🧨 Tased, Confused, and Prosecuted Anyway

Why Was Ian Cuypers Charged by the City Attorney and Not the DA?

Imagine this: You’re 22, driving DoorDash to pay your rent. You make a wrong turn down a one-way street in Superior, Wisconsin—land of grain elevators and “public safety” theater—and next thing you know, you’re getting tased like you’re trying to hijack Air Force One.

Enter Ian Cuypers, the latest poster child for how quickly a small-town traffic stop can go from mundane to mayhem—with the legal system playing whack-a-mole on your civil rights.

But here’s the million-volt question:
Why the hell was this case prosecuted by the City Attorney and not the District Attorney—especially when red flags were waving from the jump?

Let’s follow the juice.

⚖️ District Attorney vs. City Attorney: What’s the Difference, Anyway?

Let’s break it down Barney-style:

• District Attorney (DA): Handles criminal cases—think felonies, serious misdemeanors, anything that might land you in prison or on a Netflix docuseries.

• City Attorney: Handles municipal ordinance violations—basically adult detention slips. Think “don’t litter,” “no open containers,” and “stop resisting while we tase you repeatedly for not kneeling fast enough.”

Ian Cuypers was originally hit with:

• Driving the wrong way (okay, fine—municipal ticket, sure).

• Resisting or obstructing an officer (a.k.a. the catch-all cop ego insurance policy).

But here’s where things get real slimy:
Instead of pushing that resisting charge to the District Attorney—where the higher standard of proof and actual scrutiny might’ve nuked it—the city kept it in-house.

The result? Cuypers was prosecuted under a city ordinance, not state criminal law.

Why? Because it’s easier to win. And harder to prove police screwed up.

🧯 Warning Signs Were Everywhere

Let’s not act like this was a clean arrest.

• Multiple officers with weapons drawn on a guy delivering tacos.

• Conflicting commands shouted at a visibly confused driver.

• Tased multiple times.

• Bodycam footage reportedly raised eyebrows even inside SPD.

So here’s the thing: even SPD was apparently uneasy about the optics. Sources close to the department say concerns about “officer conduct” were raised right away. Some called the whole thing a “bad look.”

But instead of taking a breath and assessing the fallout, the City Attorney’s office doubled down, deciding to prosecute Cuypers under an ordinance that wouldn’t hold up in a real courtroom with a real judge applying the real rules of evidence.

Because here’s the dirty secret:
When the city prosecutes you for a municipal violation, you don’t get:

• A jury trial (unless you raise hell).

• A public defender by default.

• The same level of procedural protection.

So it’s basically “court lite”—low-cal justice with all the accountability of a school lunch monitor.

🕵️ Translation: It Was a PR Move Disguised as Law

This wasn’t about “justice.” This was about CYA—Cover Your Arrests.

SPD knew it looked bad. The city knew it looked bad. But instead of admitting a mistake, they needed to justify the tasing. They needed Cuypers to be “resisting” so the taser wouldn’t seem like overkill.

So, what’s the game?

• File under a city ordinance = less media attention.

• Push the narrative of “noncompliance” = justify the force.

• Win in local court = vindicate officers without real oversight.

Meanwhile, Cuypers’ life gets ripped up like a parking ticket in a snowstorm.

👨‍⚖️ Jury Saw Through It Anyway

Despite the city attorney’s best efforts, Cuypers was acquitted of the resisting/obstruction charge. A jury of his peers looked at the evidence and said:
“Yeah, nah—this ain’t it.”

Let that sink in. Even under the watered-down standards of a municipal court setup, the case still fell apart.

🤔 So… Why Would the City Prosecute This?

Let’s line up the reasons:

✅ To shield SPD from legal liability

If Cuypers is found guilty of resisting, it creates legal cover for tasing him. It also kneecaps any future civil-rights claims.

✅ To control the narrative

By keeping it in city court, they keep it small. Less attention. Less scrutiny. Less risk of bodycam footage being analyzed like the Zapruder film.

✅ To intimidate the victim

Being charged at all—even with something minor—puts the victim on defense. It’s a classic bully tactic. “We shocked you, now we sue you.”

✅ To avoid the DA punting

Let’s be real: a real prosecutor might’ve looked at the file and said “pass.” Nobody wants to attach their name to “State vs. The Tasered Doordash Guy.”

🚨 Final Crossing Signal

This isn’t about a bad driver. It’s about weaponizing local government to sanitize bad policing.

By shifting prosecution away from the District Attorney—and into the cozy little back room of the City Attorney’s office—the City of Superior essentially tried to launder an abusive arrest through a rigged system.

If this kind of thing can happen to a delivery driver on a snowy Tuesday, it can happen to literally anyone. And if local governments are going to prosecute civil rights violations as if they’re parking tickets, we might as well just start handing out tasers with every citation.

#SuperiorCoverUp   #AuditSuperior