Trooper Caught On Tape Tasering Motorist

[Osborn F Enready]

People who abuse power are scumbags.

The officer in question in this thread is clearly a scumbag IMO.

[Autolykos]

Ruksak,

By and large, I agree with your characterization of the situation. I'd like to take it a step further.

Quote by: ruksak 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.

Here we get to the heart of the problem. Is there any situation where you would consider it morally legitimate to resist arrest?

I fear that there are situations where refusal to obey leads to death. These situations have nothing to do with real and immediate threats to people's lives; rather, they have everything to do with authority and obedience.

The question for you and the rest of the board is, do you consider obedience to (alleged) authority to be the highest moral good? If so, I believe the implication is clear: any act of disobedience can be met with death, regardless of its (in)significance.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: ruksak 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.

Do you think there's a potential moral hazard here? I think so. It would seem to me that the type-A personalities would tend to be more likely to want to be police officers in the first place.

If that is true, then it would be no surprise that abuses of police power are all too common.

- Rob

[ruksak]

Quote by: Autolykos Here we get to the heart of the problem. Is there any situation where you would consider it morally legitimate to resist arrest? I fear that there are situations where refusal to obey leads to death. These situations have nothing to do with real and immediate threats to people's lives; rather, they have everything to do with authority and obedience. The question for you and the rest of the board is, do you consider obedience to (alleged) authority to be the highest moral good? If so, I believe the implication is clear: any act of disobedience can be met with death, regardless of its (in)significance.

wow...weird. Not only do I agree with what you're getting at here (for once we agree), but I find your wording quite eloquent.

Before I answer your question, I wish to point out how incredibly intelligent this next quote is. As well the inescapable logic that is twisted neatly into it;

Quote by: Autolykos I believe the implication is clear: any act of disobedience can be met with death, regardless of its (in)significance.

Default Authoritarian answer:
Authority is a key to our societies function. Obedience is the only way to address authority. Therefor authority must be able to exercise itself through force, even if this force is fatal in consequence. Or else our society will crumble. Right?

Wrong. Frogs will not rain from the sky. Oceans will not turn red. End times prophecies will not come to fruition if people address aggressive policing with verbal disobedience. Even to just walk away from the police when they threaten you unnecessarily, as Massey did here. Does he have to electrocute him, placing his life in danger through a number of means? Did he have to take Massey's freedom from him in the first place by deciding to arrest him? Over a meaningless signature?

NO! Of course not. These are all decisions meant to suppress peaceful disobedience through violence and incarceration.

Is there any situation where you would consider it morally legitimate to resist arrest?

Morally? Yes.

Morally I would find it reasonable to resist arrest with violence were it necessary if this arrest was threatening my life. Or even placing me in danger. You don't point a potentially deadly weapon at somebody because they said "No". I wouldn't have felt Massey was in the wrong if he took a few steps back and pulled a licensed and legal handgun and shot at officer Gardner in self defense. By all definitions, it WOULD BE self defense.

....do you consider obedience to (alleged) authority to be the highest moral good?

No. Obedience to yourself and your rights to freedom and health, as a sentient being, takes precedent over all else in this matter. Morally, self preservation from violent force is a stronger concern of mine.

These are very tough, well posed questions, Rob. I had to think about them deeply. And I'm still not sure if I answered them fully.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Autolykos Do you think there's a potential moral hazard here? I think so. It would seem to me that the type-A personalities would tend to be more likely to want to be police officers in the first place. If that is true, then it would be no surprise that abuses of police power are all too common. - Rob

Well type-A's are indeed more likely to seek a position of power over others. Be it a police officer or a manager at Taco Bell. But the law enforcement profession is particularly attractive to a type-A, control freak personality. Direct, intimate control over individuals, on a daily basis.

The problem that exists between, as the article on "moral hazard" terms it, the agent and the principal, is that the agent is a threat to the principal through a variety of means if they fit a type-A personality. Law enforcement, and better yet the local governments, know that type-A's are going to flock to this profession. They will use the guise of deceit to get on board. But once they hit the streets they are acting on their own volition.

