The following is video from a police cruiser’s camera which show an altercation between a Utah police officer, John Gardner, and a man named Jared Massey. Mr. Massey was pulled over for speeding and was eventually tased by the officer. Steve Watson at Infowars.com has a write up on the incident.
There are several things to note in the video:
1) The officer is clearly of the opinion that the Mr. Massey should simply comply, no matter if Massey had legitimate questions. How about being professional and avoiding escalation? At worst, the officer could have simply noted on the ticket that Massey refused to sign–it isn’t as if that would obviate the charge. I will allow that it would have behooved Massey to be a calmer, but the notion that citizens aren’t allowed to ask questions of the police is absurd and anti-democratic.
2) The officer tases Massey without first giving a warning.
3) The officer later lies to his partner, as he says that he gave Massey a warning before tasing him, yet he did not.
4) The officer arrests Massey without reading him his rights. Indeed, even when Massey requests that he be read his rights, the officer refuses to do so.
5) The officer searched the Massey’s car without a warrant and sans probable cause (unless one takes a rather expansive view of “probable cause”).
One can fault Massey for trying to point out the speed limit sign, but there is nothing that Massey does that should require the use of the taser. Really, it is unclear what the officer was trying to accomplish by ordering Massey out of the vehicle in the first place. Had Massey really been a danger, the officer was not in the best position to initially deal with him. Mostly it seems that the officer was engaged in a power play because Massey had the audacity to want an explanation as the what he was being charged with exactly.
The bottom line is this: there is no way that whatever speeding infraction that Massey engaged in justifies tasering him, arresting him and terrorizing his wife. This is utterly unacceptable. So much for “to protect and to serve.”
It certainly seems as if law enforcement are a bit too attached to their tasers. Indeed, many seem to think nothing of using the devices, such as the student who was tased at a John Kerry speech last month or the UCLA student who was tased at the university’s library for not showing his ID card. The fact that the use of tasers can result in death, one would like to see a bit more restraint on the part of law enforcement.
However, having the police run around thinking it is their right to inflict pain on citizens because they are not 100% compliant in all ways is unacceptable. The attitude is often “well, we were tased in training, so what’s the big deal?” However, that is hardly justification for basically using pain and fear as a casual tool of law enforcement.
ABC News has a report on the Massey story as well: Utah Cop’s Itchy Taser Finger Probed. Ultimately this is also a “thank God for the internet” kind of story, as the presence of the YouTube video is forwarding the investigation:
“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.”
h/t for video: Hullabaloo
Sphere: Related Content
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
That is utterly appalling.
There is a serious problem in this country when it comes to understanding and respecting democratic rights and principles.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
utterly appalling but predictable. My respect for law enforcement went down the toilet after the way I was treated by a local sheriff after I flagged him down in a strip shopping parking lot one night. The guy was on a power trip, and I got treated little better than a criminal. A badge makes too many of these men and women t hink they’re Gods. Some people have lost their lives because of this attitude.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Dr. Taylor,
1) It’s inaccurate to say the officer failed to warn Mr. Massey. The officer had drawn his taser and ordered Mr. Massey to turn around and put his hands behind his back. Under similar circumstances, I’d consider that a warning, wouldn’t you? When the police issue a command, no reasonable person believes that compliance is optional.
2) The officer wasn’t required to Mirandize Mr. Massey before arresting him. The police don’t have to read your Miranda rights until they question you, i.e., until you’re under custodial interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3) The officer didn’t need probable cause to search Mr. Massey’s vehicle. He was entitled to search the vehicle incident to the driver’s arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
4) Many jurisdictions authorize the police to effect an arrest for misdemeanor offenses, including violations of the traffic code. This is true even for fine-only violations that carry no jail time upon conviction. See Atwater v. Lago Vista, 000 U.S. 99-1408 (2001).
5) Even so, it’s unlikely that Mr. Massey would have been arrested or tasered had he simply signed the ticket. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt. It’s merely an acknowledgment that you received the citation.
6) The roadside is not a courtroom. If you believe a police officer has accused you falsely, you’re entitled to have a judge hear your case. If you insist that the officer hear your case, do not be surprised when he declines to reverse his own judgment.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Would’ve it have killed the officer to work towards diffusing the situation rather than going off on a power trip?
I agree that there are things that Massey should have done differently, but the notion that this is the way we want police to behave it rather distasteful.
And no, the side of the road is not a court room, but neither is a minor traffic stop the appropriate venue for this type of treatment of a citizen by a police officer.
Are you really going to tell me that the officer couldn’t have handled this better?
The problem here from the officer’s POV and yours is that because the officer is an authority figure that her deserves all of the benefit of the doubt.
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I assume you’re referring to the “treatment” Mr. Massey received after he was ordered out of his vehicle, yes?
If so, in your opinion did the officer do anything wrong before that? If yes, please specify. And if not, isn’t it true, or at least very, very likely, that Mr. Massey could have gone on his way — untasered and unarrested — had he simply signed the ticket?
As for the treatment Mr. Massey received after he was ordered out of his vehicle, I put it to you: When a suspect refuses to obey an officer’s command, what exactly would you have the officer do? Beg the suspect’s pardon and depart the scene? And if so, what implications do you think that practice might have for the rule of law?
