Posted on 11/22/2007 7:37:13 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Was a Utah Highway Patrol trooper acting within policy when he used a Taser on a driver who refused to sign a traffic ticket?
That is the question UHP internal investigators hope to answer after Trooper John Gardner - a 14-year UHP veteran - zapped Vernal resident Jared Massey with the device for refusing to sign a speeding ticket or submit to being arrested during a traffic stop about 10 a.m. on Sept. 14.
The incident placed UHP on the defensive when the officer's dashboard video of the emotional confrontation found its way onto Internet site YouTube.
"We are doing an internal investigation to see if the trooper's actions were warranted," said Trooper Cameron Roden, a UHP spokesman. That investigation is expected to be completed this week or sometime next week.
The 10-minute video begins as the officer passes a sign clearly showing a speed limit of 40 mph on U.S. 40 in Uintah County.
Gardner - who remained on active duty as of Wednesday - then proceeds to pull over Massey's Dodge SUV.
The trooper approaches the driver's side window and twice asks for Massey's driver's license and registration. The second time, the trooper is audibly frustrated, saying, "Driver's license and registration, like now."
"How fast did you think you were going?" the officer asks.
"I was going 68," Massey could be heard saying.
"OK, there's a sign right there that says 40 miles per hour," the officer says, shortly before returning to his squad car.
When Gardner returns to the SUV with the traffic ticket, Massey refuses to sign the citation, insisting that Gardner show him the 40 mph sign.
"Well, you are going to sign this first," Gardner said.
After refusing, Gardner asks Massey to exit the SUV, which at 2:23 minutes into the video, he does.
The pair walk to the front of the officer's car, where Gardner points his Taser at Massey, ordering him to place his hands behind his back.
''What the hell's wrong with you?'' Massey asks, while turning and beginning to walk back to the SUV. Gardner tells the driver to turn around, but he refuses and continues walking away.
The officer aims the Taser, and at 2:37 minutes into the video, fires it into Massey, who falls backward onto the pavement and can be heard screaming. Massey's wife then comes out of the SUV screaming and is ordered back inside the vehicle by Gardner.
''Ma'am, do exactly as I say or you're going to jail, too,'' the officer says.
After the incident, off camera Massey can be heard repeatedly asking to be read his Miranda rights, but it remains unclear from the video, which cuts in and out, whether the officer complied with that demand.
Roden said he was unaware whether the man was given his Miranda rights, but noted Massey could have been read them when booked into the Uintah County jail.
In the video, Gardner repeatedly states he tasered Massey because the man failed to comply with his instructions and demands.
A short time later, an unidentified officer strolls up on scene and Gardner tells him that Massey "took a ride with the Taser."
Gardner then states that Massey was "jumping around, making me nervous as hell. I was like, nah, we ain't playing this game."
"Good. Good for you," the unidentified officer says.
Massey, who was not available for comment on Wednesday, is scheduled to stand trial for the speeding ticket Jan. 14 in Uintah County Justice Court.
When drivers sign traffic tickets, they are not necessarily admitting guilt but merely acknowledging they will show up at court or to pay the ticket, Roden said.
In the event that a motorist refuses to sign, a trooper can simply write "refuses to sign" on the citation, which is then given to the driver, or they can chose to arrest the motorist, Roden said.
"I can't speculate to this incident what was going through officer's mind," Roden said. "The officer has to weigh a lot of different things."
Troopers that carry Tasers must take a four-hour certification course outlining how and when to use the devices, according to UHP's nine-page policy. They are taught to use them in three circumstances:
* When a person is a threat to themselves, an officer or another person.
* In cases where the physical use of force would endanger the person or someone else.
* When other means of lesser or equal force by the officer has been ineffective and a threat still exists.
"There's a lot that goes into it," Roden said.
UHP requires an officer file a report any time a Taser is used, noting, among other things, how many warnings the subject was given and where the electric probes hit on a person's body.
