Trooper Caught On Tape Tasering Motorist

[another day]

Quote by: tivodan1116 We can. In fact, it's one of the most oft-cited reasons police give for entering the profession.

Hah. Do not confuse what someone says with what is truly in their hearts. Sure alot of cops say "I just want to help people" but it's bullshit in 75% of the cases. They get into police work because it's easy to get into, it pays decent, and they think it will be fun. As well as the afore mentioned instinctual reasons of wanting to control and dominate their fellow man.

That said, I always realize in every situation that individualism is a prominent factor. There will always be individuals in any group that go against the grain. I am sure there are many cops who are genuily good people. I've met some. But do I believe that most cops are like that? Nope. Better then prison guards (the worst of the worst, thank god they spend 75% of their time in prisons where they belong).

Then the profession is doing a poor job of hiring.

There's a shortage of cops lately, mostly because under the new era we need a constantly increasing police force to enforce all the new laws we keep coming up with. I heard it's 6 months training for a new officer until he's on the street. As for requirements? If your drug free, and have a clean record, and are in good physical shape, that's all you need. You really think they psychoanalyze every new recruit to make sure he isn't a sadomasochistic psychopath?

To be sure, police officers handle tough situations. But is that a surprise to anyone who is applying for the job? It shouldn't be. Your average citizen is not a professional at handling tough situations. A police officer is. When one of their PRIMARY job qualifications is to be able to maintain their cool at all times, people are going to be very critical when it doesn't happen.

There are many professions that face difficult, potentially dangerous situations all the time. The difference is they aren't given a gun and various other weapons and told that people have to listen to what they say. It's the nature of the job, and it doesn't mix well with the nature of the beast that is attracted to it.

[Jack]

You really think they psychoanalyze every new recruit to make sure he isn't a sadomasochistic psychopath?

Yes, there are psychological exams. Not as rigorous as those I had in the Army, but they should weed out the true nut cases.

There are many professions that face difficult, potentially dangerous situations all the time. The difference is they aren't given a gun and various other weapons and told that people have to listen to what they say.

Very few, in reality, that involve the degree of potential violence and fatalities for an entire 8 hour shift, 5 days a week (including the time you're off duty, since you're expected to act if you witness a crime even when you're not on duty). Soldiers, cops and high-steel workers all have in common the reality they may not live through their next shift. That takes some getting used to.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Isherwood Yes, there are psychological exams. Not as rigorous as those I had in the Army, but they should weed out the true nut cases. Very few, in reality, that involve the degree of potential violence and fatalities for an entire 8 hour shift, 5 days a week (including the time you're off duty, since you're expected to act if you witness a crime even when you're not on duty). Soldiers, cops and high-steel workers all have in common the reality they may not live through their next shift. That takes some getting used to.

Once again, if you look at the numbers, and count "high-steel workers" among ALL construction workers, they're the only ones that make the top 10 fo the most dangerous professions in the US. It's safer to be in the military than it is to be a farmer or fisherman.

The argument that farmers and fishermen only face "accidents", and the others face "criminals" is a ridiculous aside. Farmers and fishermen feed the world. It could easily be estimated that American farmers provide 25% or more of the food that is produced in this world. If it weren't for the American farmer, we would all starve to death.

If it weren't for the policeman, what would happen? Maybe the report wouldn't be filed on your car if it were stolen. That's not to say that the car might ever be returned in working order, the police don't seem to have any influence over that. But, hell, they've put themselves at risk by coming by to take a report.

So, let's all cry over the policeman who is injured in the line of duty. Chances are he was trying to collect a tax and came across the wrong person. Excuse me sir, but did you know you were speeding? bang, bang ... oops, this tax collector just happened to stumble across a real criminal.

Of course, if he had done some real investigation, tracked down the perp, approached him judiciously and worked to apprehend a vicious criminal he probably would have been prepared.

But, since most police officers time is spent in revenue generation, it's more likely that they will stumble across a criminal, rather than hunt them down and apprehend them. Therefore, every traffic stop becomes a life and death situation. While trying to generate revenue there is a certain percentage of a chance the officer might get killed. Sure, it's only 1/10 of 1 percent, but we can't take any chances. So, the guy we caught in the speed trap before he reached the sign might just be a killer.

So, let's not inform him that he's being arrested and, if he questions anything, tase him within seconds. If he falls into traffic and his pregnant wife gets out of the car to question you, threaten her, too. Leave this dangerous perp to lie in traffic after you've disabled him. Perhaps, just to make sure he's no threat, shock him again. Who cares if he might get run over, he's a dangerous crminal.

