Posted on 03/11/2008 8:05:26 AM PDT by abb
Speeders cause an enormous amount of death and destruction on the nation’s highways. This stupid decision inspires them to speed even more.
I watched the video, and it appears that the cop was blocking the sign with his car. There may have been another sign before, but that isn't shown in the video. I find that highly suspicious...there's a lot of road there; if the LEO happened to pull over there, it's an amazing coincidence.
I suppose it all comes down to what you think is reasonable or not, where you draw the lines, what standard of proof or judgment is required, and who's required to meet it. In the case of law enforcement, all burdens rightly fall on them.
I think it's at least plausible that the LEO was parked in front of the sign that told him to slow down.
I'm a little bit different than others on this thread because when I see a rude contest between a citizen and an LEO, I have expectations of the LEO...I don't have expectations of the citizen.
The LEO has been given a gun, and a monopoly on the use of force; the citizen hasn't. When asked why he was tased, the LEO responded, "Because you were under arrest. You weren't following my instructions."
He wasn't told he was being arrested until after he was handcuffed and tasered.
I have higher expectations of Law Enforcement than that...and I believe I have rights upon which I can rely, not subject to the agreement of every cop with an attitude. He doesn't meet my expectations of professionalism, and if it were up to me, that would change...either because he was retrained or fired.
What bothers me even more than the responses by the authorities is the responses of the posters.
The LEO doesn't have my support in this case. Nor do the various apologists for what I consider to be unprofessional and outrageous behavior.
I believe a lot of folks on this thread think they are doing the right thing by presumptive support for LEOs. I would suggest to them that they are not doing favors to anyone. Virtually every PD staff is represented by a union which is very aggressive in defending them; there's virtually no civilian or outside supervision or accountability. The folks who investigate are generally part of the system.
Combine that with a job that's challenging at best, and human nature...and you're creating a situation ripe for abuse. Many of us are self-controlled, but many are not; they stop what they're doing when someone or something forces them to. There's effectively nothing here to restrain the bad apples. That's not right for anyone involved; it's not fair for anyone involved. It's corrosive and corrupting.
As for the settlement...I think everyone has to judge that for themselves. I can tell you that no one gives away free money. There's at least some smoke there.
Sometimes defendants will settle because it costs less. In my experience and judgment, government bodies are less inclined to do so. It's politically embarassing, and it creates a nuisance factor...you've provided an incentive for others to file lawsuits.
IMO, they believed they had some exposure there...as they said, when they admitted it was "a close call."
And again...I take what the Attorney General's office says with a grain of salt. They're the attorneys for the state, in this case the LEO and his dept. They're lawyering, which means acting as advocates for their clients. I do not expect objectivity of them.
Sure...but that wasn't the poster's point, right?
Very well.
I certainly do not agree with your opinion either on the subject. But, as you said, we both have a right to our opinions, right or wrong.
I’ll say that I’m a very STRONG supporter of Law Enforcement. I work “in the field” we’ll say, on a higher level than “a cop” does on a daily basis, and I’m well aware that there are same stellar police officers out there. In fact, the vast majority of them are “stellar”.
There are a few, very few, that are simply not suited for the job they are in. They are power mongers, and as I’ve stated in other threads, there are many jaded police officers.
I worked in a prison for a time... and I dealt daily with eradicate, strange, and even abusive criminals. They were criminals though, and had been convicted of whatever crimes they were “in for”... but that did not stop them from being hateful to the “establishment” or make excuses for why they were in prison in the first place. One tried to explain the difference in myself and him one day.
He said, “The only difference between you and I, is that *I* got CAUGHT”. In his belief, we’re all ‘criminals’ or perform criminal behavior, and cops in his opinion were no different than the inmates.
In some cases, he was correct. The security running the place were not above doing things to keep themselves from being on inmates’ hit lists. I found that deplorable.
By the same token, I expect nothing but outstanding behavior in a police officer. While I can agree that perhaps the driver in the video was being somewhat animated and was obviously upset at the situation, there was really no real reason for him to be tasered.
Any officer worth his salt should be trained enough to see that the situation wasn’t as “volatile” as everyone seems to be making it out to me.
