Officer Tasers Man During Traffic Stop -- Reasonable Use of Force or Not?:
This is two weeks old, but it's still really interesting. Below you'll find a video of a Utah police officer who pulls over a man for speeding. When the driver refuses to sign the ticket, the officer orders him out of the car. The officer orders the man to put his hands behind his back, and pulls out a taser. The man refuses, says, "What the heck is wrong with you?", and then starts to back and turn away as he puts his hands in his pockets. At that point, the officer (who appears to be alone) tasers the man (at about the 2:35 mark).
If you're interested, watch the first three minutes of the video and then vote in the poll immediately below. Here's the video:
If you're interested, watch the first three minutes of the video and then vote in the poll immediately below. Here's the video:
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Taser Video -- A Response to Scott Greenfield:
- More Thoughts on the Utah Tasering Video:
- Officer Tasers Man During Traffic Stop -- Reasonable Use of Force or Not?:
I always thought the point of a taser was the ability to use nonlethal force effectively in a situation you would otherwise HAVE to use lethal force.
It seems that tasers have become an excuse for lazy cops to immobilize a person before cuffing him.
He disobeyed repeated instructions from the officer, was walking away and put his hand in his pocket.
Frankly, if I were the officer I would have dropped the taser and pulled out a sidearm once that started to happen so I would have it in hand if he pulled a pistol out of his pocket.
Actually, tasering people who annoy you for fun is one of the sacred privileges that comes with being a police officer. Despite the fact that for some people with certain health conditions, a tasering can be fatal.
The amazing thing is that I bet you anything there will be comments on this very blog defending the atrocious behavior of this police officer.
Tasers are an important tool for police officers. But, unfortunately, it appears that some police officers use this potentially fatal weapon all too casually.
What if the suspect here had died, as at least 140 others have died from the use of tasers nationwide since 2001? Would anyone think that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty for someone taking a few steps away from a police officer at a very slow speed as shown on the video tape?
Some things officer could have done differently:
1) Made it clear that signing the ticket doesn't mean that you are acknowledging guilt, and can be disputed in court (and can only be disputed in court, not at side of road)
2) Made it clear that if person didn't sign the ticket, it was an offence and he would HAVE to be arrested
3) Made it clear verbally (not actually done) that he would SHOOT THE TASER unless person stopped moving immediately.
Again, I don't think the officer broke the law by not doing the above things, (or should be held to have broken the law - not sure of relevant local law) but I suspect that he didn't act in the best way possible either.
AlexAlex thinks that this slow moving individual might have been reaching for a weapon. No reasonable person watching this video would believe that was what this guy was doing.
r78 also thinks that there was reason to be concerned about a weapon.
My guess, AlexAlex and r78 think that police officers are never wrong.
Police officers usually are the good guys. But not this one.
That raises the question of what was the purpose of asking him to leave the car. My guess is he was going to arrest him since he asked him to approach the car with his hands on the hood. Is refusing to sign the ticket really worth arresting the guy and dealing with all that hassle?
I've only been given a ticket once and can't remember if I had to sign on the spot or not.
And look how the cop lectures the guy's companion: "ma'am, you do exactly what I say or you are going to jail too", when she rightfully complains that the cop brutalized her friend.
This cop should be tried for assault, convicted, sentenced to several years in prison, so that the next cop will think about it before deciding to use his Taser to get his rocks off.
That said, the officer could have handled the situation way better. He acted like a real asshole. But hey, that's probably what they teach 'em in the police academy.
Yeah, he was moving at such a fast speed that it was urgent to either tackle him or taser him. Right.
There was, in fact, another alternative. Further negotiation. Or, alternatively, less force than tasering or rushing and tackling him.
1. When an officer presents you with a traffic ticket to sign, there is not going to be a hearing right then and there where he has to prove the allegations to your satisfaction. That comes later - in a court with a judge, should you choose to contest the ticket. Demanding that the officer has to go down the road with you to examine the traffic signs before you will sign the ticket is not a winning strategy.
2. When you refuse to sign a traffic citation, which includes a promise to appear in court to answer the charge, the cops will arrest you to make sure that you will appear. Refusing to sign means you are refusing to agree to appear.
3. If, when the officer instructs you to put your hands behind your back as he is arresting you, you refuse to comply and instead walk away, he will use force to effect the arrest.
4. Of all the different force options the officer could have used at that point, the taser probably was the least harmful to the moron who was resisting arrest.
