Posted on 03/11/2008 8:05:26 AM PDT by abb
“No, just that many speed limits are set at arbitrarily low levels and are enforced in situations where there is no danger to other motorists.”
Was that the issue in this case? Was that what Mr. Massey argued with the officer about?
Was that why Mr. Massey refused to sign the ticket?
(or was it because he was behind the police car, going through the 40mph zone, and figured he’d be OK???)
Or did Mr. Massey simply miss seeing two 40 mph signs, a loose gravel sign, the red flags on them, and the police car in front of him?
“Uh, he was ORDERED by the cop to get out of the car.”
Which, he did.
He was also ordered to turn around and put his hands behind his back.
Which, he repeatedly refused to do, all while seeing the officer had a taser gun out and pointed at him.
The $40,000 payment was justified.
IMO it should be paid the offending officer.
“Probably and based on this case it would have been yet another case of deadly force being used incorrectly.”
Your first statement: “how would he ever handle a real criminal?”
The taser wasn’t ‘deadly force’. It wasn’t used incorrectly.
If it had been a ‘real criminal’ and he had a ‘real gun’, then the officer would have been justified in using his own gun. (Or should he let the real criminal go because the real criminal insists that he doesn’t have a gun?)
“IMO it should be paid the offending officer.”
How would he pay that, if he got put in jail, as you have suggested he should be?
Or did you mean paid “TO” the officer?
It should be paid BY the offending officer.
How? Cash, check or payroll deduction. His choice.
“In Texas, for example, lower speed limits in construction zones are only enforced when workers are present.”
Is that because when they slam into idle construction equipment, all they hurt is themselves? And they can afford to pay for the construction equipment?
“The taser wasn’t ‘deadly force’. It wasn’t used incorrectly.”
I was referring to the gun you said he would have used with a criminal. If he used it correctly then why was he retrained and why did they pay the other jerk?
“If it had been a ‘real criminal’ and he had a ‘real gun’, then the officer would have been justified in using his own gun. “
Oh so being a ‘criminal’ is not grounds for deadly force. Guess you’re just throwing away all those civil rights.
“If he used it correctly then why was he retrained and why did they pay the other jerk?”
He used the taser correctly.
He was assigned to take a ‘communications’ class, as a result of the case gaining such high publicity.
Officials at UTAH PD reviewed the case, and decided that there might have been some lack of clarity on Mr. Massey’s part, as to what the Officer was asking Mr. Massey to do.
Even a moron knows what “put your hands behind your back means”, but it could be argued that since Officer Gardner did not state “I am taking you in”, “I am placing you under arrest to go post bond”, that Mr. Massey couldn’t figure it out on his own.
(There are parts of the video where Officer Gardner is speaking to Mr. Massey and we can’t hear what is being said due to traffic noise. Officer Gardner may have told Mr. Massey that if he didn’t sign, he was going to take him in.
If so, and when Mr. Massey still refused, Officer Gardner told him to step out of the car. Mere speculation, but if it happened, would that change the attitude of many on this case?)
They paid the other jerk because of the same reason many lawsuits are settled out of court.
It costs less and it’s over.
Not because they are guilty.
How many people pay a defective tail light fine (to get out of a speeding fine), even if they had no defective tail light? (and even if they think they weren’t really speeding)
I don't know what the rules are in that regard. However, most countries worldwide have a lower maximum tolerable blood alcohol level than we do. 0.05% is the most common limit in Europe. Interestingly enough, all the Anglosphere nations except Australia have a 0.08% limit, as we do. Mexico holds to 0.08% as well.
Liability insurance is mandatory for all drivers in Texas. In most cases, the damage is more likely to be to the driver's vehicle than the equipment.
“(There are parts of the video where Officer Gardner is speaking to Mr. Massey and we can’t hear what is being said due to traffic noise. Officer Gardner may have told Mr. Massey that if he didn’t sign, he was going to take him in.”
Gardner may not have said anything like that and to suggest otherwise is pure speculation. I seem to remember something about being innocent until proven guilty written in some document or law or something.
The cop handled this entire situation very very poorly from the beginning.
“Gardner may not have said anything like that and to suggest otherwise is pure speculation.”
I stated that it was speculation. Gardner may not have said those words, then again, he may have. I asked “would it change your opinion of the case, if he had”.
Something which you conveniently have ignored in Officer Gardner’s case.
How many, (were you included?) condemned Officer Gardner?
How many declared him GUILTY and stated flatly that he should be fired?
And all that was BEFORE the case (the speeding and the lawsuit) went to court.
Officer Gardner was exonerated by his superiors.
What IF Officer Gardner DID make that statement? Would it change your opinion of the case?
“If he would have obeyed every turned around command he would have been doing circles.”
If he had simply signed the ticket, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I guess it’s all a case of Mr. Massey being unable to understand the simplest of spoken communications, and a phrase (put your hands behind your back) which even schoolchildren are familiar with.
“The cop handled this entire situation very very poorly from the beginning.”
What would you have done different?
“What would you have done different?”
Oh I dunno, perhaps maintained control of the situation from the beginning. Perhaps actually telling him that signing was not an admission of guilt. Perhaps telling him he would be arrested if he didn’t sign. Perhaps warning him he was going to be tazed if his behavior didn’t change.
But gardner did none of these things.
“Officer Gardner was exonerated by his superiors.”
Gee theres a surprise. The police investigating their own and they find no cause. Bet that never happened before.
“What IF Officer Gardner DID make that statement? Would it change your opinion of the case?”
We’re dealing with reality. The video provides evidence as to what actually happened. The video demonstrates he handled the stop unprofessionally which led to the inappropiate use of force. Tazing Massey only a couple feet away from traffic could easily have resulted in his death.
Those are facts. I’ve sat in the jury room before and had reasonable doubt explained to me. What you’re trying to use does not meet that standard.
“The fact of a settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt in any way.”
no, of course not. But it certainly looks guilty, doesn’t it? I mean are you saying the state picked a random motorist to give $40k to?
The real question is did the ticket get dropped as part of the settlement too? I’m guessing it’s highly likely that it did, so you are faced with the possibility of an innocent motorist getting tazed by a cop that did nothing wrong.
“Let’s see: $40K to make the case go away, or $120K to be vindicated.”
The cop could have used the same logic - give the guy the unsigned ticket, or give the guy a “ride” on the tazer to teach him a lesson.
Actually, if Utah thought this was justified, it would have been cheaper in the long run to try to be vindicated, because now every tazing will have to be justified and documented, lest they incur this and more in liability. Utah will spend more than the difference on that.
Thank you for responding to the question.
Many here yell bad cop, but very few have had any specifics about what should have been done.
I believe that is actually printed on the ticket.
“Perhaps telling him he would be arrested if he didn’t sign. “
A key issue. Mr. Massey, however, wasn’t listening. He was going to settle the issue right there, on the side of a busy highway, and he made it clear he wasn’t going to sign anything until that happened.
“Perhaps warning him he was going to be tazed if his behavior didn’t change.
(So... you admit his behavior was justification for being tasered)
How much warning would you give him?
An officer has told you FOUR TIMES, “turn around , put your arms behind your back”, and is pointing a TASER at you.
Is that not an EXPLICIT warning?
You tell Massey he will be arrested if he doesn’t sign, and he says, “I still ain’t signing.”
You tell Massey to turn around and put his hands behind his back, or you are going to taser him, and he yells, “What the hell is wrong with you”, repeatedly, then turns away and starts walking back to his car.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
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.