Posted on 11/22/2007 7:37:13 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The incident stems from A The kid not observing the two speed limit signs in a construction zone (The second was obscured by the patrolman’s car for some 15 second which is 1/4 mile roughly. The Officer setting the kid up by omission..(Those who are in the game know good an well how he did it). (The kid was idiot the Officer tired)
However,
I don’t think this case is the best by any stretch to demonstrate the problem with Tazers.
I think it may in fact be one of those cases where it was a logical act to conclude the incident which was provoked by the Officer to begin with (not out of malice but tiredness).
That being said.
I would not have let the kid get back into his car and or maybe gain access to a weapon in the vehicle or on his person.
I also would not have wrestled with the kid on the freeway side of the vehicle (Thats too easy a way to get run over)
Still
I want Tazer employment greatly restricted as they are a not a “Non lethal weapon”.. They are a “Less Lethal” weapon big difference.
Taze a certain number of people in the population at random and a certain percentage of people will die.
That means the Tazer should not be used in situation where the officer is not in reasonable fear for his or someone else’s life. Not as a means to gain compliance to orders.
As such it’s application should be extremely limited.. Not even carried by all officers which is what the Manufacturer so desperately wants in order to make sales.
A night stick will not kill anyone when employed properly..
Hurt yes. however avoid the head, neck, spine and trunk and you would be hard pressed to kill anyone. Officers are trained to do that and they do it pretty well.
The Tazer’s ease of use encourages escalation in the the use of force too quickly in my opinion.
When an Officer knows he has to get his uniform dirty and work up a sweat unless he talks things out he will generally try to talk things out (or at least eventually choose that route with experience). Because the truth is even the more bullying types of officer (let’s not pretend they do not exist) never know with certainty they will walk away from a physical encounter unhurt (The guy who wrote the book may be the one eyed fat man in front of them) Mature Officers do not want to find out and want only to do their job in decent fashion not prove anything.
Courteous, respectful and reasonable treatment of citizens is responsible for more Police Officers going home safe and sound than all the guns, tazers, body armor, laws and clubs around.
Human nature easily leads a certain number of people to becoming Police Officers that are IMO less than optimally suited.. Being in a position to “always win an argument and when you don’t win with words have State sanction to use violence to gain compliance does not bring out the best in human nature..among even the best and most mature people let alone young people.
The fact that there may be a price one pays for taking things to the extreme without cause helps reduce the desire to take things that far.. To deliberately incite conflict.
Young men and women under 30 are not emotionally qualified to be in the position of trust that PDs place people in..
They are there, truth be told, because they are cheap to pay and they are cheap to pay because like teachers they get other intangible benefits. Emotional satisfaction.. Only problem is.... That is wholly inappropriate for police department personell as a significant driver.
When all one has to do is give a set of commands, then Taze away, well, that is easy and there are no uniform cleaning bills.
That is a recipe for increased use and eventual abuse which is what we are seeing.
W
Wow... I seriously missed your meaning on this... Are you trying to say that Gardner stated ON THE YOUTUBE video, that he thought Massey was acting strangely.. BEFORE he arrested him?? NO WAY...
The CLOSEST you could come to anything like that, was when Gardner LIED about Massey "jumping all around"....
Not exactly convincing proof that Massey deserved to be arrested.
I have already refuted this point... Massey did NOT "repeatedly" refuse to provide his license and registration.... Gardner only asked, TWICE.. and, it took Massey all of 71 seconds to comply. I don't know about you... but, it would take me a few seconds to find my registration... and, at first, Massey was more intent in trying to discuss WHY he was being stopped. In no way, did he REFUSE To comply in providing documentation....
What makes you think he would take the ticket????
You really aren't getting my point on this, are you. After Gardner has WRITTEN the ticket.. Massey CANNOT just "refuse it". If only it were that simple. If Massey refuses to sign, or accept the ticket... then, he will be confronted by an entirely new arm of "the system"... he'll have bench warrants issued, and additional fines assessed. None of this has ANY negative impact on Gardner... it's ALL on Massey.
This little revenue-generating system our legislators have developed is QUITE effective at forcing "normal people" to comply. We don't need bad-ass officers with tasers to enforce speeding tickets.
Gardner, SURELY knew this... Massey would have found out, quickly... if he didn't already know.
I'm sorry... I've still heard NO COMPELLING REASON TO ARREST MASSEY.. from anyone. Because, there WAS.. NO REASON... except, Gardner was pissed (or tired, as another as proposed).. and, didn't like Massey. I'm sorry.. that is NOT sufficient reasoning.
The question is... WHY did Gardner have 'the kid' get out of his car in the first place? He had no reason. "Because he could" is, to me, NOT an acceptable reason.
Once out of the car... I would agree, that Gardner had crossed a line, and he could not allow Massey to go back... But, I don't agree that he needed to pull the Taser immediately... Nor, was tasering his only option at this point to get compliance from Massey. All he needed to do was be firm, and be reasonable in his request....
At what time in the video did Massey say that?
Once again, you are claiming something that no one else heard. You've already been forced to back off from at least 2 false claims about the audio alone.
And we're still waiting for you to address several challenges to your claim in post #475 that the officer "stated" the couple's behavior was strange.
“At what time in the video did Massey say that?”
Around 7:45
“And we’re still waiting for you to address several challenges to your claim in post #475 that the officer “stated” the couple’s behavior was strange.”