Officials are then required to get the person arrested checked by medics. Massey was later taken to Uintah Basin Medical Center in Roosevelt, Roden said.
ngonzalez@sltrib.com
“Yesterday, you complimented me for “debating this issue intelligently”...
At the time, you were.
” today, you tell me I’m like Hillary Clinton??”
Sometimes responses are meant to include more than just the one poster, especially if they are acting the same.
Also there are sooooo many posts, and so many questions, it is easy to mix one poster up with another. I apologize if that was the case.
“I directly answered about 6 things from one of your post yesterday.”
I’ll accept that and apologize for not having gone back and replied to all of them.
“Was it really necessary to arrest this guy?”
I believe that after adding up all of the non-cooperation, refusal to cooperate, refusal to sign, arguing with the officer, and the possibility that the officer may have told him he was going to take him to jail (there were parts of the conversation we couldn’t hear, but I heard the response from the driver, which was “NO YOU WON’T”, that the officer had the OPTION to arrest him, and decided to do so.
The driver caused the situation to get to the point where the officer decided to take him to jail. Even though the code says the officer is not REQUIRED to take him to jail, it does not state that HE CAN NOT take him to jail for refusing to sign. It is usually decided based on behavior of the driver, which, in this case, was way out of line.
Since it was a ‘simple speeding ticket’, and the driver and his family could simply have gone about their business after he signed the ticket, I ask you, “Why did the driver do everything possible to provoke the officer into taking him to jail?”
Everyone speaks of the driver’s RIGHTS. Driving and the possession of a valid driver’s license, are a PRIVILEGE granted by the STATE. Your RIGHTS are very limited when it concerns operating a motor vehicle, and violating traffic ordinances.
Refusing to cooperate
Giving orders to the officer
are not on the list of your ‘rights’.
It was particularly picante when the officers' sidebar remarks are noted as the driver is lying in the outside lane of a highway....."....Yea, it hurts doesn't it?" referencing the scream of pain from the victim.
Plan and simple a bully cop who gets off roughing up people. As he said, "I am in charge." Yes he was. Now he needs to explain his actions. Any fair viewing of this video would compell a conclusion that the officer was pompus, arrogant, defiant, threatening, and spoiling for a little fun at someone else's expense. The driver didn't believe the charge and asked it be explained to him. No...not going to do that.....we're gonna watch you vibrate and contract in pain....just for fun. Then lie about what happened on tape to another officer, who was all too happy to agree with his actions based on lies. They have a problem with this cop.
UCANSEE2: No. I think that the driver put himself at that risk by not following the officer's instructions.
Are we in agreement that tazing in those circumstances did indeed put the driver's life at increased risk? (regardless of who was responsible)
The driver had walked back and forth and was walking close to the edge of the shoulder, and could have gotten hit by passing traffic, regardless to whether he was ever tazered or not.
Oh, come on now. You cannot compare the risk of walking along a highway in full control of your faculties, with the risk of being tazered in the same setting.
The driver could have easily fallen into the traffic lane and he would have been pretty much helpless.
“You say Massey was going to “refuse the ticket?”
I said he refused to sign the ticket (accept the ticket is another way of saying that). I know that because I heard him state he would not sign it.
Again, I apologize for the ‘personal attacks’. They never accomplish anything. I misunderstood one of your comments at the time.
“And, this cop picked the WRONG one.”
I interpreted that as you taking it a little bit too personally.
Yesterday, posters, like yourself, were ‘attacking’ me, and I responded in kind.
Today is a new day, and some of those same posters, including you, were much more civil, and open-minded about this subject. I responded in kind.
I think the driver , regardless to any excuses, was way out of line.
I think the officer did have some other options.
What I think isn’t going to matter one bit. It will depend on what happens in court, and what the Utah police department judges is proper policy, and what is not.
You think the officer picked the wrong battle, I think the driver picked the wrong battle.
