Commentary
The Tasering of Jared Massey
By Christian Probasco, 12-10-07
Over a million viewers have watched Jared Massey get tasered on YouTube. The video goes like this: Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Jon Gardner pulls out onto Highway 40, aims his vehicle and dash cam briefly at the speed limit sign, which clearly reads 40, and then pulls over an SUV. He walks up to the driver’s side window, asks to see Massey’s license and registration. Massey, of Vernal, Utah, collecting the paperwork, admits he might have been going a little fast, and Gardner, annoyed, repeats his request, adding, “Now!”
Fast forward: Gardner checks on Massey’s paperwork, returns to the SUV and asks Massey to sign his ticket. Massey refuses, says he wants to see the posted speed limit before he signs anything.
“Well, you are going to sign this first,” says Gardner. Massey refuses. Gardner tells him to exit the vehicle. They go to the front of the patrol car, Massey expecting to be shown the sign, and the patrolman pulls his taser on the motorist and orders him to turn around and put his hands behind his back.
Massey, confused, starts walking away, asking, “What the hell’s wrong with you?” Gardner repeats his command. Massey repeats his question, substituting “heck” for “hell.” Gardner fires and Massey goes down, screaming. Gardner screams back at his charge: “Face down! Face down! Put your hands behind your back!”, as if still trying to arrest Massey, and zaps him again. Massey’s pregnant wife rushes out of the SUV but stops short of where Massey is assumed to be writhing in pain and the officer warns her off with “Ma’am, do exactly as I say or you’re going to jail too.”
Another patrolman arrives. The dash cam records Gardner telling him that Massey was “…jumping around, making me nervous.”
At no time, except possibly after he was tased, did Massey “jump around.”
Massey asked for and received a video copy of his “arrest” under Utah’s open record laws and posted it on YouTube, where it went viral.
The majority of those commenting condemned Patrolman Gardner’s actions. Some demanded he be fired. Gardner received several death threats, which is why he is now in hiding. But there’s disagreement over even the most basic facts of the case.
The AP report describes Massey as “stubborn.” I, for one, don’t see that anywhere in the video. The Provo Daily Herald serving an ostensibly conservative community, goes off the deep end in its November 30th editorial, noting that Massey “…vehemently denied seeing a speed limit sign, and proclaiming that he wouldn’t sign his ticket.” When Gardner pulled his taser, Massey “bewildered but still debating, began ambling back to his vehicle.” Massey was “plainly argumentative, and rather dense about some obvious social mores,” the editorial continues, “Here’s a tip: when a uniformed man with a badge and a gun tells you to do something, shut up and do exactly what he says….the officer has a badge and a gun—and also a rule book.”
Really? “Vehemently?” “Proclaiming?” “Debating?” “Argumentative?” “Dense?”
And then later, after the Highway Patrol flubs its press conference, the Herald, laying the groundwork for a complete flip-flop on the issue, opines that “It may be argued that a cop should be obeyed no matter what he says.”
Which, in fact, is exactly what the Herald was arguing.
My own experiences with highway cops only confirm what I learned at an early age: that cops are not your friends and that you should only comply with their demands as far as the law requires. I have run into some real pieces of work in my various travels. So I can’t imagine anyone actually arguing, “that a cop should be obeyed no matter what he says,” besides the Herald.
Which thinking, ironically, dovetails with the publication’s new slant. In the December 5th editorial, Massey “…asked how fast he was going—a reasonable question—and the trooper refused to answer.” Gardner “chose to escalate.” Massey “meandered.” He felt “unjustly treated.” Gardner was “a strutting smart-aleck.” Massey, now, was “just an ordinary yokel.”
That’s certainly a lot closer to what I, and most others, saw, though it bothers me that Massey, more aware of and more willing to stand up for, his rights than the rest of us sheep, would be described as an “ordinary yokel” (are the citizens of Provo just a bunch of dopey, unsophisticated, hick-town, ‘ordinary yokels?’ Some from L.A. or New York or other large cities might argue yes).
But if the Herald was slow in realizing it was advocating fascism, the Utah Highway Patrol appears not even to have realized the nature of the controversy it is now embroiled in. Closing ranks tightly, the UHP announced in its November 30th press conference that its trooper’s actions were “lawful and reasonable under the circumstances,” and that Massey had scared Gardner by putting his hands near a pocket while walking away, though the trooper “now realizes that other options were available.”
This raises all sorts of questions, such as:
Why was Gardner so disrespectful of Massey from the onset?
How was Massey threatening Officer Gardner when the Highway Patrolman first pulled his taser on him?
At what point was Massey under arrest? Why didn’t Gardner inform him of that fact? Wouldn’t it have saved a lot of hassles?
How could Gardner, a 14-year veteran, possibly not have realized that “other options were available” at the time?
How could Gardner’s actions be “reasonable” in light of the fact that other far less radical options were “available”? And why, if the trooper was acting lawfully and reasonably, “under the circumstances,” is the department now reviewing its taser policy?
How can you walk away from someone—or just walk--without putting either of your hands anywhere near any of your pockets?
I sent these questions and a few others to Public Information Officer Cameron Roden, who forwarded them to the department’s attorney. His actions raise another question: Why, if the UHP believes its officer did the right thing, is it now lawyering up?
From various news reports, many comments supporting Gardner’s actions proceed along lines similar to this one from Pinoy:
Law enforcement officers are justified in responding to the threat of violence. They are not obligated to wait for violence itself, i.g. ‘shoot me, then if I’m still alive, I’ll begin shooting back”. Officers have died all over the country for not responding to issues as seemingly harmless as this one. Massey was walking away from the officer towards the cab of his vehicle, placing his hands in his pocket. Is the officer obligated to assume everything will be ok? Not according to the constitution (per countless court decisions).
