Trooper Caught On Tape Tasering Motorist

[ruksak]

Quote by: Shawmutt. Yeah, you didn't. You posted news stories and misquoted.

I'm not doing it again. I have posted material from the federal continuum of force regarding the taser. I have posted an interview with the UHP spokesman whom outlined their 9 page taser usage manual, twice.

The taser is NOT to be used in case the suspect might not comply with arrest.

Why did he lie? Why does it matter?

That about sums up your biased position in this matter. If you cannot at least acknowledge that this is a very telling affirmation, than you will likely not listen to reason on any level.

Throughout the thread you have shown you don't understand how radar guns work

No I didn't. I have used a radar gun before, in a police car, to catch a speeder. Have you? What I said was that I didn't see the officer use one, nor did officer Gardner affirm Mr Massey's speed. Which tells me all I need to know.

you don't understand many traffic laws

You sir, are full of ____. I said at the beginning of this thread that I didn't realize this was an arrestable offense, because all of the times I have heard of refusal to sign, the officer writes refuses to sign on the ticket and lets them go.

and then try to set up a manipulative straw man by saying I won't answer your question therefore I am to be dismissed

All I did was ask you to answer a tough question. You had not the man cans to get yourself to concede that one point. A trait of cowardice manifested through a misguided sense of E-pride. I have made concessions in this thread, because I am not a stubborn pig. I acknowledged many things that may go to officer Gardner's side. Because I am capable of being non-partisan and just being for real about sh*t. You, on the other hand, have not conceded an inch, even in the face of the tough questions. Instead, writing the question off as a "strawman" and refusing to just answer it, like a man.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: shawmutt 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.

Massey is a young man. Who knows all these obscure laws? He didn't want to get a ticket for something he didn't do. He wasn't being all that abrasive. He was asking questions. Why would cops be so eager to imprison a guy for something fairly minor in reality. The cop was totally over-reacting, and was the one pole-vaulting over mouse shit. I think that those two young people were treated very disrespectfully, and this is what gives cops a bad name. I can't imagine the stress that poor wife was going through. I think they should sue for abuse.

Massey wasn't standing up to the man, he had a legitimate question. The cop ignored him, and drew that taser way too fast. The taser looked like a gun. I'd be scared shitless if that happened to me. How did Massey know if the cop had all his marbles. He didn't act like it.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: shawmutt I AM A COP (by Trooper Mitchell Brown) Well, Mr. Citizen, it seems you've figured me out. ..... *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.

Nice emotional quote, but unfortunately false.

"According to both the Virginia State Police and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial office, there is no record of a Mitchell Brown having served with the Virginia State Police, much less having been killed in the line of duty."
Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Great Police Officer

[ruksak]

Quote by: Zeebadee Nice emotional quote, but unfortunately false. "According to both the Virginia State Police and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial office, there is no record of a Mitchell Brown having served with the Virginia State Police, much less having been killed in the line of duty." Urban Legends Reference Pages: The Great Police Officer

F*CKING OWNED!






.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: shawmutt Yeah, you didn't. You posted news stories and misquoted. Post #33, he did resist.

He did not resist arrest. He was not given a reasonable chance to comply with an arrest order. In order to resist arrest, and therefore EVENTUALLY (not immediately) justify use of a taser under Utah's code, there first had to be an action by the police officer that a reasonable person would interpret as an attempt to effectuate an arrest. Frankly, there WAS no arrest order. Somewhere in there the officer did say "turn around and put your hands behind your back" (in a low voice while Massey was yelling and not paying attention), but to a citizen who has not been previously arrested, that is not an arrest order.

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.

Regardless, while Massey's actions may have justified additional citations and perhaps arrest, those actions did not justify the use of a taser under Utah code. So, unless you can show me where in the Utah code police officers are allowed to tase someone for "standing up to the man," your point is moot.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: ruksak F*CKING OWNED! .

Yeah, I'm owned.

Why didn't you just put "pwned" and show even more maturity?

It was a repost by an actual cop on a police forum, showing that it is an actual sentiment held by officers.

Let us know how your next traffic stop goes, whether you're the one using the radar gun or not

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: shawmutt Post #33.

You can reference that post all you want but there is no way a person can resist arrest if they're never placed under arrest. There are numerous reasons why a driver may be ask to step out of a vehicle other than being placed under arrest. Since they were less than 100 yards away from the speed limit sign there's no reason why the "suspect" wouldn't have assumed, as he obviously did from the tape, that they were going to check the sign being blocked by the patrol officer's car before he was pulled over, or the officer's radar. It's been a long time but I have been shown a radar reading when I was pulled over, it would not be a unreasonable assumption that since he ask to see it, that was what was happening.