Type-A "agents" are a serious threat to the integrity of the "principal". Also, their indiscretions can cost millions in civil litigation settlements.

[xyzer]

What bothers me in this situation is that apologists and excuse makers for disobedience of lawful authority fail to address the act that started the event? The driver had broken the posted speed limit. A violation of the law? Who else is responsible?

The issuance of a summons(ticket) is a courtesy! Why, you ask? Because the officer had the authority to arrest the suspect but gave him a chance to appear in court and argue his case? When he refused to acknowledge the summons(sign that he had received it) what recourse did the officer have but to place him under arrest.

One can address all sorts of scenarios and obviously there are many everyday but the bottom line is the man was given a chance to argue his case away from the danger of the side of the road and refused it.

[ruksak]

Quote by: xyzer When he refused to acknowledge the summons(sign that he had received it) what recourse did the officer have but to place him under arrest.

I have stated this over and over. Refusing to sign is not an arrestable offense. A traffic violation is a criminal offense, and an arrestable offense. If you refuse to sign the officer has three options;
1) The officer can arrest you.
2) The officer can write "refuses to sign" on the ticket and let you go.
3) The officer can be intelligent and show due diligence and explain fully the ramification of not signing (being arrested), thusly affording the situation a chance to not turn a simple traffic ticket into an arrest.

One can address all sorts of scenarios and obviously there are many everyday but the bottom line is the man was given a chance to argue his case away from the danger of the side of the road and refused it.

Sh*t. You're right. He should have just whipped out his gun and blew his f*cking brains all over his baby. I mean HEY, the guy had a chance, right? Friggin kill his ass right there for his stupid decision spawned from ignorance of the law.

On November 30th, 2007, the Utah Department of Public Safety concluded their investigation of the incident where Jared Massey got tasered by Utah Highway Patrol Trooper John Gardner, and have cleared Trooper Gardner of any wrongdoing, characterizing the trooper's use of the Taser as "justified".

So its over. Gee whiz, go figure right. I've said it a hundred times in this thread. The actual instance in which he used the taser was by the book. The pulling of the taser was most definitely not. He should never have pulled it out. Not when he did, at least.

[Marilyn Monroe]

I thought the Massey kid was acting aggressively. Cops are always caught between a rock and a hard place, and a lot of them get killed, too. Maybe the cop could have been "nicer", and waited a bit longer, but he didn't know if he had a weapon or not at that point. He should have handcuffed him, but the way the kid was walking towards him would have scared me. He even walked over to the cop after he was handcuffed. The kid seems to have a real problem with authority is what I observed.

What always comes to my mind is who do you call when you think someone is on your property, or you need help? The cops. I don't like cops anymore than anybody else, but they do have a tough job. Everybody seems to be on the suspects side in this, but the cop seemed to have some justification for his actions. The kid was uncooperative, and talking too much. Not real bright.

[Osborn F Enready]

Marilyn said: What always comes to my mind is who do you call when you think someone is on your property, or you need help? The cops.

Speak for yourself.

The only time I have used police is to deal with neighbor disputes. I handle my own security issues.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Speak for yourself. The only time I have used police is to deal with neighbor disputes. I handle my own security issues.

I hate to even use them for disputes with neighbors. That is an extreme and often unjustified escalation of force that I just don't care to get involved in.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

You should meet my sorry excuse for neighbors.

It took a couple years, but we finally have a somewhat tolerable peace.

Believe me, police were my last resort, but eventually it worked. (roughly 100+ calls and understanding that we weren't going to stop calling when they broke the law.)

