Utah reaches decision on trooper’s actions in the tasing of the bro
posted at 1:54 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The battle raged for 742 glorious comments. If you said the trooper was justified in busting out the tase on a guy who’d turned his back to him and put his hand in his pocket, you’ve won official Hot Air bragging rights. Kudos!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
It could hardly be otherwise. When the police issue a command, your compliance is not optional.
paul006 on December 1, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I love how people kept saying that the guy got tased for refusing to sign a speeding ticket. Even the Fox News types kept iterating that falsehood.
baldilocks on December 1, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Is that the new motto of the utah police, “we’ll taze ya, bro”
lorien1973 on December 1, 2007 at 2:02 PM
What I would like to know is if there is a longer, unedited version of the cop cam available. If I understand correctly, what we’ve seen was what the driver released, so I anticipate the full video may not be so viewer-friendly to his cause.
Spirit of 1776 on December 1, 2007 at 2:04 PM
So the cop bosses stick up for the cop. Big deal, CYA from the thin blue line.
infidel4life on December 1, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I bet the nitwit signs his next ticket. Another card carrying member of the “It’s all about me” generation.
repvoter on December 1, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Not justified. Of course he just pulled him over because he was black. What a racist.
RobCon on December 1, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Heh. I think the cop overreacted, and the video of the Maine speeding ticket incident seems to demonstrate that the other extreme in law enforcement procedures work, too.
That said, any fratboy nitwit that refuses a reasonable instruction by the state cops after getting pulled over for speeding pretty much can expect some disappointment in life, or maybe a taser.
Jaibones on December 1, 2007 at 2:18 PM
*pats self on back*
I’ve got the “bragging rights”! I never doubted for a moment the officer was well within his authority to use the taser on that dude.
You have to always remember…the officer who pulls you over has no idea who you are or what you’re capable of. Cops get shot or worse all the time from simple routine traffic stops. And expecially since the officer was alone, he has every right to protect himself from someone who repeatedly refused the officer’s demands.
JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Both participants could have handled the situation better. Plenty of fault to go around.
infidel on December 1, 2007 at 2:34 PM
When you’re on the shirt side of the badge it’s a whole different perspective. I’ve told my sons, when you are stopped, it’s “Yes sir, no sir, I will comply”. Nothing else is optional. Even if you think the patrolman is wrong, then is not the time to argue. If you do otherwise, you get what you ask for. Cops aren’t perfect, none of us are. When you may be an eye-blink from death from the person you stop for a routine traffic violation, you are ready for anything and, yes, overreaction is possible. That’s life. Deal with it. Get over it. Don’t get stopped. If you do, DO WHAT HE SAYS. Argue in court. Keep your hands where they can be seen. It should be a no-brainer.
Roger Brown on December 1, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Good? Bad? I’m the guy with the gun! – Ash . . . or was that Evil Ash? Anyway . .
You think Internal Affairs plays games?
- The Cat
MirCat on December 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM
This means nothing.
Ultimately the decision will not be made by government bureaucrats, it will be made by a jury of the people. I am confident that this will be a lawsuit, and the state will end up either settling for a hefty sum in order to avoid continued press coverage, or the state will lose a jury trial and pay even more.
The fact that there have been an overwhelming number of calls to the police critical of the officer should tell you something about how a potential jury might feel.
And no, I don’t think it is reasonable to see this guy as a threat because he was walking back to his car (the cop had no right to force him out of the car to begin with, as failure to sign wasnt an arrestable offense), with GASP, his HAND NEAR HIS POCKET! HOW SCARY! Give me a break. I rolled my eyes at that one, and so will the jury.
So why dont you hold off talking about bragging rights until we see if this guys gets 6-7 figures out of the state over this. For that kind of money, you can tase me all you want.
kaltes on December 1, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Spot on.
JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Braggin’ rights! WOO HOOOO!
This is pretty cool, but it doesn’t beat my ULTIMATE HotAir braggin’ right … I got a ‘virtual kiss’ from the BossLady for answering her trivia question on HotAir Live!
This clown turned his back on the cop and had his hand in his pocket, the cop doesn’t know what, if anything, the kid has in his hand. He did the right thing. It’s easy in retrospect to say “He didn’t have anything in his hand.” But if you were the cop, would you take that risk? No, you’d get home safe to your wife and kids.
