Cop tasers man who refuses to sign speeding ticket

[Coop77]

See the video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc


Utah Cop's Itchy Taser Finger Probed

Nov. 21, 2007 —

A dashboard camera video posted on YouTube less than 24 hours ago showing a Utah Highway Patrol officer firing a Taser at a driver he stopped for speeding has prompted authorities there to expedite an internal investigation into the incident.

"We've known about the incident since it occurred," Cameron Roden, a spokesman for the Utah Highway Patrol, told ABC News. "But with it coming out on the Internet, we're trying to move the investigation along."

Jared Massey, 28, posted the nearly 10-minute long clip on YouTube two months after the confrontation with police took place along a rural stretch on a state road two hours east of Salt Lake City.

In it, John Gardner, the officer, is shown on his own dashboard camera as he approaches Massey's SUV and tells him that he pulled him over for speeding in a 40 mph zone.

Massey and the officer have a brief dispute over speed limit signage before Gardner returns to his cruiser to write the ticket. He then approaches Massey and the two again engage in a dispute, with Massey claiming Gardner stopped him "blind" -- without a radar gun -- and that he had not yet passed a sign where the speed limit on the road dips to 40 miles per hour.

Gardner tells Massey that he's going to sign the citation, a demand Massey refuses before the officer asks him to exit the vehicle.

The video shows Gardner walking back to his cruiser to place the citation on his bumper as Massey gets out of the car and points toward the spot where Gardner saw him speeding.

In less than six seconds after asking Massey to get out of the car, Gardner has told him to turn around and put his hands behind his back and pulled out his Taser, a device that fires tiny, tethered cartridges that transmit electrical currents to shock an intended target.

Gardner tells Massey two more times to turn around and put his hands behind his back, to which Massey responds, "What the hell's wrong with you?" and walks back toward his vehicle. At that point, Gardner fires the Taser, stunning Massey, who drops to the road.

Massey's pregnant wife, Lauren, then jumps hysterically from the SUV's passenger door, objecting to the officer's use of his Taser. Gardner then handcuffs Massey, telling him that he is arresting him for not following his requests.

"You know what, you should have followed my instructions," Gardner tells Massey as he lies handcuffed on the road.

Gardner then tells Massey's wife the same thing, as she repeatedly tells him, "You had no right to Taser him."

When he threatens to arrest her if she doesn't stay in the car, Massey, who has since stood up, tells Gardner, "Officer, you got a little excited."

Massey then asks repeatedly to have his rights read to him after being told that he's going to jail. At one point, Gardner says, apparently to another officer, "Oh, he took a ride with the Taser, pretty painful, heh?"

At the tail end of the clip, which has generated hundreds of comments and been viewed nearly 25,000 times in the first 24 hours after it was posted, a second officer arrives on the scene and Gardner explains the incident to him. "He was completely in charge," he said, describing Massey's behavior.

"I said, 'Hop out, put your hands behind your back.' He didn't do it," Gardner told his colleague. "I said, 'Put your hands behind your back.'" When Massey refused to follow his order, Gardner continued, "I said no, I'm not playing that game, pull out the Taser, 'Turn around, right now, or I'll Taser you.'" The colleague responded, "Good for you."

Massey filed a complaint with a local patrol office, according to Roden, the Utah Highway Patrol spokesman. Gardner has not been reprimanded for the incident and, Roden said, has not been disciplined for incidents in the past.

The department has a nine-page Taser policy, Roden said, and this is an incident that will be taken "very seriously."

In the video, before Gardner takes her husband to jail, he tells Massey's wife, "It didn't have to go this way, but it did."

Now that decision will be made by the state's public safety internal affairs officers.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3899692&page=1

[Coop77]

This totally pisses me off. Just because tasers are "less lethal" doesn't mean they can just taser whoever, whenever they want, like it's a water gun.

In my opinion tasers should only be used by an officer in self defense, when he would otherwise use a gun or billy club. Not used as a threat device - "behave or I'll taser you!"

[Mealticket]

judgement call....if i was the cop i might have waited a little longer to taser but it kind of look like the guy was back to the drevers door

[thegodfather]

The officer obviously did not have a radar gun in his vehicle, which is why he was unable to tell the driver how fast he was going. This traffic ticket would have never held up in court without a calibrated radar gun printing out a speed report. Additionally, you never SIGN anything just because someone tells you to, or threatens to taze you if you dont. That is called signing under duress, which as far as I know makes anything that you sign under such conditions completely void.