[ruksak]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I thought the Massey kid was acting aggressively. Cops are always caught between a rock and a hard place, and a lot of them get killed, too. Maybe the cop could have been "nicer", and waited a bit longer, but he didn't know if he had a weapon or not at that point. He should have handcuffed him, but the way the kid was walking towards him would have scared me. He even walked over to the cop after he was handcuffed. The kid seems to have a real problem with authority is what I observed. What always comes to my mind is who do you call when you think someone is on your property, or you need help? The cops. I don't like cops anymore than anybody else, but they do have a tough job. Everybody seems to be on the suspects side in this, but the cop seemed to have some justification for his actions. The kid was uncooperative, and talking too much. Not real bright.

Please understand that I mean not to denigrate ALL police. However this video showed me quite clearly an example of a cop showing force out of anger, not necessity.

The cops. I don't like cops anymore than anybody else, but they do have a tough job.

Well I do. I've had relatively great experiences with police, with only the one exception I stated earlier in this thread. Being an officer is not all about treating people like sh*t and launching taser probes at people. Quite the contrary, much of what they do is noble and in the best interest of people.

We only usually see them on youtube or the news when they f*ck up.

[xyzer]

ruksak posts?

I have stated this over and over. Refusing to sign is not an arrestable offense. A traffic violation is a criminal offense, and an arrestable offense. If you refuse to sign the officer has three options;

Thats what I said! The ticket was a courtesy extendended to the offender. The officer can just arrest the guy. He made the gesture to ease the offenders requirements.. The offender refused it! What next? It is up to the officer.
Step two..the officer considers the circumstances....on a busy hiway the man resists arrest. Should he wrestle with him? Should he plead with the obviously recalcitrant offender to be a good boy? He is alone and doesn't know if the man is armed or a fugitive or whatever. There could have been another person besides the woman in the car?

He made the right decision under the circumstances and zapped the guy, who was then placed in handcuffs and I'm sure will pay an extra price for his stupidity. And maybe he and some others will have learned a lesson about the rule of law and the necessity for complying with it.

[ruksak]

Quote by: xyzer ruksak posts? Thats what I said! The ticket was a courtesy extendended to the offender. The officer can just arrest the guy. He made the gesture to ease the offenders response. He refused it! What next? It is up to the officer. Step two..the officer considers the circumstances....on a busy hiway the man resists arrest. Should he wrestle with him? Should he plead with the obviously recalcitrant offender to be a good boy? He made the right decision under the circumstances and zapped the guy, who was then placed in handcuffs and I'm sure will pay an extra price for his stupidity. And maybe he and some others will have learned a lesson about the rule of law and the necessity for complying with it.

This does not address my ONE point of contention. Why was it necessary to pull out the taser when the handbook and training Gardner received specifically states, in no uncertain terms, that the taser is to be utilized ONLY when other options have been exhausted? He had to tase that retard walkin back to his car. But he did not have to pull it out to begin with. At least not yet. My opinion is that Massey would have done what he did anyway. But he wasn't afforded the opportunity to have a taser justly drawn on him. If there is no reason to use it, there is no reason to pull it. Otherwise cops would pull thier gun on you everytime they stop you, just in case.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: xyzer ruksak posts? Thats what I said! The ticket was a courtesy extendended to the offender. The officer can just arrest the guy. He made the gesture to ease the offenders requirements.. The offender refused it! What next? It is up to the officer. Step two..the officer considers the circumstances....on a busy hiway the man resists arrest. Should he wrestle with him? Should he plead with the obviously recalcitrant offender to be a good boy? He is alone and doesn't know if the man is armed or a fugitive or whatever. There could have been another person besides the woman in the car? He made the right decision under the circumstances and zapped the guy, who was then placed in handcuffs and I'm sure will pay an extra price for his stupidity. And maybe he and some others will have learned a lesson about the rule of law and the necessity for complying with it.

Utah law states that he could use "reasonable force" if a suspect resists after being told he was being placed under arrest. Nowhere in that video does the officer state that he is placing the suspect under arrest until long after the taser is used.

It's no surprise that an "internal investigation" found no wrongdoing. Unless there is an adversarial approach to such an investigation it is highly unlikely that the investigators will find one of their collegues, and possibly a personal friend, in the wrong. In order to do so they would have to admit that their own organization has overstepped the bounds and would therefore be limiting their own power.

