Posted on 11/21/2007 11:58:07 AM PST by Sopater
An internal police investigation is under way after a formal complaint was filed against a Utah state trooper who was videotaped Tasering a man who refused to sign a speeding ticket.
The officer's conduct has been called into question after a videotape of the incident was posted on YouTube.
The video, taken from a Utah Highway Patrol dashboard camera, shows Trooper John Gardner using a Taser on Jared Massey during a traffic stop on State Road 40 in Uintah County on Sept. 14.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Assuming that you’ve watched all of the video, then you know that the stop and arrest were totally improper. The other officer was visibly dismayed by it.
Using your argument, a .22 is less lethal than a .45 so it’s okay to use a .22 to subdue a person that you don’t plan on killing for a traffic violation.
“This officer didn’t taser the guy just because he didn’t sign the ticket. He tasered him because he was refusing to listen to instruction and his erratic actions.
When I was a cop, I wish we had tasers as they do now. I would have zapped his stupid ass too. The officer had every right to taser the guy.”
It is a good thing you are off the force. Cleary you were not a good fit.
I do believe in personal responsibility for our actions but I also believe in the equal value of all citizens. The young man apparently believed that the cop would respond to him in a rational way but the cop was not going to discuss things with him.
Way too quickly, it escalated to using coercive force when it could have been solved better with a little patience from the officer.
I think that the biggest division among the responses and responders for this thread is how we view our freedom. One group believes that authority is absolute and if you impede authority, you deserve all you get. The other group believes in the individual stature of the American citizen and that no citizen is more important than another citizen.
I tend to side with the latter group.
And I am with you.
Thank you for your service both in the Marines and as a police officer.
This in no way compares to your former job, but I worked as a bouncer years ago while I was between jobs. It wasn’t a bad place but with 400 people and lots of drunks, it could get bad real quick. I used common sense and common courtesy (to paying customers) and talked people out the door. I never had to fight with one. (Thank God. I was only getting $3.75 an hour.) I never set up a situation as “you or me”. I didn’t challenge their manliness. If I had, I’d have had my ass kicked at least once a week. LOL
I was a negotiator, not a fighter and I ‘won’ every time.
“Going back to the video, the officer had no way of knowing if the guy had a weapon in his vehicle. He actions, in my opinion, looked as if he were on something. When an officer stops a vehicle, he has no idea what he is about to be confronted by. “
While I will rewatch the video, it didn’t appear to me as if the cop approached the situation as if it could turn deadly.
If the cop was say shot through the window, an inquiry would surely find he did not behave appropriately.
Again, I will rewatch, but let’s not introduce the “unknow danger” the cop must face when it didn’t appear the cop in the situation considered such a threat.
“Before I started occasionally riding with a cop friend of mine, I might have been of the other opinion. But having seen how quickly things go from 0 to 60 it became quite apparent that cops have to make a snap judgment based on experience and training and situation at hand and take appropriate action.’
You refer to a moment in a prgression of time and activity. This situation should not have ever gotten to that moment had the cop behaved professionally and as I supposed trained.
That is like the Menendez brothers pleaded be orphans aftert they killed their parents.
You have a point in regard to some of what passes as *education*. However, I find the younger generation more inclined to question everything, not less. Of course, their questions are usually not very deep.... ;)
susie
I totally agree. And the driver shares responsibility. If he had simply acted like a mature adult the outcome would have been much different.
I think the driver is just some spoiled brat kid that's used to getting his way.
Absolutely. I watched it several times & at no time did the officer ask permission to search. He said “I have to take a look in the front of it real quick.” The only time I heard him actually ask her something was when he said “There’s nothing here I need to know about is there?” But he NEVER asked to search. Sounds like this officer may have more than one problem here.
I pointed this out earlier because cowboyway dishonestly assured us all that the cop DID ask her if he could search the car. He also misrepresented what the officer said to the driver (cowboyway seems to think the officer told the driver to halt, which is clearly not the case). Yet he continues to insult others in this thread who clearly have a much more rational view of the world than he does. Apparently, you're only conservative if you're "his brand" of conservative. If that means I have to kiss a police officer's boots, then count me out.
I watched the interview with Mr. Massey on CNN, and he is not the "punk" that people in this thread are making him out to be. He's a reasonable, intelligent young man. I applaud him for putting this video out there and perhaps taking a step towards removing a jerk with a badge from the streets.
Now I have followed these guidelines and have been taken to a magistrate twice and had the charges dismissed; both times without cuffs etc. I know of 18 other cases where people have followed this policy and had the magistrate dismiss the charges - none where they were "held over". The third school is the one where you write on the ticket "Offer of contract refused." I would not recommend this unless you are very good talker and know your rights.
Take the time to defend your rights. The system depends on you just writing a ticket and sending it in - if everyone took their case to trial the system would deadlock and thousands of cases would be dropped for time.
I'm sorry to hear that - thanks for your service.
What is a Miranda and Terry stop?
To cowboyway - would you address these points?
Officer tells him "I am placing you under arrest".
Driver says "no you are not."
Driver starts walking back toward his vehicle.
That is when the officer fired the taser at him.
-snip-
Please, watch the video (not on youtube) on the link to the original post, and see if what I say is TRUE, or NOT.
-- link
I don't have computer speakers. Can anyone confirm or refute whether that dialogue took place?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when a police officer stopped a suspect on the street and searched him without probable cause to arrest.
The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Because of the important interest in protecting the safety of police officers, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops. The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations”. The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
These days many cops will not even know the difference - especially if they do not work traffic as a usual thing. If you are interested both court decisions are on the net and much has been written about both. Basically if it is a Miranda they need to read you your rights immediately.
If the cop doesn't tell you why you are being arrested, you have no duty to comply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.