Reader comments
Man says Provo police beat him
111 comments | Read story
Learning Curve | 3:01 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Mr. L says he wouldn't handle it any differently??? Perhaps he didn't
get hit hard enough! Come on dude, climb on the learning curve! A simple
"Thanks for checking on my dogs" would have sufficed. After all, the
animal control officer was looking out for their well being. Next time Mr. L
should ask to be tased - it doesn't leave the nasty bruises.
BigPoet | 3:01 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
This problem was caused by wacko PETA-like people firvolously reporting animal
abuse that didn't occur, and an animal control officer that sounds like a
T.J. Hooker wannabe (You'll recall that "T.J. Hooker" was William
Shatner's old TV series).
I take my dog with me in my car to the grocery store quite often--she loves to go along. It's 50 degrees outside, but it stays warm in the car for quite a while. I get back to my car in 15-30 minutes--no problem.
I take my dog with me in my car to the grocery store quite often--she loves to go along. It's 50 degrees outside, but it stays warm in the car for quite a while. I get back to my car in 15-30 minutes--no problem.
SpenceOC | 3:07 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Next time, Chris, just do what you are told and you will be fine. The cops
spend all day listening to people act like jerks and they react to it pretty
quickly. Stop whining and just do as you are told. Then they finish what they
are trying to do and leave you alone.
Comments continue below
Robert T. | 3:08 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Police want members of the public to be submissive. When they aren't,
police see it as a challenge to their authority, which they won't
tolerate.
If you contradict the police, or insist the police are wrong, or try to correct them, the police see it as an opportunity to abuse their authority.
If you contradict the police, or insist the police are wrong, or try to correct them, the police see it as an opportunity to abuse their authority.
I allege stupidity. | 3:11 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
I allege stupidity. If you ask me Lauridsen brought it all upon himself. No
brutality at all- just the police taking control of a situation like they are
supposed to do.
If a police officer says to you "turn around" then you turn around. It's not "a right" to do otherwise even if you own a business in the city. And if you leap at him, then it shouldn't surprize you (or anyone) that he hits you with his stick.
When someone says he was authoritive not belligerent, you can pretty much be sure that he was belleigerent. And you can tell by Lauridsens own statements in the story that he was rude, condesending and belligerent. Sounds like he is a hot headed jerk, a punk that never grew up.
If a police officer says to you "turn around" then you turn around. It's not "a right" to do otherwise even if you own a business in the city. And if you leap at him, then it shouldn't surprize you (or anyone) that he hits you with his stick.
When someone says he was authoritive not belligerent, you can pretty much be sure that he was belleigerent. And you can tell by Lauridsens own statements in the story that he was rude, condesending and belligerent. Sounds like he is a hot headed jerk, a punk that never grew up.
Calvin | 3:15 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
I sympathize with Mr. Lauridsen.
Like him, I am a conscientious dog owner, and if I leave my dog in my car for 10 minutes while I run into the bank, I won't be happy if a police officer accuses me of animal cruelty.
Utah is not hot in February, nor has it been so cold lately that a dog will be in danger if left in a car for a short time.
Most likely, the problem came about because Mr. Lauridsen would not agree with the police officer that he was cruel to his dog. Police don't like to be corrected or contradicted.
Like him, I am a conscientious dog owner, and if I leave my dog in my car for 10 minutes while I run into the bank, I won't be happy if a police officer accuses me of animal cruelty.
Utah is not hot in February, nor has it been so cold lately that a dog will be in danger if left in a car for a short time.
Most likely, the problem came about because Mr. Lauridsen would not agree with the police officer that he was cruel to his dog. Police don't like to be corrected or contradicted.
Big La | 3:18 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
When you mouth off and resist, you might get hit, and when you "lunge"
at an officer. I think you deserve a lot more than that. I say hit him again.
Mike | 3:23 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
This dude needs to step back and look at his actions. his trying to be
"assertive" is what caused the problem. He expects to be treated one
way and then thinks he can act the opposite. I hope he's convicted. Our
police don't need this type of behavior from Lauridsen.
anonymous | 3:24 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
"I did not try to be belligerent," Lauridsen said. "I tried to be
authoritative."
You tried to be 'authoritative'? Did you think you were in charge when the police officer showed up? Here is a newsflash for you. When an on-duty police officer shows up he/she is in charge, not you. Unless you have a compelling reason to believe your life or well-being is in jeopardy from a (crooked) police officer, you do what he says, when he says it. If you think the police officer is out of line then afterwards you file a complaint with the police department, or open a lawsuit to sue him, or both.
Obviously I don't know the whole story here, but it seems complying quickly with the police officer's requests (such as giving her your drivers licence the first time she asked for it) would have avoided this entire mess. Giving the officer your drivers licence is hardly unreasonable or intrusive.
My experience with police officers has been that being polite to them will go a long way and save a lot of hassle.