I don't know how such an adversarial investigation would be set up. As long as we have government officials investigating other government officials, they will all have a stake in maintaining power and finding their collegues in the right.

Keith

[Autolykos]

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, Ruksak. I would like to say that I appreciate your kind words and your thoughtfulness in your response.

Quote by: ruksak wow...weird. Not only do I agree with what you're getting at here (for once we agree), but I find your wording quite eloquent. Before I answer your question, I wish to point out how incredibly intelligent this next quote is. As well the inescapable logic that is twisted neatly into it; Default Authoritarian answer: Authority is a key to our societies function. Obedience is the only way to address authority. Therefor authority must be able to exercise itself through force, even if this force is fatal in consequence. Or else our society will crumble. Right? Wrong. Frogs will not rain from the sky. Oceans will not turn red. End times prophecies will not come to fruition if people address aggressive policing with verbal disobedience. Even to just walk away from the police when they threaten you unnecessarily, as Massey did here. Does he have to electrocute him, placing his life in danger through a number of means? Did he have to take Massey's freedom from him in the first place by deciding to arrest him? Over a meaningless signature? NO! Of course not. These are all decisions meant to suppress peaceful disobedience through violence and incarceration.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Disobedience of any form questions the moral legitimacy of those demanding obedience. The latter rightly see this as a threat. So the idea is to try to prevent disobedience from arising in the first place. Prevention is a form of suppression -- perhaps the "best" form.

At this point, I'd like to present an editorial from the Provo Daily Herald. The quote below captures the spirit of the article:

Quote by: Article What should be made of all this? Massey plainly was argumentative, and rather dense about some obvious social mores. 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. [Emphasis added.]

"Social mores"??? I really should not be surprised here. When (at least some) people consider blind obedience to be an "obvious social more", the legitimacy of a uniformed man with a badge and a gun is not seriously threatened -- if at all -- in the face of disobedience. He then has far more leeway in using direct force under those circumstances. Thus "the system" can perpetuate itself.

It's one thing to demand that a given command (e.g. a law) be met with complete and total obedience. It's another thing entirely to demand that anything certain people command (e.g. "the law") be met so. While the former is dangerous, the latter is far more. The latter abstracts obedience to a general principle. Of course, this is a recipe for authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Many people -- if not most -- implicitly believe in your "Default Authoritarian Answer" above. As evidence, I offer the following poll from the Provo Daily Herald. It's not much, but it's a start.

Morally? Yes. Morally I would find it reasonable to resist arrest with violence were it necessary if this arrest was threatening my life. Or even placing me in danger. You don't point a potentially deadly weapon at somebody because they said "No". I wouldn't have felt Massey was in the wrong if he took a few steps back and pulled a licensed and legal handgun and shot at officer Gardner in self defense. By all definitions, it WOULD BE self defense.

Yet "the heroes in blue" would likely disagree with you. Their reaction would be something along the lines of "OMG COP KILLAR!!!111!11oneone!!!!11" Had he done what you describe, Mr. Massey may not have lived long enough to see the book thrown at him. There may have been an "accident" while holding him in jail. Or there could be an "accident" after he is sent to prison.

No. Obedience to yourself and your rights to freedom and health, as a sentient being, takes precedent over all else in this matter. Morally, self preservation from violent force is a stronger concern of mine. These are very tough, well posed questions, Rob. I had to think about them deeply. And I'm still not sure if I answered them fully.

Ruksak, I am glad to hear that you do not consider obedience to be the highest moral good. What you must now realize -- if you haven't already -- is that many people think otherwise. And many of those people have uniforms, badges, and guns. Finally, please note that one does not have to be a Type-A personality to hold this belief.

- Rob

[shawmutt]

Quote by: ruksak Why was it necessary to pull out the taser when the handbook and training Gardner received specifically states, in no uncertain terms, that the taser is to be utilized ONLY when other options have been exhausted?