Bad guess, Mr. Liberal! Police officers lie, and they are often abusive, and they are sometimes complete and utter ***holes. The officer here looks like a really terrible guy. But our general feelings about police officers are not relevant. It sure looked to me like the man was grabbing a gun, and I'm sure it looked that way to the officer, too; the driver made every mistake in the book to try to raise that suspicion. I was just pointing out my opinion; sorry if that annoyed your liberal views.
How about letting him go, and announcing that if he leaves the scene without signing the ticket, he will be committing a misdemeanor? You've written him the ticket, you've got it on videotape, you have his license. You can haul him in later with backup if you need to.
A lot of defenders of police officers in these situations forget that except with violent offenders, there isn't any public safety purpose why you HAVE to use massive amounts of force on people who are fleeing.
Because the guy is an idiot. Notwithstanding that, just because a citizen is an idiot, that does not give a police officer the right to use more force than necessary to effectuate an arrest.
I still don't understand why the guy just turned away from the officer and started to walk away while the officer was still yelling at him?
He had the momentary illusion he was in America?
He wasn't resisting arrest, though. He was simply turning around.
When a suspect is ACTUALLY resisting arrest, of course the police may use the force necessary to subdue him or her (but no more than that).
But don't turn this into "resisting arrest". Where's the resistance?
Must have been one of those guns that shoots backwards.
For me the turning point is the fact that the
coppolice officer pulled over to the shoulder before the temporary 40 MPH sign, just looking for someone who would not slow down immediately. From the get-go, a parody of leftist views of thepigspolice officers.The officer had a view of the front pocket of the man for quite a good amount of time. There was no bulge or any other indication that the man could have been armed. He obviously was not armed.
I am pretty sure that this is just a case of you siding with police officers no matter what. This is not a close case. This is obviously not reasonable force, especially since tasers can be fatal.
In fact, our general feelings about police officers are relevant. I fully support law-abiding police officers and believe that they usually tell the truth and usually respect the rights of their fellow citizens. Incidents like these demonstrate why we need to weed out the bad apples in our otherwise stellar police forces.
Cops are trained to look for threats, to see the world as containing many hazards to their lives. This is a survival skill. To a cop trained this way, anyone putting his hand into a pocket might come up with a gun.
But ordinary citizens don't think that way. An ordinary citizen is not aware that the casual act of putting a hand into a pocket might get misinterpreted that way. Indeed, it is unreasonable to expect people to think this way: we don't live in a war zone.
People who feel threatened and lash out violently at casual, nonthreatening actions are called paranoid schizophrenics.
Training cops to respond violently to a casual act means training cops to lash out like a paranoid schizophrenic. Likewise, justifying this cop's behavior with the claim that he might have felt threatened, means encouraging both cops and ordinary folks to have to live by the rules of paranoid schizophrenia rather than the rules of sanity.
No, Tony. All of those things you mention are reasons you think that tasering is a reasonable PUNISHMENT. None of them have anything to do with "bringing the driver under control", because he was not out of control and was not a danger to the public. And police officers are NEVER allowed to PUNISH suspects for disrespecting them.
As I said, worse case scenario, if he won't listen to reason, let him go.
Call me unreasonable, but I did find it suspicious when the guy was fidgeting with his right pocket. So put me in the "I'm not sure" category.
A lot of genius at play here. Who would've seen the corner shot coming?
If so, then the failure by the officer was really not making clear that the driver was under arrest for not signing, and that he was resisting arrest. Even so, when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back and you walk away (however slowly) something is going to happen, and it won't be good for the person walking away.
Perhaps the officer felt "threatened" when the driver walked up behind him, but whose fault is that? The cop told him to get out of the car, and then the cop completely turned his back on the guy for a lengthy period of time. At the time the cop pulled the Taser, except for not signing the ticket the driver had done everything the cop told him to do.
The officer had the right to arrest the driver, but he did not have the right to use anything more than reasonable force. I wonder how many more deaths and other serious medical incidents have to occur from tasers before police realize that they should not be used casually.
Although it is clear that the man was angry, he did not make any sudden movements and instead moved very slowly. Thus, it was unreasonable to view him as a physical threat that would justify the use of a taser.
The citizen was unwise in his interactions with this police officer, but that does not give the police officer any right to use more than reasonable force.
Actually, in most states, citizens have a right to resist to protect themselves against police who use an unreasonable amount of force to effectuate an arrest. That this police officer was threatening to use an unreasonable amount of force by pointing the taser at the individual long before he took any actions whatsoever that indicated he was not going to cooperate with an arrest is actually the event that triggered the citizens very slow steps away from the police officer.