You tried to be 'authoritative'? Did you think you were in charge when the police officer showed up? Here is a newsflash for you. When an on-duty police officer shows up he/she is in charge, not you. Unless you have a compelling reason to believe your life or well-being is in jeopardy from a (crooked) police officer, you do what he says, when he says it. If you think the police officer is out of line then afterwards you file a complaint with the police department, or open a lawsuit to sue him, or both.
Obviously I don't know the whole story here, but it seems complying quickly with the police officer's requests (such as giving her your drivers licence the first time she asked for it) would have avoided this entire mess. Giving the officer your drivers licence is hardly unreasonable or intrusive.
My experience with police officers has been that being polite to them will go a long way and save a lot of hassle.
rights | 3:31 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
I'm with Mr. Lauridsen, we live in the U.S.A.
not in any other country like the ones we go to war because of the way people are treated. Wake-up
cops need to become aware we do NOT live in a
policed state as of 02-2009
not in any other country like the ones we go to war because of the way people are treated. Wake-up
cops need to become aware we do NOT live in a
policed state as of 02-2009
News Dawg | 3:41 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
OK. Four officers versus a 56-year-old man and they still felt like the only way
they could take him down is to do him Rodney-King style? I've worked with
many police officers in my former profession. Most of them are high-quality
individuals, but there's a segment of the population who sublimate their
pent up rage. Sounds like Lauridsen ran afoul of four of 'em.
Anonymous | 3:42 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
In my experience in observing animal control officers, they tend to act like
jerks a lot of the time.
They are rude and condescending and usually have a very insulting tone when they deal with the public.
I'm not saying they are all like that. I have seen some very nice people doing that job.
From what I've observed, if someone spoke to me the way I've seen them do, I'd talk back too. Especially if was guilty of nothing.
So from the description of this incident, I can believe that the animal control officer escalated this and probably lied to dispatch about what was happening when she called for backup. I would love to hear the tapes of her call and know how she led the real police officers to believe when they responded.
They are rude and condescending and usually have a very insulting tone when they deal with the public.
I'm not saying they are all like that. I have seen some very nice people doing that job.
From what I've observed, if someone spoke to me the way I've seen them do, I'd talk back too. Especially if was guilty of nothing.
So from the description of this incident, I can believe that the animal control officer escalated this and probably lied to dispatch about what was happening when she called for backup. I would love to hear the tapes of her call and know how she led the real police officers to believe when they responded.
I alledge Stupidity | 3:45 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
"And you can tell by Lauridsens own statements in the story that he was
rude, condesending and belligerent. "
Funny I would use those same attributes to describe a lot of the police officers that I know. I am a good citizen with a clean record and I have never been in trouble but I find police officers to be some of the rudest most power tripping individuals I have ever met.
To say they could beat him because he was rude and stupid would justify people beating police officers for the same things. In my experience that would lead to a lot of beaten officers.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have shut up and just turned around, but I am trying to make the point that police officers treat people far worse then he did and expect to get away without any consequence. Would it have killed the animal control officer to actually apologize and say "obviously your animals are fine sorry to bother you".
I feel that an awful lot of the time police officers could defuse a situation by treating other with a little respect and by losing their own attitudes.
Funny I would use those same attributes to describe a lot of the police officers that I know. I am a good citizen with a clean record and I have never been in trouble but I find police officers to be some of the rudest most power tripping individuals I have ever met.
To say they could beat him because he was rude and stupid would justify people beating police officers for the same things. In my experience that would lead to a lot of beaten officers.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have shut up and just turned around, but I am trying to make the point that police officers treat people far worse then he did and expect to get away without any consequence. Would it have killed the animal control officer to actually apologize and say "obviously your animals are fine sorry to bother you".
I feel that an awful lot of the time police officers could defuse a situation by treating other with a little respect and by losing their own attitudes.
Terry B. | 3:49 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
If you ask me, Mr. Lauridsen is lucky he's not in the hospital or worse...
What an absoute moron. When an officer is investigating a posible crime and
tells you to do something, you don't respond with, "no." And,
when you become beligerent to the point where back up is called, you definitely
don't "lunge" at the officers. If it had been L.A. or Las Vegas,
he'd still be in the hospital before his 30-90 days in jail.
Officers have enough to worry about than a loud mouth, beligerent "know it all." Lick your wounds and get over it. You got off lucky.
Officers have enough to worry about than a loud mouth, beligerent "know it all." Lick your wounds and get over it. You got off lucky.
Welcome to Utah | 3:52 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Welcome to Utah where animals have more rights than people! Thanks to PETA, and
all of you who backed the animal cruelty law!
Your rights | 3:53 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Some here need to wake up. Yes police have a job, but there is taking it to far.
Lauridsen also went about it wrong as well. First the animal officer was
responding to a call.
The officer asked for ID, you don't have to give it to them, but you can if you choose to do so. Then he tells her to leave, bad choice, better choice would have been to ask if he was free to go. Make the officer make a decision.
