filed to force the video’s release.

The video was released after The Morning Call sued to get a copy of it because prosecutors initially declined to make it public, though it was introduced as evidence at Clary’s trial. In a motion July 27, attorneys for the newspaper asked Judge Stephen Baratta to order its release, noting it had been played in open court.

“The Morning Call sought access to the dashcam video because the attempted homicide of two state troopers and Clary’s allegation that the troopers used excessive force are of great concern to the public in the current environment,” said Theresa Rang, the newspaper’s interim editor.

Joshua Bonn, a lawyer for The Morning Call, wrote in the suit that given “the public’s overwhelming right to access judicial records,” there was no compelling reason to withhold the video.

Pennsylvania goes to great lengths to ensure that dashcam and bodycam videos aren’t made public.

Last year, the state Supreme Court opened the door for some police videos to be accessible under the state’s Right-to-Know law, finding that in some circumstances, they were public records. But just eight days later, the Legislature approved a bill that changed those rules.

Under Act 22, police audio and video are no longer subject to the Right-to-Know law and its presumption of access. The act established new restrictions on their release: a request for a recording must be made within 60 days of its production, and police are granted even wider latitude to deny requests for recordings they deem to be part of an investigation.

Under the new language, authorities can keep recordings secret if they contain “potential evidence in a criminal matter” or “information pertaining to an investigation.”

That’s at least arguable while a case is pending, but the Clary video had already been viewed as evidence in open court, a verdict had been reached and the trial long concluded.

The dispute over the video’s release never saw a courtroom. A day before a hearing was scheduled before (Judge Stephen) Baratta, the district attorney’s office reversed course and agreed to provide the recording to The Morning Call.

First Deputy District Attorney Terence Houck said Thursday he always wanted the video to be released to the public, but needed to make sure Kelly and Seiple agreed.

“Our concerns have always been the victims, the state troopers in this matter, protecting them,” Houck said. “But after speaking with them, they wanted it released, as did I.”

With all due respect, the officers’ wishes should have no bearing on the matter. Dashcam and bodycam video are public records paid for with tax proceeds. Citizens have a right to see how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. And dashcam and bodycam footage protects police officers from bogus claims of brutality.

Perhaps prosecutors settled with the Morning Call because they didn’t want the case advancing in the courts. Updated law or not, continuing to keep video evidence — in effect public records — such as this from view could (and should) be a tough legal row to hoe.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. When is Battle dress uniform and combat boots regular uniform protocol for local law enforcement?? I believe this is a huge mistake to have local Patrol officers dressed up like military personnel when their job is simply to Serve and Protect the public. It looks like they’re ready to take over a small County when they’re all dressed up in that military crapola. The only units in the civilian police department that should be outfitted in this type of tactical gear is the SWAT team special weapons and tactics not every single patrol officer they have on duty it’s absolutely ridiculous.

      • Amazing the number of vehicles casualty driving by and through a shootout.

        Now if the cops had a flamethrower other drivers would slow down and move over. And there would have been no reason to taser the poor man.

        • What is wrong with you idiots? So now, the police are to blame for a criminal act? You are the reason groups like ANTIFA and BLM can get away with what they do.

        • You would never know it considering how they refuse to release this video. Apparently, they don’t think the taxpayers have a right to know and see the video.

          Ever think about ordering someone to walk a straight line is forcing themselves to effectively testify against themselves?

    • THAT is what you took away from this video? None of those officers are even wearing BDU’s. A dashcam video of a shootout with a violent thug, and you go on a rant about clothing? You’re insane.

    • Your out of your mind. That’s literally the standard police uniform for as long as I can remember. Nothing “tacti-cool” there . Maybe incidents like these show why police need body armor etc. Let’s put you in Chicago answering calls in the inner city in whatever the hell uniform you find appropriate LOL. I’m not even goning to touch the SWAT team comment. “I think nurses wearing scrubs is ridiculous. They rarely ever get blood on them.” That’s how stupid you sound.

      • Ah yes, as lemmings sit by while plain old police get more militarized by the day. May as well outfit them with armored vehicles. Oh wait…..

        • I thought I was gonna see some operators with helmets, masks, cammies, etc…seriously, wtf are you ninnies talking about? The fact that they’re wearing boots? Jesus Christ.

      • What do cops need body armor for? They can shoot first all the time and never have so much as a legal hiccup. You could point a plastic gun with a bright orange tip at them and they’d shoot you and the DA wouldn’t blink.

