Posted on 03/11/2008 8:05:26 AM PDT by abb
A Vernal man shocked twice with a Taser during a traffic stop last year has accepted a $40,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed against the state and a Utah Highway Patrol trooper. The Utah Attorney General's Office announced the settlement between Jared Massey and UHP trooper Jon Gardner on Monday. "We think this is a legally defensible case because Trooper Gardner acted reasonably to avert a volatile and potentially dangerous confrontation on the side of a busy highway," said Assistant Attorney General Scott Cheney, who represented Gardner. "We recognize, however, that this is a close case." The settlement comes on the heels of a decision by Tooele County prosecutors earlier this month that determined Gardner's actions were not criminal. An internal UHP investigation also cleared the trooper. Video of the trooper zapping Massey, taken by the trooper's dashboard camera, came to prominence after Massey posted it on the Internet site YouTube. Since it was posted last year, it has been viewed more than 1.7 million times. Massey's attorney, Bob Sykes, said Monday the offer to settle the case was not the state's first and that his client decided to take it. Massey filed a lawsuit against Gardner in January alleging the trooper violated his civil rights when he zapped him during a traffic stop Sept. 14, 2007, on Highway 40 in Uintah County. Advertisement Click Here!
He was stopped for driving 61 mph in a 40 mph zone. During the stop, Massey argued with Gardner about his speed and then refused to sign the citation. Massey then got out of his car and followed Gardner to his police car where he was asked to place his hands behind his back. When Massey refused, Gardner shocked him. The suit said Massey fell screaming in pain after being shocked while Gardner taunted him by saying, "Hurts, doesn't it?" Massey struck his head against the pavement and was zapped a second time because he was unable to immediately obey an order to turn over on his stomach, according to the suit. "We thought the amount of force used was outrageous," Sykes said Monday. The settlement amount includes attorneys' fees. The Attorney General's Office says Massey has agreed to dismiss his lawsuit, all claims against Gardner and all potential claims against UHP, the Utah Department of Public Safety and the state. jbergreen@sltrib.com
“So, you tell Massey signing is not an admission of guilt, and he says, “I still ain’t signing.””
We don’t know because that didn’t happen. Why didn’t it happen? Because gardner handled the situation unprofessionally and ended up putting this guys life at risk.
The video shows the only facts we have. All your conjecture is typical of blind cop supporters. No matter the outcome you feel the cops can do no wrong.
“We don’t know because that didn’t happen. Why didn’t it happen?
Because gardner handled the situation unprofessionally and ended up putting this guys life at risk.”
Officer Gardner broke no law.
Officer Gardner violated no department policies.
He was following the procedures for ‘use of’ and ‘exactly how’ on the taser weapon. He had been trained in this and had to qualify to be able to have a taser.
Incorrect.
No matter what, I don’t start off by feeling that the outcome is that the cops are always wrong.
Innocent until proven guilty.
“Officer Gardner violated no department policies.”
They why the retraining? Why the payout?
“No matter what, I don’t start off by feeling that the outcome is that the cops are always wrong.”
Too bad you don’t give the citizen the same standard.
"You are under arrest!"
“Too bad you don’t give the citizen the same standard.”
Not true. At the beginning of the video, they both were considered innocent.
It was their actions, words, and behavior during the video, which gave us the basis for forming a conclusion about whether the tasering was justified.
The Officer must say the magic words.
“You are under arrest!”
Which happens after your turn around and put your hands behind your back, and after the cuffs are on.
They why the retraining? Why the payout?
Because Officer Gardner was tried in public, on the internet, and found guilty of ‘thought-crime’.
He didn’t actually do anything wrong.
He had the ‘gall’ to say, “Hurts, doesn’t it. You should have listened to me’.
He referred to the event as “He took a ride on the taser” (However the internet jury was not convinced, and ruled that he said ,”I gave him a ride on the taser”).
It was also ruled that in his ‘mind’, Officer Gardner had decided to taser Mr. Massey simply for violating the posted speed limit.
They paid $40,000 because they knew they’d lose in court.
They knew they’d lose in court because the officer was in the WRONG! If the officers attack on the motorist were defensible they’d defend it.
Goodbye, urblind2, and Godbless.
I’ll say no more about it, except if you’re LEO I hope to make $40,000 off of you someday.
It shows something about your mindset in that you must assure yourself that everyone who supports the Officer in this case (and this one only), is a cop.
You're in hyperbolic overdrive. Read your words again...
Should law enforcement supporters switch their allegiance to felons instead?
Nothing wrong with stating that your policy is to support LEOs.
It does disqualify one, however, as acting as an impartial judge of LEOs actions.
“I assume in your little smartassed tirade against me,”
Surely you are up to the intellectual challenge. Or is everyone who questions your opinion, your ‘authority’, a little smartass? And do you TASER them or SHOOT them when they smart off?
” in your attempt to some how discredit me (which, by the way you didn’t)”
I wasn’t attempting to discredit you. I was debating the issue of legality and procedure as set forth by the UTAH PD.
I was merely trying to discredit your arguments. Not you.
Or did you take it personal? (like you accuse Officer Gardner of doing)
“you were attempting to actually ask me that question.”
Yes. But your answer is a little difficult to parse.
FOR EXAMPLE:
“if he had not filed a lawsuit he wouldn’t have won.”
DUH.
And then it gets contradictory:
“he DID file a lawsuit, and didn’t “win” anything “
“Sorry, but he won, because the cop was wrong.”
Then this:
“They ADMIT that the cop was wrong by settling out of court. “
Funny, that is not what the UTAH PD said.
Finally:
“The fact is, had this gone to trial there would have been a JURY which would have been specifically selected having NEVER SEEN the freakin’ video.”
And can you guarantee that they would have found for the plaintiff?
“The video demonstrates he handled the stop unprofessionally which led to the inappropiate use of force.”
Exactly what did he do that was ‘unprofessional’?
“You honor, the officer was unprofessional and committed some improprieties.”
Judge: “What exactly, are you referring to?”
“Well, I don’t know, but I don’t like what he did. And he said, “he took a ride on the taser”.
Judge: “Well, that happened after the tasering. What does that have to do with police department procedure in deciding when and if to taser someone while taking them into custody?”
“The Officer shouldn’t have said that. Cops just can’t SAY anything they want you know.”
DUDE let IT GO! The cop got retrained, the city paid $40,000. The know he screwed up and so does everyone else.
P.S.
Thank you for your responses on this thread.
I may not agree with your opinion, but I respect your right to have it.
The importance of debating the issue is that, hopefully, those involved (lurkers, too) have learned something from it.
Whether it helps them protect their family, or avoid arrest, or win a case over an abusive authority figure, or even be more observant of traffic laws, so be it.
It’s a good thing.
You seem like an educated, intelligent person, and have put up some very strong arguments.
I have read many of your other comments, on other threads, and have found them interesting.
Just remember, it’s not personal. It’s just a debate.
“It does disqualify one, however, as acting as an impartial judge of LEOs actions.”
Tell that to the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.