For all of you defending ths "pig" as Ruksack has labeled him, that's what you're defending. Someone who is so fearful of being questioned of his authority to collect taxes, he has to put his adversary at risk of being killed on the side of the highway by oncoming traffic.

Sure, that's a dangerous job. Tax collection always has been.

Keith

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Isherwood Very few, in reality, that involve the degree of potential violence and fatalities for an entire 8 hour shift, 5 days a week (including the time you're off duty, since you're expected to act if you witness a crime even when you're not on duty). Soldiers, cops and high-steel workers all have in common the reality they may not live through their next shift. That takes some getting used to.

I don't doubt the danger of both of those jobs, but do you have some statistics to show how dangerous they are? I could be wrong, but I believe the high risk jobs tend to actually fall more commonly under transportation. Assuming I'm correct, it's odd that if a taxi driver or trucker stated his/her reason for being a worker in that occupation as "I just want to help the people", most people would think that person crazy.

[another day]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Once again, if you look at the numbers, and count "high-steel workers" among ALL construction workers, they're the only ones that make the top 10 fo the most dangerous professions in the US. It's safer to be in the military than it is to be a farmer or fisherman. The argument that farmers and fishermen only face "accidents", and the others face "criminals" is a ridiculous aside. Farmers and fishermen feed the world. It could easily be estimated that American farmers provide 25% or more of the food that is produced in this world. If it weren't for the American farmer, we would all starve to death. If it weren't for the policeman, what would happen? Maybe the report wouldn't be filed on your car if it were stolen. That's not to say that the car might ever be returned in working order, the police don't seem to have any influence over that. But, hell, they've put themselves at risk by coming by to take a report. So, let's all cry over the policeman who is injured in the line of duty. Chances are he was trying to collect a tax and came across the wrong person. Excuse me sir, but did you know you were speeding? bang, bang ... oops, this tax collector just happened to stumble across a real criminal. Of course, if he had done some real investigation, tracked down the perp, approached him judiciously and worked to apprehend a vicious criminal he probably would have been prepared. But, since most police officers time is spent in revenue generation, it's more likely that they will stumble across a criminal, rather than hunt them down and apprehend them. Therefore, every traffic stop becomes a life and death situation. While trying to generate revenue there is a certain percentage of a chance the officer might get killed. Sure, it's only 1/10 of 1 percent, but we can't take any chances. So, the guy we caught in the speed trap before he reached the sign might just be a killer. So, let's not inform him that he's being arrested and, if he questions anything, tase him within seconds. If he falls into traffic and his pregnant wife gets out of the car to question you, threaten her, too. Leave this dangerous perp to lie in traffic after you've disabled him. Perhaps, just to make sure he's no threat, shock him again. Who cares if he might get run over, he's a dangerous crminal. For all of you defending ths "pig" as Ruksack has labeled him, that's what you're defending. Someone who is so fearful of being questioned of his authority to collect taxes, he has to put his adversary at risk of being killed on the side of the highway by oncoming traffic. Sure, that's a dangerous job. Tax collection always has been. Keith

Very Very good post. Some good points.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Jubloz That's somewhat of a red herring, but whatever. People can and do become injured or even die by tasers, therefore a taser should only be used when no better alternative is available. Tasers are dangerous because the person wielding the taser almost always has no knowledge over the health conditions of the person they're about to tase; the guy we watched being electrocuted could have had a pacemaker for all the cop knew, not to mention the possibility of a myriad of other health conditions. Furthermore, you shouldn't tase someone unless it's of necessity if you don't have control over the environment around you;

And how are any of these considerations or risks different from simply using physical force / submission techniques on an unwillling individual? At least with the Taser a person who is in perfect health will suffer no long term repurcussions, where as the same person will require surgery should I break their wrist or arm or... I cringe at the thought... a rotator cuff while wrestling around with them. If we use the logic that ANY force that could potentially be lethal force in an extreme situation is ALWAYS lethal force, then all force is now lethal force.

That's somewhat of a red herring, but whatever.

Not really. I was addressing an admittedly separate argument that is typically brought up in these cases, preemptively (IE Tasers are lethal weapons). And this was after I addressed the main argument stating that the cop was wrong here.

the man in the video could have very easily fallen into oncoming traffic. How the cop acted is inexcusable and he should be severely punished (fired, sued, and perhaps even jailed).

Which is why the man should be condemned not the method which was clearly misused.

It's sad when you have to fear the very people who are supposed to protect you.

I understand the sentiment but is there anything to suggest this is a wider scale problem rather than merely an extreme outlier?