        • If you’re pointing any sort of gun at the police, even fake, then you’re as dumb as someone who complains if they wear boots…. oh wait…

    • Call your local department tell them you’re willing to fit the bill everytime they need to replace their pressed khakis or blue police uniforms and shiny dress shoes because they ripped the ass out of their pants jumping a fence or got covered in grass or blood stains fighting on the ground. That’s why patrol cops like ‘fatigue’ style uniforms… not because they’re paramilitary but because they wear well in the crap they have to deal with.

      • We do “fit” the bill, it’s called taxes. You must be one of those cops that seem to forget how their paycheck comes to be, typical.

        • All it takes is a police shootout video to get the resident anarchists/anti-gov types to come out of the woodwork. You’re pretty much indistinguishable from ANTIFA.

        • I don’t know about all departments but I know some of the officers I know only get a small amount for uniforms and everything else they foot themselves.

      • Productive citizens are responsible for the upkeep of their work clothing. I see no reason why someone who voluntarily becomes a government thug should not pay out of pocket for what ever the citizens require them to wear. They don’t like it they are always welcome to find honest work where they aren’t living off the sweat of my brow.

        • Imagine if every profession that required the employee to wear a uniform required that employee to buy all the uniforms out of pocket. Police, firemen, nurses, Wal-Mart, Burger King, etc. Ponder that and think about how stupid you sound with this comment.

        • Wal-Mart employee here: we DO pay for our uniforms out-of-pocket. The only part we get for free is the badge and POS blue vest that might as well be made of toilet tissue.

        • HP: Being the husband of a nurse, I can assure you that nurses pay for their own uniforms, out of their own pockets.

        • How does a brow sweat when it never gets out of mommy’s basement? Unless you have tried policing, your complaints have no real credibility! If you can do better, sign up!

        • You need to do a lot more research.
          The .357 Magnum cartridge was originally designed for hunting, not law enforcement. It has seen relatively little use in law enforcement compared to the .38SPL from whence it came.
          The most successful revolver chambered in 38SPL, a cartridge designed for military use, was the S&W Military and Police Revolver. It has now enjoyed a full century of use around the world.

        • What is that, Model 29? In the USAF I trained with the S&W Combat Masterpiece, dunno what the model was, .38 Spl.

    • The so called “police” use guns made in Austria , attack dogs from Germany, dress in uniforms that resemble Hitler’s SS, treat civilians rudely, operate with impunity and I’m required to obey their every command and have my proper papers on demand. So this is America?

        • Big policeman????? Take that big policeman’s badge and buddies away and he’s not any bigger then the rest of us. What is this? Everyone has to kiss a cops ass and tell them job well done. “Thank you officer for shooting my dog and child. ” Thank-you officer for shooting a 16 year old in the back for running away from a beer party.” “Thank you officer for tearing my car apart because you thought ( thought) it had contraband”, I could go on, but like that x cop Paul McMichael says, “why.

      • Almost all departments use guns made in America. Nobody uses dogs from Germany, most don’t even use German Shepard breeds, and their clothing looks nothing like the SS.
        If you want to argue about police behavior, don’t start by destroying your credibility.

        • My credibility is not the point. There is no point other then stirring shit. I didn’t even watch the video.

    • That’s the standard uniform of the PA State Police. Hasn’t changed in years. I’ve lived in other states, and other than variations on the Smokey the Bear hat, it’s all pretty much the same. Granted the clothing might have been a little bit lighter in the southern states.

      At least when they pull you over, you pretty much know they’re the real cops. If they start wearing Tshirts and cutoff jeans, I might question their authoritay.

      • I like the coastal cops, with their competition for how many stars they have. The other day one was on TV with 5 stars on his collar.

        • Maybe they should start using brass tacks, like that Pawnee rifle. They could run em all the way around the collar and up and down their sleeves.

    • SWAT should be formed from county deputies or Staties. The only reason police departments want SWAT teams is to cash in on what the criminals have. This has lead to fraudulent arrests, setups by police and other state and federal officials trying to get land, vehicles and aircraft. These laws as well as Patriot act laws are unconstitutional and should be overturned. The problem here is all politicians want control over the people and it won’t change.

    • I’m not sure we watched the same video, I saw 2 PA Troopers in their standard uniform…trousers and shirts…no BDUs at all.