The "suspect" was never placed under arrest therefore he could never have resisted arrest. Even a simple statement of "I'm placing you under arrest" would have sufficed.

As to the "danger" the patrol officer was in, that's bullshit. Sure, sometimes officers get injured or killed when they stumble across real criminals in the course of their tax collection duties. However, a young man, with a pregnant wife and an infant or toddler child in the car, on a busy highway is HIGHLY unlikely to be such a situation. His only "crime" was that he failed to slow down from a 65mph speed limit to an obstructed 40mph speed limit immediately. He was at the sign when the officer pulled out and turned on his lights.

Of course he probably should have been a good little subject, submitted to taking the ticket and paying by mail and not costing the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

I rarely do, and I rarely pay tickets.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

You can reference that post all you want but there is no way a person can resist arrest if they're never placed under arrest.

That's logically false. Why would someone only be able to resist being placed in a state they are already in? It's quite easy to resist being placed under arrest if you are not already under arrest. The term explicitly says it per the title.

You understand that running from a cop who attempts to pull you over can also be labeled as resisting arrest, right? The cop hasn't even been able to get out of his car at that point in that case.

The fact of the matter is that they don't have to tell you when they start to arrest you and as a matter of principle they usually don't for fear of someone trying something and them losing the element of surprise. Why we're getting wrapped up in this detail when there a plenty of other more important ones is beyond me, and helps to bury the fact that this cop was wrong for other reasons than the one you keep addressing.

[shawmutt]

Of course he probably should have been a good little subject, submitted to taking the ticket and paying by mail and not costing the taxpayers the expense of a trial. I rarely do, and I rarely pay tickets.

I never said or even implied that he shouldn't fight the ticket, in fact I stated multiple times that he should. I am stating that the side of the road with an officer is not the time and the place to do that. In fact I have to go to court tomorrow to fight my own traffic ticket. I don't understand why you need to try and misrepresent my points.

[another day]

Quote by: shawmutt Yeah, I'm owned. Why didn't you just put "pwned" and show even more maturity? It was a repost by an actual cop on a police forum, showing that it is an actual sentiment held by officers. Let us know how your next traffic stop goes, whether you're the one using the radar gun or not

Just goes to show what an "Us Vs. Them" mentality they seem intent on fostering within their ranks, that they would make up this sob story.

Parents instilling in their children that police are dangerous and to be hated? Hardly... people are just growing up and learning themselves that police can be just as dangerous, aggressive, and criminal as the people they claim to be chasing.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 That's logically false. Why would someone only be able to resist being placed in a state they are already in? It's quite easy to resist being placed under arrest if you are not already under arrest. The term explicitly says it per the title.

Is arresting someone a lengthy process or is it instantaneous? For example, it takes time to put handcuffs on someone but only a couple seconds to say "You're under arrest!"

You understand that running from a cop who attempts to pull you over can also be labeled as resisting arrest, right? The cop hasn't even been able to get out of his car at that point in that case.

By your logic, is the cop placing you under arrest once he attempts to pull you over?

The fact of the matter is that they don't have to tell you when they start to arrest you and as a matter of principle they usually don't for fear of someone trying something and them losing the element of surprise. Why we're getting wrapped up in this detail when there a plenty of other more important ones is beyond me, and helps to bury the fact that this cop was wrong for other reasons than the one you keep addressing.

If they don't have to tell me when they start to arrest me, then who's to say when they start to arrest me? The cops, of course. So by your reasoning, it would seem that if a cop were to say that everyone in his jurisdiction is suddenly under arrest, legally he would be right.

- Rob

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: another day Hardly... people are just growing up and learning themselves that police can be just as dangerous, aggressive, and criminal as the people they claim to be chasing.

Unfortunately, IMHO, this is true. I believe it's coming from our national policies of might makes right, and is affecting many other segments of society than just police officers.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: another day Hardly... people are just growing up and learning themselves that police can be just as dangerous, aggressive, and criminal as the people they claim to be chasing.

And this is the logical misstep I hope most people avoid and what these threads eventually try to "prove". There are nearly three quarter of a million police officers employed in the US--you'll have to do better than some viral Internet videos and a couple sensationalized news stories to "prove" your slander.

At best these threads are begging the question, at worst just have a completely false premise.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: shawmutt And this is the logical misstep I hope most people avoid and what these threads eventually try to "prove". There are nearly three quarter of a million police officers employed in the US--you'll have to do better than some viral Internet videos and a couple sensationalized news stories to "prove" your slander. At best these threads are begging the question, at worst just have a completely false premise.

And yet, I don't think there's any denying the fact that we are progressing towards an authoritarian state. Defy the "authorities" at your own risk.

Too many paragraphs to single out a few to quote, see an excellent article here:
Is America a Police State?

You may not agree with all of it, but a lot of it is undeniably true.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Auto Is arresting someone a lengthy process or is it instantaneous? For example, it takes time to put handcuffs on someone but only a couple seconds to say "You're under arrest!"

It all depends on what happens but it is a potentially dangerous situation. Most people don't like being arrested and their entire attitude and demeanor can shift abruptly when informed of such.

By your logic, is the cop placing you under arrest once he attempts to pull you over?

It's not my logic, it's the state's logic. When a cop pulls you over, he is restricting your travel temporarily. If you run from that, the situation now transforms into a clearly arrestable offense, where as a traffic stop probably will not be, and in the act of avoiding this cop you are evading arrest by placing yourself in a situation where you would be arrested and then running. I'm debating the legality of the move, not whether or not it should be this way.

If they don't have to tell me when they start to arrest me, then who's to say when they start to arrest me? The cops, of course.

No, the court system usually applying a "responsible person" test or the equivalent.

So by your reasoning, it would seem that if a cop were to say that everyone in his jurisdiction is suddenly under arrest, legally he would be right.

Why would it be reasonable to assume that simply by being in a jurisdiction you are under arrest? At least in this case this man committed an arrestable offense first, not signing the ticket, the cop went to arrest him and then clearly took it way too far.

It goes something like this...

-Criminal Act is committed
-Officer becomes aware of Criminal Act
-Officer attempts to place the suspect under arrest.

Clearly this is determined on whether the person ends up arrested or not. If they end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop intended to arrest them. If they do not end up in jail following the cops actions, clearly the cop did not intend to arrest them.

You are initially right in stating that the cop decides initially whether or not and when he is placing someone under arrest, but incorrect in assuming that his interpretation is the final say in the matter. I can understand having a problem with discretion fundamentally, but this is how the system works which is what I was arguing. Not how it SHOULD work.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You understand that running from a cop who attempts to pull you over can also be labeled as resisting arrest, right? The cop hasn't even been able to get out of his car at that point in that case.

Wrong, running from the cops is evasion, not resisting arrest.

By your logic, is the cop placing you under arrest once he attempts to pull you over?

No, a traffic stop is a detention. There are 4 steps of arrest. The contact, the detention, search and seizure, and the arrest. In a normal traffic encounter you have skipped to detention where you're not under arrest, but you're not free to go either.

During the contact, the cop has a suspicion, and cannot detain you in any way, you are free to leave. When you're at the detention stage, the cop has to have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, you can't leave, but you're not under arrest. The reason for a cop to detain you is to find probable cause to arrest you (or get a warrant for search and seizer, to get enough PC to arrest you). In a traffic situation you've been detained. If the cop doesn't have RAS, the detention is unlawful.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Mark, I fully agree.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: shawmutt I never said or even implied that he shouldn't fight the ticket, in fact I stated multiple times that he should. I am stating that the side of the road with an officer is not the time and the place to do that. In fact I have to go to court tomorrow to fight my own traffic ticket. I don't understand why you need to try and misrepresent my points.

Why did you ignore the examples I gave of legitimate reasons that the officer MAY have requested that Massey have exited the vehicle, that had nothing to do with arresting him?

Is it perhaps that you wish to misrepresent my post by ignoring relevant points?

Why did you ignore the point that I made about pulling over a man with his pregnant wife in the passenger seat, and a child in the back seat, on a busy highway not being a particularly dangerous situation? Sure, if this happened to be a secluded highway, with an individual, or a number of males, at night, sure, that might be a dangerous situation.

Is it perhaps that you wish to misrepresent my post by ignoring relevant information?

I, being older and more mature, know well enough that to draw extra attention to myself on the side of the road, will make my day in court that much more difficult. But, I wasn't always this old and mature. I have argued with officers. I have had guns drawn on me by small town police officers. I have spent up to an entire hour in a holding cell, at the age of 16.

However, even that event resulted in a $20 fine for what amounted to a petty offense, and, in the state in which I lived at the time, even that was sealed at the age of 18 as I was not "tried as an adult".

So, I learned my lessons fairly early.

That does not justify assaulting someone that has not learned their lessons at such an early age, for questioning one's authority to collect a tax.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Mark3748 Wrong, running from the cops is evasion, not resisting arrest.

At least in Missouri if a cop flags you down and tries to pull you over and you run, it's resisting arrest. The logic is that while the cop may not have intended to arrest you initially, at the point or moment that you run, the cop is trying to arrest you and every moment following that is another moment that you are resisting this.

[shawmutt]

Went to court today, had my ticket dismissed.

No taser required.