Moments later, when another officer arrived, one of them said, “Oh, he took a ride with the Taser.”

I clearly see why the officer did what he had to once the driver was out of the car and the driver was clearly being a jerk and not helping matters with his attitude. Hopefully, this is situation both drivers and police officers can come away learning something from.

Even when I have been pulled over and don’t agree with officer, I give the officer my upmost respect and know he is in total control of the moment no matter what I say or do. It may not get you out of a ticket, but it helps if you want to take it to court to either plea it down with the DA or totally fight the ticket to find your innocence. It doesn’t help your case in court if they have video of you acting emotional, irrational and personally disrespectful towards the officer or they have testimony to that effect.

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?

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.

Now, where are all the rabidly anti-cop spittle sputtering livingroom-lawyer chumps from the other thread at? No doubt tucking their tails between their legs and licking their… oh, wait, that would make me sound envious. Nevermind.

Pablo? Pablo? Where for art thou pobrecito?

…

SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Nope…you should’ve read the previous comments.

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.

Now, where are all the rabidly anti-cop spittle sputtering livingroom-lawyer chumps from the other thread at? No doubt tucking their tails between their legs and licking their… oh, wait, that would make me sound envious. Nevermind.

Pablo? Pablo? Where for art thou pobrecito?

…

SilverStar830 on December 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I said my piece and didn’t run. The fact is that I get treated much worse as a teacher in an inner-city public school daily than this guy did that cop. Fine, arrest him, but there was ZERO reason to use the taser at that point that the cop did.

The fact is that pricks like that give cops bad names.

Unlike the cop who was utterly respectful of a girl who resisting arrest 10 times worse than that guy (at that point) and it was only after she bit him that he sprayed her with mace.

The Utah cop was wrong and without it being a staged trial he would have been found wrong. I don’t think the Utah cop should be fired, but I do think the report should go on his record that he is a bad judge of situations and poor communication skills.

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

Disgraceful.

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.

you’ve won official Hot Air bragging rights. Kudos!

That I have… that I have. Thank you. Thank you. I owe it all to actual knowledge and experience. I’m livin’ the dream!

Now, where are all the rabidly anti-cop spittle sputtering livingroom-lawyer chumps from the other thread at? No doubt tucking their tails between their legs and licking their… oh, wait, that would make me sound envious. Nevermind.

Pablo? Pablo? Where for art thou pobrecito?

…

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.

Go ahead and check it out. He puts the clipboard down, turns around and one hand is already reaching for the taser. The driver looks at him like he’s gone nuts and rightfully so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But whatever…The officer in quesiton here was in the right. The driver, not so much. And THAT is the bottom line.

JetBoy on December 1, 2007 at 8:54 PM

The bottom line will probably be determined in court where Mr Massey will be able to present his side of the case. Cops are merely the enforcers of the law.

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.