infidel4life on December 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Personal attacks? Where in my reply did I “personally attack”? You used the word “sheep” (should I take THAT as a personal attack too?) and I asked if you supported Ron Paul…because his supporters use that term frequently.

I’m sure, as we’re both regular commenters here at HA, you look at anything I’ve ever posted, you’ll be hard pressed to find me personally attacking anyone.

JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 8:43 PM

JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 8:43 PM

I regard it as a slur, Ron Paul is on the right side of a few issues but he’s a certifiable kook. I wouldn’t know thw first thing about his supporters’ buzzwords.

infidel4life on December 1, 2007 at 8:51 PM

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.

Please provide relevant statutes and court rulings.

Essentially what you are saying is that I don’t have the right to leave my home without carrying identification. What law obligates me, under threat of being imprisoned, to carry identification?

rokemronnie on December 1, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Ain’t No Justice fo da White man!

Kini on December 1, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Essentially what you are saying is that I don’t have the right to leave my home without carrying identification. What law obligates me, under threat of being imprisoned, to carry identification?

Depends on the state. “Stop and Identify” statutes are laws in the United States that require persons detained under certain circumstances to identify themselves to a peace officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes

Lehuster on December 1, 2007 at 10:45 PM

The UTP and UPSC acknowledged that Massey was not required to sign it.

Dusty on December 1, 2007 at 11:04 PM

It’s possible that you’re right, Dusty, but all I could find in the article about that was this:

Officials said Gardner could have issued the ticket without Massey’s signature.

Now, I don’t know exactly what Utah law and state police policy and procedure says about this issue, so again: I could be wrong and would love to see a reference to an actual law proving me wrong, because it’s rather important to the whole case. But saying that he could have issued the ticket without a signature isn’t the same as saying that he must do so. Similarly, an officer can issue a warning instead of a ticket, but that’s not the same as saying that he must (although I wish it were so - lol).

What I would like to know is whether Utah law differs significantly from those of other states that I am familiar with, in which refusal to sign is, indeed, grounds for arrest if the officer on the scene deems it necessary. They don’t have to, but they most certainly are within their rights to do so, since refusal to sign is the same as refusing to promise to appear.

Ironically, this whole signature business was supposed to be a convenience to citizens (and the bureaucracy), since you are supposed to appear before a magistrate and be bonded out/let go on your own recognizance/held in jail after being given a court appearance date following your being “caught speeding”, just as with any other crime. But somebody somewhere in the bureaucracy had a thought for once and realized that that would be impractical, so your signature in such cases now count as “bail” and “promising to appear before court” so everybody can get on with their lives without too much fuss. Which, of course, also means that by refusing to sign you’re basically saying that you’d much prefer “The Old Way”, which is being dragged downtown in chains. At the very least it states that you refuse to acknowledge that you’ve been charged and that you refuse to promise to appear in court. And THAT, in all the states that I know of, most certainly IS an arrestable offense.

If the officer chooses to do so. I know that some officers in some states will sometimes just note “refused to sign” on the ticket and send the driver off, but that, again, is NOT the same as saying that they MUST do so.

But if Utah law/policy/procedure says otherwise, then Massey most certainly didn’t do anything wrong by refusing to sign, and that will make the whole case completely different.

Misha I on December 1, 2007 at 11:40 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

I don’t think many said that he shouldn’t have been tased for his actions once he got out of the car. What we questioned was whether Massey should have been arrested for not signing the ticket. I think Massey acted inappropriately when he walked away from the officer but part of that was the fact that he was incredulous that he was being arrested for not signing the ticket.

IOW, the officer created the situation which lead to Massey not fully complying then the officer escalated by tasing when given the opportunity.

Bill C on December 2, 2007 at 12:29 AM

They need to go back to using there freakin’ night stick and pistols.

TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 1:38 AM

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.

stacman on December 1, 2007 at 8:12 PM

This poster believes now as he did back then that Hillary Clinton was full of crap when she made that claim on the Today show. So you’re wrong on that count.

And yes, I believe the driver was the victim of excessive force by the officer. Further, I believe that if the driver chooses to follow up with a federal civil rights suit, that he will prevail.

Here’s why I believe this.

Almost EVERYTHING the cop did after asking him for his ID was wrong. That includes not informing the driver he was under arrest when he made him exit the vehicle, and immediately making him assume the position. That includes turning his back to put the clipboard down to draw his taser (he should have simply dropped it). That includes drawing and using his taser when the man was not a threat. And the video shows that the man was NOT a threat nor was the man attempting to assault the officer, either of which would justify the use of the taser.

Police officers are held to a higher standard than the general public. They have been presumed to be trained in handling such encounters. They have been trained in the procedures for using various levels force to subdue a suspect, including hand-to-hand techniques to enforce their orders. They have been trained in both their state and local codes, and what rights the suspects have under the Constitution. But most importantly, police officers are expected to behave correctly at all times. These are the behaviors that The People, through statute and case law, expect from those we entrust with deadly force to enforce our laws.

There was no excuse for this scenario to have played out the way it did. The man in charge of this transaction was the police officer, both legally and practically. While I did not seem him use any illegal “inciters” to sucker the driver into justifying his being tased, he did not use due diligent care to prevent the incident from exploding. Nor did he use any of the “lesser force” techniques available to him. He went right to the taser.