Actually, the broader desire to control the citizen (i.e. to stop him from "yapping" or to stop him from being angry) is not a justification for the use of force. Here, the police officer had legitimate reason to use force to effectuate an arrest, but it has to be reasonable force. Using a potentially fatal weapon is not reasonable under these circumstances.
Once the person turned his back and started walking back to the car he was resisting, and had the appearance that he was seriously considering getting back in his car and leaving.
My understanding that refusing to sign a ticket in UT moves the stop from a citation to an arrestable offense.
Maybe the officer could have tried explaining the issue, but in the first minute the driver was arguing about providing his driver's license and insurance.
Right or wrong cops are being taught that Tazer is safer for the officer and the arrestee than tackling them and using physical force to subdue them.
Highway Patrol Officers in particular (especially out west) are in remote areas miles and miles from any assistance. They tend to be really paranoid.
As someone who has filed actions against police officers for civil rights violations and improper use of force, I would not describe myself as someone who believes that police officers are never wrong.
If a cop is so fearful of motorists that he's going to tase them for jingling their keys, perhaps he needs to be reassigned to a job where he doesn't always have to walk up on strangers sitting in their cars (often at night).
And this is while the cop had the taser drawn and the driver saw the taser drawn.
That is not the time to walk away from the cop and put your hand into your pocket.
Mr. Liberal is 0 for 2, it seems.
Just askin'
OK, are we all agreed dilan would not make a good cop? Or even a good third grade teacher?
It was not. Not even close.
Does this really matter when the officer just skips the whole "you're under arrest" part?
So had the police officer drawn his service weapon, the driver could have shot him? I thought the rule was that citizens could resist an unlawful arrest, not a lawful one.
The officer could reasonably conclude that the driver would not obey his lawful instructions because up to that point, the driver had not obeyed any of the officer's lawful instructions.
The cop, of course, had no way of knowing that the guy was merely "jingling his keys" and ignores the guy's pattern of behavior prior to being tased.
As to the Taser, as I read Utah statute, the officer may arrest an individual if he does not get "motorist's personal recognizance that he or she will comply with the terms of the citation." That recognizance, as I take it is evidenced bythe signature (which is not an admission of guilt). Since the officer here did not recieve that recognizance he could have either required bail or placed the guy under arrest (he chose the latter option). Once the officer was attempting to place the guy under arrest, and the guy refused to follow orders, I think the officer was within his rights to use force.
But you put your hand in your pocket.... you get tasered.
I do think it was a close call, though. But you could sense real hostility from the driver. He wasn't merely "questioning authority." He was getting loud. If someone like him got loud like that in the street, I would assume he meant me violence and I would strike before he had a chance.
Now, admittedly, most police officers are way too eager to use tasers. They don't like being questioned, and when questioned, they want to get violent with you. Don't give them a reason. Open your mouth but keep your hands where they can see them!
Then again, most people want to be police officers so they can drive fast and carry a gun. (Just go to any college and talk to some law enforcement majors before telling me I'm wrong.) They look for a reason to taser people.
Don't give them a reason. Putting your hand near your pocket is a reason enough even for this hard core civil libertarian.
OK, are we all agreed dilan would not make a good cop? Or even a good third grade teacher?
A cop isn't a third grade teacher. And you may not realize it, but at least out here where I am (California), cops are told to defuse MANY situations by letting suspects go. Classic example is during rioting, the police may witness numerous crimes and yet they are not supposed to do things that make the situations worse and that sometimes just means forming a perimeter around the rioting rather than trying to make arrests.
In order to defend this tasering, you have to have an "arrest at all costs" mentality that says that not making the arrest at this particular moment (even though he could still be arrested later because they had his ID) is worse than any harm that could result from the use of force. (And, I think mixed into this is an attidue that people who don't do exactly what cops say "deserve" tasering.)
But in the real world, you only need to arrest at all costs when the person is a threat to public safety if you don't. When this guy is walking away, let him walk.
Why is it not standard procedure to explain that to someone who won't sign?
Anyway, the use of the taser seems wildly unreasonable to me.
The driver wasn't letting the officer get a word in edgewise.
Dude, I am a very reasonable person. If anything, I have a bias against cops.
But you don't put your hands near your pockets.
No cop wants to get shot. All that cop was trying to do was error on the side of not getting shot.
Moral of the story: Your First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights do not include the right to reach for your pocket.