Two different officers arrived as backup. Gardner said it to the second one. That part is not on the video now. It stops after the first backup officer and doesn’t get to the second.
Massey’s lawyers edited the tape, and Massey himself arranged to have it released and posted on YOUTUBE.
He has also made further statements (there was a thread here on FR about this) criticizing those who are now attacking Gardner.
In the video, Massey continues walking away from Gardner while being told to turn around and put his hands behind his back. The only thing turned ‘around’ is his head, the rest of his body is facing towards his vehicle, and he never stops walking away from the officer until he gets hit with the tazer.
“on telling the officer “No. I tell you what we’re gonna do, we are...””
Correction: Massey says, “Second of all, were gonna go back and look at that sign....”
Amounts to exactly the same thing.
“Gardner only asked, TWICE..”
Three times. It is hard to hear the third time, but it is there.
If Massey was ‘searching for it’, as you suggest, I don’t believe the officer would have found it necessary to repeat himself.
Logic therefore concludes he was making no attempt. As you said, He wanted the officer to ‘prove’ he did something wrong before he was willing to cooperate.
(”Massey was more intent in trying to discuss WHY he was being stopped.”)
71 Seconds. Yep. It’s so hard to find those darn driver’s licenses. Probably packed in the family luggage.
The Registration. Where might one keep such a document?
Have your wife ask you “Honey, why were you late from work?” and then stand there and don’t answer for 71 seconds.
“Gardner was pissed (or tired, as another as proposed).. and, didn’t like Massey. I’m sorry.. that is NOT sufficient reasoning.”
I would agree with you on that.
Are you saying two versions of the video were on the net?
Massey's lawyers edited the tape, and Massey himself arranged to have it released and posted on YOUTUBE.
So where did the unedited tape come from? Or are you saying that Massey released an unedited version, then substitute the edited one? Please clarify this.
In the video, Massey continues walking away from Gardner while being told to turn around and put his hands behind his back.
Following those instructions would have meant suddenly stopping, and turning around to face the officer with his hands reaching behind his back.
If you were a cop questioning someone, would you want him facing you with two free hands behind his back?
Considering your track record on this thread, I would like other opinions on what Massey actually said.
So... are we agreed that Massey should not have been arrested to begin with?
Depends on which car I'm driving... it's different places in each. And, yes.. it actually would take me a few seconds to locate it... especially, in a tense situation.
Again... I just don't think having to wait 71 seconds for a registration is justification for arrest. Even when combined with "refusal to sign"..... All that crap is simply irrelevant... or, should have been.
So... now you claim he said that on a part of the tape that we all can't hear. I'm sorry.. but, I think even you would have to admit that your track record is pretty poor when it comes to hearing things correctly on a tape. I'd have to hear that for myself.... even if he DID say... It would most likely be in the context of the lies he was telling other officers to justify his own actions.. which, he KNEW were wrong.
I'm sorry.. but, I have NOT been able to find any other post where Massey is defensing Gardner... I've searched everwhere here.. and, googled it. I've seen NOTHING even remotely close to that. Perhaps... since you 'saw' it... you can locate it for us??
Gardner: Okay, I’ll be right with you. (walks back to car and fills out ticket, then returns to car)
Gardner: (unintelligible, but something like “Okay, I am giving you a ticket”)
Massey: (unintelligible comment)
Gardner: No, what you’re gonna do...
Massey: If you’re giving me a ticket, first of all, you’re gonna tell me why...
Gardner: For speeding
Massey: ...and second of all we’re gonna go look where the 40 mile an hour sign is.
Gardner: Well, you’re gonna sign this first.
Massey: No, I’m not. I’m not signing anything.
Gardner: Okay, hop out of the car.
The rest has been transcribed before. The mistake that the officer made here was that he just simply didn’t communicate properly with the driver. When Massey said “and second of all we’re gonna go look where that 40 mile an hour sign is”, Gardner should have said “Sir, you are welcome to go back and look and take all the pictures you want to use in court, but you are required by law to sign this ticket, which is not an admission of guilt on your part, and if you refuse to do so I will arrest you.” He didn’t say that or anything even remotely close to it.
Instead, Gardner’s answer was “Well, you’re gonna sign this first.” The clear implication from that statement is that if Massey will just sign the ticket first, then the officer will go back and look at the 40 mile an hour sign with him. That’s the impression he gave to Massey with that comment. When Massey refused to sign, the officer said “Okay. Hop out of the car.” Now, in Massey’s mind, what did that directive mean? Did it mean “You are under arrest”, or did it mean “Okay, hop out of the car so we can go look at that sign as you’ve just told me we are going to do before you sign the ticket”???
When you understand that it is entirely reasonable that Massey thought the officer was acquiescing to his demand to examine the sign together, you can understand why, when Massey got out of his vehicle, he thought he was going back to look at the 40 mile an hour sign with the officer. That’s why he gets out of his vehicle and proceeds to begin walking back in the direction of the sign, while pointing at the sign and saying something to Gardner about the sign. Imagine his surprise (his horror, actually) to see Gardner immediately pull a gun on him (he thought it was a gun, not a taser). It’s easy to see why Massey was shocked and didn’t understand what was going on from that point forward.
Massey’s actions from the moment the taser was pulled can all be understood if one is willing to consider Massey’s state of mind at the time of the incident.
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.