Utah: Another Quick draw Mc'Taser, or...

Tazers are getting out of hand... some police don't feel the need to explain anything, answer any question, or even TRY to deescalate situations. Instead you do what they tell you or you get tazed.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the problem. Refusing to comply is already enough to get you arrested if you've done nothing wrong, so why not just deal with it? If someone really wanted LEOs to be more warry of right's violations in their work they might consider supporting laws making it a criminal offense for LEOs to violate those rights.
 
George Hill posted:
Now, here's the kicker. The video is heavily edited. We don't know what the whole story is. The driver got the video from the UHP and cleaned it up and posted it on YouTube.
Click to expand...

George, if you have some hard info on this, it could really alter the discussion substantially. From what I could tell, the video was two long segments, where presumably only the part where the trooper was processing the license, and writing the citation was omitted. Are you contending that a middle segment with additional relevant content was edited out? Or a prior/post segment that changes the overall tenor of the traffic stop was excluded?

While that's possible, I suspect that if additional exculpatory (for UHP) video exists, then UHP would have released that posthaste, along with appropriate castigation of Mr. Massey, for doing a chop job. Instead of being dragged through the national spotlight, while biting their upper lip (investigation suddenly "expedited"; no pertinent comment).

rampage posted:
If someone really wanted LEOs to be more warry of right's violations in their work they might consider supporting laws making it a criminal offense for LEOs to violate those rights.
Click to expand...

I would say that public release of this video, and similar others, will do more to rein in taser use; than would years of simply writing letters and lobbying legislators. Watch for police taser guidelines to be substantially revamped. In a sense, this is a pretty effective way of "just dealing with it". Shine a light on perceived injustice and abuse.
 
the guy refused to sign the ticket which is not an admission of guilt but actually a subpena (pardon spelling) to apear in court to plea your case paying for the ticket is an admission of guilty.

when the officer tasered him he already resisted the officers atempt to arrest or detain and was reaching into his right front pocket i think the officer was justified in use of the taser. but mabe could have could have resoved the situation without it.
 
"Just deal with it"...they are!

This latest editorial in the local Utah paper perceptively sums up the new political landscape that public officials find themselves in... I submit the honest ones will welcome the scrutiny, while those who complain will be weeded out. :cool:

Link: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695229949,00.html
Across U.S., Little Brother is watching
By Jay Evensen
Deseret Morning News
Published: Sunday, Nov. 25, 2007 12:13 a.m. MST

Did the Utah Highway Patrol trooper abuse his power? Should he have found ways to defuse the situation before pulling his Taser and firing it at the driver who refused to sign a speeding ticket?

Or was the driver the kind of guy who had no respect for authority and was going to keep arguing his case until he took control of the situation?

Thanks to YouTube.com, these kinds of conversations took place all over Utah last week. A speeding ticket that went awry along a dusty, dry highway west of Vernal didn't just end up as a my-word-against-a-cop battle in court. It's now on the Internet for the world to see — and it came from a video machine attached to the trooper's windshield.

The 21st century may be young, but already it has brought us an ironic twist to one of the themes that ran through the 20th century. Back then, we worried about paranoid, totalitarian governments giving us what author George Orwell called "Big Brother," constant surveillance through modern technology. Instead, the freedoms of the Western world have given us a host of nearly infinite "Little Brothers" who keep us in constant surveillance through modern technology.
 
"I suspect that if additional exculpatory (for UHP) video exists, then UHP would have released that posthaste..."

Nope. You are wrong there. The State doesn't need to play to the court of public opinion. The official response is that they can't comment on an ongoing investigation.
Hard Evidence in this case would be that I have the full video. Nope. But I've talked with several Troopers who have seen the full tape. They say that there is a lot more to the story, but are not able to fill in the gaps.
The editing was done very well and carefully, but there are a number of cuts.
 
Hard Evidence?

George Hill has proffered, based on the word of UHP Troopers, that the original video tape (length 9min, 58 seconds), was edited...with the (not so) subtle accusation that editing was done by the motorist to mislead the public, as to the true nature of the contact.

Now comes three video tapes of the incident (total time 22min, 12seconds), labeled FULL UNCUT VERSION (parts 1, 2, 3).