Tony737 on December 1, 2007 at 2:45 PM
…then you may have been wrong, but the Utah officials agree with you. Again, just because a driver does something wrong doesn’t mean an officer is justified in doing anything to correct you.
That’s like saying Clinton got impeached for sex or Nixon resigned over a burglary. True in an if-but sense, but certainly not true on its face.
It was an unedited video as shot from the police car from pull-over to tasing. What exactly do you think could be missing?
calbear on December 1, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Great! Now if only we can get a definitive ruling for all the Christianity vs. Atheism 700+ comment threads.
Weight of Glory on December 1, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Can you imagine how different this story would be, and how much attention it would have received had the driver been black?
shooter on December 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Things my daddy told me:
Keep your mouth shut.
Sign the ticket.
Do what you’re told – Don’t give them a reason to beat on you.
This guy’s daddy not around, or what?
TinMan13 on December 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Awesome!!! I’ve got a HotAir coffee mug and now, official HotAir bragging rights and kudos from Allahpundit. I feel like one of the fold.
Joshua P. Allem on December 1, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I got pulled over a couple of days ago, goin 50 in a 40 (I thought it was a 55). When the cop asked me to sign the ticket I said. Yes Sir! and signed.
But he also went into a speech, even as I was signing it, that signing the ticket was not an admission of guilt, only a written promise to appear in court or pay the fine.
If you do not make that written promise then they will take you to jail, in Texas anyway, thereby guaranteeing that you will appear in court
Keli on December 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Without certificates, it’s not official for any of you.
Entelechy on December 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Correct. And it’s a good thing for all concerned that the cop didn’t do
to correct this individual. It’s also a good thing that most who felt that the policeman was justified for tasing this person for not submitting to arrest (aka resisting arrest) did not argue that the police would have been justified in doing anything to remedy this–such as shooting him.
This is an exactly appropriate analogy, so I’m not sure why you think that is was wrong to tase that guy. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you (or vice versa).
baldilocks on December 1, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Wow, the UDPS, parent agency of the UHP come to the conclusion it’s employee’s actions were justified. Knock me over with a feather.
As an aside, my son just got a speeding ticket in Indiana from the State Police. They didn’t even request a signature. Not needed.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Sorry but you are mistaken, if you have done something wrong and a police officer witnesses it, he is legally required to take certain actions. The severity of those actions are directly related to 1) what he witnessed you do and 2) your direct response to his authority.
For example, you are legally required to provide valid identification to a member of the law enforcement community any time they request it from you, no probably cause required.
Failure to willfully resist this request is grounds for arrest anywhere in the United States. Any attempt at resisting arrest is legal justification for a law enforcement officer to use whatever physical force is required to render your submission.
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 3:12 PM
As I said in the long thread, most law-abiding black people have long historical/anecdotal memory of DWB and have sense enough not to behave in the manner in which Mr. Massey did.
baldilocks on December 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Opps that should read…willfully resisting…
doriangrey on December 1, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Just put yoursselves in the Trooper’s position. There you are on a highway miles from anywhere. Are you going to get physical with someone or hit him with the Taser.
davod on December 1, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I am on the side of the patrolman in this case. Mostly I am just adding a post to see if we can get this back up into the 700 comment range again.
Mallard T. Drake on December 1, 2007 at 3:21 PM
“The trooper pulled out his Taser when the driver tried to return to his seat.”
And the above is an outright falsehood. Gardner, the officer, pulled it out as he turned around after laying his clipboard on his vehicle. His intention for asking Massey to exit his vehicle was to arrest him.
Coupling this falsehood, and the intent of Gardner to arrest Massey at the moment Massey refused to sign, with the acknowledgement that “Officials said Gardner could have issued the ticket without Massey’s signature” is more than enough proof that Gardner exceeded both his authority and responsibility. Gardner should be fired.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 3:24 PM
In this case, true. But that kind of thinking is damaging for democracy. There are such things as unlawful orders, like an officer demanding to search your effects without cause, without a warrant, and without consent. You have options, you just have to know when you have them. I never consent to searches, even though my “disobedience” or “uncooperative nature” costs me an extended duration of police scrutiny. Who said it, “Guard with jealous attention…”
Free Constitution on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 PM
[Free Constitution on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 PM]
Agreed.
