Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
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...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
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,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
What happened with this guy was he did have a right, which we all do, to question the reason for the citation so he may fully understand what he is signing before doing so, and is entitled to an answer. This is what he said several times. His request to be informed before signing was deliberately ignored.
You keep saying this even though many have said time and time again it is not the case. If you are so sure that he has the right to question the reason for the citation show us the Utah Revised Statute.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
TMG, Thank you for reading my mind. I did not even know how to respond to an article when I specifically said post proof from the Utah Revised Statutes.

I am in Loss Prevention and every day I deal with people yelling about their rights. I have all the respect in the world for a persons rights. They just need to fully understand them.

I get people telling me "you can't cuff me" or even better yet "you have no right to search me"

Nothing surprises me anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
402 Posts
Easier to explain by looking at the code:

76-6-602. Retail theft, acts constituting.
A person commits the offense of retail theft when he knowingly:
(1) Takes possession of, conceals, carries away, transfers or causes to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment with the intention of retaining such merchandise or with the intention of depriving the merchant permanently of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the retail value of such merchandise; or
(2) Alters, transfers, or removes any label, price tag, marking, indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value of any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale, in a retail mercantile establishment and attempts to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of such merchandise; or
(3) Transfers any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale in a retail mercantile establishment from the container in or on which such merchandise is displayed to any other container with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of such merchandise; or
(4) Under-rings with the intention of depriving the merchant of the retail value of the merchandise; or
(5) Removes a shopping cart from the premises of a retail mercantile establishment with the intent of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart.

76-6-603. Detention of suspected violator by merchant -- Purposes.
(1) Any merchant who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed retail theft may detain such person, on or off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for all or any of the following purposes:
(a) to make reasonable inquiry as to whether such person has in his possession unpurchased merchandise and to make reasonable investigation of the ownership of such merchandise;
(b) to request identification;
(c) to verify such identification;
(d) to make a reasonable request of such person to place or keep in full view any merchandise such individual may have removed, or which the merchant has reason to believe he may have removed, from its place of display or elsewhere, whether for examination, purchase, or for any other reasonable purpose;
(e) to inform a peace officer of the detention of the person and surrender that person to the custody of a peace officer;
(f) in the case of a minor, to inform a peace officer, the parents, guardian, or other private person interested in the welfare of that minor immediately, if possible, of this detention and to surrender custody of such minor to such person.
(2) A merchant may make a detention as permitted herein off the premises of a retail mercantile establishment only if such detention is pursuant to an immediate pursuit of such person.

76-6-604. Defense to action by person detained.
In any action for false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, defamation of character, assault, trespass, or invasion of civil rights brought by any person detained by the merchant, it shall be a defense to such action that the merchant detaining such person had probable cause to believe that the person had committed retail theft and that the merchant acted reasonably under all circumstances.
As you can see in 76-6-604 we are protected from most allegations of rights violations. We also have a responsibilty for the protection of the suspect, our customers, and the Loss Prevention Agent. Therefor we can make a search for two purposes (1) to retrieve the items that belong to the store and (2) to make sure the suspect does not have any weapons that can be used to harm themselves or another. Usually a cursury search we might get in trouble if we started doing rubber glove exams. :)

Also, they just changed the law a few months back giving us the probable cause scenario. We used to be very restricted on who we could stop. Now if for instance someone selects and item and walks down an isle. When they leave the isle the merchandise is gone and there is no sign of it in the isle. Also, we know they did not return it to the original location. This would give us probable cause to stop and question the suspect on where the merchandise is.

It is also theft the minute they conceal an item however we always wait until they pass all points of sale so our case is stronger if it does end up in court.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top