We have so many problems in this country right now, yet we are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into officers policing our roads like the Nazi Secret Police. While there are people selling crack on street corners, Officer Dickhead is pulling someone over for speeding on a desolate Utah road in the middle of the desert. Not to mention, these are OUR roads, we pay for them with our tax dollars.

The government should fear the people, not the other way around....

What a step in the direction of a police state. And we're missing the biggest picture here, Tazers were incorporated into Law Enforcement as a LESS THAN LETHAL option. Tazers are not, and I ****ing repeat for anyone stupid enough to argue with this, they are NOT NON-LETHAL!!!! They were originally meant to disarm dangerous suspects, you know, people who are wielding knives or other weapons, that if they charged an officer would otherwise be shot with a real gun. Instead, the tazer can disarm them safely, which a REDUCED risk of death. People can still be killed by Tazers, they have the chance to cause abnormal heart rhythms leading to death.

[Red Ketchup]

"We've known about the incident since it occurred," Cameron Roden, a spokesman for the Utah Highway Patrol, told ABC News. "But with it coming out on the Internet, we're trying to move the investigation along."

A nice way to say: "we were going to burry this one but since the video is out in public we have to pretend like we're doing something about it".

Got to love power happy cops...

Red

[MeanMachine2000]

People can still be killed by Tazers, they have the chance to cause abnormal heart rhythms leading to death.

I don't know if you guys in the States heard but a Polish man was recently killed in the Vancouver Airport by being taserd by the police. It is causing huge contravercy over the use of these "Less-Lethal" weapons. Personally I think that power tripping cop was way out of line.

[football2007]

It seems like I hear these stories of cops using tasers when it is completely unnecessary almost every few weeks...

[Coop77]

It seems like I hear these stories of cops using tasers when it is completely unnecessary almost every few weeks...

It seems to have become an easy first resort for them.

[Coop77]

The officer obviously did not have a radar gun in his vehicle, which is why he was unable to tell the driver how fast he was going. This traffic ticket would have never held up in court without a calibrated radar gun printing out a speed report.

Unfortunately that kind of bs does hold up. Local judges in local traffic courts, especially in little towns, are just as corrupt as the cops. I was given a speeding ticket in a little Texas town because the cop said he was going the speed limit behind me and I "pulled away from him." Giving out-of-towners tickets is a big source of revenue for a lot of little towns.

[Teabagger]

I haven't watched the video but I agree the use of the Taser has gotten out of hand. It is seen by many as the first option to use in controlling someone. The trooper was wrong...you don't have to sign the ticket to make it "legal", and by signing you are not admitting guilt...you're only acknowledging you have received a summoms to appear in court on a particular time and date. If you refuse to sign and take the ticket...oh well..if you don't show up when you're supposed to then the judge issues a bench warrant for you're arrest, and then you WILL go to jail.

But tasers are used way too often, either by scared cops, power hungry cops, or pussies. You wouldn't use OC spray or use a baton on someone that didn't sign their ticket...you shouldn't use a taser.

[AandF6969]

I'd sue the shit out of them

[DSM4Life]

I got pulled over a month ago and when the officer asked me if i was signing the ticket i said "hell no." He looked at me like i had 3 heads then threw theticket in my lap

[Fat Guy]

I am going play devil’s advocate on this one and I know it’s not going to win me any AR popularity contest. However, cops have a tough job and when you are going blind into a situation and you have a noncompliant argumentative person then what is that cop to do?

The cop told the guy to put his hands behind his back 3 times and the guy did not comply (not to mention the guy had his hand on his pocket the whole time which makes cops nervous) so the cop being afraid for his own safety Tased the guy. I think the title is misleading in that the man got tased for not signing the ticket but rather he got tased for not following the instructions of the officer.

However, I do believe the officer was not clear and did not give the guy clear instructions when he asked the guy to step out of the car. If the police officer wanted the guy to step out of the car and put his hands behind his back or to stand in one spot then the cop should have clearly stated that before the guy got out of the car.

I can understand both positions in this video. I understand the cop’s position of going into an unknown situation where there’re people who wish for your demise and having a high anxiety about it. Also, I understand the guy who got tased in that he felt his rights were violated, but I don’t think the side of the road is any place to argue about it.

I think the thing I can pull away from this video is that when a cop pulls a taser on me it is in my best interest to follow directions.