For those who consider “When the police issue a command, your compliance is not optional.” to be the operable principle, don’t come crying to the Internet to solicit sympathy because the officer told you to get on your knees and open your mouth and you resisted.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 3:39 PM
This is where two jerks met, the jerk with the Taser exacerbated a simple speeding ticket into a potentially dangerous situation and its his responsibility to perform his job in a manner that avoids escalation.
Speakup on December 1, 2007 at 3:39 PM
And if you don’t sign your certificates, well, you know what will happen.
inviolet on December 1, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Just wait. There will be a civil trial before twelve ordinary persons. That verdict will be the one that counts and the storm-trooper with the chip on his shoulder and an inability to communicate effectively will go down. Ca-ching $$$
tommylotto on December 1, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Like I said repeatedly in the other thread and now confirmed by the UHP itself. That trooper could have issued the ticket without a signature and the matter would have STILL been left for the court to decide. The trooper wanted to elevate the situation for some reason.
But anyways, the matter seems to be settled internally within the UHP. Will this Massey fellow go civil? I don’t know, but I am willing to bet a jury may just see things differently.
I can say the UHP is feeling heat from this. Our own local radio station held a forum on this matter and a representative from the UHP sat there for a hour and took some very critical calls from the public. I did have to give him credit though, he remained calm through out the whole thing. But he also answered a lot of questions with the obligatory “we’re looking into it“.
Like I said, this isn’t over yet. We will have to see if there is going to be any civil action.
Sammy316 on December 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Well, I don’t know what my thinking might mean for democracy, which is just a term for decisions by the majority. (Democracy per se is only a procedure; it doesn’t necessarily guarantee you any rights.)
But I do know what my thinking means for the rule of law. If people were at liberty to disobey the orders of law enforcement whenever they perceived the orders to be unfair or unjust, we could not maintain civil order. Rare is the suspect who admits to having been properly detained.
If you believe an officer has behaved unlawfully (or even unprofessionally), our system affords avenues of relief — none of which can be found on the side of the road during a garden variety traffic stop. The officer wrote this man up for speeding, a common experience familiar to millions of Americans. The officer was not trying to force the man to board a train bound for Dachau. Some perspective is in good order.
paul006 on December 1, 2007 at 4:14 PM
It sounds to me like the parent company says the cop was in the right, but that the attorney general’s opinion isn’t in yet.
frost on December 1, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Once again 2 wrongs don’t make a right…1st off the officer had an attitude…not the 1st to do that. 2nd he jumped the gun (rhetorical), the driver asked for an explanation as to why he was getting a ticket, not unreasonable and have the officer show him where he violated a law. The officer took offense to his reaction and wasn’t about to let this disperado get away with his attitude…after all he is the strong arm of the law. The officer decides to arrest him for not signing the ticket which is apparently an option. Being from Utah but not having not received a ticket since ‘70 as I remember by signing the ticket your agreeing to show in court, if you don’t sign and don’t show to court a bench warrant is issued for your arrest by the court. Now here is where their both wrong…the driver should have signed and protested the ticket in court. The officer should have explained his options if the driver didn’t sign ticket and moved on. I think this is where the 2 personalities crashed…both wrong!
oldernslower on December 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM
guess who pays those verdicts… (cha ching$$$!) you… WE! do. Maybe the guy should have taken the ticket and gone to court. why should the cop sit there and get spit on? I think officers should have an expectation that citizens comply with their reasonable requests (or orders). Signing a ticket is reasonable. Most have no idea what these officers see daily and how many of them have been shot by angry people on the side of the road. If you get agressive w/ a cop, I guess the other option is the baton or his sidearm… both are less desireable. (FYI, a groups of ER physicians have published an independent study reaffirming the safety of the taser.) Was this cop a wienie… yes. could he have handled it better… yes. but when you act like this guy did you are rolling the dice hoping you are going to get a cop who a. is way more tolerant than most people, and b. is experienced enough (or complacent enough) to not get spooked. This tool should not get any tax money for speeding and acting like an ass.
BadBrad on December 1, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I love being right.