If I were on a jury hearing the federal civil rights suit, I would be very hard pressed to believe that (1) the driver was resisting arrest as slowness to obey is not a criteria, (2) that he posed a threat, or (3) the situation required the driver to be tased. I’ve reviewed the tapes a number of times, now, and I am of the opinion that the officer overreacted and used excessive force because the officer inadvertently created the situation that resulted in the tasering incident.

I know that there are other ways to handle a verbally belligerent (but not physically violent) suspect that does not include the use of the baton, the taser, or the firearm, and I also know that police officers are supposed to be trained in their use.

If I were on the jury, I would wonder why those other techniques were not employed by the officer, rather than his immediate resorting to his taser.

I would think, therefore, if I were on the jury, that entire incident was the result of the officer not following proper procedure. And I would award the driver damages.

The police officer’s comments to the officer that arrived as his backup, indicated that the confrontation was based more upon macho and was not a “clear and present danger” standard for using force.

georgej on December 2, 2007 at 4:53 AM

Glad I was right (so far). Sure, it wasn’t a “perfect” stop. Still, cut the cop a break; all stops can’t be perfect. Perception issues and mistakes are going to happen to everyone. Who knows? Massey may look like the guy that shot his dog while he was a kid. I sincerely doubt that all or most of the officer’s stops are anything like this one.

Consider: The cop’s problems were exacerbated by the passenger. He couldn’t reasonably put the guy under arrest from his seat in the car, or pull a taser on him there, and likely he turned his back (briefly) to help coax him to the rear of the car so that he might arrest him in private and avoid an incident. As far as wrestling Massey to the ground — see pregnant passenger in seat. What was he supposed to do if Massey was putting up a struggle, screaming for help (very possible, considering the whining and attitude he’d shown up to that point) and she decided to get involved — with a tire iron — shoot them?

Does anyone faulting the police officer’s actions recognize that the cop is limited in his choices, too? Once the tape was rolling for posterity, for all practical purposes, once he had made the decision to arrest Mr. Massey, and told him that he was under arrest, a legal line had been crossed: the police officer COULD NOT allow Mr. Massey to get back in the car, especially with his taser pulled, even if he wanted to.

Imagine a scenario where he let Massey go at that point. The cop would absolutely not have a job the next day, but his dismissal wouldn’t come from Massey, but from the UHP.

The rule of law isn’t necessarily justice. Procedures can’t account for every possibility, but can get you fired if you don’t follow them, and taping is a double-edged sword.

Aardvark on December 2, 2007 at 6:19 AM

It could hardly be otherwise. When the police issue a command, your compliance is not optional.

paul006

I am a cop and I’d like to point out that you are only obligated to obey a lawful command. What was debatable here was whether the officer’s command was lawful or excessive, which ties into whether or not his resulting action was excessive. Personally, I though the cop went too far and acted “badge heavy”, which is a term we use for cops who glory too much in their authority.

Bellicose Muse on December 2, 2007 at 9:25 AM

I was one of those on the original thread who came down against the cop. I thought the cop was wrong start to finish.

After watching the video a few more times, I modified my stance slightly. One might say it became slightly more nuanced:

The cop was right to tase him…a subject going back to his car too often ends up with an officer down.

But the cop was way-big wrong in letting it get to that point. He doesn’t need punishment, he just needs a bit of remedial training in verbal and psychological judo.

flipflop on December 2, 2007 at 10:19 AM

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

It is a rigged trial. The fact is that the Taser was supposed to replace deadly violence, not for usual take-downs. Take him down, but don’t just randomly hit him with a taser since he wasn’t kissing your ass as an officer.

Here is to hoping for some Cosmic Justice.

Tim Burton on December 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Bellicose Muse, supra:

I am a cop and I’d like to point out that you are only obligated to obey a lawful command. What was debatable here was whether the officer’s command was lawful or excessive, which ties into whether or not his resulting action was excessive.

Under Utah law, Officer Gardner had the authority to effect an arrest for the speeding violation itself, regardless of whether Mr. Massey signed the ticket. See Utah Code Ann. §10-3-915 (1999), authorizing arrest for “any offense directly prohibited by the laws of this state or by ordinance,” and §77-7-2, authorizing arrest for an offense committed in the presence of an officer.

Where state law permits it, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a warrantless arrest for a fine-only traffic offense that carries no jail time upon conviction. See Atwater v. Lago Vista, 000 U.S. 99-1408 (2001).

An order to submit to an arrest authorized by statute is a lawful order.

paul006 on December 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Bellicose Muse,

What percentage of cops do you think are routinely badge heavy?

rokemronnie on December 2, 2007 at 2:06 PM

SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I take it you didn’t bother to read the 125 comments before you.

You stay classy cowboy.

Sammy316 on December 2, 2007 at 4:27 PM

I am a cop and I’d like to point out that you are only obligated to obey a lawful command.

Uh huh. And how often do citizens get away with not obeying any kind of command from a cop, lawful or not? Not doing what the cop says, lawful or not, is a good way to get yourself tased, clubbed, or shot.

Lehuster on December 2, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Back in the day an officer would billy-club, punch or shoot you. That made for easy an easy to understand decision making ladder regarding the use of force. Now cops have a wide variety of tools which fall on all points of the “force” spectrum. Unfortunately, the bro did not realize the officer thought of the tase as a method much better for the bro than getting whacked with a nightstick.

Just to throw it out there: Had the officer been a female would her right/obligation/conditioning/social context allowed for her to tase said bro?

Tokyo Times on December 3, 2007 at 3:28 AM