The officer who struck him had no right to do especially since no arrest occured on charges other than resisting arrest and assulting a police officer. Since the officer struck him for no reason other than he didn't follow his commands and no other criminal activity was alleged, the officer wasn't justified in the level of force.
I imagine there are a number of attorneys who'd love to have this case.
For all of you who say just follow the officer's instruction, you would have fit right with the Germans back in the 30s and 40s. Let the fascist control us.
The officer asked for ID, you don't have to give it to them, but you can if you choose to do so. Then he tells her to leave, bad choice, better choice would have been to ask if he was free to go. Make the officer make a decision.
The officer who struck him had no right to do especially since no arrest occured on charges other than resisting arrest and assulting a police officer. Since the officer struck him for no reason other than he didn't follow his commands and no other criminal activity was alleged, the officer wasn't justified in the level of force.
I imagine there are a number of attorneys who'd love to have this case.
For all of you who say just follow the officer's instruction, you would have fit right with the Germans back in the 30s and 40s. Let the fascist control us.
Plenty of blame | 3:55 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
It's hard to disagree with the "pro-police" comments above, but
doesn't it seem the night-sticks came out a bit early and a bit often?
I don't see in the article any notion that the officers were threatened. When one said "turn around" and L doesn't comply, couldn't one of the other four take a few steps around L to see whether L is armed?
Withouth knowing all the facts, I think there's lots of blame to go around here. L should submit, of course, but why start beating him when an alternative was so easy?
Of course police don't like anything but submission, but that doesn't justify a good beating just to show whose boss.
I was stopped for suspected DUI once [never had a drop in my life] and the officer was beligerent with me while I passed every field sobriety test. He finally "let me go," without any citation, all the time acting like a jerk.
After a few phone calls, I wrote his superior a letter and got an apology over the phone from both of them.
Both sides could have acted more responsibly here.
I don't see in the article any notion that the officers were threatened. When one said "turn around" and L doesn't comply, couldn't one of the other four take a few steps around L to see whether L is armed?
Withouth knowing all the facts, I think there's lots of blame to go around here. L should submit, of course, but why start beating him when an alternative was so easy?
Of course police don't like anything but submission, but that doesn't justify a good beating just to show whose boss.
I was stopped for suspected DUI once [never had a drop in my life] and the officer was beligerent with me while I passed every field sobriety test. He finally "let me go," without any citation, all the time acting like a jerk.
After a few phone calls, I wrote his superior a letter and got an apology over the phone from both of them.
Both sides could have acted more responsibly here.
Police are egomaniacs | 3:59 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
If I am not mistaken this was a animal cruelty charge? He certainly looks like a
hardened criminal giving the police every right to pummel him as much as they
deemed fit. Animal cruelty? I hate to see what the police do when you actually
commit a crime. Death by beating! Who protects us from the police?
Got What He Deserved | 3:59 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Lauridsen is not a victim. He was an uncooperative jerk. Maybe next time
he'll be a little more polite and less arrogant. Bravo to the Provo
police.
B | 4:02 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Sounds to me like there are several idiots - pretty much everyone involved.
An overly assumptive animal control officer, a belligerent individual who was acting questionably to raise suspicion (just give 'em your freaking license) and back-up officers who were probably riled up due to the call for help from the first one.
Uncalled for situation all the way around. Clearly lots of stupidity on all sides...
An overly assumptive animal control officer, a belligerent individual who was acting questionably to raise suspicion (just give 'em your freaking license) and back-up officers who were probably riled up due to the call for help from the first one.
Uncalled for situation all the way around. Clearly lots of stupidity on all sides...
Randy | 4:06 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Waht many of you are forgetting is the number of police that are hurt and killed
every year. Why would they be on the defensive? Because if htey are not they
may be dead! Mr. L. was "authoritative" and explained the cop
"worked for him". Well nobody would ever be arrested then. And then
he lunged, to defend himself. He should ahve defended himself from stupidity.
He needs to be arrested for stupidity.
the truth | 4:12 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
The police do NOT have right to antything they want, anytime they want,
unless a crime IS being commited, or have reason top belive a crime is being committed or someone's life is in danger, IE probable cause, other than that they have NO authority in the situation.
The man here was NOT cited or arrested for any crime, but really just standing up for OWN rights.
unless a crime IS being commited, or have reason top belive a crime is being committed or someone's life is in danger, IE probable cause, other than that they have NO authority in the situation.
The man here was NOT cited or arrested for any crime, but really just standing up for OWN rights.
Shameful | 4:17 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
It's hard to believe this is the country that fought a revolutionary war to
escape tyranny, and lost thousands of citizens ousting a German dictator. All
those slaughtered Jews should have kept their mouths shut, and not antagonized
those Nazis who were just doing their job, according the the logic of the
majority of this group. This group would convert the motto of the police to
protect and serve the police, not the people.
How Shameful. How incredibly illogical in a society based on our history and Constitution.
How Shameful. How incredibly illogical in a society based on our history and Constitution.