SuperManGreenLantern on December 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM
For now. The State Attorney is looking into it plus the guy may bring it to civil court.
peacenprosperity on December 1, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Utah is doing CYA here. Cops in Chicago do this ALL the time. “Wackem and stackem” So I am not impressed with an internal finding exonerating the officer.
The large number of comments critical of the officer indicate that the People are NOT in agreement. If this results in a civil suit, the state may not prevail in a jury trial,.
In our Republic, the police do NOT determine our rights. We do, either with the soap xox, ballot box or the Jury box. In extremis, as in Athebs, TN in1946, the cartridge box. In one way or another, we, the People will have the final say.
I believe the officer used excessive force and that a JURY viewing the video would find for the driver in a brtality or excessive force federal suit.
georgej on December 1, 2007 at 4:34 PM
This is exactly my take on the whole situation. Thanks oldernslower!
inviolet on December 1, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Keep in mind that the driver complied with the officer’s orders (arguing all the time, but complying) until the officer suddenly started yelling at him, he turned to look at the officer and there was a weapon in his face.
In the driver’s mind he could conceivably have now thought he was dealing with a rogue cop looking to hurt him whether he complies or not. (Everyone knows there are some out there, and how can you tell prior to getting killed/beaten except by the cop’s behavior?) If the driver did believe this, then in his mind the officer might as well have been forcing him onto a train bound for Dachau.
In my opinion, at the moment of the tasing, the cop was in the right for the reasons already given. However, when the cop pulled the taser (before the driver had failed to comply with any order), the cop escalated from a verbal disagreement to a physical altercation so quickly that most ordinary people would have been stunned and at least thought what the driver said out loud: “What the hell is wrong with you?” Then possibly thought some other things: “This guy’s unstable, is he going to beat the crap out of me because I was arguing with him? Sure seems like it. Maybe I can get out of here.”
frost on December 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Just a quick reminder: The fact that the officer COULD have sent the driver on his way without signing the promise to appear doesn’t mean that he HAS to or that he’s not ALLOWED to arrest the driver for refusing to sign a promise to appear.
It’s an OPTION.
To say that it’s unreasonable for the officer to arrest the person, something that the law allows him to do under the circumstances, because he didn’t HAVE to is the same as saying that every ticket ever issued is inappropriate because the officer on the scene COULD have issued a warning instead.
In other words: Bullsh*t.
Could the officer here have done a better job of explaining, very patiently as you would to any other person with the intellect of a three-year-old not wanting to eat his strained peas, that his signature wasn’t an admission of guilt, but that it WAS in lieu of the officer taking him in to be lined up in front of a magistrate, FOR HIS CONVENIENCE, and that failure to comply IS an arrestable offense?
Yes, he could. And if my grandma was a trolley, I could ride for free. All of you armchair highway patrolmen are more than welcome to join the force and go out there to show us troglodytes how it’s supposed to be done.
Was the officer legally justified in arresting the driver?
Yes.
Was he legally justified in using minimal force to subdue a non-compliant arrestee resisting arrest?
Yes.
So quit crying, already. If an officer is an arse, and some of them are, take it to court or try to get a judge and 12 jurors to show up on the shoulder of the highway if you insist that your Constitutional rights are being violated unless they do so.
Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM
…and that’s quite possible, but then he’d be a flaming idiot for choosing that exact time to demonstrate his Willingness to Speak Truth to Power.
Think about it: If you’re staring at somebody whom you think is mentally unstable AND he’s pointing a weapon at you, is that the time when you should decide to not do as he says and just turn your back to him and walk off?
I submit that that would be stupid.
Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Where do you find the analogy between that and what happened in this case? Have Americans become so lacking in prudential judgment that we cannot distinguish between ordinary law enforcement and an obscenity?
paul006 on December 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Minimal force? Nice spin.
The trooper had a choice NOT to elevate the situation towards violence.
Sammy316 on December 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I submit that it would be stupid to act like a sheep with someone mentally unstable and armed. You would try and get distance between you and de-escalate the situation until you can get away. That’s what the driver was doing, so that’s why I believe he thought the cop was mentally unstable.
You would allow an armed mentally unstable person who you believe wants to harm you to bind you? Really?
frost on December 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM
The cop never should have let it escalate to where it did. The kid was a whiny punk, but probably could have been handled just by listening to his whine for a few minutes and explaining the situation better, i.e. “Sorry, I have the video, you can dispute the evidence in traffic court.”