If the driver didn’t see the speed limit sign (which was clearly visible from his vehicle as he passed the police car), then I would suggest to you that he needs to improve his awareness level when operating a motor vehicle, and that might save somebody’s life some day.
“Since Massey was never informed of the officers intent to arrest him”
Correction: You didn’t hear the officer inform the driver of his intent to arrest him (take him to jail). That doesn’t mean it didn’t occur when the officer was standing at the driver’s door, and there was traffic noise obscuring parts of the conversation.
Listen to the tape very carefully, and you can hear the driver say “No, you’re not”. What do you think he might have been responding to????????
This is a fair question. One that I have touched on earlier, but will do again.
I think this guy, Massey, is pretty inexperienced in dealing with police. He seemed to think that he did nothing wrong, and could convince the officer of this if he could just talk sense to him. That's just not the way it works.
I certainly would not have behaved the way he did. And, I have used this video as an instruction to my two sons on what NOT to do.
I believe.. Massey thought signing the ticket was an admission of guilt. Never, did we hear anything different from him. And, he didn't want to do that. He had the mistaken opinion that 'not signing' would make a difference. Gardner never told him anything different.
I expect the COP to know better. He should know that it doesn't matter.. He should get back on the side of the road and make some more money for Utah... uh... I mean, protect the invisible road workers some more. Not waste time and resources hauling a belligerent pansy to a magistrate.
No matter how you put this... This cop made a quick decision (after he was interupted) that he didn't like this guy, and he was going to teach him a lesson.
Ok... some cops are like that. Maybe, most... I used to not think so. But, after this long chain of posts... I'm not so sure anymore.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether or not an arrest was justified. I have never said the cop was not within HIS rights to arrest the driver. Clearly, this was a LEGAL decision... I just maintain, it was a stupid decision.. based 100% on ego, not any real or perceived threat to the public.
Once this decision was made, things just headed south... quickly. I still maintain the cop was WAY TO QUICK to draw his weapon and take the aggressive approach. However, once the guy was tased... I actually think his later actions were ok... He seemed to calm down.. and, get more in control. Right up until the time he started lying to the other officer. But, hey.. that's "normal", huh?
Well.. here, I think we're probably both correct. The difference is.. I think the driver was just being ignorant and stupid. Crazy me.. I EXPECT the cop to be smarter... based on his superior understanding of the law.
There you go again.. getting the facts wrong. The driver DID NOT SAY he didn't see the sign we all see on the video. In fact, he says he DID see it, and was slowing down. He claimed, he was not even TO the sign when the officer turned on his lights. Which, if the video begins when the lights are turned on... is accurate.
The driver says he DIDN'T SEE another speed limit sign that the officer says is located a "half mile back".
We don't know whether that existed.
“Are we in agreement that tazing in those circumstances did indeed put the driver’s life at increased risk? (regardless of who was responsible)”
No more at risk than the life of the officer. (who had to stand just as close to traffic as the driver, in order to handcuff him)
If the officer had not used the taser, and had to physically subdue the driver, it could have been the officer hit by a car.
The driver’s wife could have been like her husband, gotten back out of the vehicle to argue with the officer, and gotten hit by a car, killing both her and her unborn child.
I suppose that would have also been the fault of the officer. As it was, he told her to stay in the vehicle.
For his safety, but especially for hers. Do you not recognize this as a fact? People involved in a situation like this have a tendency to be so focused on one thing, and completely ignore the fact they might be backing out into traffic.
It is possible that had the officer NOT tasered him, that further struggling physically could have gotten the driver killed by the passing traffic.
So, maybe the officer actually saved his life. You just never know.
Many of the posters that have been taking the drivers side claim that the police car pulled in front of the speed limit sign, and that the driver did not see it due to that.
That is what my response was in reference to.
The reference to another sign which the officer said was ‘a half mile back’ or so, was that a speed limit sign or the one saying ‘Loose gravel’?