James | 4:38 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
It sounds like Lauridsen asked for it and they gave it to him. Maybe next time
you will just do what they say. The police don't work for you. Sounds like
Lauridsen may have a learning disability.
Anonymous | 4:41 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
An on-duty police officer is NOT in charge if they are
mis-interpreting/mis-enforcing the law. A GED and a gun do not make right. As a
citizen, it is your right to assert that you have not violated a law. In
asserting his rights--while still abiding by the animal control officer's
request for ID--this guy did nothing to warrant a call for backup on what
amounted to a non-issue. In criminalizing and enhancing behavior after behavior,
the Legislature gives police the almost unfettered right to intrude upon our
right to go about our lives. Dogs in a car at a bank on a 40-degree day. Dogs in
a car at a bank on a 40-degree day? How in heck is that a police matter? Let
alone an animal control matter.
He should have said "go to hell" | 4:44 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
the truth,
"The man here was NOT cited or arrested for any crime, but really just standing up for OWN rights."
He was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer and then he was released. If he was resisting arrest then why the hell was he released? He didn't assault the officer until the officer had assaulted him which in my book is called self-defense. Just because the guy up the block is a cop during the day and a member of the ward on Sunday doesn't give him the right to assault people. He is still an ordinary voter who doesn't have the right to attack others just because they have the courage to stand up and tell him to go to hell.
You are right. Just because someone is a police officer doesn't give them the right to harass others, assault them or otherwise claim to have the authority to detain them for their amusement. This man probably had things to do and he didn't commit a crime so he told the Animal Control officer she should leave. I would have told her to go to hell.
"The man here was NOT cited or arrested for any crime, but really just standing up for OWN rights."
He was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer and then he was released. If he was resisting arrest then why the hell was he released? He didn't assault the officer until the officer had assaulted him which in my book is called self-defense. Just because the guy up the block is a cop during the day and a member of the ward on Sunday doesn't give him the right to assault people. He is still an ordinary voter who doesn't have the right to attack others just because they have the courage to stand up and tell him to go to hell.
You are right. Just because someone is a police officer doesn't give them the right to harass others, assault them or otherwise claim to have the authority to detain them for their amusement. This man probably had things to do and he didn't commit a crime so he told the Animal Control officer she should leave. I would have told her to go to hell.
Ainokea | 4:44 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Regardless what most of you have mentioned...no one deserves to be treated in
that way...not to mention, left with bruises! AUWE!!
Officers should be arrested... | 4:51 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Randy,
"Waht many of you are forgetting is the number of police that are hurt and killed every year."
And you are forgetting the number of civilians who are killed every year by rogue police officers who are out of control.
"Mr. L. was "authoritative" and explained the cop "worked for him"."
He said that to the Animal Control officer and not the officer who hit him.
"And then he lunged, to defend himself."
You fail to mention that the police officer had hit him after he told him no. He didn't commit a crime so why the hell should he allow the officer to deprive him of his liberty. That is what we fought a revolution over. The 4th amendment states "the right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and SEIZURES, shall not be violated..."
Simply stated. This man hadn't committed any crime except to refuse to allow the officer to deprive him of his liberty. They had already SEIZED him for a period that was unreasonable considering that the animals were fine and his actions didn't violate the law. The officers should be arrested.
"Waht many of you are forgetting is the number of police that are hurt and killed every year."
And you are forgetting the number of civilians who are killed every year by rogue police officers who are out of control.
"Mr. L. was "authoritative" and explained the cop "worked for him"."
He said that to the Animal Control officer and not the officer who hit him.
"And then he lunged, to defend himself."
You fail to mention that the police officer had hit him after he told him no. He didn't commit a crime so why the hell should he allow the officer to deprive him of his liberty. That is what we fought a revolution over. The 4th amendment states "the right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and SEIZURES, shall not be violated..."
Simply stated. This man hadn't committed any crime except to refuse to allow the officer to deprive him of his liberty. They had already SEIZED him for a period that was unreasonable considering that the animals were fine and his actions didn't violate the law. The officers should be arrested.
What were they arresting him for | 4:57 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Got What He Deserved,
"Lauridsen is not a victim. He was an uncooperative jerk. Maybe next time he'll be a little more polite and less arrogant. Bravo to the Provo police."
Why the hell should he be polite or humble when it comes to his rights? He had broken no law and was simply exercising his rights. These officers had violated the 4th amendment to the Constitution and had violated his fundamental rights. He didn't have to allow the officers to continue to deprive him of his liberty. The Animal Control officer saw that the animals were fine and should have left as he told her to do.
When the backup officer asked him to turn around he refused to do so. Why the hell should he allow them to continue to deprive him of his liberty. It's very likely that he had other things to do. Just because these losers didn't have anything better to do then be at work harassing others doesn't mean he didn't.
It was only after being physically assaulted that he defended himself. Prior to that time he was telling them to go to hell.