    • I’ll not address the comment made about –the dress code of anyone. In my opinion, this incident is yet another instance that falls within the ‘Mental Health’ category.

      1) What was the supposed offenders state of mind ‘before and during’ this entire incident –that would cause a person to initially comply, then before your very eyes do a 360 –from a compliance and perhaps a behavioral perspective?

      I can honestly not even think about blaming these officers for anything leading to this incidents resistive -struggle. While there may be a policy issue with ‘how’ the department directs their personnel to address/handle suspected driver(s) under the influence –of one or more chemical substances. The behavior and action’s of these officers displayed in the video-clips, up to the restrictive struggle, is admirable; in my eyes.

      After the suspect broke free is where the officers could have stepped-up their game:
      1) **both officers** could/should have had there sidearms drawn and at the very least –low ready.

      Once again, ‘Mental Health leads the way, followed closely by a loss of common-sense.

      Finally, ”no’ I am not close to perfect; still working on that part.

    • Same reason why camoflauge, tactical gear, and 30 round mags shouldn’t be owned by the commoners right?

    • Dressed like military personnel? Your monitor must be distorting the colors. The troopers were wearing the standard uniform of blue shirt with NECKTIE and stripes on their trouser legs. Yeah, the belt has a lot of gear on it, more than Sherriff Taylor ever carried in Mayberry, but if you look, it is for their handcuffs, TASER, sidearm, extra ammo, flashlight, standard stuff every police officer carries now. I don’t know of any military unit that wears neckties into combat. I drove by there about an hour after it happened, totally ignorant as to what had occurred. I was curious as to why so many emergency personnel were there and found out when I got home and saw the TV news. Having seen this video for the first time just now, I am surprised that a guy that couldn’t walk straight suddenly became one mean and effective street fighter the moment they tried to handcuff him. That was scary to see, and something that we all should keep in our heads.

    • “Battle dress uniform and combat boots”, do you want all LEO on the field to wear a tie and hi-gloss oxfords? Their job is to protect and serve, which has nothing to do with the way they dress as long as it is decent and reflects professionalism which is the case. Do you also want to take away their patrol rifle and riot gear? They should also drive Prius instead of Charger or Tahoe. Their job is to protect and serve and chances are they know better than you what kind of equipment they need on the job. They didn’t sign to kiss your buttocks not to satisfy the minority of the population always complaining about something when it comes to cops.

    • Hunh? the video shows the cops in blues, with gear belt, no BDU, no combat rig. Maybe you saw a different video? As for boots, I wore boots whenever I worked somewhere where there was a non-zero chance of my toes getting damaged.

    • So the fact that this murdering piece of crap, is trying to kill 2 cops triggers your fashion sense is amazing. You really have tunnel vision. They should have knocked him unconscious and cuffed him first. he is attempting to kill police officers, and obviously has done similar attacks before. They would have done the world a favor if they removed him from this world.
      You can’t have idiots like this walking around with guns in a civil society, he’s just a time bomb waiting to go off. He will get life, which for him is too good, watching cable and working out. Police need more protection than ever with the radical left trying to kill them at will. Build more jails and privatize them. Take away all the creature comforts and let them sleep in their own shit.

  2. The reason why they didn’t do it was because it destroyed the skin color narrative that was being pushed at the time, which they didn’t want destroyed for obvious reasons.

    Now that the video is out we can see the truth of it, which is typical these days.

  3. In my insignificant opinion they should have shot him when he started swinging. Tasers are great but not as effective as lead in stopping a threat. Cops won’t go to the gun now, it’s the less than lethal means until it’s really too late.
    Too bad the thug survived. Now we get to take care of him for decades.

    The second cop should have checked the car instead of standing around. The gun was apparently easy to get and probably would have been found.

    • Officers should be proficient in H2H. Most are not. They shouldn’t shoot someone the moment that person becomes physically aggressive.

      • Then go get a job doing it that way, advocate from position of knowledge. After you survive a few years (unlikely), then you can preach to others. Your idea is stupid, and has been proven stupid repeatedly, yet here you come with it again.

        • er… the idea of cops being competent in physical combat isn’t really stupid, if that’s the comment you were replying to (doubt it was).

          Can’t respond to everyone that takes a swing at you with a bullet, especially when you’ve got backup.