Did I miss the cite for this claim?

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Nowhere in that video does the officer state that he is placing the suspect under arrest until long after the taser is used.

Post #33.

A couple more quotes and I'm done.

I find it rather annoying that my choice as a police officer confronted with an attacker, is to shoot someone, and be sued and maybe fired, tase him/her and be booed on youtube, sued and maybe fired, or to beat them to submission with an asp, and be sued and maybe fired --or to be a dead cop and father who made everyone happy.

I AM A COP (by Trooper Mitchell Brown) Well, Mr. Citizen, it seems you've figured me out. I fit neatly into the category where you've placed me. I'm stereotyped, standardized, characterized, classified, grouped, and always typical. Unfortunately, the reverse is true. I can never figure you out. From birth, you teach your children that I'm the bogeyman, that you're shocked when they identify/associate with my traditional enemy ... the criminal! You accuse me of coddling criminals..until I catch your kids doing wrong. You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day, but point me out as a loafer for having one cup. You pride yourself on your manners, but think nothing of disrupting my meals with your troubles. You raise Cain with the guy who cuts you off in traffic, but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you. You know all the traffic laws...but you've never gotten a single ticket you deserve. You shout "FOUL" if you observe me driving fast to a call, but raise the roof if I take more than ten seconds to respond to your complaint. You call it part of my job if someone strikes me, but call it police brutality if I strike back. You wouldn't think of telling your dentist how to pull a tooth or your doctor how to take out an appendix, yet you are always willing to give me pointers on the law. You talk to me in a manner that would get you a bloody nose from anyone else, but expect me to take it without batting an eye. You yell that something's got to be done to fight crime, but you can't be bothered to get involved. You have no use for me at all, but of course it's OK if I change a flat for your wife, deliver your child in the back of the patrol car, or perhaps save your son's life with mouth to mouth breathing, or work many hours overtime looking for your lost daughter. So Mr. Citizen, you can stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave about the way I do my work, calling me every name in the book, but never stop to think that your property, family, or maybe even your life depends on me or one of my buddies. Yes, Mr. Citizen, it's me the cop! *The Author of this article was Trooper Mitchell Brown of the Virginia State Police. He was killed in the line of duty two months after writing the article.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready People who abuse power are scumbags. The officer in question in this thread is clearly a scumbag IMO.

I've changed my position after re-viewing the tape. The cop should have addressed Massey's concerns more from the beginning. Being a police officer means having people skills. You can have authority, but also surmise that these were just a couple of young kids with a baby.

My conclusion is the cop is an asshole, and I feel sorry for those young people being treated like that. Sad.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Shawmutt Did I miss the cite for this claim?

Yes you did. Twice already. I will not post it a third time. Go back and review. I posted UHP spokesman Cameron Roden whom cited the taser usage manual for the UHP. The taser is not to be used (or pulled) unless other less dangerous options have been exhausted. Massey may have been a jerk. But he didn't resist arrest as he was not given the opportunity to resist.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: ruksak Yes you did. Twice already. I will not post it a third time. Go back and review. I posted UHP spokesman Cameron Roden whom cited the taser usage manual for the UHP. The taser is not to be used (or pulled) unless other less dangerous options have been exhausted. Massey may have been a jerk. But he didn't resist arrest as he was not given the opportunity to resist.

Yeah, you didn't. You posted news stories and misquoted. Post #33, he did resist. Throughout the thread you have shown you don't understand how radar guns work, you don't understand many traffic laws, and then try to set up a manipulative straw man by saying I won't answer your question therefore I am to be dismissed. Why did he lie? Why does it matter? He knew the camera was on and recorded everything.

I'm all for "standing up against the man" when it matters and when it makes a difference. "Standing up against the man" at a traffic stop, in my humble opinion, is a useless exercise in futility and doesn't change a damn thing. Or, as I like to put it--he's pole vaulting over mouse shit and paid the price for it.