Not anymore. U.S. v. Thornton. Even Scalia noted in that case or another that the law (perhaps irrationally) presumes a suspect has the strength of Hercules and escape skills of Houdini.
Your civil liberties are slowly slipping away.
It's real tough to see any way the officer thought his physical safety was at risk: the guy's hand was in his pocket, he was facing away, and he was angry but not making any foolish moves.
Unreasonable force, as I'd also say if the cop had given him a couple of baton shots across the kidneys or to the scalp. in both cases, you're inflicting severe pain and (as we know) some significant risk of permanent injury or death.
He had the drivers identifying information; he had the video tape. The rule, as I've always understood it, was not to use potentially deadly force unless you are protecting yourself or properly protecting others. All he was protecting was his sense of empowerment. Thank God he didn't have his gun out --- as we've seen in other cases, similar treatment in Los Angeles and Denver has gotten other citizens dead.
That said, the guy was an idiot, but if being an idiot was sufficient qualification for being Tased, no man should 'scape tasing. Make it contributory negligence and reduce the award the ex-cop and the insurance carrier would have to pay in civil proceedings.
There seems to be no right to resist arrest in Utah. In Texas, on the other hand...
The cop, of course, had no way of knowing that the guy was merely "jingling his keys" and ignores the guy's pattern of behavior prior to being tased.
Yeah, and when he asks a driver for his license, he has no way of knowing that the guy was merely "reaching for his wallet."
It's not hard to pull people over for speeding, give them tickets, and then everyone go on their way without someone getting tased. From top to bottom, this cop had egregious communication skills, seemed to have no hesitation in turning his back on the guy for a while (for no good reason that I can discern; if the motorist was going to hurt him, he had plenty of opportunity), never gave the motorist much hint that he was under arrest, pulled a Taser on the motorist for obeying his directions, then after he tased the guy left himself completely vulnerable to the wife (he's supposed to be scared, right?), and then described it to the second officer as "took a ride on the Taser." Bonus points go to the second cop, who asked the motorist whether the Taser hurt.
I'm just saying the Taser-happy cop should be reassigned to some area where his skills might be put to better use. Dealing with motorists is not his forte.
I don't think this analysis is well supported by the linked video (assuming it's not been edited and that the timestamps closely reflect actual elapsed time).
It appears the violation wasn't for a speed zone that started with the temporary 40 MPH limit sign seen in the video but rather one started with a sign passed prior to the start of the video.
Between the time the suspect passed the 40 MPH sign we see and the time the suspect started pulling over (presumably in response to the officer's red light or similar signal) was about 3 seconds - that would be a very fast determination of speed when considering reaction times. (Indeed the speed with which the suspect started pulling over suggests to me that he knew that the reason the officer had pulled off was just to get behind the suspect in order to stop him -- but then perhaps that's just a reflection of my somewhat checkered history of being on the wrong side of such situations). The officer appears to refer to the sign we see in this video, but also, the officer tells the suspect (at about 1:27) that "you passed one about half a mile..." (the rest of the comment is cut off after, once again, the suspect interrupts and the officer appears to decide that discussions with the suspect are not fruitful). It seems likely that the speed zone the suspect violated started well before the video begins and that the officer probably had already determined the suspect's speed (either by pacing or via something like radar) before he pulled off to get behind the suspect's vehicle to effect the stop.
A few years ago, while I was sitting in my favorite watering hole in St. Paul, MN, a stranger decided to pick a fight with me (probably because I was the lone white guy in the bar.) He was otherwise also acting pretty spooky, and after I had ignored him for a good while, he leaned over and whispered to me, "I'm gonna kill you, you white m.f." So, eventually, after the bartender, who was working alone, tried several unobtrusive methods to remove the patron, the cops were called. One of the cops calmly asked the gentleman to place his hands on the bar, where he could see them. Instead, the guy stuffed them both into his pockets. Bad move on his part.
Now, that situation was different in many material respects, but what I took away from it (besides the lesson to continue to drink where I was well known), was that, in any altercation with the law, whatever else you do, keep your hands in plain sight, and in a non-threatening position. From their perspective, any motion toward your pocket, or their gun, is always potentially deadly.
So, in this instance, warranted? Maybe no. Understandable? Maybe perhaps (maybe perhaps?). And, on the positive side in this altercation -- generally speaking, it's better for a cop who gets a bit nervous to tase someone, than to shoot him.
On the other hand, when we have Supreme Court Justices who are so out of touch with reality that they think that the average Joe knows that when a cop says, "Stay Put," and they stay put, that they're acting voluntarily (thank you Scalia), and voluntarily ceding their 4th Amendment rights, what do you do?