Another comment from dwalk notes “Don’t worry, some liberal attorney will get his pound of flesh when everything gets settled out of court and this belligerent motorist will become a heroe (sic) to the lawbreakers.”
Further down the page, from IISBS: “Massey endangered his wife and kid, not only by speeding, but by being an idiot and thinking he was in charge of the highway, not the HIGHWAY PATROL. Hopefully the electrodes in his brain got stimulated. What kind of moron refuses to do what a cops says, then puts his hands in his pockets and tries to walk away when he has what he thinks is a gun pointed at him?”
Another post from Darryl notes that “Out on the highway is not the time or place to exercise your rights you feel may have been abridged….It has always been comical to me when speeders or reckless drivers have the audacity to argue or become belligerent when stopped by an officer.”
These sorts of replies puzzled me until I read another comment suggesting most of them might be coming from police officers, or ex-cops. So I visited the forum at PoliceLink.com, where reaction to Gardner being cleared by his own department was uniformly positive—no pun intended. Gardner was called “polite” while Massey was described as a “turd,” “arrogant, winey little ass-wipe,” “asshole,” “idiot,” “a complete ass,” etc. Said poster JIMROC, “The wife should have been tased to. People are entited to their opinion, but it dosen’t mean crap. The officer wasn’t hurt in a fight and that is all that counts. Screw the driver.” When some of the officers tried posting on Utah’s Fox News site, they were answered by “liberal know-it-alls.” Another anticipated being blasted by the “commies” on YouTube. MichaelAZ, observed, “Sadly, I am sure that a civil suit is following very close behind. Liberal bastards…” And furthermore:
The issue is the tazing. Now the good mormons need to show their support for this Officer. Mormon Massey needs to offer his apoligy to the officer, pay the ticket and shut up about it. His actions caused the situation. –marine4life
I hate when others get that stuff (dash cam videos). I think most people are sue happy and are looking for ways to sue others. –firedad6
No compliance you get what you deserve. Simple follow directions that everyone should have learned in elementary school. –JAG11860
When idiots that we have out there BLATANTLY act above the law and THINK they know the law and what is going on because they’ve watched some tv show that shows officers immediately read people their rights disgust me. In my opinion more and more people are getting away with this type of behavior because our administrators start to panic and worry about civil issues and they start to buy into this crap. We can’t let our edge slip and give up the authority bestowed on us to uphold the laws. This video is a perfect example of an officer politely asking for compliance and getting nothing but attitude. People in our state don’t have to sign an infraction citation, we can then just sign it and serve it on them, whether they like it or not. –wall447
If someone resist arrest or to follow directions they are potential killers and should be treated that way. –jok720
(sic, sic, sic, sic, sic, sic)
And so on, and on and on. I put the rest in a blender and most of it reduced down to “compliance, obey, control, directions, resist, authority.” Gardner had ordered Massey to jump and Massey had not asked “how high?”
But civilians, liberal or conservative, don’t like to follow commands without hesitation. Most of them aren’t used to doing so. They haven’t been trained or conditioned to do so. That’s why they’re civilians. And that leads into what makes this a particularly western issue, because, as I’ve noticed in my two decades since moving here, some especially rural “old” westerners have a particular loathing for anything smacking of compliance, obedience, external control, direction and especially any “authority” lower down the rung than God, if he is indeed somewhere above us, which, in the West, he may not be. It’s part of the western spirit, a cultural artifact of the frontier. And the fascism these cops are advocating is antithetical to it. Even when such approaches were practiced in the past, they were foreign to western thinking and to Westerners themselves.
What the police, and the courts backing them up in most instances, seem to be doing, at least here in the West, is punishing people for their healthy, inborn disinclination to obey authority.
Having watched the video several times, this is what I now see: a trooper who is completely burnt out and needs to find another job that will not wear down his soul. He may have started out being considerate of the people he stopped but 14 years of folks lying to him, and having to document what’s left of stupid drunks who have smashed their cars into immovable objects, and maybe a few incidents that threatened to turn, or did indeed turn, violent have convinced him not only that he can’t trust the public-at-large, but also that they are not worthy of his protection. When he pulls over Massey, he is no longer capable of distinguishing between a kid with a pregnant wife and a serial killer. Everybody is guilty until proven innocent. And too, the system has had 14 years to educate people that they should do exactly what an officer tells them when detained, and nothing more, but motorists keep coming back at him with the same tired, old “rights” crap, behaving as if they had free agency and just as much a claim on remaining safe during the encounter as he does himself, and objecting to his insults.
Don’t they know how difficult and dangerous his job is?
And here’s what I read into the press conference in which it was revealed that Gardner had been exonerated by his department. The same lawyer who is probably now looking over my questions has advised the UHP, in light of Massey’s threat to sue, not to admit to any guilt in the matter. But Superintendent Lance Davenport, whose contempt of the people he’s supposed to be serving seems to be on an equal plane with Gardner’s, can’t help throwing in this b.s. about Gardner now realizing he could have acted differently, and expecting the press and public to buy it.
The Utah Attorney General’s office is currently investigating the incident. Massey’s court date is set for sometime in January.