That being said, as soon as the kid moved away from the officer and toward his car, the cop was in the right. Officer safety should be rule number 1.
There are really two issues here, the cop has no people skills, and that kid has no sense.
hulbstar on December 1, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Well ok I guess, the kid is an absolute asshat I will grant that. He needed a tasing seeing the CBS interview. That said this cop was plain horrible, he turns his back on the guy then freaks out.
I’ll admit in seeing it again this kid is more clueless than I had first realized and I can see the cop being flustered having the kid come behind him then reach into his pocket. I still say it’s the cops own fault for turning his back, the officer needs to be the professional here.
Dash on December 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Are you saying the officer handled this in an appropriate manner? I don’t understand why the officer or any other using their police knowledge would want to push this to the point of arresting the guy. As I’ve said above I believe they were both wrong..one thing led to another.
I have difficulty hearing what was said up till the officer hands the ticket to be signed…seems they both jumped about the same time.
oldernslower on December 1, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Sure. He could’ve just let him walk away, back to his car to take off or get a weapon. Who knows? As is the case with all other cops. They could just let the criminals go instead of mindlessly escalating the violence by insisting that the law be followed and that compliance with orders isn’t optional.
How silly of me not to see that.
Evil cops. Evil, evil, BAD cops.
No. I’d assault his arse right quick or any number of other things, depending on the circumstances. What I WOULDN’T do would be to turn my back on him and walk, slowly, away from him.
Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Jawohl mein uberlietnant.
And I’ve only read the first comment. Heh.
HerrMorgenholz on December 1, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Ok, so the internal police agency review was completed.
Neither included either a) a fat lady, or b) singing.
My bag against the cop was always for his actions BEFORE the situation escalated to the point that he “was justified in using his taser”.
Shouldn’t have gotten to that point. And the ‘you do what Johnny law is tellin ya, boy’, while usually the best course of action for those interacting with the police, for self preservation purposes, if nothing else, and to avoid coming anywhere close to providing any sort of ‘justification’ for something like a tasing (or the discharge of a firearm – which can be a LOT more final) is, no pun intended, a cop out of a counter argument.
Even the brass admitted that he understands NOW that there were ‘other options’.
Ok, to take it a bit further – specific critiques on the officers Tactics, Techniques and Procedures…
Didn’t tell the jerkwad that if he refused to sign the ticket, he’d have the option of getting him that early birthday silver braclet gift set.
Didn’t inform the dunderhead, when he ordered him to exit the vehicle, that he’d reached the decision to award the braclet gift set, along with the chance to rub that really uggy ink off his fingertips with a crappy paper towel.
As doofus boy got out of the vehicle, turned around and walked in front of him (losing sight of the man he’d decided needed arrestin, dammit), and then immediately went into startled mode that the chucklnuts had actually continued to walk around in autonomous mode, having failed to interpret the officer’s ‘inside voice’ about what was going to happen.
Yeah, Jared acted like a total idiot, but then, I pretty sure he hadn’t given a lot of thought to how to interact with the cops, much less practiced getting pulled over on a daily basis, nor had any specific training for it.
The cop, on the other hand….supposedly trained, focused, and experienced in these sorts of situations.
And he STILL flunked the practical exam.
So, till this does finish fully playing out (either through the courts or because everyone just says ‘enough of this’) NO pats for YOU!!!!! </pat nazi>
heh.
Wind Rider on December 1, 2007 at 5:17 PM
My daddy was a veteran of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. He told me not to trust the government; especially overstimulated semi-pros with weapons. Where’s SilverStar380 in all this, by the way? Still got some bidness to do with that boy….
HerrMorgenholz on December 1, 2007 at 5:18 PM
There really is more than one issue here, it’s just that they tend to get conflated a lot.
Issue 1) is the trooper’s apparent lack of people skills. Of course, I can’t know this since I can’t really hear the whole of the conversation because of traffic, but it seems to me that he could have done a better job of explaining to the brat what a signature means and, equally importantly, what it DOESN’T mean. In that case, the dumb kid just might have caught a clue and signed the damn ticket, possibly taking it to court later if he thought it was unfair. Which it might be. I don’t know that either. All I do know is that shoulders of highways aren’t courtrooms.
