[wideawake]

I guess that the state of Utah and the COP WAS WRONG AFTER ALL.

I guarantee that the settlement agreement specifically stipulates that the state of UT does not acknowledge any wrongdoing.

It's a tiny settlement amount and likely represents an amount that UT considers to be lower than the cost of continuing to litigate the case through judgment and appeals, etc.

The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.

[KC_Conspirator]

I guarantee that the settlement agreement specifically stipulates that the state of UT does not acknowledge any wrongdoing.

It's a tiny settlement amount and likely represents an amount that UT considers to be lower than the cost of continuing to litigate the case through judgment and appeals, etc.

The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.

You are most likely right. Thats too bad it ended this way, but there is no other way for the police to protect himself from from a situation that could have otherwise gotten out of control and he used non-lethal force. Thats what tasers are for.

[azhenfud]

"The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way."

Exception: if you're Larry Craig.

[monday]

“The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.”

This does...

“The Department of Public Safety investigated the situation and cleared Gardner of any wrongdoing in handling an uncooperative motorist. He was, however, required to take a verbal communications course before returning to duty.”

Police officers can get away with stuff ordinary citizens would be imprisoned for. The fact he was required to take a course before going back to work means that someone recognized that he was a danger to the public. Hopefully the course taught him something.

[Lester Moore]

The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.

Which is unfortunate because we all need clarification in this case.

The officer, the driver, me, you, the state and everyone really needs this clarified.

The driver was NO threat to the officer. The officer just didn't like being questioned and the officer escalated the situation in order to justify his use of torture to punish the driver for daring to question him.

[RFEngineer]

“The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.”

no, of course not. But it certainly looks guilty, doesn’t it? I mean are you saying the state picked a random motorist to give $40k to?

The real question is did the ticket get dropped as part of the settlement too? I’m guessing it’s highly likely that it did, so you are faced with the possibility of an innocent motorist getting tazed by a cop that did nothing wrong.