My first question is, in Utah is it an arrestable offense to not sign a speeding ticket? If so was the officer placing the driver under arrest when he tells him to exit the car? If he was I didn't hear anything to that effect. If he wasn't placing the driver under arrest for failing to sign the speeding ticket (whether because t is not an arrestable offense, or whether the driver was guilty of "contempt of cop", basically pissing off a cop, which by the way is not a crime) there is no reason in the world to tell the driver to exit the vehicle other than to invite confrontation. If it is indeed an arrestable offense in Utah to not sign a speeding ticket, the officer should have clearly informed the driver that if he doesn't sign the ticket he will be placed under arrest. At this point if the driver exits the vehicle and refuses commands the use of force may certainly be justified. If it is not an arrestable offense the officer should have informed the driver of his legal options and obligations (that it is his choice to sign the ticket or not, when to show up to court, etc) and sent the driver on his way. To just look at what happened once the officer told the driver to exit the vehicle (ignoring the legal issues) there certainly wasn't much give and take on either the driver or the officer's part. The driver could exercised a little better judgement regardless of whether he thought he was right or not (common sense should prevail, he sees the cop pointing a taser gun at him and he continues to walk away? At that point he almost seems to be inviting an attack), and the cop certainly could have tried verbal warnings, physical restraint, verbal warnings of increased use of force etc.....
Comment By Militant Libertarian, 12-11-07Very nicely written. Just a perfunctory search of the 'Net via YouTube and MetaCafe shows that tasering is not just a "rogue" event where a local cop gets a little "rambunctious" and tases someone. It happens ALL THE FRIKKIN TIME and EVERYWHERE in this country. It's an epidemic and another way the powers-that-be strut their power over us. Fifty years ago, had this same thing taken place, the cop would have been tarred and feathered and possibly lynched. Not today, since that might interfere with our football game and Starbucks downloads.
Ahhh, the slippery slope we've taken in the name of "security."
First of all, that was an incredibly well written article.
Here's a video of a cop tasering a driver only 40 seconds after approaching the vehicle. I'm willing to bet you've already seen it, but it blows my mind that this could happen so easily. Let's not overlook the cars that are driving by in the slow lane as the tasered motorist lie motionless only a few feet away.
http://www.break.com/index/driver-gets-tazed-for-being-slow1.html
AJG;
Wow. Didn't even give him a chance to get his license and registration. Why not just go straight to the taser and get it over and done with?
Haven't seen that one, but I stopped looking for these a few weeks ago after finding six or eight new ones a day. You can only watch so many of them before you start getting the idea that maybe when the cop stops you, you should just kick his ass as a pre-emtive measure instead of going along to get along.
Anyway, to answer the fellow above's question, no, you are not required to sign the ticket in Utah. The officer can write "uncooperative" or "refuses to sign" on the ticket and be done with it. In fact, I don't think there's a state in the Union that requires you to sign your ticket. Even the cop on the Indian reservation I got pulled over at in New Mexico said I had the right to refuse to sign his ticket.
Pretty soon, they're going to figure out how to get a court precedent so that they can withhold these dash-cam videos from the defendents until actual court (which would mean far fewer of them would be seen publicly).
Very nicely written. I especially like the "lawyering up" comment. ;) Using their own tactics against them.
It's horrific that this happened and even more horrific that the UHP is justifying this monster's actions.
As for the death threats to the officer's life, I have little sympathy. Just as he terrorized motorists, he's being terrorized by Internet users. Justice, if you ask me.
Cops, like nearly everyone else working in the judicial system, have been abusing their priveledge and ignoring the law. They feel that they are above the law. They should be dealt with like any other bully. Fired. Beaten. Jailed. Made an example of. I know of what I speak. I was bullied as a kid. It stops only when you face the problem with GREATER force. This will stop when cities demand that cops stop carrying tasers. I feel that cops who use a taser when common sense deems it unneccessary should only be allowed to keep their pay and their job if they are stripped of all weapons. No gun, no club, no taser. This way, they will learn to treat people with civility and respect. They may be shocked to find that even armed citizens will not brutalize them. Only a mental defective takes pleasure in assaulting unarmed people with weapons. These cops should be branded as mentally unstable and not permitted to carry weapons of any kind at any time. That is the punishment that regular folks would get from the courts, and that's the punishment that cops should receive. Also, I don't think that cops should be judged in a court room. They should be judged by a panel of 100 citizens from the community that charged them. A random drawing of residents! No voir dire! No lawyers! No winking judge! Let the people hear the case and then the ruling of 2/3 majority stands.
Comment By Jon, 12-13-07Wow but not surprising. Thanks for writing Christian. Most cops are mindless pussies.
Comment By Roni, 12-13-07This was a victimless "crime" that had no bearing nor justification. We need to relize that this happens all around the United States. One problem to relize are the unjust laws such as all victimless "crimes", need to be thrown out of the books. If we want to be free even from our own government then we must understand and know basic principles of liberty and freedom and get rid of all the other propaganda about government protecting us. Now, this is only my opinion. That we need to come together somehow and petition to our government that nobody should be put in jail or charged with victimless "crimes". Jared Massey did nothing in any way, shape or form to hurt, harm, or even intend to violate anybodies rights. All Mr. Massey did was hurt the Officers ego. and that is for sure not a crime.
Comment By Mark in Idaho, 12-19-07Nobody seemed to notice the fact that the cop was pulling over before the 40 mph sign. By the angle of the camera, it looks like he was blocking the sight of the 40 mph sign with his car. Jared would have to be an awful keen observer to notice the 40 mph sign while he would have been watching the cop's car as it was already starting to re-enter the highway. If the cop had pulled over to the side of the road after the 40 mph sign and then watched for speeders, I would give the cop some grace. But he obstructed Jared's view of the speed limit and also gave him very little time to slow down.