Part 1 (8.55): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdLU2hzvBiU&feature=related

Part 2 (10:10): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O5HXqDrxpA&feature=related

Part 3 (3.07): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hfQspTM4tI&feature=related

I watched these videos, yes editing did occur, seemed reasonable to edit the part where trooper is in squad, presumably writing the ticket (no dialogue). Other edits of dialogue don't seem to change the tenor of the stop, IMO. I found the extended discussion between officers in part 3 interesting. Trooper Gardners recounting of the tasing isn't really accurate...and the incident seems to increase in drama with each retelling. "He didn't look like a scumbag"..."went beserk"...etc. What do y'all think?

A pretty serious charge of fraud has been leveled by UHP Troopers, if George Hill's post is to be trusted, which we have every reason to do so.

PS: I have never posted a video on youtube. However, I've noted many comments from folks on other boards that youtube limits user vids to around 10 minutes! Can anyone confirm? Here stands an innocent justification for the original video being edited down to 9:58, as opposed to the nefarious motivation implied.

In conclusion, there will come a time when UHP will have to lay its cards on the table. Some articles have stated that the investigation will be released this week. We shall see. Worth noting, again, that all charges against the motorist have been dropped (except for the speeding charge, court date in Jan '08).
 
What does that link have to do with this thread? Or is this thread now morphing into general cop bashing?
Click to expand...

Answer: These assertions are on the table, which you are invited to discuss:

1. LE readiness to use the TASER in questionable circumstances may be increasing. There underlying reasons for this are worthy of discussion, in a civil rights context for the general public, who may be on the receiving end.

2. This tasing trend, combined with lack of corrective action (as evidenced by the exoneration/praise for trooper Gardner=circling the wagons), tends to further encourage "quick draw" usage of this tool by other officers, and agencies.

3. The most recent link, in which police broke into a man's home, tased a deaf man clad in a towel who was getting out of his bathtub, while pointing to his ears and screaming "I can't hear!!"; is offered as evidence of yet more egregious misuse of the taser. Hence, allusion to "the slippery slope", in post #27. At least in the latter case, the agency apologized profusely, no harm/no foul. When an agency action results in permanent injury/death (recall the Vancouver airport tasing), apologies would be viewed as admissions of guilt, and may increase liability exposure. In those cases, a general stonewall response is observed (complete circling of wagons).

4. One poster had it on personal knowledge that UHP officers suggested that Jared Massey committed fraud by posting a "very carefully edited" version of the video on youtube. This naked allegation was also made at the UHP press conference, which was podcast. I posted the "uncut" video to attempt to dispute these charges. No rebuttal. Presently, this appears to be an unwarranted attempt to demonize Jared Massey; another facet of "circling the wagons"?

5. In post #1, reference is made to police discussion forums where officers derive extreme satisfaction in "seeing a scumbag flopping around in a traffic lane" or some equally abhorrent comment. These types of comments have continued since that posting; you are welcome to research for yourself. While the percentage of officers who act unprofessionally is up for discussion, its existence is undeniable, and further erodes public confidence in LE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In post #9, you support this tasing, yet make no mention that in Utah, failing to sign a ticket is not automatically an arrestable offense. Gardner could have simply written "refuse to sign" on the ticket, and everyone would be on their way. Why would he choose to escalate the situation?

Also in post #9, you opine:

If you don't like the law, lobby your legislature to change it, or fight it in court. Arguing with the cop enforcing it will not net you a win.
Click to expand...

What "law" are you referring to? This incident was arguably borderline outside of policy, despite UHP's whitewash, wrt the "tasing" action. Apparently investigation continues on two other facets of the incident, though based on recent experience, it quite possibly will be swept under the rug once the media heat subsides.

As mentioned in post #1, lack of internal corrective action will likely result in forced revision of taser guidelines from outside LE, time will tell.

Posting this video on the internet has done more to potentially change the dynamic than a lifetime of lobbying or litigation can hope to achieve. See post #24.

Simply raising the "cop bashing" strawman whenever an unflattering police incident is under discussion is a poor, yet popular substitute for discussion. You can do better.
 
LEO explains situation. LEO writes ticket. Idiot refuses to sign ticket. At this point, you should expect arrest. The guy was given clear instructions and refused to obey. LEO uses Tazer. Where is the problem here?

Rules for getting along with LEOs:
1. OBEY THE LAW!!!
2. If you break the law, comply. The issue will be settled in court. Hey, you might even get lucky if he fails to show up for court that day due to other pressing matters and get out of a fine you deserve.
 