"Lauridsen is not a victim. He was an uncooperative jerk. Maybe next time he'll be a little more polite and less arrogant. Bravo to the Provo police."
Why the hell should he be polite or humble when it comes to his rights? He had broken no law and was simply exercising his rights. These officers had violated the 4th amendment to the Constitution and had violated his fundamental rights. He didn't have to allow the officers to continue to deprive him of his liberty. The Animal Control officer saw that the animals were fine and should have left as he told her to do.
When the backup officer asked him to turn around he refused to do so. Why the hell should he allow them to continue to deprive him of his liberty. It's very likely that he had other things to do. Just because these losers didn't have anything better to do then be at work harassing others doesn't mean he didn't.
It was only after being physically assaulted that he defended himself. Prior to that time he was telling them to go to hell.
very sensitive POlice. | 4:58 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
After all, they *should* feel very threatened by a 56 year old man who's
giving them guff. Who is he to give the slightest resistance to their
authority?
Mr. L is willing to take his lumps for standing up for himself, I respect that. He's got more courage than all the rest of you authority-minded lackeys. You folks who side with the cops are being very authority-compliant - you just keep it up, and let the daily resistance be taken care of by the folks with a little backbone.
The situation sounds like it was very poorly handled by some cops with very sensitive egos.
Mr. L is willing to take his lumps for standing up for himself, I respect that. He's got more courage than all the rest of you authority-minded lackeys. You folks who side with the cops are being very authority-compliant - you just keep it up, and let the daily resistance be taken care of by the folks with a little backbone.
The situation sounds like it was very poorly handled by some cops with very sensitive egos.
Hey Randy | 5:10 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
the cops were not "on the defensive". To the contrary, it seems they
were very much on the offensive in this situation.
GED? LOL, ROFL... Good one! | 5:12 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Anonymous,
"As a citizen, it is your right to assert that you have not violated a law. In asserting his rights--while still abiding by the animal control officer's request for ID--this guy did nothing to warrant a call for backup on what amounted to a non-issue."
Apparently telling her she worked for him resulted in a sarcastic and snide remark about how she worked for the City of Provo and not him since he lived in Woodland Hills. His response to that was he owned a business in Provo. That is what got backup called on him!
"In criminalizing and enhancing behavior after behavior, the Legislature gives police the almost unfettered right to intrude upon our right to go about our lives."
It was her actions and the actions of the other officers which escalated the situation. He had no obligation to allow them to deprive him of his liberty or in your words the "right to go about [his life]." The officers were being belligerent. He was right to point out that he didn't break the law and she should leave because she worked for him and her sarcastic comments were uncalled for.
"As a citizen, it is your right to assert that you have not violated a law. In asserting his rights--while still abiding by the animal control officer's request for ID--this guy did nothing to warrant a call for backup on what amounted to a non-issue."
Apparently telling her she worked for him resulted in a sarcastic and snide remark about how she worked for the City of Provo and not him since he lived in Woodland Hills. His response to that was he owned a business in Provo. That is what got backup called on him!
"In criminalizing and enhancing behavior after behavior, the Legislature gives police the almost unfettered right to intrude upon our right to go about our lives."
It was her actions and the actions of the other officers which escalated the situation. He had no obligation to allow them to deprive him of his liberty or in your words the "right to go about [his life]." The officers were being belligerent. He was right to point out that he didn't break the law and she should leave because she worked for him and her sarcastic comments were uncalled for.
The Animal Cop did not | 5:21 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
need this mans Identification.
He was acertive and said his Dogs are fine in the car
This was Authoritly speaking.
Not snotty, The Cop was snotty with behavior problems
Quite clear we have cops without comunnications skills working for all the Cities in Utah
Like Rodney King
I would Sue Provo
The truth has been told
The Cops work for the City of Provo
Did you catch that?
Quite clear the City of Provo is on the hook for a big payoff in millions of dollars
Cops need to learn to be business like
Not act like retards
Dead Cops maybe need dead
This is America
Not Cuba
He was acertive and said his Dogs are fine in the car
This was Authoritly speaking.
Not snotty, The Cop was snotty with behavior problems
Quite clear we have cops without comunnications skills working for all the Cities in Utah
Like Rodney King
I would Sue Provo
The truth has been told
The Cops work for the City of Provo
Did you catch that?
Quite clear the City of Provo is on the hook for a big payoff in millions of dollars
Cops need to learn to be business like
Not act like retards
Dead Cops maybe need dead
This is America
Not Cuba
Guy in my ward is retarded cop | 5:23 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Terry B.,
"When an officer is investigating a posible crime and tells you to do something, you don't respond with, "no." And, when you become beligerent to the point where back up is called, you definitely don't "lunge" at the officers."
Did you even bother reading the article? Backup was called by the Animal Control officer after he didn't take her sarcastic comment that she didn't work for him because he lived in Woodland Hills and not Provo by pointing out that he owned a business in Provo.
