More police/taser brutality. UHP (Utah Highway Patrol) tasers man in front of pregnant wife and baby

More police brutality with a taser.

The site describes the video as:

UHP (Utah Highway Patrol) tasers man in front of pregnant wife and baby over an alleged speeding ticket.

Video posted on LiveLeak.

Video Source

Well, pretty cut and dry to me.

The officer asked for his license and registration at least twice that I could hear.
He told the guy why he had been pulled over.

He goes to his patrol car and then back to the suspects car, at which time clearly explains that he's getting a ticket for speeding, the guy becomes argumentative with the cop, you can clearly hear it.

Once out of the vehicle, the cop tells him to put his hands behind his back twice and the guy is walking away from the cop and has one hand near and almost in his pocket, while still walking away, not listening to the officer.

The officer pulls the taser and tells him again to put his hand behind his back at which time again, the guy doesn't listen. So he gets tased.

The officer was very calm and even nice to the guy the entire time.

I do not have a problem with this incident.

No, it was way over the line. The officer may have been calm for the most part, but he definitely has control issues. The "ticking time bomb" type.

#1) You can't arrest someone for not signing a speeding ticket (at least in Utah). The most you can do is take away their license and they'll have to fight it out in court.

#2) The officer never read the "suspect" (victim more like) his rights no matter how many times the man asked him to. HUGE no-no.

This was ridiculous and over the top. Pretty common here in Utah. I see a lawsuit against UHP over this one, though.

Not sure where you got your legal information from, but I hope you didn't pay for it...

Utah traffic violations are CRIMINAL offenses. All violations in the traffic code, unless otherwise stated are Class C Misdemeanors (this includes speeding). So, you can go to jail for speeding, it's the officer's prerogative.

The second point made is false as well. Miranda rights have been ingrained into the cultural fabric of Americans through inaccurate means, mostly TV and movies. The fact is, if you are arrested you do not have to have your rights read to you. Miranda rights only apply to police questioning, specifically interrogation. If an officer has no plans to question you, they do not have to read you your rights. Only prior to interrogation are they required to inform you that you have the right to remain silent and not answer any questions, you have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.

I agree that when there is sufficient reason to arrest someone, police are allowed to use the minimal amount of force necessary to affect the arrest. I believe the force used in this incident is reasonable in that the officer was alone (the suspect may be a cage fighter or something) and has ordered the suspect to submit to arrest several times, so using the taser seems reasonable, as long as there was a reason to arrest the suspect. I don't think that the officer was very smart when he left the suspect lying handcuffed in the road to go talk to the wife in the vehicle, and then got mad when the suspect walked up behind him.......

BTW Miranda rights only have to be read to a suspect during interrogation when the suspect believes they are not "Free" to leave or to terminate the interview.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by stargrog]

[edit on 21-11-2007 by stargrog]

What a sorry excuse for a husband and father to make his family have to watch that. Just sign the freakin' ticket. It's not an admittance of guilt you douche!!!

I agree with Elevatedone here.

Peace

I'm new to this site. Seems like a cool site though.

I wanted to state my opinion regarding the above incident. I'm no attorney, but, I don't think it truly requires one in this case. I think we have an issue of power with regards to the trooper. Some may say that the this young man was defiant, others may say he was simply asking good questions. I've heard both sides from friends of mine in law enforcement...the bottomline, the trooper has the burden of proof after he makes the claim. Certainly in a court of law, but also the trooper must properly explain to the the alleged party why he or she is being pulled over or detained. In this case, the trooper said..."You're speeding"..."ok, I beg to differ...tell me how fast I was going." You notice the officer refused to tell him? That's because the alleged speeder was never actually clocked. That was the question that set things in motion for the trooper. I don't know UTAH state law...but refusal to sign the ticket means you might get cited for refusing to sign, and that's the extent. Some states don't even have the alleged 'wrongdoer' sign. So, again, that's a State by State issue. Arresting someone who doesn't sign citation, even though it's within bounds, doesn't mean it should happen
What's really in question here is the excessive use of force. I think it was very obvious in this case that this was excessive use of force.
According to FOXnews..."The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where "a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others."
Had the officer knocked the chip off his shoulder and answered a couple of questions then this never would have escalated.
It was stated that he refused to obey the officers command...maybe and maybe not. This kid doesn't know what's about to go down. One minute he's being pulled over for speeding, the next he in his mind has a pistol drawn on him (I seriously doubt this kid can decipher the difference of a pistol and the taser at this point)...he's scared and backing off. That's what I see. He turns his back and the officer tased him. The trooper obviously was in no eminent harm or danger...you can't go around shooting people in their backs either. I don't care who you are and what it's with.

So, he gets tased for turning his back on a trooper.

Here's what's going to happen...the alleged speeder will be released from his ticket, because he has an attorney. The attorney will call into question the accuracy of the radar. If for some one reason the trooper can prove it's accuracy, well then he'll have to prove the actual clocked speed.

However, he will be found guilty of refusing to sign a citation (assuming it's criminal not to sign). The court might go as far as to find him guilty of resisting arrest, but then again, the prosecutor will likely drop those charges because of the media attention.

As far as the internal investigation, the trooper will recieve a verbal reprimand...and that'll be it. It's sad, but true.

Sorry this is so long!