I fail to see the problem. Refusing to comply is already enough to get you arrested if you've done nothing wrong, so why not just deal with it? If someone really wanted LEOs to be more warry of right's violations in their work they might consider supporting laws making it a criminal offense for LEOs to violate those rights.
Click to expand...

And if you've done nothing wrong and get arrested for having done nothing wrong, that can represent a gross misuse of authority on the part of the arresting officer/agent.

Cops' hands are tied, and the knots are getting tighter, thanks to bonehead troopers like this road warrior in Utah. This isn't WWII Germany or turn-of-the-century southern America or pre-1986 Russia where cops could simply tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it and any resistence or hesitation got you shot, beat and/or arrested.

Yet, it continues to go on even today right here in America. And it smears the honest, hard-working cops who genuinely look out for the public and the defense of citizens' rights.

We were told at Glynco that as cops, we were often our own worst enemies. And wasn't/isn't it the truth. . .

Jeff
 
The guy should have kept his pie hole shut, signed the ticket, and contested it in court. Instead he has to play Barney Butt Wipe, get all stupid, and refuse to comply with the troopers orders.

Just because the guy had his wife and child in the car doesn't mean he couldn't have been a total pysco going for a weapon. How is the trooper supposed to know what the guys mental state was? Unless you've been in an LEO's shoes, you have no idea the risk they face on a daily basis or how fast things can go bad. He's lucky he only got tazed and not shot.

Keep your pie hole shut, sign the ticket, contest it in court and you won't get your dumb self zapped.

I'm not an LEO, never have been, never will be, but i know when to keep my dumb red neck self quiet.
 
Keep your pie hole shut,
Click to expand...

Why should he keep his piehole shut? Is it illegal to ask questions? What state do you live in where it's illegal to ask questions? Crazy off the wall questions like "what was I doing wrong?" , "why are you stopping me?", stuff like that.
 
This went WAY beyond that. He was ordered to put his hands behind his back. Instead, he tried to get back in his vehicle, presumably to either escape or get a weapon. The constant cries on this board about "Cops can't tell me what to do." Sound like the bleating I used to hear from my 6 year old children.

The place to fight a ticket is not on the side of the road. It is in court. To have it any other way is to invite anarchy.

The topic of this thread is the Tazing incident in Utah. When you start with "See, I told you cops were out of hand" and post links to completely unrelated incidents, then it IS cop bashing. I think the people in this board throw the "Strawman" claim around without even knowing what it means.
 
Some observations:

Seems like those who defend this troopers actions want to isolate a single Key Aspect of the incident, as if it occurs in a vacuum; and proceed to judge the entire encounter based on this tiny snapshot. Further, once this Key Aspect is isolated, it is transmuted into a hypothetical scenario surrounded by "what if's"; which are intended to hype the importance of the Key Aspect, to the point where the only altertnative is something like, well....TOTAL ANARCHY!!

When stated that way, who could possibly disagree? Of course, this reasoning is faulty. It ignores the totality of circumstances leading up to, and following the Key Aspect.

Here, the Key Aspect seems to be the "lawful order".

The "what if's" are "get a weapon"; "escape", etc.

The ignored circumstances leading up to the Key Aspect include: Unwillingness to answer question (how fast was I going?). Intentional escalation of the situation when other options available (write "refuse to sign" on the ticket and be done, according to Utah law). Ordering the motorist out of the vehicle (which set up the more dangerous situation on the roadside). Drawing the taser while simulataneously ordering hands behind back. A reasonable person might conclude the officer was deranged at that point, and asking "what the hell's wrong with you", is a natural reaction.

The ignored circumstances following the Key Aspect include some of the banter between officers, trooper Gardner lying to the other officer when retelling the encounter. Insertion of cop jargon "scumbag", "went berserk", etc. (these go to state of mind of trooper Gardner).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is curious that UHP chose this same rationale in their press conference on the incident. They isolated the "taser deployment" from the rest of the encounter, and judged it alone to be lawful. Almost under their breath, they sort of indicated that the investigation was ongoing with respect to: "failure to communicate", "inappropriate comments" (he got to ride the taser), failure to de-escalate the situation, Trooper Gardner's history of complaints (I can't believe the press didn't follow up on that one...the PIO at the press conference couldn't believe it himself, he was almost laughing).