      • I thought it was all about having the same standards as joe schmo? If dirtbag mcnasty starts swinging at me hurly burly to take my car there’s hardly a jury in the land that would question me putting a bullet in him. Now is that always necessary? No, but that’s for the victim to determine in the moment

        • If you’re trying to kidnap a guy on the side of the road, you might be surprised what a jury would find you guilty of. Arrest without admissible evidence is state sponsored kidnapping.

      • There is, with very limited exception (such as felonious and immediately dangerous behavior on behalf of the officer) no reason for a person to resist an officer at all, and certainly not with violence. While shooting everyone who resists seems extreme, I’d greatly prefer that to allowing an escape of someone with a legitimate reason to be arrested, and frankly I’d prefer that to officers being injured fighting with morons resisting arrest with violence.

        I’m certainly not a thin blue line type, but the fact is that police are necessary, the vast majority are still magnitudes of order better people than most of those they arrest, and resisting arrest with violence, is to me, a crime just below rape, murder and kidnap, on par with armed robbery and aggravated battery, and likely much more serious than the original arrestable offense in most cases.

        We have a system of bond, of representation, of checks and balances. If the arrest of a person is unlawful, or there are other considerations, we have a built in mechanism for dealing with it: courts, lawyers, judges and juries. For my part, if you’re fist fighting a cop, you’re somewhere over the rainbow from a responsible citizen, going about the whole thing backwards, and dangerous enough that I’d greatly prefer you to be shot to death if the alternative was successful escape or serious injury to the officer.

        Its not that all cops are always right all the time, rather that the time and place for arguing with them is in a courtroom, with plenty of neutral witnesses, a lawyer, and a judge and jury. There is virtually never a good reason to resist arrest, nor is it likely to lead to better outcomes. If you see 100 arrests per day for 20 years you aren’t likely to see one in which resisting with violence is appropriate. Innocent people retain council, by definition, since resisting arrest is unlawful in all jurisdictions. That is, even innocent of the original offense, I know I’m looking at a guilty felony when I see someone violently oppose an officer.

        And then there is this: when I see someone in a violent confrontation with a police officer I make the safe assumption that the person in question would use violence against me and mine to achieve their ends…that is, someone who will fight a cop isn’t likely to be the sort of person who is reasonable and non-violent with the rest of us either.

        I’ll go one further: If (when, on occasion) I see a cop struggling with someone I know two things; I want the cop to win, and I’ll lend my voice, body, and weapons to the fight if necessary. I don’t know either party personally, I don’t know the circumstances, and I don’t need to. This is because one party is sworn to serve and protect, while the other is violently resisting the person I/we pay to deal with those who break the law. It’s not so much that I’m pro cop as it is I’m anti criminal, and the former are the best method we’ve contrived for dealing with the latter. If the police fail, I, or some other citizen is going to have to end up dealing with a person who has already demonstrated the will to harm others in the commission of a crime. It’s as bad as it gets.

        So, when someone says cops need to do more to avoid harm to people who have been caught breaking the law, and have followed it up with attempting to harm an officer to avoid arrest, I know I’ve either encountered a habitual criminal, or a very stupid person. Either way, their opinion isn’t worth much to me, and ought not be valuable to anyone who isn’t either a violent criminal or impossibly ignorant.

        Bottom line: Anyone concerned for their safety would be well advised to follow all lawful commands from police, and never to engage in violent confrontation with them. To the extent that the officer has a duty to confront those breaking the law, whether it turns violent or not is entirely up to the criminal, not the officer. Ergo, any harm to the resistor is their choice, not the officers. Police ought not have to take on additional risk to themselves because someone decided to add a felony to the list of things the are being arrested for. That’s just stupid, anti cop garbage with no legitimate basis.

        • If there were severe civil and criminal penalties enforced against officers who perform arrests with shitty probable cause, I’d agree with you. The problem is that cops skate on this bullshit all the time. The bottom line is that they couldn’t prove the DUI in court. Something that would be trivial if he was actually DUI. Since he was not, in fact, DUI, all other charges are irrelevant as they are predicated on the arrest being lawful, which this one was not.

          You seem to have missed the core principle of the US justice system. It’s rather simple. It’s better for ten guilty men to walk free than to punish one innocent man.

        • People whose last fight was in ninth or tenth grade often carry a faulty understanding of what a serious punch in the head, thrown by a fit mature man, can do. Death is possible from one blow. The late Mas Oyama proved that quite convincingly. One punch to the head, plus the victim falling head-first onto pavement, can do the job. Putting an eye out is also common enough. People, the nation, should learn that they may not hit, kick, punch, bite, or otherwise go physical on another person….except in justified self-defense, in which case a gun is also appropriate.

        • One little shove can theoretically kill someone too if they lose their footing and hit their head, but we can’t base all standards of reasonable force based on what could possibly happen in the absolute worst case scenario.

          If you’re alone with a guy ground-pounding you, that’s one situation. If you’re standing there with a partner and a drunk swings a haymaker at you, it’s not the same thing, even if both could theoretically kill you. One is a lot more of a threat.

    • It is massively against my department’s policy (and state law) to use deadly force just because someone has engaged you in hand to hand combat. If they go for your weapon or you’re in danger of being beaten to death that changes the situation. But in a straight up fistfight, my options are my fists, my OC, my taser, or my baton. These officers dealt with the situation pretty well, glad they both survived.

  4. Why would they prevent the release of this video??? Suspect could have been hit by a hydrogen bomb and it would have been justified. They both fought with everything they had, the suspect got the tactical advantage and escaped. Better marksmanship would have helped end the fight (not a judgement just a reality if we are looking for lessons)…..all in all these cops are heroes.

    • It’s not that the video was damaging, it’s that LE commanders across the country HATE freedom of information laws.

  5. Nobody is concerned about the fact that the police escalated a routine traffic infraction into a gunfight? Really?

    • Did you watch the same video that I did? You’re not allowed to shoot cops, even if they are making an illegal arrest. (I can’t believe I just wrote that, or had to.)

        • You should actually read the opinion, which was from 118 years ago. the ruling states:

          “where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed”

          “where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

          So there is a limited right to resist an unlawful arrest. You can not use deadly force to defend yourself if not faced with deadly force. That’s so basic, it shouldn’t have to be stated.

        • Pretty sure getting tazed for over a minute and getting the piss kicked out of you by a pair of armed men qualifies as “deadly force”.

        • “Pretty sure getting tazed for over a minute and getting the piss kicked out of you by a pair of armed men qualifies as “deadly force”.”

          If they were just “armed men,” like muggers, you might be right. But they just tried to cuff him (a nonviolent act by itself), and he started to fight them (1:12 on the video). At that point, he started the fight that you suggest he could rely on to defend against.

          You can’t start to fight someone and then when they fight back claim self-defense. That’s bootstrapping.

        • It would be either hilarious or tragic if you were to ever try to use your deeply misguided notions of the law in the real world, depending on how far you got. At best you’d end up with a bruised jaw and convicted. At worse you’d end up like this guy, with a bullet in his head and a very lengthy prison sentence ahead of him.

          And no, people would not be bothered by it, were you to act as stupidly as he did.

      • kevin, police receive immunity from prosecution when they are performing their duties lawfully and to the best of their training. They receive no immunity when performing an illegal act. For instance, an Oklahoma police officer was convicted last year of pulling over and raping 17 women over a period of several years. Any of those women would have been well within their rights to have killed him. It would have been better for everyone if they had exercised that right.

        • JW- Who said the officers should have immunity, and where does rape come into this?

          Mr. Drugdriver isn’t allowed to shoot the cops for trying to arrest him. An arrest, even an unlawful one, isn’t a deadly threat (whatever BLM and Serge might say to the contrary). You can’t lawfully resist an unlawful arrest by shooting the officers.

        • When you say you can or cannot do something, I am assuming you mean legally, and that’s where the immunity comes in.

          Where the rape comes in is your broader point.
          Can a woman use deadly force to protect herself against kidnapping? Of course she can. The law does not force her to wait to try and figure out how to save herself once she has been bound and incapacitated.
          The same is true if her rapist happens to be a sworn officer. Now, there are a lot of conditions there. There are a lot of variables. It is not cut and dry.
          But if a reasonable person would believe that their arrest is illegal and will immediately result in grievous bodily harm and death, they have the right to forcibly resist, even to use lethal force.
          This is not only morally right, but settled law.

        • “But if a reasonable person would believe that their arrest is illegal and will immediately result in grievous bodily harm and death”

          You’ve hit the nail on the head: Let’s assume that the arrest was illegal, which I assume you mean “without probable cause.” (I disagree, but whatever)

          Where does that give a reasonable belief of grievous bodily harm and/or death? Sure, once he started fighting them maybe he would have a reasonable belief that they would kick his ass, but starting a fight and then pulling his gun to defend himself in the fight he started, using the fight as justification, is bootstrapping.