So I, being honest, if spineless, voted "I'm not sure."
Huh? I'm willing to bet I've done more in my short life to address police misconduct than you have. Your insults miss their mark.
No one is saying that police should be able to taser you "just cuz." The guy in the video reached for his pocket. Should the cop wait to see if a gun is pulled out first? That would be brilliant.
Let's draft a policy that requires a cop to allow a gun to be actually pulled on him before he can use a non-lethal device.
No one got shot. No one suffered any long-term health effects. This is not one of the many bad examples of officers using tasers. (And if you watch the related videos on YouTube, you will see several.)
I have been in many street conflicts. I know when I'm dealing with a hot-head. The motorist was a hot-head. You never know what such people will do. They are unpredictable.
Of course, anyone who doesn't think "Cops are evil and should be murdered" could see that the motorist was a hot-head. Hot-heads do, well, hot-headed things.
So the cop erred on the side of protecting his own life.
Oh, the shame.
From reports about the incident:
"Communication: UHP investigators feel the officer who dealt with Jared Massey in this incident did not communicate well enough with Massey when he giving him the speeding ticket.
Investigation: UHP investigators acknowlege there was a delay in reporting the incident. The Department of Public Safety said they did not find out about it until three days after it happened, about the same time it was posted on YouTube.
Taser Use: The most important issue. UHP investigators said they feel that using it was justified and reasonable because when an officer is out there he or she has only a split second to make a decision on the use of force. In this incident they feel that use of force was justified because Massey had turned his back and looked like he was reaching into his pocket."
The cop has apparently received a lot of threats like the one from the jerk above here.
I think Thoroton is distinguishable. There the Court said:
It seems to me that someone cuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser cannot possibly be "in control" of the vehicle.
2. Was the police officer in danger? If he was, he was justified in using force to defend himself. It seems to me that someone slowly turning away from you is not putting you in danger. The police should be threatening non-cooperative people with arrest, not with bodily harm.
3. Probably what happened here is legal. The problem is laws that are designed to protect the police from the public, rather than force the police to protect the public.
So did I. But my view has shifted to "Reasonable!!!!!"
There was some research done showing how discussions often lead people to partisanship. This is one such example. It's very interesting self-reflecting on how my view has shifted so dramatically after less than 30 minutes.
I could talk to you about this and still be in the "It's close" camp. But when so many you-know-whats start acting as if there was no justification at all for the cop to use the taser, then otherwise sober people become partisan. Or, at least this sober person does.
Weird, and an interesting self-case-study in how biases are formed.
Good point. At 8:06 he's talking to the wife and justifies using the Taser by saying that "It looked like he was walking away." And then a few seconds later, "When you're under arrest you don't go anywhere."
If you've seen a post-Thornton case excluding evidence obtained in a similar search, I would be interested in reading it. Please e-mail me at the address associated with my moniker. Thanks.
If the cop had said "You are under arrest. Put your hands behind your back. If you do not comply I will taser you, bro." - I would say vote for reasonable use of force.
Otherwise, mouthing off to cops is in one of the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.
Unlike the cop on the scence, we are able to watch the video multiple times. We can "stop time" to freeze in on images. We know what to zoom in on. We also don't have to worry about oncoming cars, or the passenger in the motorist's car. We can take our time and decide what should be done.
The cop in the video, unfortunately, did not have that luxury.
I've been in a war zone, and I've been on the other side of the gun trying to decide when force is necessary. Tasers are potentially deadly weapons, and should be used as an alternative to firearms when and only when firearms would otherwise be warranted. The officer escalated the situation, which is what untrained individuals do. Professionals de-escalate the situation using tactics and procedures that are part of their professional education.
I'm not a lawyer, but if I were in the position to be the one filing charges, I'd go for attempted murder.
Why, he could have been hiding a terrorist in there!
That is best argument I've seen so far that the officer may not have noticed or felt threatened by the guy fidgeting with his right pocket.
But some axioms:
1. Police work is hazardous.
2. Police routinely deal with bad people who are armed and act unpredictably.
3. Traffic stops present peculiar hazards--situational awareness is required. The cop can be injured by a quick draw driver, passenger, or unseen occupant or can get hit by passing traffic. He is interacting with either (1) a scared law abiding citizen; or (2) hardened criminals who happened to have the bad luck of not wearing seatbelts in a "Click-it or Ticket" state.