Heh, that cop didn't exactly build a good case by refusing to read the man his rights, either.

He didn't have to unless he was interrogating the man. Doesn't excuse the rest of his actions though.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Isherwood Very few, in reality, that involve the degree of potential violence and fatalities for an entire 8 hour shift, 5 days a week (including the time you're off duty, since you're expected to act if you witness a crime even when you're not on duty). Soldiers, cops and high-steel workers all have in common the reality they may not live through their next shift. That takes some getting used to.

Let alone in smaller departments working 12 hour shifts 3-4 days a week.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: AnotherDay Hah. Do not confuse what someone says with what is truly in their hearts. Sure alot of cops say "I just want to help people" but it's bullshit in 75% of the cases. They get into police work because it's easy to get into, it pays decent, and they think it will be fun. As well as the afore mentioned instinctual reasons of wanting to control and dominate their fellow man.

So do you have any actual evidence to back up your figures or can I continue to label it under "pure unadulterated hyperbole"?

[another day]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 So do you have any actual evidence to back up your figures or can I continue to label it under "pure unadulterated hyperbole"?

Figures? Is that all you understand? Of course there are no figures... that is a ludicrous suggestion, you can't put this stuff into statistics. I'm just analyzing shit here. I've seen it first hand, most cops are aggressive, power tripping bastards who crave respect and submission from people.

Label it all you want, it's clear you are pro-cop and refuse to see what is real. Sure I'm somewhat anti-cop and the real truth probably lies somewhere in between. I've already made it clear that there are individuals who defy this stereotype, and individuals that fit this stereotype to a lesser extent, but from what i've seen and experienced, they aren't the majority.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: AnotherDay Figures? Is that all you understand? Of course there are no figures... that is a ludicrous suggestion, you can't put this stuff into statistics. I'm just analyzing shit here. I've seen it first hand, most cops are aggressive, power tripping bastards who crave respect and submission from people.

I'll take that as a "No".

And you're not analyzing anything by coming to aggregate conclusions based upon extreme individuals based solely on anecdotal evidence and admittedly biased anecdotal evidence at that.

Label it all you want, it's clear you are pro-cop and refuse to see what is real.

And I do this by saying that this cop was wrong? What have I misinterpreted by actually participating in the profession and studying it?

[xyzer]

Chaossabe is right on! The culprit refused the orders of a law enforcement officer. Refused to sign a summons(which was not an admmission of guilt,) Wandered around is a hazardous area with cars speeding by.(would you start a physical tussel with someone acting like that in the same situation) Asked repeatedly why he was being arrested?(This after plainly being told he was speeding). Does it make sense for the culprit to ask why he wasn't being read his rights if he figured he hadn't done anything?
The guy is a juvenile jerk who can't stand correction.(that is the kind of behavior we commonly observe in 6 year olds.) He deserves what he got and I'm sure resisting arrest will be added to the charges. You are responsible for your own behavior and blaming anothers reactions to aberrant behavior is not an excuse..particularly when a law violation is involved..

[Chaossaber314]

Actually Xyzer, I'm not arguing in favor of this cop but that his unacceptable behavior is not the norm amongst other cops.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer He deserves what he got ....

Yeah, sure. The cops are all authorized to decide for themselves what the citizens deserve to get.

Quote by: xyzer ....and I'm sure resisting arrest will be added to the charges.

I'd be willing to bet that no charges at all will be filed against the driver, and that not even the original speeding citation will be upheld. While the driver may have acted stupidly, the cop was even more stupid, knowing that he was putting his own actions on tape.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Zeebadee I'd be willing to bet that no charges at all will be filed against the driver, and that not even the original speeding citation will be upheld. While the driver may have acted stupidly, the cop was even more stupid, knowing that he was putting his own actions on tape.

The article I read said that all charges except the speeding ticket were dropped, and I'm sure the DA will work out a great deal for him if he or she doesn't drop it outright:

Man To Sue Highway Patrol After Traffic Stop Tasing - 2News

As for Massey, all charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zee Yeah, sure. The cops are all authorized to decide for themselves what the citizens deserve to get.

To an extent, they are. Ever heard of discretion?

Granted, this is a case of police going past that extent...

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 To an extent, they are. Ever heard of discretion?

Yes, the cops are allowed a certain amount of discretion in the use of force to subdue a suspect. They are not authorized to administer punishment, which this particular cop clearly was doing.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Granted, this is a case of police going past that extent...

I don't see how even a "self-investigation" is going to find a reasonably believable defense for this cop's actions.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yes, the cops are allowed a certain amount of discretion in the use of force to subdue a suspect. They are not authorized to administer punishment, which this particular cop clearly was doing.

