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.
You said:”Utah considers that if you don’t sign, you can go post a monetary bond.”
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.
What would have happened had Officer Gardner not even had a taser?
The officer didn't inform the driver that he was taking him into custody, he obviously (we heard that on the video) asked him to step out of the vehicle, which he did. The driver DID comply. At that point the officer didn't follow through and explain WHAT he was doing. The man indeed may have been speeding, but you don't get arrested for speeding, unless it is reckless endangerment (depending on the local laws).
The officer was simply IN THE WRONG in this case. I did read that material (and several other articles on the subject before and since this particular article).
For the record, "resisting arrest" isn't a charge that they can hang on the guy. You know why? The cop NEVER INFORMED HIM he was being arrested. THAT is why the cop was in the wrong here. Had he simply stated "You're being placed under arrest, place your hands behind your back" then the charge of "resisting" could stick. Sorry - from my personal experiences with this, the cop didn't follow the training that I know he received.
Arguing isn't the subject of the discussion here. It's not against the law to argue with a cop, and it's not against the law to talk. It's not against the law to question authority, especially when that authority is stepping beyond reasonable boundaries. This was a 'traffic stop', not a felony crime commission. Tasering someone for talking back to a police officer is where *I* draw the line. The man wasn't even getting physical with the cop. HAD the man gotten physical, or turned in a threatening manner then maybe the cop would have been justified in tasering the man.
Unfortunately for the police officer, he 1) Didn't state up front that it is 'against the laws of Utah to refuse to sign a ticket', 2) didn't state he was therefore placing the individual under arrest, and 3) was NOT threatened in any way.
THIS is the reason "the case is close"....The state would have LOST this one had they continued on with the lawsuit. They settled because minds smarter than both of us decided it was in the best interest of the state to settle for a lesser amount than a judge would have awarded the guy, and the COP would have found himself unemployed after the fact.
They decided to settle so that cop could stay on the job and this would just "go away". Otherwise, they'd have been paying through the nose on it. In other words... the COP WAS WRONG.