“New speed limit, short sign, and the sign blocked by the ticketing officer’s car.”
Absolutely untrue.
Anyone can see from the video that as the Massey’s vehicle goes by the speed limit sign, it is clearly in their line of sight.
Mr. Massey also stated that he SAW the 40 mph sign, but hadn’t REACHED IT YET.
But, I guess it’s OK for you to LIE in order to bolster your case.
If you listen to the officer in that video he tells the driver he had passed another sign about a half mile back. The one you see in the video is the second sign. It is possible that the driver couldn't see the second sign, and since he hadn't reached that second sign yet when the officer clocked him, that second sign really isn't relevant.
If the first sign was hard to see, it would be a reason for the driver to fight the ticket.
Not seeing the sign is even good reason to be irritated. It is likely that the driver didn't realize that he was speeding when he was pulled over. Most likely because he just didn't notice the first sign.
However, the officer was polite, and reasonably patient with the driver. He didn't try and be combative with the driver. He asked for his DL and registration, and told him why he was being stopped.
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.
It was the second sign, so the person the driver should have been angry with was himself. Unless the sign was hidden or hard to see, however there is usually a sign on both sides of the road when the speed limit drops and then only a sign on the right side later. We don't really know for sure in this case. The driver which was the one that posted the video on YouTube didn't bother providing any additional information about the first sign, so I'm making what I feel to be a reasonable assumption that he just didn't realize that he had passed it despite it being visible.
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.
He started out friendly. He got more shot as the driver was argumentative, but was never really rude.
He did kind of bark at the driver when the driver ignored him and didn't appear to make any effort to provide his driver's license and registration. That's completely appropriate. It wasn't a request, and when the guy didn't start complying within a reasonable period of time, the officer made it clear that it wasn't a request, and then droped his tone back to polite but efficient.
When it came time to give the driver his ticket, the officer didn't explain anything.
The driver didn't really give him a chance. The officer told him that he was giving him a ticket, and the guy started arguing and saying that he was going to go look for the sign first. The officer told him he was going to sign the ticket first. The officer didn't get rude, he just took a step back and said ok, hop out of the car. The officer seemed mildly irritated, but that was about it.
It wasn't until the guy refused to put his hands on the car and started walking away that the officer got confrontational. It's not surprising that a suspect refusing to be searched and walking away would make an officer confrontational. There are few better ways to make an officer confrontational than to give them reason to believe that you are not only argumentative, but that you might be armed. Tasers don't have that great of an effective range, and if the suspect gets very far away he has to pull his gun. He's better off firing the taser than having to drop it and pull his gun.
When the driver refused to sign the officer ordered him out of the vehicle. Again he didn't explain anything.
True, but his attempts to explain about the previous sign just got the driver to demand that he was going to drive back and look for the sign. It's not like there was anything more to explain about the situation. The driver was determined not to believe the officer.
The driver was still stuck on the issue of the signs, still trying to argue his case.
What was there to argue? The officer says the sign is there. The driver says he didn't see it. The officer had probably been set up there for a while pulling over people who entered the road construction area too fast and was likely quite sure that the previous sign existed.
I didn't see the speed limit sign is probably something officers hear on a regular basis. They aren't going to just say, OK, I'll wait here while you go back and satisfy your curiosity.
He thought the police officer ordered him out so that he could explain, and he approached the officer to point out his objection.
He may have believed that the officer ordered him out of the car so they could discuss the issue more. There really wasn't more to discuss, he just seemed to think that somehow if he continued in his disbelief and his arguing, that the officer would decide that he didn't deserve a ticket.
So he was operating in a rather delusional state.
Regardless of that, when the officer ordered him repeatedly to put his hands on the back of the police car, it should have been plainly obvious that disregarding that and continuing to argue was a pretty stupid thing to do.
If it wasn't clear at that point, the officer drawing his taser and repeating the order with increased emphasis should have been are really, really good clue.
Instead of complying, he continued to argue and turned away from the officer. That made it so the officer could no longer see the driver's hand. If an officer has a weapon pointed at you, and you not only don't make sure he can see your hands, but actually turn away from him so he can't see what's in your hand, there is a good chance that bad things are going to happen to you.
The officer was telling him to put his hands on the car so he could pat him down. The driver refused, argued, and turned away even though the officer had a weapon pointed at him. That is incredibly stupid.
It's pretty obvious that the driver was just being stubborn and foolish rather than intentionally trying to avoid being checked for weapons and contraband, but the results are the same. Your actions have consequences. His foolish actions got him shocked by a taser. It could have been much worse. Traffic stops are dangerous for officers. Officers are surprised by drivers that pull out weapons and shoot them every year.
Most drivers don't think about things from the officer's point of view. If they did they might not be such idiots. They'd probably still argue, but they would at least be smart enough to keep their hands in plain view and not try and walk away when an officer says to put your hands on the hood of the car.
Ordering the driver out of the car when so agitated and plainly unready to listen was nothing short of stupid.
I guess the officer should have offered to hold the driver's hand and counsel him on relaxing first. How could the officer do something as horrible as have the driver step out of the car when the drive was agitated? Officers should just leave agitated people alone, or coddle them.
Even if the drive wasn't ready to listen to reason, the fact that he was agitated provided even more reason to do a Terry Stop and frisk him.
This situation combined two things people hate most about cops -- speed traps and police arrogance.
I've been pulled over by arrogant cops before. They start out obnoxious and overbearing and only get worse when confronted. This cop started out being reasonably pleasant, and went to polite but direct.
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.
No he didn't. He turned and started walking back to his car. His right hand was partially in his right hand pocket, his left hand was down by his left pocket, but not visible.
The started walked away from the officer, shouting at him like an idiot, but with his hands clearly visible and moving very slowly.
Look at the video around 2:34. His right hand is partially in his right pocket. Probably just a nervous reaction, not smart, but not overly threatening since most of his hand is still visible. However, his other hand is not visible and in the vicinity of his other pocket. In hindsight, almost certainly unintentional, but incredibly stupid.
Even after the fact, he remains polite to the guy. Even when the guy says he is going to sue and the wife is screaming hysterically from the car, he remains polite.
If the driver was wrong to argue matters the officer was double so to argue back.
The officer didn't argue back. He explained the situation, the driver wanted to argue and refused to comply. The officer didn't argue with him.
The moment he started arguing with the driver about the placement of the signs he implied that the issue was open to debate.
First you complain that he didn't take enough time to talk things over with the driver, then you complain that he argued with him, which gave the driver the impression that the issue was open to debate.
I don't see anything that would give the driver the impression that the officer was attempting to debate the issue. Even if he did, it doesn't matter regarding the driver refusing to follow the very clear orders of the officer.
The officer did absolutely nothing to defuse the situation and almost everything in his power to stir things up.
The officer didn't stir things up, he just refused to argue with the driver and refused to let the driver have things his way.
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.
The guy argued his point, the officer told him there was another sign farther back. The guy admitted to going well over the speed limit. The officer went back to his car, came back, and said he was going to give him a ticket.
I really don't understand how you interpret that as leaving the topic open to discussion.
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.
Bull crap. You seem to have the impression that no matter what the driver does, it's the officer's fault if the situation doesn't end happily.
The driver is responsible for his own actions. The officer can't make the driver comply with his instructions. The officer didn't make the driver put his hands down by his pockets, turn, and walk away.
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.
In hindsight, I would agree that the officer was a bit fast to have the driver step out of the car and cuff him so he could search him. However, there is a big difference between saying it could have been done better in hindsight, and that his actions were unreasonable.
The driver's actions were simply unreasonable.
He probably shouldn't be fired, but his department should say more than, 'lawful tasering, appropriate use of force.' It clearly was not.
The tasering was justified because the driver turned away and put his hands by his pockets where the officer couldn't see them.
You can argue that in perfect hindsight, the officer may have been able to avoid the situation had he realized that the guy was harmless, but argumentative. However, the driver got tasered as a direct result to ignoring the officers commands even when a taser was pointed at him, walking away, and not keeping his hands visible and away from his waist.