As someone who routinely carries a weapon on my person, I have no problem in cooperating with police officers. However, I will point out that when a cop is wrong, he is plain wrong. I don’t trust my own short term memory all the time - because, very clearly, and with MUCH scientific evidence — our memories are not what they are cracked up to be. Some people are good. Most of us are not good at remembering details of everything one sees on the highway, or in a robbery or whatever. Even police officers, trained observers, can be wrong. (I act as a trained weather spotter volunteer, go through 8-16 hours of refresher training every year, and spend many hours a year practicing observations and I can not always say with 100% certainty that what I see is what I THINK I see.... and I’m just as much of a human being as any police officer.)
My point in short is, Law Enforcement officials can and do make mistakes and should NOT be given, EVER, carte blanc, that they are “always right”, they should be held to the highest possible standards, and should they falter, or fail to maintain those standards - then retraining is in order. Period.
In the time I spent in Washington, working at the White House, I can say that in eight years I ‘never once made a mistake’. That is to say, I maintained (as did the people for whom I worked, and those that worked for me) the absolute highest standards of conduct and work ethic. When you were about to do something, you re-thought it three ways and did it right the first time. If you couldn’t make a good decision, you asked for assistance, advice or turned the job over to someone else.
Police Officers should be maintaining even higher standards, and they should be held to those standards under every possible circumstance.
I will say, if someone points a gun at a police officer, then the cop has every right to defend him/herself - just as any citizen of this country has.
By having a cop point ANY device at YOU, you’re assuming that he MUST be right and legal in every aspect of every move he makes. Otherwise, a cop pointing a gun at me is no different than anyone else doing it, and I’ll certainly return fire. The point here is, they MUST be ABOVE reproach.
This officer wasn’t. Otherwise, even his own lawyers wouldn’t have questioned his actions, which they did.
Thank you.
Finally someone comes out and gives info on a history of their experience IN the LE field.
Ironic, isn’t it?
A LE experienced person says the cop was wrong,
and a non-LE experienced person says the cop wasn’t.
Throws the Cop Lover syndrome out the window.
Here is what the lawyers and cops said. (which I am sure you read).
“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.
which is exactly what Officer Gardner was taking Mr. Massey into custody for.
So, if Mr. Massey didn’t want to sign, why didn’t he willingly go to post bond?
Why did he ‘resist arrest’? ( I know, because he thought he was innocent)
When he was out of sight of camera, he was still arguing with Officer Gardner while being placed in the police car.
Which supports the contention that he was uncooperative and resisting arrest.
“Speeders cause an enormous amount of death and destruction on the nation’s highways. This stupid decision inspires them to speed even more.”
More likely, it will inspire them to be uncooperative when a taser is pointed at them, so that they can sue.
If, as many here claim, Mr. Massey was UNAWARE he was being placed under arrest, because Officer Gardner didn’t make the actual statement,
why does Mr. Massey repeatedly ask “why are you arresting me?”
“They chose NOT to go on with the court case because there were improprieties on the part of the officer.”
Sheila Jackson Lee assaulted a Federal Officer on live TV.
Charges were dropped. Was that because of the improprieties on the part of the Officer?
You tell me.
What do you think the poster’s point was?
And which poster?
Was that before or after being shot with the taser?
Sheila Jackson Lee assaulted a Federal Officer on live TV.
Charges were dropped. Was that because of the improprieties on the part of the Officer?
Completely different story here and you know it.
She is a Congresswoman who slapped a Capitol policeman. SHE was the one being charged and they dropped the charges against her because she made a huge stink about it - and I don’t know if you noticed, but she’s a woman, and she’s black..... and she’s in Congress. So Congresscritters are above the law, huh?
The charges of speeding, to my knowledge were NOT dropped and I think I read he paid his fine. (I can’t cite the article at the moment since it was awhile back now and I don’t remember where I read it).
The LAWSUIT wasn’t “CHARGES”. It was a civil case, which is different from CRIMINAL charges. You’re trying to compare eggs to apples.
They can taser me if I get $40K for it
They can waterboard me if I get $100K for it
They can taser me if I get $40K for it
They can waterboard me if I get $100K for it
But if I have to be subjected to the collected speeches of Shrillary Clinton they’ll have to pay me at least $1 million!
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.