The problem here is the fact that cops think they are the unquestionable authority. They are limited by our constitution but the courts will not rule against them in situations like this. They say, what harm to your rights do you suffer by doing what the cop says?
I was arrested for standing in front of my father's screen door and telling the cops that they could not enter my father's house without a warrant. (They did not have one) They spent 14 days at trial lying to prove me guilty of a simple misdemeanor. They needed a guilty verdict to protect the city from civil liability. They got their wish. They did not arrest my father for doing the same thing because it was his house. So, you only have rights to stand up to authority if they are attempting to violate your rights, not the rights of someone else. My father was elderly and in the early stages of dementia. He needed the assistance of his family to protect his rights.
What do we do? If we try to stand up against 'badge heavy' cops, they can hurt us badly and the system will protect them. If we give in, they just get worse with their badge heavy tactics.
Re: Signing the ticket. When you sign a traffic ticket, you are not admitting that you committed the crime. Instead, you are agreeing to either: a) pay the ticket, or b) show up at the courthouse and argue that you were incorrectly charged -- basically, you are agreeing that you will settle the matter later, either by a guilty plea or by going to court.
If you do not sign the ticket, then it is not at all unusual for you to be arrested. That's called doing it the hard way. Signing the ticket does not violate your rights and it's not a guilty plea. It's a way to make your life easier so you don't have to be arrested and taken to jail for booking on a minor offense.
He should have signed the ticket. No reason in the world not to.
Now, that issue is completely separate from the issue of whether it was appropriate to use a taser. It was not. The officer did an incredibly poor job of explaining to the motorist what his rights were and why he needed to sign the ticket. And tasering a non-violent speeder over a misunderstanding is just ridiculous.
To sum up: yes, you can be arrested if you don't sign the ticket (you are arrested for speeding, not "failing to sign"), but the incident was almost entirely the fault of the officer, who should know by now how to handle these situations without violence.
If you watch the video closely, Jared said he was not going to sign the ticket until he saw the speed limit sign. He made his refusal conditional. All the cop had to do was point out the speed limit sign. Since when is it a crime to question a cop and ask for further information.
As Militant Libertarian said.
Ahhh, the slippery slope we've taken in the name of "security."
Even better for those of you who side with the cop. Benjamin Franklin said:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Mark,
I think we are in agreement that the cop handled the incident horribly, but just because the cop was a tool about the tasering, doesn't mean he was wrong about the speed limit.
It doesn't matter if Jared said he wouldn't sign until he saw the speed-limit sign. If the cop is going to be a dick about it -- or even if there is just a difference of opinion -- you are still going to get the ticket. You'll never get anywhere arguing with the cop on the spot.
The correct place to fight a traffic ticket is in court. Half the time the cop doesn't even bother to show up and you can just walk.
to everyone above.
Oh what shall we do? Shall we sit here together watching this injustice happen in our system? Should we be content with what happens unjustly because we want temperary easiness? Oh, what shall we do? Stay aleep? Maybe, blissfull ignorance might be better than the truth. Someone once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, It is our duty to disobey unjust laws as much as it's our duty to obey just laws.
And what would have happened if the cop didn't have a Taser and only had his gun available?
Comment By Phil E. Drifter, 1-06-08Because the pig was probably 'juicin', a.k.a. using steroids.
I have a subscription to Men's Health, have had it for about 5 years, and in one issue they did a full story on cops who 'juice,' and it's a lot more common than anyone thinks.
They're very secretive about it, much moreso than 'casual drug users,' who are well known among their friends' ranks to be casual drug users. There are cops on the force who work for years with each other without knowing if any of them take steroids, only to find out one day when something goes wrong and it comes to light that 'Officer Joe Q. Public' had been using steroids for years.
And this is exactly the type of effect it has, it's similar but more blatant than the effects of cocaine: feeling like you can do anything, you're 'king of the world,' and you feel you could easily beat someone into submission, and it often does happen.
Oops, forgot to add, in that story in Men's Health I referred to in my previous post, that at least 25% of cops use steroids. Regardless of the *fact* that they're illegal.
Comment By J Nelson, 1-06-08When first reading this article I assumed that this was another case of a rogue cop abusing his power. Then I watched the video. Massey was clearly disobeying lawful orders.. starting with arguing instead of providing his license and registration. Then he refused to sign the ticket. I don't know about Utah, but where I live the officer can arrest you for any public offense, however, he can also choose, at his own discretion, to issue a citation in lieu of arrest(Iowa code 805.1). Factors that affect this would be refusal to produce identification, which Massey did at the officers initial request, or failure to sign a citation, which Massey also did. I think the officer remained very calm and was even overly patient with Massey's wife who should have been arrested as well for repeatedly refusing to obey the officer's simple command to stay in the vehicle.
The other issue here is the use of the taser by the officer. The taser is meant to be an alternative to the use of deadly force. Too many officers are too freely using their tasers as a deterrent to a little civil disobedience. Look at it like this.. if the officer had a gun rather than a taser, would he have shot Massey for his actions? I certainly hope not. In that sense, the officer was way out of lines for using such extreme force for such a small infraction.
It's simple. A law enforcement officer gave a lawful command. He does not have to tell you why he gave the command. That is for court. What you think, it irrelevant. Whether you think it is reasonable is irrevelant! The officer, in his sole opinion can place you in handcuffs simply for your an and his safety. Or, did you forget that you can in fact be held without charges for 48 hours? You idiots are so hyped up on your rights, you have forgotten basic law!