4. The Police officer is entitled to take reasonable precautions against these potential threats.
5. The Police officer is entitled (but not required) to arrest someone who won't sign the ticket acknowledgment and promise to appear.
Taking all that into account.
Step 1. Police officer pulls over driver for a traffic ticket. Sitautional awareness check: Officer asks, "Is there anything about this stop out of the ordinary. Did I just stop a heroin loaded SUV for a seat belt violation?"
If the answer is YES, then draw weapon (not taser!), call for back up and exert positve control at gunpoint as discussed below.
We know this officer answered the question, "No." We know that because the officer, in determining the threat level, must size up the driver and the passenger. He must determine if there are any other occupants in the car. Are there visible weapons? Any suspicious bulges? Any visible contraband, Dope? Alcohol, prescription meds? any makeshift weapons (baseball bats)?" Is the person acting "normally?"
The office, in this case, spends about 30 seconds talking with the driver presumably with all of the above potential threats in his mind.
If the officer was concerned, he retreats to his car, calls for back up and either has the persons remain in the car with hands out the windows or has them exit the car and lay face down on the pavement until back up arrives. Orders can be given by loudspeaker and delivered over the top of a drawn weapon to enforce cooperation. The officer is entitled to do this on very little suspicion.
This was not done because we know for a fact the officer percieved no threat.
After speaking with the driver, he nonchalantly turns his back completely to the driver...and the passenger...and their combined arsenal of small arms, flame throwers, throwing stars and bowie knives...and then STROLLS the 15 feet back to his cruiser to get his ticket book, oblivious to any threat.
He returns to the car, and speaks with driver. He then returns to his cruiser again turning his back (almost completely) to the driver who is now out of the car.
Still no weapon. He does not make an effort to keep the passeger in view. I'm not clear on the audio but I don't hear him arrest the driver or tell the driver he will arrest him.
This doesn't look like an officer who really was concerned about being shot, even taking into account a movement that could be considered furtive. There were too many earlier furtive movements ignored by the officer. If he thought the driver wwas going for a weapon then he automatically should assume the passenger would have too. He didn't have a weapon drawn when she got out of the car after the bro' was tazed.
I don't think he felt threatened.
I could be convinced otherwise by a police officer's analysis of this situation.
As for those who think the officer should be charged with attempted murder, give me a frigging break.
By the way, Mike&, very thoughtful comments on your part.
I agree with you ... but I suspect that in this case the cop has been trained (either formally, or informally through the police department culture) to have a mentality and behavior pattern that should be considered criminally insane and irresponsible.
As such, the blame doesn't lie solely with THIS cop in THIS situation. It lies also with the system that has taught this cop to see citizens as threats and to lash out with acts of violence.
But then, if I were running the show, every cop who uses violence would be expected to turn himself in for battery, and leave it up to a jury whether the act was justified in self defense ... on the same basis as any other citizen's use of violence in a threat situation.
Do we review this from the standard of whether it was objectively reasonable (i.e. reaching into the pocket could be a threatening gesture) or whether the cop subjectively believed he was threatened?
As a young man, I once refused to sign a ticket. The officer explained it was only a promise to appear and he'd have to arrest me if I didn't sign, then said, "You're not going to make me arrest you, take you to jail and fill out all that paperwork, are you?" Well, of course I wasn't.
This officer was bent on arrest without any such explanation. And he didn't even bother to communicate to the driver that he was under arrest, but just told him to put his hands behind him. After cuffing the driver, the officer in the video said to the passenger that the reason he tasered the driver was "because he refused to follow my instructions." He also said the same thing to the driver earlier on.
I think this cop let his authority go to his head. He has no business dealing with the public. He should have been fired or at least disciplined and forced to undergo training.
And he lied to his fellow officer in recounting the incident. Plus there was no report made of the tasering incident, as apparently required by law, until the videotape appeared on YouTube. This leads me to suspect the officer knew he was in the wrong.
Upon closer reading you are correct.
Legally, the test is objective reasonableness.
Jared McLaughlin,
You can't charge someone with attempted murder unless he subjectively was trying to kill the guy.
Thus, the problem with some of the analysis here. "I would have thought he was going for a gun" doesn't quite do it. Did the officer think that when he tased the motorist? If not, then he has a bit of a problem.
All I've been able to read about this is that the actual officer in the actual incident later told his supervisors he didn't know whether the motorist was armed or not. That's not good enough. In particular, if he only thought of that after the incident, then it's really hard to justify his use of force.
(Of course, we know that he wasn't armed, but that's not relevant to any analysis.)
I'd like to side with the officer -- and would have if he'd once said "I'm placing you under arrest" or even "If you do not comply, I will be forced to tase you."
The fact that he tells the other officer that he *did* issue such a warning, when the tape clearly shows that he didn't, just makes it that much worse.
Unreasonable use of force. (My druthers would be to handle it internally, with a reprimand and some conflict-resolution training for the officer.)
Re: "looked like he was reaching for a gun..." -- it's worth noting that the arresting officer explains the arrest to the driver (5:09), his wife (8:00) and to his superior officer (9:48). In all three cases he makes it clear that he shot the driver for refusing to follow his instructions, not for reaching for something.
Again, the fact that puts this one over the edge from "not sure" to "unreasonable" for me is his fabrication (of a clear warning) when reporting to the other officer around 9:48. This shows a clear consciousness that his unembroidered actions wouldn't have been acceptable.
A common practice in Washington is to pace from in front. The officer determined the speed of the violator's vehicle, pulled over to let him pass, then pulled back into traffic and affected the stop.
Also, the reason I was driving on that trip is because my sister in law, a Utah resident, had already been stopped once. She was clocked going 140 in a 50mph zone. She got off with a warning (after showing her Utah license). My ticket was for going 56 in a 50 mph zone.
I don't have the highest faith in Utah highway patrolman.
One thing that's nice to know is that after last years S.Ct. decision on videotape evidence, all you would have to do is show this tape to the Supremes to get a definitive answer on whether it was reasonable force or not. From the tape, I think there's alot of stupidity on both sides, and with the other person in the car, if they were packing guns, I would have thought that tasing the guy put the officer in more danger instead of less. If the person in the car had access to a gun, the officer in this situation might have ended up dead.
As a mathematician/statistician, my favorite on these lines is by E. T. Jaynes:
Probability Theory, The Logic of Science
See Chapter 5: Queer Uses For Probability Theory.
It's excellent; mathematically correct; easy to understand.
It's also in postscript format, so you might need Ghostview or something like it, to read it.
The driver clearly had an unorthodox communication style, and poor judgment, but he presented no physical threat.
If the officer is unable to handle the situation without resorting to this level of violence, then he's unfit for his position. That position imposes a high level of responsibility; it's not just a license to abuse people who don't show you the respect and compliance you think you deserve.
At no point in any of the postmortem did the officer even hint that he felt threatened. Indeed, when speaking to his fellow officer after, he justified the use of force because the guy refused to heed his instructions and that he "wasn't playing that game."
I saw another clip, an interview with the taseree and a PR flack for the Police Dept. Which answered a question some people have been asking. The policy of the state if someone refuses to sign a ticket the office has the choice of writing refused to sign on the ticket, or arresting the person.
The question is reasonable or not. I voted not reasonable, the guy was clearly not a threat to the officer, a pain in the ass, sure. But as others have pointed out at no point did the officer properly inform the guy of what was happening. On top of that he gives his justification for tasering the guy repeatedly in the clip he says he tasered him for not following directions. I don't think he should be fired, he should be suspended without pay for a period of time and forced to retake police communication classes.
It doesn't look like the tasering crossed the line to illegal just wrong and unethical.
Tazers, safe or not, are a serious, violent, and extremely coercive move that needs justification: not simply officers getting bored or irritated.
Utilization of tasers for pain compliance leads directly to abuse. There's no avoiding it. I was appalled that it was apparently an official and accepted policy for whatever police force he worked for.
Everyone claiming that the officer *had* to arrest Mr. Massey is an idiot and has clearly read nothing about this situation.
Cops are dangerous to your health. Do piss them off. You will not win. They've got more guns and they've got a lot of the law tilted in their direction, both statutorily and by sympathy from jurors, prosecutors, public opinion, etc. This is not a just situation, but there you have it.
Second, this guy is lucky that there is taser technology. And video tapes in cars. Just a decade ago this guy would have some very large bruises and possbly some broken bones. But now he just pees in his pants and looks like an idiot to his family.
A coworker joined the local reserve police. In one of his oral exams he was asked what to do if they don't sign the ticket and close the window. The desired answer, according to this guy -- but not necessarily the law -- was to break the window and drag the person out of the car through the broken window. The emphasis was to not unbuckle the seat belt and to cause as much pain as possible in the process. I don't doubt this story one bit.
Most people would probably agree that a police officer using a cattle prod under just about any circumstances would normally constitute abuse and possibly torture.
So what is it about the taser which makes it more morally acceptable than a cattle prod?