        • kevin, absolutely, this case is not an example of where force is justified, even if the arrest was without probable cause. And like you, I believe there was probable cause. There is no reasonable expectation of immediate grievous bodily harm or death.
          I was just making the broader point that there are instances where it is legal and acceptable.

    • The video linked doesn’t explain the whole situation. He was going to be let go with just a ticket, but then he called BACK the officer and that’s when they suspected he was intoxicated, so they did said their thing and arrested him when he didn’t pass. The video was pretty heavily cut from the original, which shows it all.

      I know you have an axe to grind with any amount of authority but please, this whole thing was going to blow over had the guy decided to act like a normal person getting a ticket, not somebody high off something.

      • … doesn’t make the arrest lawful. Simple fact, you have a constitutional right to use any force necessary to resist illegal arrests. This has been settled law for over a century.

        Bad Elk v. United States

        • So we’re supposed to leave intoxicated/substance abusing people to drive around as they wish? Cool bro.

        • As a matter of law, he was neither. The jury found him not guilty. Hence, the resulting police action was an illegal arrest and the resulting charges are inappropriate.

        • As a matter of law that was decided after the fact and not during the incident the jury found him not guilty of being intoxicated.

          At the time, the officers suspected it, asked him to come out, did their sobriety tests like they normally do and he failed every one of them. It was in the full video. He was stumbling around on everything.

          So what are they to think? “Oh this model citizen just has bad balance and is having a bad day, we’ll just let him drive off I’m sure he’ll be okay.” No, I think they did the obvious thing in this situation when they suspect you’re drunk driving.

          But clearly you’d rather let people off the hook because “muh freedums” and instead would rather a potentially intoxicated person drive off to potentially cause a major incident.

          You are a very, very dense person, man. That is putting it nicely.

        • Yes… I’d rather let ten drunk men drive away than subject one innocent person to an illegal arrest. That’s the basic principle around which the US legal system is based.

          In any case, field sobriety tests are bullshit. I wouldn’t be able to pass them with flying colors even stone sober. They hardly meet the burden of proof require to sustain probable cause.

        • There is no SCotUS precedent on point besides Bad Elk v. United States. I would argue that the new statutes are an unconstitutional attempt to sidestep the spirit and letter of Bad Elk and would not be upheld by a conservative SCotUS.

        • Scotus did in fact have more cases involving resisting arrest back in 1925 with Carroll v US and in 2001 with Atwater v City if Lago Vista. It’s also a statute written in the model penal code and in the uniform arrest act.

          So you can argue that it’s unconstitutional, but precedent, and statutes, are against you. You cannot resist arrest

        • Neither of those cases addressed the right to resist. They were both probable cause cases which are not on point. Keep trying.

        • I would argue that field sobriety tests are not accurate enough to be submitted as evidence and hence do not constitute probable cause. Given the clinical data on the inaccuracy of these tests compared to actual medical evidence, I would probably win.

          The reality is that their only “probable cause” for arrest was the test. The behavior prior to that is irrelevant as the officers clearly did not, themselves, believe the suspect was intoxicated when they handed him the initial ticket. As such, the arrest was unlawful and the suspect had the legal right to defend himself against assault by the officers.

        • You clearly did not read the major opinion for the case you cited. The case you cited was resistance to unlawful arrest that had no probable cause and the defendant was not informed of his arrest before force was used. Therefore the murder charge was dropped to manslaughter. The two other cases I cited were the other deciding cases about the basis of probable cause, the major point in the case of Bad Elk v US.

          The statutes, which are the precedent set forth, clearly defined that you cannot resist arrest.

          This is further clarified in Wilson v state. This decision further clarified that you cannot resist an unlawful arrest when the officer does not use unlawful force. Since the officer in question peacefully informed the defendant that he was under arrest then the defendant is not legally allowed to resist. You cannot resist arrest. Even if you do resist arrest in a state that doesn’t explicitly state that you cannot resist, if you cause bodily harm, you’re still going to be charged for other crimes at which point the arrest is warranted.

          You can argue field sobriety tests are not admissable for probably cause. However, again, precedent, is against you. The field tests are the bases of probable cause for several countries with many studies to back up their validity.

        • it’s funny watching someone try to argue law on the internet that has no comprehension of the difference between the burden of proof to arrest and to convict.

        • I know the difference kiddo. I just don’t care. Unless cops are held personally accountable for arresting innocent people, they better have more than “I thought he was acting funny.”

    • It seemed to be a good stop, and from the video, was certainly a legal and resonable arrest.
      Clary went after them pretty hard when they tried to put the cuffs on. Where do you see the police escalation?

      • Simple…

        The arrest didn’t meet the burden of proof required to sustain probable cause. Field sobriety tests are unconstitutionally vague and subjective.

        • You believe that the escalation was the arrest itself and that the arrest was illegal. I see your point, but I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t think any court in the land, or any reasonable person would take speeding and swerving , combined with a failure to pass a field sobriety test as insufficient grounds for probable cause.

        • Speeding and swerving are one thing. If they had believed he was intoxicated based on the swerving, they would have cuffed him there. Clearly, he was lucid enough for them to just write him a ticket and start to walk away.

          I maintain that field sobriety tests are unconstitutionally vague and subjective. They do not rise to the level of evidence necessary to support probable cause.

          The clincher was that he was found not guilty of the DUI. Hence, he was legally NOT intoxicated.

        • Let me give you an example…

          Say there was a serial killer running around the woods behind my house… let’s call him Psycho McEatyface… So while walking my dog in those same woods in shorts and a teeshirt, the cops spot me and mistake me for Psycho McEatyface. They shout for me to get on the ground and when I fail to comply they shoot my dog and point their guns at me.

          Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that I lived in a constitutional carry state that does not require me to have ID on me while concealed carrying. I know I’m not Psycho McEatyface. The cops have escalated to violence and I now have a reasonable fear for my life. I draw my gun and miraculously manage to plug both cops and get away.

          Have I committed a crime?

          According to Bad Elk v. United States, no. No, I have not.

        • There are a lot of variables in your scenario. In some of them, you would have been completely justified shooting the officers. And some of them you would not.
          Now, hopefully knowing me, you would know that the second they shot my dog I would have killed everyone .

    • You’re right, this poor soul was most likely misunderstood and about to take that gun to a buyback and enroll in college when those mean coppers stopped him and determined he couldn’t walk a straight line. He tried to explain to them he wasn’t intoxicated, but had actually just finished leg day at his local anytime fitness. Things got heated from there and now we’ve been robbed of a future nuclear physicist.

      If you’re going to fault the cops for going too far, which in many cases they do, it’s best to pick sane examples chum.

      • Given the data on field sobriety tests, I would find any “probable cause” based on that alone to be highly suspect, at best. Clearly the officer thought he was sober enough when he wrote him the ticket.

        As for the gun… That’s past the point where the guy, in my opinion, had the right to defend himself from assault and attempted murder by the officers.

        • Considering you can’t out run a bullet and there are cops with certain mentalities, you logically would conclude that you must fight instead of run.

          By the way, I’m not saying the man in the first video shouldn’t have been shot.

    • That’s what all you anti cop anarchist liberal BLM supporters cry every single police shooting. A Nazi armed with a straight up machine gun could storm into a police station, get shot by a black officer and all you but jobs would still cry it was an injustified injustice of the highest order.

      • Yeah… far be it for us to expect the cops to do their jobs and go after actual criminals rather than harassing, tazing, and beating the shit out of random motorists.

    • An arrest is based upon probable cause, a lower standard than “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” as used in a trial. Based up the signs of impairment during the field sobriety test, they absolutely had probable cause to make a lawful arrest.

  6. I think the police used too much force here. When the innocent black motorist retreated to his vehicle for a firearm to defend himself from law-enforcement, the police should have understood they acted inappropriately, apologized, allow the innocent civilian to shoot them and then be on their way. Black Lives Matter!

    • The cops did fuck up in a few ways.

      1. They didn’t clearly explain why they were arresting the suspect.
      2. They escalated the incident rather drastically. The dude was on the ground being tazed for almost a full minute because the cops couldn’t get the cuffs on him.

      Quite honestly, without solid evidence that the man in question WAS actually intoxicated, this looks like a bad arrest gone wrong. I can’t really blame someone for resisting when the cops try to slap cuffs on him for speeding. After a minute on the deck and getting the piss beat out of him by those same cops, I would argue that the man in question had a reasonable fear for his life.

      Cops should be judged by the exact same standards as any other civilian. They initiated the incident. Ok. They escalated the incident without clear evidence. Not ok.

      • Some solid points. Folks on here have some cognitive dissonance as well. “Resist the government, it’s what the 2A is for, unless it’s cops, then you’d better submit!”
        Seems inconsistent to me…

        • It is because the 2nd Amendment is to empower the people over the government so we don’t need a standing military or a police department.

          Most people speed and a lot have smoked. The average American does not care if someone drives a little faster than the speed limit because they do the same, however, cops care a lot if a non police officer does that. Religious people care a lot about drug use (including alcohol) enough to want it written into law like Muslims do. Whereas most people in America do drugs; that is increasing as Americans are no longer religious. When it comes to drugs cops will throw explosives into your house, ram your door down, shoot your puppy, man handle your wife, terrorize your kids and possibly shoot you if you resist or scare them.

          A lot of laws are now anti American to go along with the anti American nature of the culture that is now the dominate one. Most people are not actually Americans — they refer to themselves as Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Conservatives, Communists, etc. They will even throw race into it before they do American. They’ve been indoctrinated by their government schools to be that way and pop culture makes sure it stays that way.

      • “2. They escalated the incident rather drastically. The dude was on the ground being tazed for almost a full minute because the cops couldn’t get the cuffs on him.”

        I had a problem with that part too.
        Constant tasing, while yelling ‘stop resisting’ at the guy while he writhes in response to the tasing, is not law enforcement, it’s assault, and the ‘stop resisting’ is just an insult to the intelligence of everybody who sees it. That’s probably why it took a lawsuit to force the video into the public eye.

        “Keep the taser on” then yell “get on your back” to a guy who a) is on his back already, and b) can’t move other than to clench his entire body into a ball because your partner is using a neuromuscular disruptor on him, yeah, that makes sense. If I were the black guy, I’d assume they were manufacturing cause to shoot me at that point.

        But, when the black guy pulls a gun out of the car, it feels more like he’s motivated by retribution than self defense to me. And don’t forget, if he hadn’t resisted being cuffed in the first place, the cops never would have shifted out of politeness mode.

        • Maybe if they had clearly articulated the cause for his arrest, he would not have resisted? In any case, he wasn’t DUI. There was no objective probable cause to suspect he was DUI. Field sobriety tests are unconstitutional bullshit.

        • And (maybe) if the cops didn’t punch him repeatably he wouldn’t have felt the need to shoot them. Someone could go interview him (he has nothing else to do).

          If the cops were better trained they wouldn’t have punched the man at all and he wouldn’t have been able to get to his car to grab his gun. The tall dude’s gun fell out of his pants right next to the suspect! Seriously, not the best police work going on with those two. It literally cost the tall dude his life, luckily for him modern medicine and technology brought him back from the dead.

          Rinse, repeat…

      • Typical liberal like you probably believes the leftist BLM daeshbag That murdered all those cops in Dallas is some kind of hero.

        • I bet if I asked you about your political philosophy there will be a lot of socialism.

          In practice Republicans are no different than Democrats. Just a bunch of phonies like the rest.

    • Hey, where did the first gun come from? The one on the ground that the smaller cop cleared and tossed in the midst of the tasing? Looked like it fell from perp’s ankle holster, but I couldn’t see for sure. And later, who was shooting out his rear window? Him or a wounded cop? Appears to me perp had at least 2 guns, seems to have gone for both, but how he managed to shoot 2 armed cops while they claim he was so stoned he couldn’t walk is a mystery.

  7. This is what’s wrong with our legal system. First, this dude should have been shot dead, and that would take care of the situation. Second, after viewing the video, the dude should have been put away for life. Long court battles should be for cases where there is reasonable doubt on the perps innocence End of store.

    • Should an American be killed for smoking a herb or be put in a cage for the rest of their life?

      He did get shot in the head. The cops missed a couple a magazines worth, otherwise he would have been killed.

    • I counted almost a full minute on the ground being tazed and getting the piss beat out of you. How is that NOT escalation? Especially when the cops didn’t clearly explain WHY they were taking him into custody and when the jury found him not guilty of the original charge.

      • Serge, I’m often on your side, even when you are passing out helicopter rides. In this case however I just can’t agree with your reasoning. Regardless of the subjects intoxication, the time for disputing the legitimacy of the arrest would have been at trial, not on the side of the road. If they had told him he was under arrest for driving while black, eating green eggs and ham or failing to wear clown shoes, his best bet would have been to submit, and retain an attorney. Incidentally, he was found non guilty for DUI, but what was the disposition of the charges related to shooting at the cops?