Comment By Stiv, 1-06-08Most cops these days are total cowards and bullies who got into law enforcement for the wrong reasons. They are on a power trip and possess a true contempt for civilians with an 'us against the world' gang mentality. I've read that police depts. are scraping the bottom of the barrel because they are having a hard time finding recruits. That's the reason so many of these are cowboys cops who /want/ to shoot first and ask questions later. All of that is a horrible combination.
Comment By Mark in Idaho, 1-06-08Police Departments are having a hard time recruiting because most sane thinking people refuse to work in the shoot em up environment of today's cops. Most of the cops I know retired as early as possible or eagerly waiting to retire to get out of the line of fire. Their concern is that badge heavy cops make the job more dangerous. They also do not like having to cover for the bad behavior of the other cops.
Here in Idaho, we just had a Police Officer Standards Training class (Police academy) graduate with the motto "Don't suffer from PTSD, go out and cause it." This was printed on their graduation program and yes, it did have to get approved first.
J L and J Nelson have it so wrong. Cops can not detain you without cause. They also have no authority over the passenger without cause. If the wife wanted to witness what was happening to her husband, that was her right, as long as she did not interfere with the officer. This has been tested in the courts. If a cop arrests you without cause, he or his department can be sued for false arrest/imprisonment. Many cops will make up a charge like "interfering with a police officer" because they have the clout and support of the prosecutors office.
The best defense is to have as many video cameras recording the events as possible. Only when the event is video taped do the citizens have their rights protected. The dash cam shows how Jared Massey was abused. His department may have cleared the cop, but the people will not. I'm glad the cop does not qualify for witness protection. Then he would be making the taxpayer fund his flee from justice.
Fortunately the case will go nowhere, and this guy hasn't a leg to stand on. In many states, it states clearly on a speeding violation that signing is not an admission of guilt, but a recognition of receipt of a citation. This acknowledgment and signing is why you don't get arrested. Your other alternative is to go to jail. It's just that simple.
The guy was being an idiot. Did the cop do the right thing? I don't know, but you can bet in a similar situation I would have done the same thing. If most of you are honest with yourselves you will have to admit to yourself that you would too.
He had his hand in his pocket. Refused to be handcuffed, and turned angrily as he walked back to his car with his hand firmly by his pocket. How did the cop know what he was going for in the car? Why would he go back to the car if not to flee, or retrieve something? Would you rather the officer simply wait for a chase to ensue? How many other lives would you risk every day by allowing people to walk back to their car who are obviously resisting, obviously at least a little angry, and holding goodness knows what in that pocket they keep their hand at?
Put away your childlike hatred of the police, learn a little bit about the law, then put yourself in his shoes. Then apply a little perspective.
Its a wonder childish people out there didnt say the other cop was abusing the kid in the back seat just for pulling up. damn that cop should have done alot more than he did. he was being pleasant and the driver was being the irate one. if your speeding your breaking the law, period. even if the cop was a dick or not that doesnt matter. and on top of that he was resisting an officer. ive never had a cop be that nice at first. if he would have done what he was told when he was told to do it the cop might of just wrote him a warning. people need to grow up!
Comment By James, 1-07-08Honestly, I am not a big fan of the police. That being said the guy that got pulled over was just stupid. The cop is right, go to court and fight the ticket. Now the cop was a little intense, but when the guy started walking back to the car I think I might have gotten nervous too.
This all could have been avoided by saying "thank you officer" as opposed to fighting with the cop when he handed the ticket over. I hate to say it, but that is what normal people do. That is not taking it from the man. The cop is not the man, he is a civil servant doing a largely thankless job. I live in NY and I have gotten my share of speeding tickets (for more then 68 in a 40 I might add) and I have never paid the full penalty on one and I have gotten out of quite a few. The proper venue is in the court.
My one criticism toward the cop is that he never told the guy that if he didn't sign the ticket he would be arrested. He should have, based on who the guy is (not a criminal) more then likely it would have taken the wind out of his sails. I might also point out that the cop created a dangerous situation for himself when one didn't haver to exist. If the man had a any kind of weapon in the car the cop might be dead. I am married and I can tell that the woman in the car was in mother lion mode. She was more then capable of attack the officer to protect her husband and the cop is lucky she didn't stab him to death. He had no control of the situation and backup didn't arrive for several minutes. If the man and woman had been drug runners they would have shot him to death.
Not smart on either side frankly.
Did I miss part of the video? I was unaware that you could break the law and then hold a debate on the side of the road with a law inforcement agent, then when you are done, just walk away! I'm sure there were several different ways of handling this situation by both parties, but put yourself in the cop's position. He risks his life daily for our protection. There are a lot of sick weirdo's out there and if you're going to be that big of a dumb-ass over speeding, who the hell knows what you're capable of! SIDENOTE: Way to be an example for the child in the back seat Daddy. Hopefully he saw your retarded logic and learned to respect the law.
Comment By E. D., 1-07-08I grow tired of the 'he's an idiot' argument. Being argumentative? That's a right, the right to free speech. He shouldn't have to fear force from his government because of what he says. And to those who say that 'the side of the road is no place to assert your rights, I say that if you can't exercise them there, then you DON'T HAVE THEM. If they can be taken away at someone's pleasure, they aren't rights. They're priveleges. AND I'm sorry, I don't consider 'not being electrocuted' a privelege. At no point in time did he ACTUALLY DISOBEY a lawful order, though he may have been a bit recalcitrant.
I always find it amusing that people who give the cops more latitude than they have a right to always accuse those who don't of 'not knowing the law'. To J Nelson, you are WRONG. In Iowa an officer CANNOT arrest someone for "any public offense". Only an ARRESTABLE OFFENSE. Please read the statute. Arrestable offense is actually an archaic term. It means FELONY. Therefore, a misdemeanor is not arrestable. So someone not committing felony speeding? Not arrestable without other cause, not even in Iowa.
Failure to sign a citation is not a crime. Pretty much anywhere. And while most people would say "oh, just sign the damn thing", (i've signed before) it's still his RIGHT not to sign. Therefore, it is NOT A LAWFUL ORDER to order him to sign.
Although an officer does not have to explain his reasoning, you have a right to disobey an unlawful order...the officer doesn't just get to tase you to get you to comply. The officer had ZERO grounds to arrest massey. "Being a bit of a dick" isn't a crime; if it was, the cop himself would have committed a felony.
"What you think, it irrelevant. Whether you think it is reasonable is irrevelant! The officer, in his sole opinion can place you in handcuffs simply for your an and his safety. Or, did you forget that you can in fact be held without charges for 48 hours? You idiots are so hyped up on your rights, you have forgotten basic law!"
This kind of thinking frightens the dickens out of me. 1, yes, for his safety he can place you in handcuffs. But he can't arrest you. HE's just detaining you for his own safety. If an officer is going to do that, he needs to tell you he's going to do that, he doens't get to jus tscream at you and taser you unconscious. 2, you can be held in many places without FORMAL CHARGES for 48 houts, this allows the final gathering of evidence and the final decision as to what specific charges to apply before speedy due process which is a RIGHT. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT COP CAN ARREST YOU IF HE FELS LIKE IT, HOL DYOU FOR 47 HOURS, AND SAY IT'S OKAY. He has to have just cause, a reason. HE has to be able to defend this cause if necessary. 3, my 'rights' are spelled out in the supreme law of the land, the constitution. sO when I talk to you about them, I AM talking about the law. The one that supersedes all others, despite what some police and some politicians may think. 4 what I think is reasonable matters a great deal. It is what a reasonable person thinks is reasonable, which is what the courts consider the standard! THough its arguable whether MAssey technically had his hand within some arbitrary measurement of his pocket, you can CLEARLY SEE that he's NO IMMEDIATE THREAT. Therefore, in the ABSENCE OF IMMEDIATE THREAT, a REASONABLE PERSON concludes the officer was way out of line when he used EXTREME FORCE. Tasers use electricity. It is not unusual to lose bowel control when hit with a taser. IT is not unusual to have muscle spasms, or even possible nerve damage. It isn't entirely unheard of for someone to die. Using a taser is not to be taken lightly. No one 'takes a ride' on the taser. It's awful and unpleasant. I think we can all agree that if we put someone in a chair and interrogated htem and tasered them if they refused to answer (as would be their RIGHT agains tself-incrimination), that would be torture. So I maintain that the unjustified use of a Taser is torture. A crime. The only crimes here, the only 'arrestable offenses', the only FELONIES on that video, is committed by Ofc. Gardner. The felonies of Assault and Battery, and false arrest.
Oh, and on a final note, "refusing to be handcuffed" is not a crime. If the officer REALLY was in fear for his safety, then he would have called for backup, and trained a gun on Massey (alternatively taser), telling him to keep his hands in the air, and on arrival of the backup would have forcibly handcuffed him while the situation was sorted out. That would have been the responsible and legal thing to do.
God, looking at some of these comments, I can't believe there are so many people with a cop/law and order fetish in this country. You people are the reason they are able to behave this way and get away with it in the first place. You must be damned frightened of the world to feel the need to support authority no matter how it may treat YOU in the end. Are you THAT paranoid about crime that you seek safety from such a bad source?
Comment By TEXGIRL, 1-07-08Hey Stiv-
I'm not scared of the world or the authorities!! The cop was pleasant upon approaching the vehicle and the speeding idiot was being a complete jerk. When you break the law, you pay the price. If you don't pay up, you get tazered on the side of the highway!!! The law breaker was in complete control of this situation!!
"A law enforcement officer gave a lawful command."
That disgusts me. As a Marine, I gave up a few of my own liberties to help secure them for others (well, that turned out to be a crock full of crap, but that's an entirely different issue.). Cops are not civilians' superiors. They are public servants. Cops are not "in charge" of anyone except lower-ranking cops. A cop's duty is to uphold the law and protect the peace. When you get right down to it, his job is to maintain order through the implication (or use, if necessary) of force.
In boot camp we were drilled from the beginning on the "Proper Escalation of Force". "Deadly Force" is the last resort when you're trying to communicate with someone. Disabling someone is preferred over killing them, but that's still the second-to-last option, and it does not come immediately after making demands.
If that system works in a war zone, why the hell isn't it taught more stringently here? The officer started off the exchange pretty well, but started escalating almost immediately. The guy asked a perfectly reasonable question. He could have been lying about missing the sign, but it's easy enough to point it out. I have the feeling the guy wasn't actively reaching for his license and registration when he was asking the question, which is also reasonable. He may have been nervous, and it's hard to think straight, let alone carry on a conversation while looking for your paperwork.
Honestly, I think both of them felt they were in the right on this one, but the cop was too eager to assert his control over the situation, and the cop is entirely to blame for the situation's escalation. If he had treated the citizen with any sort of respect (you know, point out the sign, respond to the guy instead of just restating demands), the citizen wouldn't have been quite so agitated. Yes, his agitation only exacerbated the situation, but do you really expect anything different when somebody's pointing a weapon at you? I'm going to side with the cops on one point: He did look like an asshole. He didn't have the body language of an asshole with a weapon in his pocket though. Here's something else I learned in boot camp: "Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." Save the taser for when there's a real threat, officer.
On a side note: It seemed like the officer got out of the patrol car rather quickly. In Utah, do they talk to the driver first, then do the paperwork/license plate checks?
"The guy was being an idiot. Did the cop do the right thing? I don't know, but you can bet in a similar situation I would have done the same thing. If most of you are honest with yourselves you will have to admit to yourself that you would too."
No, I wouldn't. I was trained in the proper use of force, and this eagerness to deploy it sickens me.
Being a jerk isn't against the law. There is no such law that states you have to be pleasant, or even respectful, and being disrespectful isn't a sure sign that someone is going to try to kill you. The cop shouldn't get to indulge his irritation or impatience by unnecessary force just because the driver is a little pissy. There isn't supposed to be such a thing as contempt of cop.
If they are trained properly they should understand that most people aren't going to react in a robotic way when they are stopped; never questioning and never being 'nervous'. Their training is supposed to tell them how to deal with such a scenario by avoiding the confrontation not making it worse. That's because they actually seem to want confrontation now. They use those tasers like toys.
Maybe it should tell you something when most of the positive comments are coming from people who have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. Cops become cops because they have a great respect for the law. The fact of the matter is that Jared Massey broke the law. He should have simply signed the ticket and then dealt with it in court. Now he's going to have to deal with the speeding ticket and charges of resisting arrest.
Yes I am former law enforcement and the first thing I saw when Jared got out of the truck was the knife he had on his belt. You can see it sticking out of his waist band at 2:29 of the video. Most people who watch the video with me never notice it until I point it out to them. From that moment on, their opinion of Mr. Massey's behavior and Officer Gardner's response to the situation changes.
If you want to judge Officer Gardner try and do it from his perspective. Some people say its Mr. Massey's right to be a jerk and to behave like a criminal. That's true, however he does not have the right to refuse to sign a ticket. Note that when Mr. Massey wanted to go back and see where the speed limit change, Officer Gardner was fine with that, so long as he signed the ticket first. Once that ticket was signed he was free to leave and do any lawful thing he liked. However, until that ticket was signed Officer Gardner had no way of knowing if Mr. Massey would stop when they reached the earlier speed limit sign or not. Don't forget that before Mr. Massey got out of his vehicle he had already admited to breaking one law.
Officer Gardner is not some Rogue cop out there taking out his frustrations on innocent passersby. He has never been involved in a similar incident in 14 years. Under Utah State Law, a motorist can be arrested for refusing to sign a speeding ticket. We also don't know everything that happened because Mr. Massey, by his own admission, edited out parts of the video before he posted it on the internet. Remember that before you jump to condemn Officer Gardner next time.
Cops do not become cops because they have a GREAT RESPECT FOR THE LAW. What a bunch of hog wash. Cops become cops for the sense of control they get. Some may have a respect for the law, but I know few who truly do.
If the officer was truly concerned for his welfare, he would never have turned his back and walked away as Massey was getting out of the car. Massey was told to "hop out of the car." The cop expected him to get out. The cop also was already reaching for his tazer before he turned around to confront Massey. The "knife" looks more like a cell phone or multi-tool. Notice it does not extend down to a blade. It is all handle. If Massey had intended harm, he would have jumped the cop when his back was turned.
The police state is getting out of hand.
When did Massey resist arrest? He was powerless from the tazer? He was arrested for speeding, not resisting arrest. But then, cops need to spin the events by adding a resisting arrest charge.
I have see a standoff that lasted hours because the subject wanted to surrender to someone beside the San Jose Police Department. He requested a Sheriff's Deputy or any non-SJPD. He knew they were going to be rough. He was charged with delaying a police officer because of the stand-off. He was not charged with anything else. The cops came because of a bogus domestic violence complaint. There was not evidence to support the DV charges so he was only charged with Delaying a Police Officer.
Remember the two rules: No. 1, The cops are always right. No. 2, When the cops are wrong, remember rule no. 1.
Great article. So in The Herald's opinion, if a police officer wants to anally penetrate you, you should submit without question? Err... no thanks.
Comment By Stiv, 1-11-08What is "behaving like a criminal" to your way of thinking, Mr. Fryer, acting annoyed? Not subservient enough? Then you would probably believe he was acting suspicious with something to hide. Is it a crime to have a small knife on your person like a pocket knife or utility knife in Utah? There are places where it's not illegal to carry those types of knives.
Comment By David Fryer, 1-12-08Actually I never said Mr. Massey was acting like a criminal. What I said was "some people say its Mr. Massey's right to be a jerk and to behave like a criminal." Those comments were made by others who were defending Mr. Massey. I believe that Mr. Massey acted stupidly but that does not make him a criminal. However, it has been my experience that people who act beligerantly with police are generally trying to hide something.
Were there ways that this situation could have been handled differently? Yes there are, on both sides. Watch the tape again and you will see that Trooper Gardner was initially polite to Mr. Massey. When he walked up to the vehicle he said "hey, how's it going, you were going a little fast there, may I see your license and registration?" at that point Mr. Massey says something that we can't here because of passing traffic, and at that point the situation gets a lot more tense.
You might be surprised that when I show this incident to the students in my civics class and ask for their opinion, they almost always say the officer was justified in his actions. I have to wonder how many people have had a bad experience with police in the past and a projecting their own anger onto all police, particularly Trooper Gardner. I too have had bad experiences with police but I am still willing to give the rest of the the benefit of the doubt. Why can't the rest of you.
Mr. Fryer makes a very valid argument. For the record, I do not believe that the motorist was at fault, however, I also realize that I am biased to that opinion. Mr. Fryer, I would like to see your response to the post by Chris just before your first post, especially the proper escalation of force issue. thank you.
Comment By captainah, 1-12-08wake up people this is just one test case in a sea of 8 or more a day they are trying us all to see how far they can push and how much they can get away with soon they will be tasering everyone or worse and then what? wake up or be the sheep they want you to be and let them heard you all together and move you where they want you. baahhhhhhh!
Comment By Mark in Idaho, 1-12-08Mr Fryer's comments about his students says a lot. "You might be surprised that when I show this incident to the students in my civics class and ask for their opinion, they almost always say the officer was justified in his actions." It just shows how our schools are not teaching the Constitution. They are stripping our youth of any sense of freedom or liberty. It is not the "Bill of Rights if the cop agrees" or a some call them "The Bill of Suggestions" These same 'minds of mush' will be voting soon and then the rest of our rights will be flushed away. Some of you need to read this article and then just as Lennon put it, "imagine there are no rights"
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan24.htm
Mr Fryer missed something important.
As he reports "When he walked up to the vehicle he said "hey, how's it going, you were going a little fast there, may I see your license and registration?" at that point Mr. Massey says something that we can't here because of passing traffic, and at that point the situation gets a lot more tense."
Does Mr Fryer think it is reasonable to start the conversation with a confrontation like "you were going a little fast there"? How about the cop asking Massey, Do you know what the speed limit is? It just shows that the cop is prone to confrontation. He escalated the situation with his first few words. He never answered any of Massey's questions. Many police academies teach officers to never let the subject sense any control, even if that control is just in a conversation. They are taught to shout down anyone who questions. The escalation of force is always talk with a stronger voice than the subject, always respond to the subject's behavior with a stronger behavior. If the subject takes a reactive posture (fighting stance or grabs a weapon) the cop is to always take a stronger stance. Respond to hands with a night stick. Respond to martial arts or knife with a gun. Apparently, the response to a question is a tazer. Oh yeh, if the cop does not have a night stick, his gun will do.
I have seen a lot of people say the cop handled it wrong, but I have yet to see one person say what he did wrong, and how they would have done it differently. Until then, sorry but you're a bunch of reactionist hypocrites.
Comment By Mark in Idaho, 1-14-08The cop should have reasonably explained the situation. First, start with: Do you know what the speed limit is on this stretch of road?
When Massey answers with the speed limit before the start of the construction zone of 55 or 60, the cop then says: Well actually you are now in a construction zone and the construction zone speed limit is 40. Massey says, I did not see a sign saying 40. The cop points it out to him.
Many cops use this method because it exposes the speeder to his own lack of awareness of speed limit signs. At this point, the speeder is more apt to feel guilt over not being aware of his surroundings. It becomes a teaching point as well as a time to write the citation.
When the cop told Massey to 'jump out of the car,' he could have easily pointed out the signs. Then again, Massey would have realized that he was not paying attention to the road signs. The most important issue for the cop is to reinforce the need for Massey to pay attention to the road signs. Instead, the cop is overly controlling and confrontational. If he had pointed out the speed limit sign and construction zone sign, he would then have had better reason to have Massey sign the citation. He could have said, "Now that I have pointed out the speed limit signs, you need to sign this ticket so I can let you go on your way. If you have a disagreement about the signs, you can present it in court. If you do not sign the citation, I will have to arrest you."
Couple things:
Fryer, you state in your comment that "Once that ticket was signed he was free to leave and do any lawful thing he liked." That implies that Massey had a legal obligation to sign the ticket. He didn't. As such, the cop had no business forcing him to do so. If he was legally obligated to sign it, the situation is slightly different, and the officer's actions not as uncalled for. But when the officer escalates the situation due to a citizen lawfully disobeying an unlawful command, i.e., Massey wasn't going to sign the ticket and had no obligation to, then that officer is in the wrong, and is no longer upholding the law.
To Mark: You say "The most important issue for the cop is to reinforce the need for Massey to pay attention to the road signs." Normally, i would agree, but something that nobody has mentioned in detail, it seems, is how clearly the officer was parked directly in front of the speed limit sign. I dont' think he was honestly trying to pull over someone who wasn't paying attention to the speed limit, I think he was trying to fill his quota of tickets, and being disingenuous about it. And when he was called on it ("I didn't see the sign") it angered him that someone would dare question him. Once again, he was in the wrong.
I had mentioned some time ago that the cop was blocking the view of the speed limit sign. Somebody commented that there was a previous speed limit sign further back up the road. I saw the diamond sign that probably read "construction zone" or "construction zone ahead" or some such warning. I doubt there was a previous 40 mph speed limit sign. The cop acted like a normal control freak cop out to get the maximum tickets in his shift. This is a common tactic here in Idaho. My wife had been nailed twice before she learned to watch out for the traps.
One time, we fought it in court and she was convicted of 36 in a 35. She had agreed that she was going 36 but thought the speed limit was 35. The city had just posted a new 25 mph sign that was obscured by bushes. The judge accepted that the 25 mph sign was obscured and convicted her of the 36 in a 35. Even the judges are control freaks here in Idaho. I would hate to see what the judge would do with a tazer. He might just nail her for protesting the ticket.