He didn't lunge at the officer because after he refused to turn around instead he lunged at the officer after the officer had attacked him. The officer had no right to hit him and the man had reason to fear for his safety.
"Officers have enough to worry about than a loud mouth, beligerent "know it all." Lick your wounds and get over it. You got off lucky."
So you are basically saying 'miss that meeting and lose a $100,000 because a piece of trash doesn't want you to let you be on your way even though you haven't committed a crime.
"When an officer is investigating a posible crime and tells you to do something, you don't respond with, "no." And, when you become beligerent to the point where back up is called, you definitely don't "lunge" at the officers."
Did you even bother reading the article? Backup was called by the Animal Control officer after he didn't take her sarcastic comment that she didn't work for him because he lived in Woodland Hills and not Provo by pointing out that he owned a business in Provo.
He didn't lunge at the officer because after he refused to turn around instead he lunged at the officer after the officer had attacked him. The officer had no right to hit him and the man had reason to fear for his safety.
"Officers have enough to worry about than a loud mouth, beligerent "know it all." Lick your wounds and get over it. You got off lucky."
So you are basically saying 'miss that meeting and lose a $100,000 because a piece of trash doesn't want you to let you be on your way even though you haven't committed a crime.
JH | 5:31 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
The animal cop responded to a call. Not her fault. Lauridson had an attitude,
his fault. His attitude resulted in a tune-up, the cops fault. Even cops have
to admit at times that the person they are talking to is a jerk, but has
violated no laws. Unless there is a whole bunch more to this story, and there
may be, the cops should have walked away. They would have been justified at
saying "what a jerk" as they did so.
Do you | 5:33 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
see a lot of cops making stupid remarks?
This is America
Cops do not know Civil Rights
They certainly are beligerant to the public
Cops working for the City is a bad thing
They are not responcible to the citizens of the State
They are an ARMED GANG running the streets
Provo should learn a good lesson from this
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is America
Cops do not know Civil Rights
They certainly are beligerant to the public
Cops working for the City is a bad thing
They are not responcible to the citizens of the State
They are an ARMED GANG running the streets
Provo should learn a good lesson from this
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Here is a possible conversation | 5:44 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
JH,
"The animal cop responded to a call. Not her fault. Lauridson had an attitude, his fault. His attitude resulted in a tune-up, the cops fault."
You failed to mention. Animal Control officer had an attitude, her fault. This is what the basic outline of their conversation:
L: What are you doing?
ACO: I'm investigating a complaint of animal cruelty?
L: Why?
ACO: Because I got a report of two dogs in a car.
L: The dogs are fine.
ACO: Can I see your license?
L: No, why do you need to see it? No crime has been committed.
ACO: I need to see your license.
L: Fine, here you go.
L: There's nothing more to investigate. You should leave.
ACO: I will leave when I want to. Got it?
L: You work for me, and are mistreating me.
ACO: No, I don't. You Woodland Hills people don't pay me. I work for the City of Provo.
L: I have a business in Provo.
ACO: That's it. I'm calling for backup punk!
Res. Officer: Turn around.
L: No,I haven't broken any law.
RO: Bam, take that stick.
L: Lunges.
"The animal cop responded to a call. Not her fault. Lauridson had an attitude, his fault. His attitude resulted in a tune-up, the cops fault."
You failed to mention. Animal Control officer had an attitude, her fault. This is what the basic outline of their conversation:
L: What are you doing?
ACO: I'm investigating a complaint of animal cruelty?
L: Why?
ACO: Because I got a report of two dogs in a car.
L: The dogs are fine.
ACO: Can I see your license?
L: No, why do you need to see it? No crime has been committed.
ACO: I need to see your license.
L: Fine, here you go.
L: There's nothing more to investigate. You should leave.
ACO: I will leave when I want to. Got it?
L: You work for me, and are mistreating me.
ACO: No, I don't. You Woodland Hills people don't pay me. I work for the City of Provo.
L: I have a business in Provo.
ACO: That's it. I'm calling for backup punk!
Res. Officer: Turn around.
L: No,I haven't broken any law.
RO: Bam, take that stick.
L: Lunges.
Not Civil Right to Not Comply | 5:52 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
If a police officer asks to see your license during a stop and you refuse to
comply, and if other officers are called and you are asked to turn around and
you refuse, you ARE breaking the law that was legislated by our elected
officials NOT by police officers. If everyone has the "civil right" to
refuse to comply with an officer if they think they have done nothing wrong we
would have anarchy.
Whoever called the officer in the first place, get a life, and it sounds like Mr. L needs some life improvement too. To the officers who made him comply with their reasonable requests, I am glad you made it home alive to your spouse and kids. Sure some officers need to chill with their attitudes (as people in any line of work) but the suggestion that they just walk away when a suspect gets "authoritative" is ridiculous.
Whoever called the officer in the first place, get a life, and it sounds like Mr. L needs some life improvement too. To the officers who made him comply with their reasonable requests, I am glad you made it home alive to your spouse and kids. Sure some officers need to chill with their attitudes (as people in any line of work) but the suggestion that they just walk away when a suspect gets "authoritative" is ridiculous.
Matthew | 6:21 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
My question is this: did he at anytime threaten physical violence against the
officers before they struck him. If not, then it is excessive force and police
brutality. If he did, then he isn't being truthful and he brought it on
himself.
The police have a tough job, but from my observations they tend to be much too lenient if someone grovels to them and they tend to be much too harsh if someone (justifiably of not) refuses to grovel. This makes me willing to believe the man's version of events.
I've seen a lot of criminals that I've reported walk away free by groveling and I've had a police officer get beligerant with me on my door step while I was trying to get a crime reported and treated seriously.
The result of the police's approach is that a lot of guilty people go unpunished and a lot of innocent people are, at best, inconvenienced and, at worst, harmed by the police.
The training and supervision they receive needs to reduce the incidence of both types of errors.
The police have a tough job, but from my observations they tend to be much too lenient if someone grovels to them and they tend to be much too harsh if someone (justifiably of not) refuses to grovel. This makes me willing to believe the man's version of events.
I've seen a lot of criminals that I've reported walk away free by groveling and I've had a police officer get beligerant with me on my door step while I was trying to get a crime reported and treated seriously.
The result of the police's approach is that a lot of guilty people go unpunished and a lot of innocent people are, at best, inconvenienced and, at worst, harmed by the police.
The training and supervision they receive needs to reduce the incidence of both types of errors.
Wow people | 6:32 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
I'm glad to see all the lawyers and experts on here today.
Let's just make it clear...did he deserve to be beat? No.
Was he a big jerk? Absolutly.
I am a believer in personal rights, but at the same time why couldn't he be a little more courteous?
Let's just make it clear...did he deserve to be beat? No.
Was he a big jerk? Absolutly.
I am a believer in personal rights, but at the same time why couldn't he be a little more courteous?
Why In The World? | 7:25 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
Did the discussion with the Animal Control officer even need to continue when
the dogs were fine? That's just stupid. Mr. L., just follow the simple
instructions, and all was well. But the officers? GET OVER YOURSELVES! Serve and
protect, not beat down those too stupid to close their mouths...
Sue the Police | 7:42 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
I would file the largest lawsuit the USA has ever seen against a police dept. if
I were treated like he was. If this guy files a lawsuit, please pick me to be on
the jury. The police have really over stepped the line again.(remeber the taser
incident in Vernal last year). THis time it was Provo. Maybe the SLC East Bench
next time.
Common Sense | 7:46 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
There was a time when the police officers worked with you. The man may have
been a little belligerent but so what. He still allowed the officer to look at
the dogs to ensure they were safe by opening the door. If he were guilty of
animal cruelty I highly doubt he would have done that much.
Mr. Lauridsen was right to question the authority of the officer's continued aggression once the proof that no crime was being committed had been given. It seems clear based on this story that the animal control officer lost control once her pride was affected by this man's not submitting to her perceived authority.
Mr. Lauridsen was right to question the authority of the officer's continued aggression once the proof that no crime was being committed had been given. It seems clear based on this story that the animal control officer lost control once her pride was affected by this man's not submitting to her perceived authority.
Common Sense part 2 | 7:49 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
And one more thing. Yes, an officer can ask for ID when he has probable cause,
i.e., a "Traffic Law Violation" etc. As Mr. Lauridsen had allowed the
officer to see first hand that the animals in question were not in any danger
whatsoever, the probable cause need to establish ID was no longer applicable.
In essence, had this been mid-July on a hot day? Even with cracked windows, those dogs would most definitely had been in serious danger, and a crime of animal cruelty would have been obvious. But it was 40 degrees outside, and no danger whatsoever.
This is NOT a police state yet!! If we don't stand up for our rights though we are well on our way to losing them.
In essence, had this been mid-July on a hot day? Even with cracked windows, those dogs would most definitely had been in serious danger, and a crime of animal cruelty would have been obvious. But it was 40 degrees outside, and no danger whatsoever.
This is NOT a police state yet!! If we don't stand up for our rights though we are well on our way to losing them.
TK | 9:12 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
All you really got is one side of the story.. Provo PD can't comment in
detail because of an Internal Affairs investigation. The way most of you natter
about rights and power hungry cops is, well, funny. You probably wouldn't
know a personal right if it jumped out of the Constitution and hit you in the
face let alone interpret it correctly. Excessive force, police brutality, cats
and dogs living together, lions and tigers and bears oh my....
Someof the facts | 9:43 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
are obviously missing. Remember, they've interviewed only the alleged
victim. I guarantee you it didn't quite happen they way he told it. I give
the cops credit. I do wish they had tasers, it would have been better all the
way around.
IQ 92 | 9:50 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
He summed it up himself. Regular "authoritative" (i.e., belligerent)
people might deserve a thumpin'. He clearly stated that he is at/beyond the
$1,000,000 cooperation threshold.