Usually refusing to sign a ticket results in your arrest. Signing the ticket (in California, anyway) is not an admission of guilt, it is a promise to appear. Refusing to sign the tickets means you don't promise to appear, therefore, they make you appear by arresting you. Refusing to be arrested mat result in the appropriate force being used, which includes tasering. The suspect is refusing to be arrested. The officer is giving lawful orders to affect an arrest, and the suspect begins to walk off at which point the officer tasers the suspect.

Getting is speeding ticket is not the end of the world. A traffic stop is not a question and answer type of situation. You get pulled over, the cop tells you that you were speeding, asks for your Id. You give the officer your ID, the officer writes the ticket (which tells you how fast you were going, if the officer isn't talkative), you sign the ticket saying you will appear in court (at which time you dispute it to the judge and not the officer), and then you drive away.

This guy (who is a grown adult by the way,and not a kid) didn't want to give the cop his ID, wanted to play 20 questions, and refused to be arrested. This guy was in control and forced this situation to happen. It was a simple traffic stop, nothing more. The cop utilized appropriate force for the situation.

I don't agree with leaving a cuffed suspect in the street though. Seems like the only bad choice on the cops part.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by stargrog]

I have reviewed this video in some detail and in this instance the officer was wrong. You are not required by law to sign a ticket, ordering the man out of the car for failing to sign it was not a lawful order. The officer over reacted and made a poor judgment call, nor was any use of force needed in this situation. If this man had died as a result of this he would be looking at wrongful death, the tort equivelant of murder.

This is becomming all to prevelant in our society, our police officers we entrust to protect us and enforce laws fairly have become bullies, thieves, liars and murderes.

This wont stop until we as citizens protest to our elected officials to change these policies and to see to they are properly enforced. And officers who ignore and abuse this authority must be held accountable for the use of physical force when they are obligated to provide reasoning for there actions.

reply to post by stargrog


Thats actually not correct Merandia is in affect as soon as a police officer restricts your freedom. Simply ordering you to take your hands out of your pocket is a restriction of your fredom. The supreme court ruled on this in the 70's. They are only "required to read your Merandia Rights" before an interrogation.

reply to post by rblock7


Miranda rights are always in effect not just when you've been arrested or told to take your "hand out of your pocket". They are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Your right against self incrimination is set forth in the 5th Amendment, maybe you should read it sometime.

They call it Miranda rights because of a court case which went to the Supreme Court in 1966. It was called Miranda V. Arizona. Miranda is just another word for 5th Amendment.

A cop doesn't have to Mirandize you just because you have been arrested. In fact they NEVER have to Mirandize you if they don't question you about your crime after your arrest.

A cop doesn't have to Mirandize you if they don't intend to arrest you either. For example, as a cop I suspect you have commited a crime, but have no evidence supporting my suspitions. So I ask you a few questions, on the street, regarding the crime and in not so many words, you give me the answers that make me arrest you and I do. If I want to continue to question you after the arrest, I must read you your Miranda rights, which I probably won't because you already gave me what I want.

Read this, it may help you understand your rights:

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-11-2007 by stargrog]

The state has settled the civil lawsuit brought forward by Masey, for 40 000 $, if they did so, it's because they know they would have lost.

It's not mandatory to sign a speeding ticket. And unless the "offender" is being really unruly about it, who cares ? Why escalate the situation ?
The wise thing to do in this case is to write "refused to sign" on the ticket, give it to the offender, and let the courts handle the rest down the road, end of story.
Unless the "offender" is being obviously agressive or unruly of course and there are other things that come to attention of the trooper BESIDES the speeding infraction.

I didn't find Massey to be particularily unruly or agressive. He just thought the ticket wasn't justified because he thought there was no speed limit sign, and therefore he wasn't speeding. And he said so very clearly to the trooper.
The trooper thought otherwise, and can still give him a ticket, even if Massey refuses to sign it.
So be it, big deal... and it should have been left at that.

What's the point for all the "macho muchacho" escalation Gardner goes to after that ? Bad temper ? :-)

The use of tasers concerns me but so do guns.

It is a reality that police officers are shot and killed in the line of duty

The guy walked off, did he have a gun or did he intend to get the gun from under his car seat? Everyone in the USA owns guns, its a constitutional mentality.

My friend returned last year from Chicago and could not believe how touch and go life is there.

She and her partner were involved in a small traffic incident, each driver was calm but she could see that each person had one of their hands that couldn't be seen. Her partner's hand was holding a gun under his seat, each one ready to pull a gun out.... "Are you cool?" "Yeah, its cool"

And it remained civil, but what if it weren't civil?

It is a tough job and if I were a police officer, if in doubt I would use a taser to disable someone that is not being civil or listening to instructions.

And just because a guy has a family in the car doesn't mean he is a Saint. He could be the biggest ash-hole father that walked the planet. You can't assume all Parents, Fathers are lovely la de da people.

Just like when I sat next to an old man on a train. I thought, oh what a lovely old man and chatted to him, next thing he was running his hand up my leg saying what a pretty girl I was and when I had to get off at my stop, he grabbed my vagina.

Oh and being hit with walking sticks whilst waiting on a platform destroys the lovely little old lady ideal straight away.

You can't assume that the Father in this incident is well, the ideal Father.