IMHO

[Joe Champagne]

No doubt Mr. Massey should have stopped his motion. Question. What did police officers do before tasers? The system worked only they did not use electricity to torture their subjects. I strongly object to use of tasers in situations such as John Gardner encountered. As always there are officers that will cross the line then rely on their back slapping, laugh- around -the -coffee -table comrades to congratulate them for being a tough guy. Enough of the torture, insist police do their jobs and enough of the tasers. Enough. I am sure the man from Poland tasered in Vancouver would agree, if he were alive.

[Amorphic]

theres been lots of controversy over tasers lately. A lot of officers do not understand the life threatening consequences of using tasers free will.

Last week a polish man was killed in Vancouver airport, he was tasered by an officer because he was holding a stapler and was misunderstood as he yelled "help" in polish to the people around him.

Cops need better training on the severity of danger in using tasers

[Diamonite]

give me a ****ing break. all these cops lately need to go back to the academy and rethink all this taser shit. an unarmed civilian who wouldn't sign a ****ing speeding ticket and in front of his wife and kid gets tasered. i would have been less pissed off if that retarted pig just tackled the man and cuffed him. but seriously. way to fold under pressure. just like the taser incident in the city vancouver british columbia. where the man died. and he was just a traveler who couldn't speak english and was frustrated after being held at the airport for over 10 hours.

****ing ridiculous. i hope the next time they hold new taser seminars all these "police officers" drop dead. cheerz.


p.s. after reading some posts above. an experienced officer would wait until the man did his little spiel. then arrested him. getting so hot headed isn't the answer.

[DSM4Life]

I am going play devil’s advocate on this one and I know it’s not going to win me any AR popularity contest. However, cops have a tough job and when you are going blind into a situation and you have a noncompliant argumentative person then what is that cop to do?

The cop told the guy to put his hands behind his back 3 times and the guy did not comply (not to mention the guy had his hand on his pocket the whole time which makes cops nervous) so the cop being afraid for his own safety Tased the guy. I think the title is misleading in that the man got tased for not signing the ticket but rather he got tased for not following the instructions of the officer.

However, I do believe the officer was not clear and did not give the guy clear instructions when he asked the guy to step out of the car. If the police officer wanted the guy to step out of the car and put his hands behind his back or to stand in one spot then the cop should have clearly stated that before the guy got out of the car.

I can understand both positions in this video. I understand the cop’s position of going into an unknown situation where there’re people who wish for your demise and having a high anxiety about it. Also, I understand the guy who got tased in that he felt his rights were violated, but I don’t think the side of the road is any place to argue about it.

I think the thing I can pull away from this video is that when a cop pulls a taser on me it is in my best interest to follow directions.

IMHO

I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.

When it comes down to it, i think the officer was wrong but at the same time the man once out of the car should have complied 100%.

[Coop77]

I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.

He asked the guy to get out of the car so he could cuff the guy, probably. When you try to exercise your rights at the scene they usually bust you for something else. Refusal to take a breath-alcohol test, refusal to consent to a search of the vehicle, etc.. all usually result in them taking you in.

[AandF6969]

He asked the guy to get out of the car so he could cuff the guy, probably. When you try to exercise your rights at the scene they usually bust you for something else. Refusal to take a breath-alcohol test, refusal to consent to a search of the vehicle, etc.. all usually result in them taking you in.

How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?

[thegodfather]

How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?

You dont...people have no idea what they are talking about...everyone is a curbside attorney... If you do not consent to a search, they call the dogs...Then, the dogs have to alert to something in order to give them probable cause. I have heard RUMORS of them giving the dogs commands in German which causes them to false alert, therefore giving probable cause. However, if they search the vehicle and find nothing there are no grounds for arrest. Despite what people think, they cannot "go get a search warrant and come back to search your car..." Because, not consenting to a search does not constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause by which a judge would issue a warrant. They need some concrete tangible reason to perform a search of the vehicle, all minor traffic violations does not constitute probable cause.

The instances where officers will search the inside of the vehicle without a warrant, is for their safety. They are allowed to search in places where you could concievably access a weapon. This is why locked containers such as your glove box, your trunk, and any locked containers within the vehicle are off limits to a search of the vehicle for officer safety. It is not concievable that you would be able to access weapons quickly enough by unlocking these compartments, before the officer blew your brains out.

[AandF6969]

So many people are unaware of the fact that you have to CONSENT to a search for an officer to enter your vehicle... and a lot of times they'll try to trick you like "You don't mind if I take a look around in your car, do you?" or if you get out of the car and leave the door open they'll sit down while saying that... but NEVER EVER consent to a search. Say "Sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle and will not waive my 4th amendment rights." Even if you don't have any contraband in the car, fukk em. Bring their power trip down a notch.

