“Exactly how many times did he have to repeat himself????”
He said turn around. The driver turned around. Then he said turn around, turn around.... What did the officer want?
The driver wasn’t threatening the cop as the cop had turned his back on the driver. IMO, when he said “hop out of your car” he had made the decision to tazer the driver. He walked back to the police car and put his clipboard on it. He immediately went for his taser.
“They make this claim with the implication that the driver was aware of this fact, and that is why he didn’t understand why the officer was ‘arresting’ him.”
Advising the person they are under arrest is not a ‘claim’; its the law. I’ve posted the Utah code in this thread. The law states the officer is supposed to inform the person they are under arrest. There are exceptions which clearly were not met prior to the turn around commands. If I were on a jury they wouldn’t be met at any time during this encounter. The only possible excuse was the driver was trying to escape. If the driver were running it would be different but he was moving slowly.
“He’s smart and knows the UTAH HPD CODE, but not smart enough to understand the words “Turn around and put your hands behind your back”, repeated four times?”
He had already turned around once. Do you want him to stand there and turn around in circles?
The driver was rude. The officer over reacted, handled the situation poorly, lied to a fellow officer, risked this guys life and abused his authority. I hope he loses his job and the county has to pay. Perhaps they will train their officers to be more careful in use of force. Properly handled this would have been a ticket and possibly some revenue from the speed trap. Instead its a huge black eye for Utah.
“The driver wasn’t threatening the cop as the cop had turned his back on the driver. IMO, when he said “hop out of your car” he had made the decision to tazer the driver. He walked back to the police car and put his clipboard on it. He immediately went for his taser.”
Is it the UHPD policy that when they are placing a suspect under arrest, that they pull out the taser as a precautionary move, regardless to whether they have to use it or not?
You say the cop had made the decision to taser the driver before he pulled the taser, and that is BS. He stated “turn around and put your hands behind your back” TWICE, then “put your hands behind your back” TWICE. I think he gave the driver every chance in the world to cooperate.
Now, the speculation that the driver just is plain stupid, and didn’t understand those words, although unlikely, could be used as an excuse.
The speculation that the officer thought he made it abundantly clear, could also be an excuse on the officer’s side, in court.
I think police use of tasers has sometimes been ‘over the line’.
I think police having tasers as a first resort (prior to drawing a revolver), has probably saved lives.
I think that this driver, even if the excuse is immaturity or stupidity, contributed greatly to escalating the situation.
I think that the officer not plainly stating “you are under arrest” could be used to support Massey’s case.
I DO NOT believe that an officer has to state “you are under arrest” to be able to place you in handcuffs. They don’t even have to be charging you with a violating the law.
The officer could have handcuffed the wife when she stepped out of the vehicle, for her safety and his own.