I think it is not clear from the tape.
Ok... I've listened 3 more times... with my Bose sound-cancelling head phones... I just DON'T hear that. I do hear the driver saying, "No, I'm not".... I think, to whether or not he will sign the ticket.
I would LIKE to hear some evidence that the officer warned him he might be arrested. I REALLY would like to hear that, because it would go a LONG way toward changing my opinion.
In the arrest video from Vegas posted earlier... the officer gave clear instructions about what was going to happen... then, took action. I'm 100% OK with that.
In this case... the cop seems to have made up his mind about what he's going to do, but doesn't bother to inform the driver.
Do you really think this guys WANTS to be arrested? I mean... c'mon.. really? I think, a few firm threats would have gone a long way toward defusing the situation. But.... I get it. You don't see it that way.
Just curious... In what state do you patrol?
Timeout for rest of MIZZOU/KU game being held here in KC.
Gonna watch the video again, after the game, and will come back to y’all (missouri slang).
Missouri... Got it. I will make a concerted effort to drive AROUND Missouri.
And, you should be in a GOOD mood tonight! Go Mizzou!
LOL. Actually she is one of the sweetest persons you’d wanna know.
UCANSEE2: No more at risk than the life of the officer. (who had to stand just as close to traffic as the driver, in order to handcuff him)
Why did you add the part in parenthesis? Obviously, when the driver was down and and being handcuffed, both were at equal risk. I was referring to the possibility of falling into a busy traffic lane, and being helpless to protect himself.
Let me ask it this way: Is it your contention that a person standing along a highway in full control of his faculties, is no more at risk than someone being tazered in the same setting?
If the officer had not used the taser, and had to physically subdue the driver, it could have been the officer hit by a car.
Agreed. Trying to wrestle with the guy would have been just as reckless, and risked the life of both.
The driver's wife could have been like her husband, gotten back out of the vehicle to argue with the officer, and gotten hit by a car, killing both her and her unborn child.
Correct. I don't think the officer is being faulted for telling her to stay in the car.
I suppose that would have also been the fault of the officer. As it was, he told her to stay in the vehicle. For his safety, but especially for hers. Do you not recognize this as a fact?
Of course. I haven't said otherwise.
It is possible that had the officer NOT tasered him, that further struggling physically could have gotten the driver killed by the passing traffic.
We agree that a struggle alongside a busy highway is unwise.
So, maybe the officer actually saved his life. You just never know.
Is it your contention that the only options available to the officer were tazering or a physical struggle?
If not, what other options could the trooper have chosen in this situation?
“I do hear the driver saying, “No, I’m not”.... I think, to whether or not he will sign the ticket.”
That is correct.
I listened several times, and I don’t hear the officer make that statement either.
I think “turn around and put your hands behind your back”,”turn around put your hands behind your back”, “turn around”, “turn around” is pretty clear.
FOUR CHANCES to do as the officer asked.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that “turn around and put your hands behind your back” means you are being ‘arrested’, is a pretty delusional person.
“Just curious... In what state do you patrol?”
I guess I asked for that with my “do they call you Massey” comment.
You misjudge me on that. My only associations with the police have been on the barrel end of their guns.
Once was on the barrel end of a SWAT rifle, with the so called Jack Booted thugs wearing ski masks.
“If not, what other options could the trooper have chosen in this situation?”
I already specified my opinion of the options in post #396.
The game is just getting good.
KU could still win.
I don’t care who wins, I just like the game.
It’s over. Mizzou won.
I can hear the fireworks from here.
Looked to me like he was angling away from his vehicle, and certainly made no move to run to it. I agree with the poster that believed the subject was somewhat in shock to see what may have appeared to be a gun pointed at him when he *thought* he had done nothing wrong. There is a definite change in his demeanor once the tazer came out. Possibly not the correct change, but a change. He became less agitated, the volume of his voice got lower and he appeared somewhat disbelieving of what was happening.
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.