The Transcript That Keeps Saying “Correct.”
If you ever wanted to hear the word “Correct” weaponized, buckle up.
On October 3, 2025, former Superior Police Officer Taylor Gaard gave sworn testimony in federal court in Ian Cuypers v. Superior Police Department Officer Justin Taylor .
And the deposition reads like a call-and-response church service for use-of-force policy.
Attorney: “Passive resistance is not actively resisting or higher; correct?”
Gaard: “Correct.”
Attorney: “So it was your understanding that it was not appropriate to use tasers on a passively resisting suspect?”
Gaard: “Correct.”
Somewhere, a civil litigator whispered, “Amen.”
The Taser Training Greatest Hits
Let’s go line by line, because the transcript sure does.
On What a Taser Can Do
Gaard acknowledged training materials stating tasers can cause:
“Death or serious injury.”
And when asked if that constitutes significant force?
Her answer:
“Correct.”
That’s not ambiguous. That’s not “it depends.” That’s a neon sign blinking: THIS IS SERIOUS.
On Passive Resistance
The department’s own definitions were reviewed under oath:
Passive resistance: “Non-threatening and non-compliant behavior.”
Active resistance: Behavior that physically counteracts control efforts and creates risk of bodily harm.
Then came the hammer:
Attorney:
“This policy does not authorize the use of a taser in response to passive resistance; correct?”
Gaard:
“Yes. That’s correct.”
That’s not a maybe. That’s not a footnote. That’s an admission.
On Verbal Defiance and Belligerence
From AXON training materials:
“Do not use for verbal defiance.”
“Do not use for belligerence.”
Under oath:
Attorney:
“It was your understanding that a taser should not be used in response to verbal defiance?”
Gaard:
“Correct.”
Attorney:
“And not for belligerence?”
Gaard:
“Yes.”
So not for mouthing off.
Not for attitude.
Not for sass.
This isn’t 1987 detention hall.
On Minimum Force
Training slide, Question 13:
“Use the minimum force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.”
“Use force only on those actively resisting or higher.”
Under oath:
“It was your understanding that it was appropriate to use a taser only on those actively resisting or higher?”
Gaard:
“Correct.”
Then the follow-up:
“Passive resistance… is not actively resisting or higher; correct?”
Gaard:
“Correct.”
There it is again. Like a drumbeat.
The Traffic Stop That Wasn’t “Heat”
Let’s zoom out.
February 28, 2024.
Reason for stop? Likely driving the wrong way down a one-way street.
Attorney:
“Going the wrong way on a one-way… usually doesn’t end in arrest; correct?”
Gaard:
“Yes.”
Five officers responded.
Five uniforms. Five firearms. Multiple tasers.
Attorney:
“There were five bodies there in SPD uniforms; right?”
Gaard:
“Yes.”
And she drew her firearm before the driver exited the vehicle.
That’s not a parking ticket vibe. That’s a SWAT audition.
The Resume Meets Reality
Gaard testified she holds two bachelor’s degrees—criminology and psychology. She attended academy training. She was taser-certified through AXON.
No prior discipline. No suspensions.
This wasn’t ignorance. This wasn’t lack of training.
This was someone who acknowledged, repeatedly and clearly, what the policy said.
And juries don’t ignore repetition.
The Legal Tightrope
One exchange may end up living rent-free in closing arguments:
Attorney:
“In February of 2024, it was your understanding that the use of a taser was not appropriate in response to passive resistance; correct?”
Gaard:
“That’s correct.”
The courtroom version of Chekhov’s gun.
You introduce that line early?
It’s firing in trial.
Final Crossing Signal
Depositions don’t yell.
They don’t posture.
They just stack admissions like VHS tapes in a Blockbuster clearance bin.
And when a transcript echoes “Correct” over and over on key policy limits, the real question isn’t what training said.
It’s whether training meant anything when it counted.
Federal court will decide.
Stay tuned.
Sources :
Disclaimer
This article is commentary based on publicly filed deposition testimony in federal court . Allegations remain subject to judicial determination. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. This piece reflects opinion and analysis for public discussion.
FEDERAL COURT – Brady Status Email – LeRette Case
This FOIA record contains a May 16, 2025 email from Kate Harrell to Mikayla LeRette, Robert Powell, and Richard Gondik. The subject is “Re: Brady Consideration.” The email discusses whether Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf had made a Brady or Giglio determination about LeRette. The thread follows LeRette’s May 15, 2025 message. She asked for clarity about what the district attorney needed before clearing
SPD Decoder Ring: Leadership Swaps That Lawyers Love
Federal Court Is a Soap Opera With Footnotes You know what never lies?A calendar. Federal court cases love two things: dates and who had authority on those dates. So here’s your Superior PD Promotion & Retirement Decoder Ring—built for anyone tired of “We take this seriously” while your tax bill quietly weeps. How to Use This Ring When a complaint says any of this, grab the
FEDERAL COURT : LeRette Duty Return – DA Fruehauf Warning
Email Shows Officer LeRette Returned To Duty This email thread dates from November 18–19, 2024. It centers on Officer LeRette’s return from administrative leave. Douglas County District Attorney Mark Fruehauf asked City of Superior officials for an update on the internal process involving LeRette. He wrote that he had heard she was restored to active duty. He also stated his understanding that the internal process
FEDERAL COURT – Superior’s 50k OIR Report Clears Pope in LeRette Claims ?
OIR Group report reveals misconduct claims against Superior PD’s Michelle Pope, detailing allegations of discrimination and investigative findings.
FEDERAL COURT – Union Letter Accuses City of Blocking Grievance
Union disputes city grievance handling, demanding timely responses and accountability in a labor dispute. Taxpayer interests at stake.