No dispute there. The officer might have been a bit lacking in people skills. Then again, he starts out quite jovially and doesn’t seem to get brusque until the dumb kid starts arguing instead of just producing his license and registration right away as he has been, politely and in a friendly manner, asked to.
Issue 2) is whether the officer was justified in A) arresting the kid for refusing to promise to appear and B) justified in using the taser when the kid resisted arrest and tried to escape while fumbling around in his pocket.
The answer to both of these is “yes.”
Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Oh, and Wind Rider sums it all up very very nicely and succinctly so, just because I can:
What he said.
Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I’m not even reading this conversation. I’ve got HotAir bragging rights and kudos from Allahpundit. I’m on cloud 9.
Joshua P. Allem on December 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM
AllahPundit, stop being such a liberal sissy. If this punk just did what the trooper asked, he would have been sent home on his merry way. Instead, he wanted to act stupid.
SoulGlo on December 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Yep…HotAir bragging rights and Time’s “Person of the Year”…2007 has been good to me!
JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Since when does conservatism entail being a mindless obedient sheep.
I think some have gone over the edge into blind authoritarianism.
Sammy316 on December 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
[Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM]
I do agree with you Misha, but what you are suggesting, IMHO, is that Massey should have realized that this UHP officer was “mentally unstable”. I think this is a poor moniker to internalize, which is why we, the people and the government servants, should do thier utmost to maintain high standards.
There was an easy and professional way to handle this. The officer could have said “You are not by law required to sign this ticket but not doing so does not relieve you of the obligation to respond to it at the time and place noted on the ticket” and hand him the ticket if he again refused to sign.
Seriously, the bottom line is that Gardner’s intention was to arrest Massey for failing to comply with an order, to wit, sign a ticket despite the law not requiring Massey to do so. That, again IMHO, a usurpation of authority and to me is unlawful.
Yeah, Massey made a mistake, but his actions were neither wrong nor illegal.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Not “mindles obedience”, but following, and respect for, the law.
Without that, it’s anarchy.
JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Most interesting thing about this whole set of threads…
The exact same people who trumpet the Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from an authoritarian Government, are now sideing with an authoritarian Cop who created a situation where he could punish this guy UNNECISARILY with a Taser…
You do all know that getting Tazed HURTS? That if you have a heart condition, it could KILL you?
This cop, IMO did not follow procedure, and CREATED this situation… then played judge, jury, and punisher, and Taz’d the guy.
I HOPE he gets sued…
Romeo13 on December 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Sorry, but he did NOT tell the guy, as he got out of the car, that you are under arrest for….
He did NOT put him in the “position”… he turned his back on the guy and walked back toward the sign the guy was arguing about… then when the guy started to follow… drew down with the tazer…
Bad procedure, and created the incident IMO.
Romeo13 on December 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Frost, supra:
Fair enough. But what did the officer do just prior to drawing his taser and yelling at the man? He had ordered the man out of his vehicle, correct?
I put it to you: If you refused to sign a traffic citation and the officer then ordered you to step out of your vehicle, what do you imagine is coming next? Is the officer going to invite you to coffee and cake, or is he going to arrest you?
Perhaps this driver claims the surprise with which you credit him. If so, I find the claim unpersuasive. The driver knew — or should have known — that he was on the verge of arrest.
If an officer ordered me from my vehicle after I had refused to sign a citation, I’d sure as heck know it wasn’t for the purpose of having a leisurely discussion about the finer points of traffic law.
paul006 on December 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
No matter how crooked and/or incompetent the cops are, right?
Sounds more like sheep behavior to me.
infidel4life on December 1, 2007 at 6:01 PM
The guy was saying that there was no sign…
Could a reasonable interpretation be this?
Cop asks you to get out of the car… and then starts to walk back to WHERE THE SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO BE!!
He does not put you in “the position”… he does not say anything about “you’re under arrest for”…
He turns his back and walks away… the guy, thinking the cop is going to show him the sign… follows…
Then draw down and taz city…
Cop clearly created that situation, and then used it to justify tazing the guy… guy WAS NO THREAT!
Romeo13 on December 1, 2007 at 6:13 PM
[Romeo13 on December 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM]
I agree Gardner did not communicate his intent. I think I was clear in that comment and in the previous ones.