JamminJ | 9:53 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
How come the cops get to an animal cruelty call so quickly, but when I call the
cops because teenagers are doing drugs behind my house they take over 40 minutes
to get there. By then the teenagers were long gone.
Anonymous | 9:57 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
TK,
"All you really got is one side of the story."
And when the police release their report all you will have is another one-sided story. Just because they will release it after he has spoken about it doesn't mean that it is any more believable. If he wanted until they released their report to have an attorney release an official report on behalf of his family it wouldn't mean his side is correct either so we have to judge based on the entire context of the incident which is already available. We know that:
1) animal control invested a report of abuse,
2) that it was 40 degree weather,
3) the dogs were locked in a car,
4) this isn't a crime,
5) he disagreed with the ACO,
6) the ACO asked for identification,
7) he refused at first but finally consented,
8) he w
8) he told ACO there wasn't more to investigate,
9) he told ACO that she worked for him,
10) ACO made a sarcastic comment about him being from Woodland Hills and that she worked for Provo,
11) we know that he said he owned a business in Provo,
"All you really got is one side of the story."
And when the police release their report all you will have is another one-sided story. Just because they will release it after he has spoken about it doesn't mean that it is any more believable. If he wanted until they released their report to have an attorney release an official report on behalf of his family it wouldn't mean his side is correct either so we have to judge based on the entire context of the incident which is already available. We know that:
1) animal control invested a report of abuse,
2) that it was 40 degree weather,
3) the dogs were locked in a car,
4) this isn't a crime,
5) he disagreed with the ACO,
6) the ACO asked for identification,
7) he refused at first but finally consented,
8) he w
8) he told ACO there wasn't more to investigate,
9) he told ACO that she worked for him,
10) ACO made a sarcastic comment about him being from Woodland Hills and that she worked for Provo,
11) we know that he said he owned a business in Provo,
She was violating his rights | 10:14 p.m. Feb. 5, 2009
IQ 92,
"He summed it up himself. Regular "authoritative" (i.e., belligerent) people might deserve a thumpin'. He clearly stated that he is at/beyond the $1,000,000 cooperation threshold."
He only brought up his income because she made a sarcastic comment about how the Provo City Animal Control don't work for residents of Woodland Hills and work for Provo City. He was making a valid point that she was harassing him and that he didn't have to cooperate since there was nothing to investigate. She should have told him that he was under arrest and informed him of what he was being charged with if she thought he had no right to tell her to take a hike.
None of his actions everyone objects to is a crime. His initial refusal to show ID is his right since it wasn't a traffic stop but he humored her and chose to give her ID anyways. He then told her that there was nothing more to investigate and that she should just leave. It wasn't his income that matter as much as it was her belief she was above the law and could harass him.
"He summed it up himself. Regular "authoritative" (i.e., belligerent) people might deserve a thumpin'. He clearly stated that he is at/beyond the $1,000,000 cooperation threshold."
He only brought up his income because she made a sarcastic comment about how the Provo City Animal Control don't work for residents of Woodland Hills and work for Provo City. He was making a valid point that she was harassing him and that he didn't have to cooperate since there was nothing to investigate. She should have told him that he was under arrest and informed him of what he was being charged with if she thought he had no right to tell her to take a hike.
None of his actions everyone objects to is a crime. His initial refusal to show ID is his right since it wasn't a traffic stop but he humored her and chose to give her ID anyways. He then told her that there was nothing more to investigate and that she should just leave. It wasn't his income that matter as much as it was her belief she was above the law and could harass him.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Chris Lauridsen shows bruises he says he received from police beating him with nightsticks.
- New plans for Sandy Proscenium land 3:27 p.m.
- Holladay development appeal denied 2:59 p.m.
- BYU bug to aid in soil clean up 2:50 p.m.
- Provo council members say goodbye 2:49 p.m.
- Rancher run over by tractor, injured 2:45 p.m.
- Stronger retail boost stocks 2:44 p.m.
- Snow hampers missing mom search 2:24 p.m.
- Gun laws becoming more loose 2:16 p.m.
- Drug combo improves cancer survival 2:13 p.m.
- Cable falls on I-80; lanes reopened 2:11 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
268 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl207
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall194
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil151
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness133
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
Latest comments
Obama has said he will reinstate the ban on assault weapons. Clinton did....
There's a Napolian complext that goes along with gun mania. Poeple that get...
We'll break down some scores for all of you. I'll place totals plus number...
Cesar!!!!!!!! You are Real!!
DREAMING! Unless we want no police force, fire fighters, or teachers in...
Good its about time people realize gun laws NEED to GO away.
Why aren't Josh Powell's Parents coming to the aid of their son if he is...
T-Mobile is an odd choice for a mostly rural state. I use it and it is great...
I wish we could be there but living here in CA it would difficult. I wish...
He's the lone voice of reason on the Holladay city council. Holladay's mad...
Advertisements