Testimony Reveals Confusion, Cuypers Not a  Threat Before Tasing

Three officers who testified against Ian Cuypers in a July 2024 municipal court trial now face new scrutiny as their own words contradict the justifications for force used during the incident. Cuypers, who was tased during a traffic stop while working as a DoorDash driver, is suing the City of Superior and the officers for civil rights violations.

At trial, Officers Justin Taylor and Taylor Gaard, along with Sgt. Matthew Brown, offered overlapping accounts that point to a confused, unarmed motorist met with multiple conflicting police commands.

“Yes, multiple officers were giving commands. I can see how that could be confusing.” — Officer Justin Taylor

Taylor initiated the stop for a wrong-way traffic violation. He and Gaard approached the vehicle with weapons drawn. According to Gaard:

“We were all shouting commands. In hindsight, it may have been hard for him to understand.”

Cuypers reportedly asked “Why?” multiple times before being tased.

Crucially, all three officers confirmed they did not observe a weapon or a direct threat. Taylor stated:

“I couldn’t see exactly what he was reaching for. It could have been nothing.”

Gaard likewise admitted:

“I didn’t see a weapon, but he moved his hand fast and didn’t comply. I took that as a threat.”

Sgt. Brown, the supervisor on scene, echoed those concerns:

“Looking back, we could’ve slowed things down. There wasn’t an immediate threat.”

“The video shows the driver asking questions. He doesn’t look like someone trying to flee or attack.”

Additional quotes raise further concern:

“He seemed confused. He kept asking ‘What’s going on?’” — Officer Justin Taylor

“He didn’t respond, just kept asking ‘Why?’” — Officer Gaard

“There was definitely overlap in commands. That’s something we’re reviewing internally.” — Sgt. Brown

These admissions could weigh heavily in the federal lawsuit, where Cuypers alleges excessive force and unlawful arrest. A municipal jury acquitted him of obstruction charges.

Potential Liability for Taxpayers

Cuypers is suing the City of Superior and three officers individually in federal court on allegations of excessive force and false arrest/arrest. A loss or settlement could create taxpayer liability, something which raises the additional issues about the officers’ orders, discipline, de-escalation techniques, and training.

If a failure to keep orders distinct and to the point led to use of a taser unnecessarily, what has been done or what has changed since that time to make sure it will not happen again? And who is overseeing that in city leadership?

Open questions

What has been the training or discipline for this incident?

Has the taser policy been re-evaluated or changed?

Why use a taser at all if officers admitted no weapon was present and there was no threat to safety?

City Hall Silence

The silence from Superior’s City Council and Mayor’s Office regarding the tasing of a DoorDash driver speaks volumes. Not a single public statement has addressed the incident — no context, no concern, and no commitment to transparency. The irony is sharpest with Councilor Nick Ledin, a civics teacher who regularly teaches the values of public accountability and democratic engagement, yet remains mute as a public official. With an election looming in April, his silence is not just politically risky — it’s civically embarrassing. If you’re a student looking to your leaders for real-world examples of civic courage, the lesson here is deeply disappointing.

Everything in this report is based on public records, budget documents, and statements by public officials. Any analysis is opinion about public policy, public conduct, or use of taxpayer funds.

#TheNewsTheTelegramSkips

#TelegramCoversUpNotNews