[Coop77]

How would you get taken in for refusing to consent to a search?

You dont...people have no idea what they are talking about...everyone is a curbside attorney... If you do not consent to a search, they call the dogs...Then, the dogs have to alert to something in order to give them probable cause.

What I meant was if you don't roll over and consent, you'll piss them off, and they'll find some reason to take you in / give you a hard time. Try it. They're not going to say "I can't search? Ok sir, you have a nice day then."

A lot of guys become cops because they have some kind of small-penis inferiority complex and want to show people who's boss. Basically they just like to push people around.

[buffgator]

I understand where you are coming from but the thing i don't understand is why the officer asked the guy to get out of his car in the first place. If you ask me the cop put himself in that position. He asked, "are you going to sign the ticket?" The guy says no which he has ever right to decline to sign. The officer should have then made a notation on the ticket "refused to sign" but no he ask the man to get out of his car.

When it comes down to it, i think the officer was wrong but at the same time the man once out of the car should have complied 100%.

I think both where out of line and need a swift kick to the balls. The cop was not very proffesional, but seriously if a cop asks you a couple times to put your hands behind your back, and you attempt to walk away instead, than your an idiot.

[buffgator]

oh yeah...and I have never heard people bitch and moan and groan when the help of an officer goes there way, only when it does not.

[sooners04]

In most states including the one I live in. If you refuse to sign a citation you can and will be arrested for refusal to sign. The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match. I see no other option here. Sign the ticket and challenge it in court if you wish. I don't know about other departments, but our police department cannot "print out" a speeding report. Officers are also certified to visually estimate speed and can write tickets based off that.

[Amorphic]

In most states including the one I live in. If you refuse to sign a citation you can and will be arrested for refusal to sign. The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match. I see no other option here. Sign the ticket and challenge it in court if you wish. I don't know about other departments, but our police department cannot "print out" a speeding report. Officers are also certified to visually estimate speed and can write tickets based off that.

thats retarded

[sooners04]

Its a fact, sorry.

[DSM4Life]

thats retarded

That is BS but its true.

[qualityclrk1]

using the taser for anything except self defense is unacceptable....they can't use their stix or other weapons w/out it being for self defense...imagine if the cop would have shot pepper spray in his eyes- that'd be a huge deal...the cops are not there to issue out punishment...the taser to me- is a form of punishment....if the judge sentences him to a shot from a taser lol then thats a whole different fight....Just the other day around where i'm from..there was an older man who was in his prison cell and he was feeling sick and refused to get out of bed in the morning, so the guards came up, and tased him as he laid in bed....and it killed him!!! the man hadn't been to trial yet for the reason he was even locked up!

[Coop77]

The officer's only other option in this case, since the guy did not obey the officer's instruction to turn around was to go hands on. The officer did not want to go hands on and take the chance of him or the other guy getting seriously hurt from a wrestling match.

There's a lot more chance of someone getting seriously hurt from being tased than from being wrestled to the ground. Did you see how he fell straight back on the pavement? That's no joke. People die all the time from those things.

[sooners04]

So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions? Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.

[thegodfather]

So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions? Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.

Tasers are a less than lethal option for police officers to use IN LIEU OF shooting them with their firearm. They are to be used when a suspect is potentially threatening the LIFE of the officer. They are not to be used after giving a person a verbal instruction two times, and immediately escalating the situation to force. Again, these are not NON-LETHAL means of force, there are very dangerous risks to using these things. I find it disturbing how people in this thread are justifying and advocating a means of torture against otherwise law obedient citizens.

Again, these devices were intended for suspects who pose a serious threat to an officers life, and as an option to using lethal force on the suspect to save the suspects life. It is not a first line of defense, or at least it was not intended to be, it seems that law enforcement has seriously lost site of this. The police are there to serve the people.

[Coop77]

So, the officer has to take a chance of himself getting hurt as well because this guy can't follow verbal instructions? Put yourself in the officer's shoes, he is trying to do a job that pays lousy and he still wants to go home in one piece. The taser in this case was the best option.

Uh.. yeah, he does have to take that chance. That's the job he signed up for. You could make the same argument for him pulling his gun and shooting the guy for not obeying. Tasers, batons, guns, pepper spray - they all should be used for defense only. That guy did not attack the officer.