No, Dr. Taylor, I do not take the officer’s word as gospel because he’s an authority figure. But I am unwilling to impose upon the police the administrative burden of haggling with every citizen who wants to grouse about a garden variety traffic citation. How long would you have required Officer Gardner to go round and round with Mr. Massey? You were speeding. No I wasn’t. Yes you were. No I wasn’t. Yes you were. A half hour? An hour? The whole shift?
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
Fine, let’s just let police officers tase people because its such a huge hassle to diffuse a situation.
No problem.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Okay, Dr. Taylor. One final comment.
Mr. Massey wasn’t tasered “because its such a huge hassle to diffuse a situation.” He was tasered because he refused to obey an officer’s lawful command. (I note in passing that at the moment he was tasered, Mr. Massey was not only walking away from the officer, he was also digging into his pocket. That’s a definite no-no.)
You seem concerned here with the officer’s obligation to diffuse the situation. I wonder: In your opinion, did Mr. Massey have any obligation to diffuse it? And couldn’t he have done so by simply signing the ticket and then seeking his day in court? Apparently, you would have the officer coddle Mr. Massey. I would not. The officer is not Mr. Massey mommy, and Mr. Massey is not a child.
Many of our fellow citizens — raised from birth to believe that they are special, even when their behavior is obnoxious — are quick to assert their perceived rights. They view any inconvenience as a moment of constitutional import. But they admit only slowly, if ever they knew, that as citizens they also have responsibilities. One of their responsibilities is to obey the instructions of the men and women charged with the enforcement of our laws.
Every law on the books, and every order of our courts, is ultimately backed up by the threat of force. Compliance with the law, and with the directives of law enforcement, is not optional. Nor, if we are to preserve the rule of law, can it ever be.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
The bottom line here is that officer could have handled this situation far better than he did.
Yes, all laws are ultimately predicated on the use of force, but this situation did not require force. However, the fact that all laws are ultimately based on coercion does not mean that violence should be so easily relied upon in a situation like this. Massey was being argumentative, yes. But the officer could have worked to diffuse the situation rather than being on a a power trip in which he started with the attitude that a citizen should be obsequious and totally compliant. It was no unreasonable for Massey to want to know how fast he was going and precisely why he was being pulled over. The officer could have been more patient. All he had to do was calmly explain to Massey that signing the ticket wasn’t an admission of guilt. He could have told him precisely what the charge was, and then told him to calm down. He could have told Massey he was going give him a minute to calm down and that if he got out of he vehicle he would be arrested.
Instead, the officer wasn’t interested in calming Massey down, he was interested in compliance. Further, it was the officer who escalated the situation by ordering Massey out of the vehicle. That was a power play. And if was going to arrest him, when didn’t he have his cuffs out before ordering him out of the vehicle? From the video it is unclear that the officer knew what he was going to do once he ordered Massey out of the car.
The officer was in the position of authority and power, and yet acted irresponsibly. He simply relied on his power and authority and assumed his right to have the total compliance of a citizen whose crime, let’s not forget, was nothing more than exceeding the speed limit.
However, it is the assumption, clearly evident in the officer’s behavior that once someone is a “criminal” that they can be treated with disdain that is at the root of the problem.
The fact that the officer and his partner make jokes about tasing Massey underscores this notion. This is not the attitude we should want from those empowered to enforce the law.
Is it really too much to expect that a police officer, in confronting an upset citizen accused of the most minor of crimes might not take a few extra minutes to calm down said citizen? Or are we so hung up on the notion that we must obey that such considerations are to be considered unreasonable expectations? And what were the officers in hurry to do, go sit back on the side of the road and watch the traffic?
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
[...] Yesterday I noted what I considered a disturbing story involving a motorist, a traffic stop and a tasering. A mini-debate with a reader erupted on the subject. The following is a version of one of my replies, which gets to the heart my basic objections. [...]
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Paul must have a vested interested in seeing abuse of power unquestioned. Guys like that never get to how stuff should work because they’re so terribly concerned with making stuff works as badly as it already does.
To Harrass and Oppress, because, you know, we can. Says that on the sides of Paul’s ideal cop car.
I’d suggest Paul grow a perspective but I kinda know how that works out…
November 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Paul’s comments are classic B- answers on law school CrimPro final exams: all absolutely correct … and all entirely beside the point.
The taser is meant to be a less dangerous, less lethal alternative to the firearm. If the use of a firearm is not justified, then neither is the use of the taser.
Would Paul dare suggest that the officer would have been justified to shoot the driver? If not, then disproportionate force was used and the driver’s civil liberties were violated.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I think that that is an excellent way to put it.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:02 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor at Poliblog sums things up nicely. 1) The officer is clearly of the opinion that the Mr. Massey should simply comply, no matter if Massey had legitimate questions. How about being professional and avoiding escalation? At worst, the officer could have simply noted on the ticket that Massey refused to sign–it isn’t as if that would obviate the charge. I will allow that it would have behooved Massey to be a calmer, but the notion that citizens aren’t allowed to ask questions of the police is absurd and anti-democratic. [...]
November 26th, 2007 at 7:10 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor at Poliblog sums things up nicely. 1) The officer is clearly of the opinion that the Mr. Massey should simply comply, no matter if Massey had legitimate questions. How about being professional and avoiding escalation? At worst, the officer could have simply noted on the ticket that Massey refused to sign–it isn’t as if that would obviate the charge. I will allow that it would have behooved Massey to be a calmer, but the notion that citizens aren’t allowed to ask questions of the police is absurd and anti-democratic. [...]