I agree with your other characterization, too, and must admit I didn’t perceive that the officer walking back to the car and Massey following could easily be inferred by Massey that the officer was going to go look at the sign with Massey. (Big mistake, Massey.) Thanks for that.
I noted earlier my belief that Gardner was initiating the drawing of his taser before he new Massey was behind him.
Agree there, too.
Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I would expect that I was probably going to be put in cuffs, the back of the squad car, searched for weapons, etc. Unless I was a stupid kid who didn’t know I could be arrested for not signing the ticket, and unless I had just expressed my desire for the cop and I to walk back to the sign I was talking about.
The kid clearly thought they were going to walk back to the sign. He got out and started walking towards it, pointing off in the distance and talking about it. He wouldn’t have thought that if the cop had told him he would be arrested for not signing, or at the least told him he was under arrest, even if he didn’t give a reason.
frost on December 1, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Bragging rights,I said from the word go, the stupidist
thing this guy could do was step out of his vechicle,
and start arguing with the police officer.
Here’s were I was coming from,I’ve been pulled over on
a highway,early in the morning,with my family,heading
to our vacation destination,got a ticket,I was polite,
police officer was polite,both said,have a nice day.
I got a ticket,wife wasn’t happy,police office was
doing his job,end of story.
I have also watched video’s were police were doing their
jobs,and the driver,just gets out and starts shooting.
The highway can be a very dangerous place for the highway
patrol officer,when pulled over,everybody stay in the car,
and hands on the wheel,that way he can do his job,and you
can be on your way.
canopfor on December 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Umm, the cop told him to get out of the car. I would think that’s been restated ad nauseum.
frost on December 1, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Fixed, and agreed.
HerrMorgenholz on December 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM
That cop should be fired. Cops these days go on power trips and this crap needs to stop. This kid was not threatening at all and it is a shame that our representatives allow this crap to go on.
Tazering is just like using a weapon. Would that police officer (if he had his pistol drawn) shot that kid? No freakin way. A tazer should only be used in the instances just like a pistol would be used.
msipes on December 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Then maybe he could be a janitor, or a plumber, or go on welfare. Those are pretty safe.
HerrMorgenholz on December 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Here we go again with the dumb sheep comments. You’re right, little boy, feel free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Power to the people!
reaganaut on December 1, 2007 at 6:39 PM
UMMM
frost on December 1,2007 at 6:28PM
Frost:No,that not what I mean,as your car pulls to the
side of the road,and you move the transmission
lever to park,reach for the keys,and shut the
engine off,don’t get out of the car,put both
hands firmly on the steering wheel,sorry,
that’s what I meant.
canopfor on December 1, 2007 at 6:40 PM
There is NO reason for a cop to use a weapon in this situation. The cop should have told the kid that he is under arrest, if the kid does not comply, let the kid drive off and then issue a warrant for his arrest. There is NO REASON to fire a weapon at the kid. Its this kind of non violent shit that is gotten out of control in this country. Non violent offenders should not be handled with the same force as someone who is violent. If this kid showed ANY signs of being violent at ALL, then i would side with the cop.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Drat. There was a reasonable debate going on with differing opinions and it was going so well. Now we’ve gotta start getting into personal attacks instead of refuting each other’s arguments. Is that really necessary?
frost on December 1, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Ok, apparently I’m missing what you mean. I totally agree you shouldn’t get out of the car when a cop pulls you over. But in this case, the cop ordered him to.
frost on December 1, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Maybe,since a lot of commenters,are questioning
the authority,let’s see how well that would work,
by running a checkpoint,in oh,how about Irag,
can’t wait for the intelligent comments on this one,
canopfor on December 1, 2007 at 6:47 PM
This was a traffic stop in Utah. Not a checkpoint in a war zone.
Sammy316 on December 1, 2007 at 6:51 PM
The guy walking back to his car without the officer knowing his intentions is a dangerous situation, that said I think the officer may have skipped a few steps
Gwillie on December 1, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I was referring to what many have come to known as substantive democracy, not merely procedural.
Yeah it sounds nice, but after being bailed out of jail 1-2 days later, risking your job, separation from family or vehicle towing costs, public humiliation, court fees, etc., only then are you afforded the chance to hire a decent, but expensive lawyer to try and prove that the cop (whose words are in a court of law, worth more than yours) was acting unlawfully.
Thats some fine law and order right there, and at least people like you can say he got due process, regardless of the rights violations and injustice such people endure.
Free Constitution on December 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM
How could it be otherwise? If the State doesn’t back up its storm troopers, they might quit in disgust. And then where would the scumbag politicians go for protection from the citizenry?
Henry Bowman on December 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Well since others are adding imaginary circumstances
to this real-life scenario which occurred under specific, objective conditions, why not go all the way and make up every possible scenario and ignore what actually happened?
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
This case had specific circumstances under which both participants acted and reacted. With any change in the behavior of one of the participants or a change in place, time, etc., things might have (probably would have) turned out differently–better; possibly worse, but definitely.
Thus if the cop would have asked for a BJ, Massey would have been justified in resisting. Or if this would have been an Iraq check point, then the LE would have been justified in using more lethal force.
But none of these conditions occurred here. No sexual assaults or terror suspects here.
So can we please stop arguing about what-if scenarios? Such things have nothing to do with this What-Is scenarios.
Now excuse me while I get read to go out on a Saturday night. ::hint::
baldilocks on December 1, 2007 at 7:16 PM
read=ready
baldilocks on December 1, 2007 at 7:18 PM
frost had it right and I’ve been wanting to say too that the guy was walking back pointing to the sign when the jerk-off cop pulled the gun out on him. He was not walking away and putting his hand in his pocket.
Jeff on December 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Wow…Are you a Ron Paul supporter? ‘Cause they use the “sheep” word a lot. If obeying the law is being a “sheep”, then I’ll say “baah”.
As the article said: The driver turned, walked away, with his hand near his pocket…the whole time the officer tells him repeatedly to stop…so he got what he deserved.
If you think the officer is wrong, crooked, whatever…there’s a nice little thing in this country called a “court”. Tell it to the judge.
Doesn’t mean you can make your own laws whenever you want.
JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Frost,
Twice you refer to Mr. Massey as a “kid.” You would do well as his publicist; “kid” evokes an image of the innocent and naive. But I’ll decline to join you in infantilizing this man. Mr. Massey is 28. He’s an adult, not a kid. And an adult in Mr. Massey’s situation would know — or should know — that when ordered by the police to exit the vehicle, arrest is imminent.
As you concede, you know it. I know it. And now Mr. Massey knows it.
paul006 on December 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM
This was a traffic stop in Utah.Not a checkpoint in a war
zone.
Sammy316 on December 1,2007 at 6:51PM
Sammy316:I know it was in Utah,I was being a tad
sarcastic about the checkpoint idea.
canopfor on December 1, 2007 at 7:34 PM
I fought the law and the law won. . . is there anything new under the sun?
This is exactly why cops scare the hell out of me. They are actually worse than women because all they have to do is ‘feel’ threatened and they can even shoot you under the law.
This guy pulled over immediately and never indicated that he would do anything other than what the officer asked him to do. I guess this guy should not have pulled over immediately and driven all the way to the courthouse with police in tow before pulling over so that this cop would not have ‘felt’ threatened by the driver that HE PULLED OVER.
As was said, lucky this guy wasn’t black. If he was rich, the cop would be suspended to. Horray for our justice system. Yet another reason to be scared of cops. Thanks ‘protectors and servers’.
ThackerAgency on December 1, 2007 at 7:47 PM
LOL! The only One capable of issuing such a ruling is considered a myth by half of the contestants so He just sits back and waits for them to come to their senses.
Pilgrim on December 1, 2007 at 7:56 PM
The guy was trying to put some distance between himself and a taser pointed at him by an unstable cop. A normal reaction IMHO.
Personal attacks, the last resort of someone who’s run out of substantive arguments.
infidel4life on December 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I see the same posters who also believe in the Great Right Wing Conspiracy are still holding out that the tazed bro was a victim.
.
Your voting rights should be revoked just for being stupid. You’re the reason we end up with lame politicians…
stacman on December 1, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Just so no one thinks I attempted bragging rights AFTER this story, I sided with the trooper the day Hotair published the original story.
RMCS_USN on December 1, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Kid or adult is irrelevant to my conclusion. Refute my premises or accept my conclusion. Ignoring both is pointless.
frost on December 1, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »