[natehunts]

Interesting LEO stop. Sorry if this has been posted before, I didn't see it. What do you think about it? Here are two different feeds for the story.

http://infowars.net/articles/november20 ... 7Tased.htm

http://www.myfoxutah.com/myfox/pages/Ho ... geId=1.1.1

 

[Paul]

WOW!

I bet that cop looses his job and the guy that got tased wins his lawsuit! Cop video cams are the best thing to ever happen. I guess the moral of this story is if you get pulled over ALWAYS stay where the dash cam can see you. That cop is going down!

-PW

 

[Paul]

Something I noticed as I watched the video and forgot to state, was IMO watching the guy drive by the 40 MPH sign, there is no way he was going much over the speed limit. In fact, I would bet that a good trial attorney would have no problem proving it. If you watch the dashed lines on the road you could time the interval as the guys vehicle passes the dashed lines and you could easily prove his actual speed as he passes the speed limit sign. I'm sure it would be admissable in a court....I obviously don't know how fast the guy was going, but it didn't look aver 40 MPH to me.

-PW

 

[althor]

The cop seems to be refering to a sign before the one shown in the video. He appears to have the driver for speeding while behind him and is manuevering to let him get in front so he can pull him over.

I think the driver has plenty of warning... I don't know the law here but I would feel warned with the taser pointed at me.

I don't know why it was so hard for the officer to tell him how fast he was going, and it might have been nice to indicate that he could be arrested by not signing the ticket, but I don't know what he is required to do either.

One thing that is clear to me is that the driver was refusing the officer's commands and was generally acting stupid and insisting that he was in control. I don't think that many LEOs would act differently if you walked away and put your hands in your pocket after being told to turn around and put your hands behind your back.

My first reaction is normally to side with the motorist in a traffic situation and I began to watch the clip with that attitude, but I think this driver doesn't stand a chance of winning a case based on this video.

 

[natehunts]

I think that both parties could have acted better. I think that the officer could have handle things a tad better especailly once the guy got out of the car. He pulled the taser pretty quick, even before the guy began to refuse. The guy on the other hand was very defensive from the beginning. He was not very respectful and his biggest mistake was not doing exactly what the officer said once he was pointing a taser at him. Walking away and placing his hand in his pocket like he did was not smart and it got him tased. There were just too many things that both parties could have done different to prevent the guy from getting arrested and tased. Both parties are to blame.

I have been pulled over a few times but never since I began carrying. Even before I as always respectful and I understood that I most likely would never win an argument on the scene with an officer. After going on many ride-alongs with a officer near Oakland, I have a better understanding for what officers go through and who they have to deal with. Doesn't mean they have to right to treat everyone like a criminal, but I have an understanding of why they might.

 

[Cinhil]

This officer went way overboard. He refused to answer legitimate questions, refused Mr. Massey his Rights and then without provocation tazered him without warning---unless you consider pulling it on you without provocation to be a "warning?"
Then this officer violated the rights of Mrs. Massey--opening her vehicle door and leaning in (for a peek) as he lied to her. Then he went in the drivers side--he never asked for permission--that is a violation of Civil & Constitutional Rights right there.
Then he lied outright to the other officer and on tape--he isn't worthy of the Trust the People have placed him in and ought to be removed from office & civilly charged with assault and these violations
At no time did Mr. Massey refuse any supposed "order," he had a Right to have his questions answered on the spot--this never happened. When he tried conversing logically, without guile or raised voice the officer immediately took umbrage because he Knew he was in the wrong and Chose to act like the jerk he portrayed himself to be on the video. I say he loses his job & spends time in jail. Liars are the same as thieves and this officer certainly was that on this day!
I wouold be embarrassed to have him on my force if I were his superior & would eliminate him from that office immediately.

 

[tap-rack-bang]

I think the trooper could have done it better but that guy was being an idiot. First of all the side of the road is not the place to argue thats what court is for. That guy should spend the night in a cell and he doesn't have to read him any rights unless he is going to question him after he is under arrest. And had i been in the troopers shoes when he headed back to the car he would have Ridden the lightning. I would be surprised if a suit or complaint netted anything other that a verbal warning. To many examples of officers getting in a fight or shootout with a non compliant guy heading back to his car. he was told he was under arrest and didn't comply with the officers instructions that it self is a crime if you are innocent of the first charge or not.

 

[Thomas]

First off before making judgment everyone needs to see the full video. If you have not already you can watch it here:

The cop warned this guy more then neccesary. The man walked away after being told to put his hands behind his back. The law says he can use what force is neccesary to make the arrest.

Pepper Spray and the Taser were designed to keep the officer from having to go "hands on" to make an arrest or control a subject as that is a dangerous situation.

Also, in the video the whole time the cop was at the window the guy was arguing and being non-compliant. I think it is BS that the news only choose to show enough of the video that made it look as if the cop totally over reacted.

I can also post 20 other videos that will show scenarios just like this one where the subjject backed away from the officer back to his vehicle to retrieve a firearm. The officer did what was neccesary to keep the subject from reaching his vehicle.

These officers have a hard enough job without people calling for the head everytime they think they were a little rough. Also as far as reading him his rights he does not have to do it until he is questioned. The officer was trying to control the scene first and is not obligated to read him his rights just because he demands it. As long as the officer does not violate them before informing the subject of those rights.

Watch the video again and watch where the guy is heading right back to his vehicle also notice the cop searched the "FRONT" of the vehicle after arresting the man. You have to understand this situation from the officers State of Mind obviously the officer was concerned he was going back to the vehicle for something.

I doubt when the officer first pulled the taser he thought he was actually going to have to use it. It was used to gain compliance and the subject decided not to comply even after seeing the taser and being warned several times. This guy was a errogant hot head if he had just signed the ticket or read where it states "Signing this ticket is not an ommision of guilt."

He was more concerned with being the big tuff guy. What an idiot...

 

[UtahCFP]

The way the driver turned and covered his pocket made me a bit nervous -- reminded me of the way some folks grab hold of the Spyderco clipped there. Could have been handled better by both, but I think I'd go with the officer on this one.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry I had to respond directly to some comments here:

He refused to answer legitimate questions, refused Mr. Massey his Rights and then without provocation tazered him without warning---unless you consider pulling it on you without provocation to be a "warning?"

The officer yelled at the guy 4 times to put his hands behind his back that is a lot of warning. Also as I said in my last post he had no obligation at that point to read him his rights.

Then this officer violated the rights of Mrs. Massey--opening her vehicle door and leaning in (for a peek) as he lied to her. Then he went in the drivers side--he never asked for permission--that is a violation of Civil & Constitutional Rights right there.

There was no violation of civil rights. Mr. Massey was arrested and was driving the vehicle. The officer had probable cause to search within the reach of the subject. I am assuming when you say lie you mean when he said he told the subject he would taser him.

Well I would invite you to be put in a high stress energy pumping situation and remember exact words you stated. The man had a taser pointed at him the subject realized it very clearly that was all the warning he should have needed.

he isn't worthy of the Trust the People have placed him in and ought to be removed from office & civilly charged with assault and these violations

I sure hope no one ever decides your life should be destroyed and your career destroyed forever based on your actions at one single event. Mostly when those actions are justified as the officers were here.

At no time did Mr. Massey refuse any supposed "order," he had a Right to have his questions answered on the spot--this never happened.

Yes he did by not putting his hands behind his back after being told to do so FOUR (4) times... And as stated he had no right to have any questions answered at that moment.

When he tried conversing logically, without guile or raised voice the officer immediately took umbrage because he Knew he was in the wrong and Chose to act like the jerk he portrayed himself to be on the video.

Did we watch the same video??? The subject was being a jerk and had a raised voice from the beginning and told the officer NO I AM NOT when he was told to sign the ticket. The LAW says that if a subject does not sign the ticket the officer has a right to arrest that subject. Had the subject not been so argumentative the officer probably would not have arrested him in the first place.

I say he loses his job & spends time in jail. Liars are the same as thieves and this officer certainly was that on this day!
I wouold be embarrassed to have him on my force if I were his superior & would eliminate him from that office immediately.

WOW! Lucky for this guy you are not the judge.. :shock:

And thankfully there are rules in place that makes sure he is actually innocent until proven guilty that includes losing his job.

 

[UtahRSO]

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. If the tasered man is right, and he had not yet entered the reduced speed zone, it looks like a wrongful stop, excessive force, and lying on the part of the trooper.

 

[Paul]

Is there really a law that says you can be arrested if you refuse to sign a speeding ticket?

After reading all the posts, I think a big part of my opinion now would depend on the answer to this question. I was always under the impression that you did not have to sign the ticket. If you can be arrested for not signing the ticket, then it is a completely different situation, but if that is the case, that is the dumbest law ever. The cop should have explained this to the motorist though.

I still don't think the motorist was being combative. He simply wanted to know how fast he was going and why he was being issued a speeding ticket. The cop never really answered him. And I do think that the proper place to get a fair explanation of how fast you were going and why you were being given a speeding ticket IS on the side of the road. The cop seemed to just get frusturated with the guy asking for an explanation. Yes the motorist did act stupid after he got out of the car, however, I think the cop could have handled the situation much better by giving the motorist an explanation of why he was doing what he was doing. I really think the motorist did just want to know how fast he was going and why he was being arrested.

I also have a hard time believing the argument that the guy was speeding behind the cop and that the cop pulled over to let him pass so he could then pull over the motorist. The icing on the cake to me is the cop LYING to his supervisor. I do have a tremendous amount of respect for LEO's and the job they have to do, however, to me LYING indicates the true character of the cop and is a trait that should not be tolerated among LEO!!!

-PW

 

[Cinhil]

The tazered victim repeatedly, (while in his vehicle) asked for the speed/reason he was pulled over and the officer refused to tell him. He is required to do so. The victim was within his rights, as he plainly stated, to know exactly what he was being ticketed for (this includes the speed and he may also ask to see the radar guns display), before he would sign the document. The officer refused to answer him, simply saying you were going a little fast is no answer, in fact it side-steps the issue completely.

 

[Thomas]

First off yes it is a law that you can be arrested if you fail to sign. Not signing is not against the law speeding is against the lay. When he refused to sign he refused to appear before the court. When you receive a citation it is the same as being arrested however, you are released at the scene on your own recognizance. If you fail to sign the ticket then they can choose to make a physical arrest and not do an ROR.

Also, I have never seen a speeding ticket that did not have the speed violation right on the citation. If he would have looked at the ticket instead of refusing to look at or sign it his questions would have been answered. The officer is not required to answer any questions the answers are on the citation. I am not sure where anyone gets the idea that they are required to answer any questions. If you can show me a statute in the Utah Revised Statutes saying they are required to answer the suspects questions then I will admit I am wrong but I don't think you will find anything of the sort.

One other thing to keep in mind is that we cannot hear what all was said in the initial conversation as the vehicles passing by over powered the talking.

Someone also said he lied to his supervisor. If you look at the video the other officer is not a supervisor it is a county deputy that responded to assist. I do agree he did not tell the man he would taser him but as I said the man should have realized considering he admits in the interview he saw the cop pull a "Gun".

If the subject really thought it was a gun he really is an idiot for not complying. I am not saying that the officer could not have done something to avoid the outcome. However, what I am saying is he was completely within the law (IN MY OPINION).

The idea of judging him on what he could have or had not done scares the **** out of me what if the Liberals could make rules based on their principles alone. Not one of us would be able to own a gun. Good thing they can't because the law protects us the same as it should for this officer.

HERE IS A VIDEO TO PONDER:

This is the Utah Higway Patrol in Ogden, UT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utSjnTqP ... re=related

Now I know everything is not the same it never is in any stop. However, a subject should always be treated respectfully but always as a dangerous person.

 

[UtahRSO]

I talked to two retired LEOs today at the range. Both had seen the video, and their opinion was that the trooper went way overboard in the way he handled the incident. They said (and I hadn't heard this before, and have nothing to base it on but what they said) that this trooper had other complaints against him of excessive force.

 

[Cinhil]

Thanks Mjolner, the comments from the officers you spoke with reinforce what I saw and felt concerning this officers actions on the video.

 

[Thomas]

He also is a 14 year veteran of the force. For what I have heard through the grapevine is he has never had any formal reprimand and all complaints were found to be non-justified.

Perform his job writing tickets to upset drivers all day for 14 years people are bound to make complaints.