Agreed, and I acknowledged that.

[ruksak]

Quote by: another_day You really think they psychoanalyze every new recruit to make sure he isn't a sadomasochistic psychopath?

As Isherwood said, they have a rather introspective psychological interview before a panel. Followed by a lie detector test to attempt to cross out your points.

The purpose is too weed out the type-A personalty. Which studies have shown, police that can be bracketed into a type-A personality are far more likely to both be a danger to others as well as themselves. Type-A's are more likely to be alcoholics, gamblers and physically abusive.

The twist is, all a perspective officer needs to do is talk to a friend or family member that has taken this psych exam. It's like playing a game. If you hit what they call "staples" in your answering, they are likely to approve you.

Questions such as;

"Have you ever broken an object because you were angry"?

"Give some examples of a time in your life in which you lost your temper"?

"How have you dealt with stress in your life thus far"?

It goes on and on along that line. All a perspective officer needs to know is what to listen for. How to nail the "staples". The lie detector does weed out some of the wishful piglets. My brothers racist, gun nut "I'm going to get back at those bullies that used to flip my ear in class" type of friend attempted twice to pass the test. Despite a thorough debriefing and extensive preparation, he couldn't pass the lie detector test concerning his anger and control issues.

[xyzer]

Yeah, sure. The cops are all authorized to decide for themselves what the citizens deserve to get.

Cops(and this cop) are charged with upholding the law. This includes stopping a motorist who was violating the law. That's not a personal decision it is what a cop is assigned to do. It is something they are involved in on a daily basis and I'm sure they have soon heard all the answers and excuses of lawbreakers.

Sure there are chances for a cop to use different approaches to subdue a suspected law breaker who refuses to comply and refuses to submit to being placed in custody. Just think of the chaos that would ensue if every law breaker acted the same way? I'll add that sometimes a cops judgement might not suit the U-Tube viewers version. But he/she has to make the decision, most often in a few minutes.

I'm reminded of scenes of riot we see on the tube...cops trying to maintain order as bottles are thrown, cars torched and windows broken...why? Because rioters think they are right and have done nothing wrong? There is a similarity here zee.

[ruksak]

Quote by: xyzer I'm reminded of scenes of riot we see on the tube...cops trying to maintain order as bottles are thrown, cars torched and windows broken...why? Because rioters think they are right and have done nothing wrong? There is a similarity here zee.

No there isn't!

There is no similarity between what happened on the highway that day in Utah, and a violent riot. Other than the fact that one of the people on the scene in Utah was using violence to get his way.

Sure there are chances for a cop to use different approaches to subdue a suspected law breaker who refuses to comply and refuses to submit to being placed in custody.

He didn't have a chance to comply. He had about .002 seconds to comply with an order that was projected down the barrel of a weapon. As Massey turned to the shouting officer, I genuinely believe that he thought it was a gun, not a taser. I think his bizarre actions afterward were a manifestation of panic. Apparently Mr Massey doesn't cope well with extreme stress.

Given officer Gardner's freakish overreaction, I would have at that moment seriously questioned whether or not he was even a cop. "Is this bozo gonna rape me in the backseat of his stolen police cruiser"?

Honestly, that was very bizarre behavior for a venerable police officer.

I'll add that sometimes a cops judgment might not suit the U-Tube viewers version. But he/she has to make the decision, most often in a few minutes.

Actually they usually have but a sliver of seconds. But that is what separates good police from bad police. Every profession has people that are sorely unqualified to handle the duties of the job. Perhaps if officer Gardner's first reaction to having a man defy his ultimate authority by refusing to sign a meaningless signature, is to point a weapon at him and threaten to electrocute him if he doesn't comply with an order that he is just now giving, than he should consider other employment options.

All this that I have said about Gardner's overreaction with the taser being said, I would like to point out a very valid point.

Judging by Mr Massey's behavior, psychologically one could see a pattern developing. He was defiant in handing over his license. He was defiant in accepting the ticket. He was most likely going to be defiant with an arrest procedure. Officer Gardner would likely have had to pull his taser out anyway. You can actually hear Massey say "NO" when Gardner first starts to shout his arrest commands. I caught this the last time I watched the vid. My opinion; Massey wasn't going to comply with the arrest no matter if Gardner asked him very politely several times to put his hands behind his back.

However, Gardner f*cked himself when he chose to pull his taser and show force before having ACTUAL reason to feel it was necessary. This man was not a threat. No order had been refused BEFORE the taser came out. This will be the main point of contention with the Utah State Internal Affairs Office.