[sooners04]

Shooting the guy would not be justified as that was not a deadly force situation. This suspect committed a crime and did not obey a lawful order from a peace officer. Your suggesting that a physical fight would be more reasonable than using a tool that immobilizes the suspect so the officer can arrest him for BREAKING THE LAW. I think thats almost hypocritical, because if the officer did that and he had to really hurt the guy just to get handcuffs on him, then you would be pissed at that. So it seems its a lose lose for the officer here and I can show you MANY videos of officer getting there ass kicked and even killed from physical confrontations and the use of a taser would have saved their lives. Waiting until the suspect attacked him would be too late and the officer would then not be able to use the other tools, thats like an MMA fighter saying he can't fight until he has been punched square in the face first, LOL!!

[Coop77]

Shooting the guy would not be justified as that was not a deadly force situation.

People die from tasers all the time, just like they die from being shot. Tasers are called less lethal by the manufacturer, not non lethal. Thus the officer did use potentially deadly force.

Your suggesting that a physical fight would be more reasonable than using a tool that immobilizes the suspect so the officer can arrest him for BREAKING THE LAW.

An officer putting his hands on someone to arrest them is not necessarily a "fight." If the guy had been threatening, or attacked the officer, the taser would be appropriate. The guy had his back to the officer for %#$'s sake.
Should they just tase everyone routinely before putting handcuffs on, just as a precaution in case they might resist?

[DSM4Life]

People die from tasers all the time, just like they die from being shot. Tasers are called less lethal by the manufacturer, not non lethal. Thus the officer did use potentially deadly force.

People also have died from drinking too much water so should we ban water?
You can’t take the very small percentage of people that have a reaction to the taser and ban it.

Also comparing tasing to a gun is just dumb. I'd rather be tased any day of the week then shot.

An officer putting his hands on someone to arrest them is not necessarily a "fight." If the guy had been threatening, or attacked the officer, the taser would be appropriate. The guy had his back to the officer for %#$'s sake.
Should they just tase everyone routinely before putting handcuffs on, just as a precaution in case they might resist?

It’s considered resisting arrest if you do not comply with an officer. An office is then allowed to use force.

You ever see the taser being used on a suspect fleeing from officers? I have. So are you going to tell me that running from the cops is considered "threatening?"

[sooners04]

One thing you have to understand about police work is there is something called the force continuum. The force continuum is what we as police officers used to deal with suspects. It is the basis for all the decision we make or dont make. It looks like this:
1: Officer's Presence:

2: Dialogue:

3: Taser or Pepper Spray:

4: Hands on ,or Physical Control:

5: Intermediate Weapon, ( night stick,ASP):

6: Lethal Force:

It is upheld by the supreme court that an officer can use one step above the suspects actions.
Ex: The suspect was not responding to the officer's dialogue (verbal commands) so the officer takes it to the next level, but cannot skip a level unless the suspect takes his or her actions to the next level. The next level was the spray or taser, then if the suspect gets physical, the baton can be used, then if the suspect has a weapon, then deadly force can be used. You keep arguing, but I would like to know what you would have done in this situaiton if you were the cop. Remember, this guy is under arrest, how would YOU handle it?

[DSM4Life]

One thing you have to understand about police work is there is something called the force continuum. The force continuum is what we as police officers used to deal with suspects. It is the basis for all the decision we make or dont make. It looks like this:
1: Officer's Presence:

2: Dialogue:

3: Taser or Pepper Spray:

4: Hands on ,or Physical Control:

5: Intermediate Weapon, ( night stick,ASP):

6: Lethal Force:

It is upheld by the supreme court that an officer can use one step above the suspects actions.
Ex: The suspect was not responding to the officer's dialogue (verbal commands) so the officer takes it to the next level, but cannot skip a level unless the suspect takes his or her actions to the next level. The next level was the spray or taser, then if the suspect gets physical, the baton can be used, then if the suspect has a weapon, then deadly force can be used. You keep arguing, but I would like to know what you would have done in this situaiton if you were the cop. Remember, this guy is under arrest, how would YOU handle it?

Good post and i agree 100%

[sooners04]

Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil. That what judges are for.

[DSM4Life]

Its a lose lose for the officer either way. Either he has to let the guy go and NOT do his job, or he has to find another way to take the suspect into custody, and thats where the force continuum comes into play. Bottom line here is let the officer do his job and challenge his actions in court either criminal or civil. That what judges are for.

You think this would be common sense