Supposedly these aspects are still under investigation. I'm not holding my breath.
 
They guy got what he deserved, and I felt the cop should have zapped him again, once the guy was in the car.

He also should have zapped the wife for getting out of the car after he told her to stay inside.

I was brought up to respect LEO. When they tell you to do something, within the law, you listen. The guy was an ahole, resisted arrest and refused to cooperate. His wife exacerbated the problem with her hysteria and refusing to listen. There was one or two occassions when she actually came up from behind on the cop. He would have been in his rights to draw his weapon on her (IMHO).

The cop doesn't know if anyone is carrying. Look at the guy when he first gets out of the truck. He is constantly digging at his pocket. :eek:
 
Maybe he should have zapped the baby in the back seat, too...bottle could be used as weapon?

(This is an attempt at humor).:D
 
I'll stand by my original statements regarding this incident. But to make it even more interesting...

Everyone put on their prosectuor's hat for a moment.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, let's look at this from a "use of force" standpoint. During this review, remember that your use of OC, a knife or gun in self-defense will be reviewed by a DA for appropriate use of force. So should the officer's use of force.

Q: Was the subject motorist making any threats or displaying any hostility while in the vehicle?
A: None is apparent. The motorist only questions the signage and at what speed the officer thinks he was moving.
Q: Did the officer explain the violations for which the motorist was being ticketed?
A: No, he failed to answer repeated questions about how fast he thought the motorist was travelling.
Q: When the motorist refused to sign the ticket, did he make any threats or use hostile actions or words?
A: No.

I think the most damning evidence is the following;
Q: Did the officer act as if a threat was present when he ordered the motorist out of the vehicle?
A: No.

Q: Outside of the vehicle, did the motorist make any threatening or hostile statements, gestures or actions?
A: No

Q: What was the motorist doing when the officer walked him back to the cruiser?
A: He was talking about the alleged signage issue up the road from the car-stop location. He didn't appear to even be looking at the officer.

Q: Did the officer have any reason to believe the motorist was a threat to his safety?
A: No. Based on the video evidence, the officer turned his back on the motorist, approached the front of his vehicle to put down his citation book, then turned back to the motorist before telling him to put his hands behind his back.

Q: Did the motorist do anything that would cause the officer to fear for his safety?
A: No overt actions were displayed by the motorist, although he had what appeared to be his right thumb hooked into a low pocket on his pants. But the officer never instructed him to keep his hands away from there.

In my view, the officer made the following mistakes;
1. Failed to adequately inform the motorist of what he was being cited for.
2. Failed to inform the motorist that signing isn't an admission of guilt (etc)
3. Turned his back on a potential arrestee walking back to his cruiser. This indicates to me that the officer did not believe the motorist was a threat to his safety.
4. Failed to "arrest" the subject or inform him of arrest - which was clearly the officer's intent at that point. Instead he ordered the subject to put his hands behind his back.
5. Drawing the taser before the motorist could comply with the order.
6. Failed to order the motorist to keep his hands out of his pockets.

The use of a taser is classified as an assault on another person if a civilian uses it without provocation. Here, the officer had no obvious reason to "assault" the motorist with the taser. His actions indicate he saw no threat to his safety. Further, his improper communication with the motorist sets up the confusion for the motorist and his quick-draw of the taser makes the motorist question his actions.

As a prosecutor, I'd move to charge the officer with assault and let him defend himself in court.
 
Wow. That was a well-presented point-by-point representation of what I think a lot of us see wrong with this issue, but couldn't put well into words.

Your argument that the officer demonstrated little fear for his safety (through his actions) was especially interesting; it's something that I think a lot of us instinctively "felt" was wrong but couldn't put our finger on why. All the arguments of "the guy could be a threat," or "he could have been carrying!" suddenly start to fall apart when the officer felt safe enough to turn his back on the guy.
 
BillCA nailed it

BillCA, thanks for articulating that so well. The fact that he turned his back to the guy and then immediately drew his Taser makes it clear his intention was to Taser the guy, not for defensive reasons or because he felt a threat, but only to force him into submission.

It is cops like this that give all cops a bad reputation. Any LEO that stands up for this guy is doing all LEOs a disservice. People that defend this officer definitely have blinders on and cannot be reasoned with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top