 

[xmirage2kx]

I think the biggest problem came from ‘When’ the cop pulled the taser. If I was pulled over for speeding and asked to get out of my car to walk back to the cop car along side the cop only to have him tell me to place my hands behind my back I would question him too. I would ask why in the world I would need to put my hands behind my back. The officer never told him he was under arrest, and I see no reason he would believe he was until well AFTER the taser came out. From the video it looks as if the cop had made up his mind about tasering the guy long before there was any reason to. Best case "Put your hands behind your back" should have been followed with reaching for cuffs, not a taser. From the first time he was instructed to place his hands behind his back the cop instantly went for the taser. Then the cop told him to turn over followed by another taser shock within 1 second (I know I can’t turn over that quick, and after being tased I am sure it would be worse).

There is no doubt the guy was being stupid, but the cop went overboard. The only real question would be if the cop was somehow justified in his actions (while clearly in poor judgment). If he was justified then give him a warning and send him on his way; If not then he needs to be treated like any other normal person who committed this act.

 

[Thomas]

I agree with you xmirage. I won't be surprised if he gets a slap on the hand just to make the populous feel better.

I just don't understand why the subject would walk away with a "gun" pointed at him.

I do feel the officer was within policy only because he waited to Taser the man until he walked away. However, he was over zealous pulling the Taser when he did. I agree if it was me I would have had my cuffs out.

God Bless,

 

[Ruger Collector]

A traffic citation is an arrest. Refusing to sign the citation is not unlawful, but it's as good as refusing to let the officer release you.

77-7-24. Notice to appear in court -- Contents -- Promise to comply -- Signing -- Release from custody -- Official misconduct.

(1) If a person who is arrested for a violation of Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, that is punishable as a misdemeanor is immediately taken before a magistrate as provided under Section 77-7-23, the peace officer shall prepare, in triplicate or more copies, a written notice to appear in court containing:
(a) the name and address of the person;
(b) the number, if any, of the person's driver license;
(c) the license plate number of the person's vehicle;
(d) the offense charged; and
(e) the time and place the person shall appear in court.
(2) The time specified in the notice to appear must be at least five days after the arrest of the person unless the person demands an earlier hearing.
(3) The place specified in the notice to appear shall be made before a magistrate of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the alleged violation occurred.
(4) (a) In order to secure release as provided in this section, the arrested person shall promise to appear in court by signing at least one copy of the written notice prepared by the arresting officer.
(b) The arresting peace officer shall immediately:
(i) deliver a copy of the notice to the person promising to appear; and
(ii) release the person arrested from custody.
(5) A peace officer violating any of the provisions of this section shall be:
(a) guilty of misconduct in office; and
(b) subject to removal from office.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session

When he failed to put his hands behind his back he commited another crime.

41-6a-202. Violations of chapter -- Penalties.

(1) A violation of any provision of this chapter is a class C misdemeanor, unless otherwise provided.
(2) A violation of any provision of Parts 2, 11, 17, and 18 of this chapter is an infraction, unless otherwise provided.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session
---------------------------------------------------------------------
41-6a-209. Obedience to peace officer or other traffic controllers -- Speeding in construction zones.

(1) A person may not willfully fail or willfully refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a:
(a) peace officer;
(b) firefighter;
(c) flagger at a highway construction or maintenance site using devices and procedures conforming to the standards adopted under Section 41-6a-301; or
(d) uniformed adult school crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
(2) (a) If a person commits a speeding violation in a highway construction or maintenance site where workers are present, the court shall impose a fine for the offense that is at least double the fine in the uniform recommended fine schedule established under Section 76-3-301.5.
(b) The highway construction or maintenance site under Subsection (2)(a) shall be clearly marked and have signs posted that warn of the doubled fine.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session

Any reasonable person would interpret a weapon pointed at them in a confrontation as warning the person intends to use the weapon. He disobeyed the multiple orders to put his hands behind his back and started heading towards his vehicle (at which point the officer had to assume the guy was armed, since he hadn't proven otherwise) before the taser was fired. It looked to me like he was going to attempt escape. This person had been verbally combative from the start and there was no reasoning with him. The officer told him after the cuffs were on why he was being arrested, yet in the back seat of the car he kept demanding to know why he was being arrested (DUH!). As for not reading him his rights, that could make any questioning done inadmissible, but the officer clearly had no desire to listen to more of this guy's bs stories.

I don't agree with the use of a taser for non-deadly force, you never know when somebody has a medical condition which the taser could exacerbate. But for now they're legal to use as such.

Moral of this story: Save it for the judge.