I don't have an answer--this is very perplexing to me. Is it just that the taser has better marketing? Or is it because people see the taser as replacing a lethal firearm, whereas a cattle prod is seen as a more brutal form of billy club?
Help me out here.
No I think it's pretty clear that the driver was ending the negotiation. and less force? grabbing his arm? Would a headlock have been sufficient? He shouldn't have to get that close to a guy who has just turned his back to a cop and was reaching into his pocket.
The only thing I would have had done differently is a series of verbal warnings (as just pointing it at the guy is not enough). Being tasered is very serious and shouldn't be undertaken willy-nilly. Something along the lines of: "freeze. I have a taser. if you do not stop, slowly take your hands out of your pockets, and put them over your head I will use it on you." Giving warning, telling him what was going to happen, how to avoid being tasered, etc. Strict rule application would be good in this situation, so that courts don’t have to constantly engage in tedious weighing/balancing, etc.
The driver in no way should have turned his back on the cop or put his hands in his pockets. Completely ridiculous. He should be brow beaten by the court for this. He really should win an award for foolishness in that regard. I think using the taser was excessive only b/c i think these warnings should have been given (at least absent something more exigent). The driver’s actions were provocative—kind of weird that some don’t see that.
The cop should not have taken the guy out of the car unless he was, at that point, going to arrest him. If he was going to arrest him, he should have told him that as he was getting out of the car. The driver's concerns about what he was being arrested for and how fast he was going should have been answered quickly: "your speed is on the ticket, you're being arrested for failing to follow police instructions (signing the ticket?)." Even better would be telling him he’s under arrest, ordering him out of the car, and immediately reading him his rights, rather than waiting longer (though I think this is just best practice and should not be the source of judicial remedy).
The driver's whining once he was taken to the back seat/back door was comical. The cop should have told him that if he has concerns about whether he was properly read his rights, he should take that up with his lawyer—then maybe told him the joke was on him, since forgetting to give Miranda warnings would nearly be a get-out-of-jail-free card (who reminds a cop he has to do it?!).
I think it would have been interesting if the girl had called the police while this cop was tasering the driver. That, perhaps, would have made him moderate his actions. It also might have changed the power relationships between them: her on the phone with dispatch telling them where she is, demanding the officer’s name and badge #, describing in her own words (which probably would have been wholly tendentious and histrionic) what happened.
Mr. Liberal, your other argument that it is potentially fatal is just silly in this context. So is being pulled over if you have a serious heart condition and are overly sensitive. By and large it is just painful. The mere fact it’s a possibility that someone can die doesn't change its essential character.
Several things (which may already been stated).
First, the cop NEVER said the guy was under arrest (or threatened arrest) before he tasered the guy.
Second, the cop's command to "turn around" is utterly confusing in context. The guy is facing him, when the cop yells the order. Then the guy basically turns around. Yes, he is slowly walking away, but it probably because he is scared shitless because suddenly the cop is pointing what looks like a gun at him. The guy has basically complied to turn around and he even drops his hands (though not behind his back). Once again, the cop NEVER said you are under arrest. The guy is thinking, "WTF, the cop is just going to shoot me!"
Another point, you can clearly tell that the guy did think he was let out to look at the sign. The video clearly shows that.
I'm surprised the guy reacted as calmly as he did. That cop is lucky that guy didn't have a "concealed weapons" permit (along with a weapon). A citizen could reasonably think their life was in danger by that cop and respond appropriately.
Look at this version of the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
It more clearly shows what looks like the caution sign to indicate a slower speed is coming ahead. I can't exactly make the sign out. But, it really looks like one of those signs that warns you that the speed limit is lower on ahead.
If you look at when the cop starts to pull him over, it seems the cop starts to try to pull the driver over, BEFORE he even crosses the 40 mph sign, which is exactly the point the driver tried to make. The "slow speed ahead" sign is NOT a speed limit sign, and that was all the driver has passed before the cop tried to pull him over.
Further, it casts into doubt the officer's claim that the driver had passed the speed limit "a half mile back." Those "Slow speed ahead" signs come BEFORE the slow speed. So, it is very unlikely that there was an earlier sign, not shown on the tape, that said the speed limit was 40 mph.
Of course, the driver did not behave properly in trying to badger the officer, but it must have been especially frustrating for the driver because the driver was right! He likely had NOT passed a 40 mph sign, before the cop turned on his lights and tried to pull the driver over.
The operative California law is:
If I searched (and understood) correctly, the similar, and operative, Utah laws appear to be: