Taser video: Prosecutors reviewing trooper's action (YouTube Stun Gun Cop)

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 2/1/08

[Mr. Brightside]

Taser video: Prosecutors reviewing trooper's action

By Nate Carlisle

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 01/31/2008 02:11:10 PM MST

Posted: 2:11 PM- Prosecutors are determining whether the trooper who used a Taser on a motorist should be charged with crimes.

The case of Utah Highway Patrol Trooper John Gardner is being reviewed by prosecutors in Tooele County, who will determine if he broke the law. Lawyers in Tooele County are pondering charges at the request of the Utah Attorney General's office and to avoid conflicts for prosecutors in eastern Utah, where the traffic stop occurred.

Attorney general spokesman Scott Troxel said his office has completed a fact-finding review of Gardner's use of the Taser but has not made any recommendations to Tooele County prosecutors.

On Sept. 14, in an event recorded by a police dashboard camera, Gardner stopped driver Jared Massey for speeding on U.S. Highway 40 in Uintah County. Massey refused to sign the citation, setting off a dispute that ended when Gardner struck him twice with his Taser.

Massey posted the video on YouTube, turning the event into an Internet sensation. UHP has said Gardner did not violate any of its policies.

[Graycliff]

“Most cops would simply drop the ticket into the window and walk away.”

I was a peace officer in TX for 30 years, i’ve known and met hundreds of peace officers, over that time. I know of none that would do that. Failure to sign a citation is an arrestable offence.

[pepperhead]

He didn’t need the driver’s signature anyway.

Good point, he had the incident on his dash cam.

[pepperhead]

I’m surprised the terrified woman wasn’t tasered as well. What a brave guy this officer is. < /s>

He would have got her too but his taser was out of juice because the cop was tasering his wife and kids at home they night before.......

[pepperhead]

What did they do before tazers? Shoot them dead?

Beat them down with night sticks.

[Mr. Brightside]

I think the officer handled it very well.

Except that he didn't tase the pregnant wife or the toddler in the car seat. /s

[Mr. Brightside]

Funny lawyer joke.

>>> the cop did a few things leading up to this to incite the incident too. <<<

Exactly. Cops go through training on how to DE-escalate situations. This cop simply turned the heat up and zapped the guy as soon as he could.

[Graycliff]

What a ridiculously stupid comment, but not unexpected.

[Mr. Brightside]

In your 30 years as a peace officer (which does not describe this cop), did any of them brag about giving someone “a ride on the taser” like this officer did?

[Rick.Donaldson]

like I said, it DEPENDS ON THE STATE. So folks her making blanket statements about refusal to sign a citation, cop or not, are WRONG, and so are you. I don’t care how long you were a peace officer, if a person is refusing to sign a citation, unless there is a LAW ON THE BOOKS about it, you can’t simply arrest someone for refusing to sign. That’s a complete violation of the Constitution. Sorry.

[VeniVidiVici]

When the guy turned away, the cop could have been in danger, yes. BUT if the cop were properly controlling the situation and not ordering the guy out of his car, etc, then the situation would have have escalated to that point.

You mean to say that the officer should have told him first that if he didn't sign that he'd get arrested and possibly go for "a ride on the Taser"? What on earth for? That takes all the fun out of it.

[Graycliff]

“did any of them brag about giving someone “a ride on the taser” like this officer did?”

Whats that got to do with failure to sign a citation and resisting arrest?

[Mr. Brightside]

Utah Code 77.7.18-24, etc.

The violator (for more serious offenses) must be taken immediately before a magistrate by the officer. For less serious offenses, the officer may (if he believes a promise is sufficient) accept the violator’s signature as a promise to appear at a later date.

[Graycliff]

Here’s an idea! Post a link From The Utah Penal Code, showing me where I’m wrong. Since you seem to know the law, that should be no problem.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I don’t know, I have watched a lot of these videos lately, and not one of them where the cop used the taser was it even necessary. There was one, where a guy who was drunk was belligerent, ok, there was a reason to use it. The guy wasn’t a threat to the cops at all, and couldn’t have hit a wall if he’d been placed in front of it and had help aiming, BUT, he could have hurt himself. THAT was probably the only one where it was justified. There have been several deaths lately attributed to tasers as well. A woman in a wheel chair? Some of the same folks here arguing this was a good thing would likely argue they should have tasered her as well.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Here’s an idea, post a link yourself, I don’t have to show I’m right. You and some others are making the statement that it is an “arrestable offense” (Yes, I see the link above, but you wil NOTE no where does it say ‘arrestable’).

So, instead of you so called “cops” and former peace officers making blanket statements, why don’t YOU guys start defending your blanket statements?

How about this one? Innocent until PROVEN guilty??? WOW... what a concept.

[Graycliff]

Looks like the officer didn’t believe a promise was sufficient. Neither would I.

[Mr. Brightside]

There was no requirement for the guy to sign.

[EKrusling]

I don't think you're being entirely fair here.

The speed limit had dropped to 40 MPH, but that isn't the whole story. If you watch the video posted in #11, you see that the sign itself isn't a permanent one, but sort of a temporary thing on a platform with legs. It's impossible to say how long that had been there. Moreover, the bottom of the sign is mounted no more than half the height of the sign itself. That means, from ground to very top of the sign can't be any more than three or four feet. To top it off, the driver in the video is seen to pass the sign while the police car is pulled over right in front of the too-short sign.

New speed limit, short sign, and the sign blocked by the ticketing officer's car.

You call the officer polite. I didn't get that impression. The driver was [justifiably] angry about being pulled over. He wanted the argue the circumstances of the citation, but this wasn't the proper time or place for that. The citing officer went on to handle things very poorly. In his speech he was short, condescending, and barked at the driver more than once.

When it came time to give the driver his ticket, the officer didn't explain anything. It's easy to say that the ticket explains things, that signing is not an admission of guilt, but the driver could not read the ticket. The police officer still had the citation in his hands. First the officer ordered the driver to sign the citation, then he threatened, "you're going to sign."

When the driver refused to sign the officer ordered him out of the vehicle. Again he didn't explain anything. The driver was still stuck on the issue of the signs, still trying to argue his case. He thought the police officer ordered him out so that he could explain, and he approached the officer to point out his objection. The officer pulled his weapon and then told the driver to turn around, put his hand behind his back. The driver freaked, but he did turn around and he kept his hands visible. The started walked away from the officer, shouting at him like an idiot, but with his hands clearly visible and moving very slowly. The officer continue to shout the same instructions, turn around (the driver had), put your hands behind your back (the driver had not) then the officer fired his taser.

When everything was said and done, the police officer got on his radio, and plainly misrepresented the events.


What of the driver? Was he right? Obviously no. He was stubborn and acted like an asshole. As things ramped up he continued to antagonize the officer. In his defense, he was neither accustomed to nor trained for these situations.

If the driver was in the wrong, does that put the officer in the right? I say no. This situation combined two things people hate most about cops -- speed traps and police arrogance. The officer did absolutely nothing to defuse the situation and almost everything in his power to stir things up. If the driver was wrong to argue matters the officer was double so to argue back. The moment he started arguing with the driver about the placement of the signs he implied that the issue was open to debate. Ordering the driver out of the car when so agitated and plainly unready to listen was nothing short of stupid. Acknowledge the guy's complaint, tell him you're still citing him, and make it clear that things aren't open to discussion at the side of the road. Heck, show some courtesy. Let the man know you plan to arrest him before you take him out of his car and have to draw your taser weapon.

If things got out of control and went further than they had to, it is the fault of the officer trained to deal with these things who did a lousy job. The driver doesn't deserve to get rich in a civil suit, he did enough here to bring the tasering upon himself. Neither does the officer deserve to get off scot-free. He acted unprofessionally, caused things to get out of control, and just plain screwed up. Call in police malpractice. He probably shouldn't be fired, but his department should say more than, 'lawful tasering, appropriate use of force.' It clearly was not.

[Mr. Brightside]

If the cop was correct, why were there no charges filed against the driver for his refusal to sign?

[dragnet2]

This LEO should not be in law enforcement. He was a danger to himself, and nearly got the non-threatening citizen killed when he dropped him in, or very close to the #2 traffic lane.

This cop needs to resign, or be terminated from employment.