For those of you who are defending the Utah officer's use

of the taser on the driver who was not physically resisting....

Everyone understands the dangers of the job, and it's even more dangerous out on the freeway with no cover units at the scene.

But what you (the people defending the use of the taser) are not understanding is law enforcement officers spend a lot of time training on defense tactics in the training academy.

They learn control holds, including a wrist twist lock that induces pain compliance.

Officers are trained to only escalate force as a last resort...particularly if they feel as though their safety is jeopardized.

That driver was probably not going to sign the citation, but the officer needed to at least attempt to place him in handcuffs before he pulled out the taser.

He also could have told the driver, "Okay sir, I'm going to have you sit in your car, so we can both figure out a solution here."

That could have bought the officer time so he could have called for an additional unit to come and assist if he felt he couldn't handle the individual by himself.

Two officers would have been able to easily handle a driver of that size.

The point is the Utah officer took the unprofessional, semi-lazy way out and just tasered the guy as he was walking back to his vehicle after protesting a simple infraction.

That's not what the taser is or should be used for.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/you-gotta-ask-me...

snip//

The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer LIES to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.

Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.

This amazing video reveals how eroded civil and constitutional rights have now become. The officer had no legal right to make Massey sign any document he did not understand.


Police in the country are now allowed to torture speeders by the side of the highway in order to get them to comply. The only difference between this officer slugging the speeder in the stomach and putting 50,0000 volts of electricity in him is that the latter doesn't leave any marks. The intent, the pain and the goose-stepping authoritarian message are exactly the same.

Word to the wise. Do not ever question the police, no matter whether they are violating your rights, ignoring the constitution or breaking the law. It is perfectly legal for them to torture you on the spot if you do.

I'm feeling so free I can hardly breathe.

It does seem as if he allowed the driver to get under his skin, and was itching to make an arrest: neither of these things is either professional or appropriate.

He did not explain to the driver the consequences of not signing the citation, making clear to him that not doing so would result in arrest. The man was from out of state, he may not have known the local regulations, and the officer should not have assumed that he did.

The officer did not actually state he was placing the man under arrest, merely ordered him out of the vehicle, and to turn and put his hands behind his back. The driver, doubtless someone who views himself as a law-abiding citizen, probably did not realize he was under arrest, that being a thing that happens only to other, criminal sorts of people, and might well have behaved differently at that point if he had been explicitly informed of the fact he was under arrest.

The order to turn around and put your hands behind you is not equivalent to the statement, "You are under arrest." Officers on occassion hand-cuff persons who they are not placing under arrest to prevent unruly behavior while sorting a matter out, and loose them once they are satisfied of calm behavior and know who is who and what is what. A citizen should not have to infer from some physical act he or she is under arrest, but is entitled to assume a state of freedom until explicitly informed otherwise.

Were it not for the officer's poor performance in the early going, the situation might well not have come to the point it did.

in any state

Those are not local regulations

Most folks do NOT realize they are technically under arrest when issued a ticket

that said, that officer went too far and should be disciplined

Hell, I woudl not be too surprised if the judge let the guy go and gave the officer quite a talk down

"Hell, I woudl not be too surprised if the judge let the guy go and gave the officer quite a talk down"
If it is a small town the odds get worse and if they're republicans it gets even more worse.

It does seem as if he allowed the driver to get under his skin, and was itching to make an arrest: neither of these things is either professional or appropriate.

Yep, he did seem to be used to getting his way.

He did not explain to the driver the consequences of not signing the citation, making clear to him that not doing so would result in arrest. The man was from out of state, he may not have known the local regulations, and the officer should not have assumed that he did.

The LEO didn't sound like he had a case from the start. No excuse for not at least telling the driver the consequences of not signing.

The officer did not actually state he was placing the man under arrest, merely ordered him out of the vehicle, and to turn and put his hands behind his back. The driver, doubtless someone who views himself as a law-abiding citizen, probably did not realize he was under arrest, that being a thing that happens only to other, criminal sorts of people, and might well have behaved differently at that point if he had been explicitly informed of the fact he was under arrest.

No idea why the driver blew it, non-compliance against an ornery officer...well, let's just say I have this friend that learned years ago... :)

The order to turn around and put your hands behind you is not equivalent to the statement, "You are under arrest." Officers on occassion hand-cuff persons who they are not placing under arrest to prevent unruly behavior while sorting a matter out, and loose them once they are satisfied of calm behavior and know who is who and what is what. A citizen should not have to infer from some physical act he or she is under arrest, but is entitled to assume a state of freedom until explicitly informed otherwise.

It's no fun but no matter how right you might be and how wrong the LEO is, bad idea to refuse a "lawful order".

Were it not for the officer's poor performance in the early going, the situation might well not have come to the point it did.

First thing that entered my mind was "tourists" or "easy money".


Hey, excellent post.

I think it points to the fact that more and more abuse is being accepted and will only be getting worse, I cant wait until the 100,000 blackwater mercs get home from Iraq, its going to be fun having them out on the streets all dressed in black and fighting the war on drugs...yeah right!

nothing looks worse for a person in court than when there's a notation on a ticket that says "refused to sign." I remember learning the control holds when I went through the police academy and they work really well. Using a taser out of laziness is only going to buy this cop and that department a lawsuit. I swear it's the George Bush torture mentality seeping down through the ranks.

I have no reason to doubt Digby's view of it since she is a very honorable person. I only one to make a simple point here. If the cop was in fear for his own safety. Does it make any sense to use a taser when there is another person in the vehicle out of the officer's view who could have easily pulled a gun and shot him? Shotty police work here.

Right or wrong, I've never tried to overule a man with a badge on the side of the road, I don't intend to ever try.



Told a LEO "NO" and walked away reaching into his pockets,
should count his blessings it was a taser and not a .357

Suicide is intentional, not the unfortunate side effect of not knowing how to act when law enforcement orders you around. Most people don't know that a cop can arrest and use a taser on you over a minor speeding violation.

Suicidal my ass.

Again.....not suicidal according to Webster's, just a figure of speech.

Stupid, ignorant, wreckless...the kid could've gotten himself killed.

Make it a 500000 volt electrical weapon and you get idiots coming out of the woodwork to defend a retard pig.

I hope that Officer "Friendly" gets sued into homelessness over this.

Oh, and on second thought, even if it HAD been a .357, you'd still see idiots coming out of the woodwork.

There is a subset of society that worships all things related to pig-kind.

I have no doubt. He's a big supporter of the asswipe who
murdered the two burglars in Pasadena, and that guy wasn't
even a cop.

And as to your trollish dribble...

"Make it a 500000 volt electrical weapon and you get idiots coming out of the woodwork to defend a retard pig.

I hope that Officer "Friendly" gets sued into homelessness over this.

Oh, and on second thought, even if it HAD been a .357, you'd still see idiots coming out of the woodwork.

There is a subset of society that worships all things related to pig-kind."


"subset of society" < would've fixed this for you with "idiots" but I didn't have the strike-html handy.
Keep in mind, I didn't defend the actions of the LEO, but you'd be hard pressed to prove the driver didn't act like an 'idiot' and almost get himself killed.

... badge and weapons usually wins.

on what a proper exchange between the police and citizens looks like i.e. where to pull over, etc. God knows most people are glued to their teevee sets 24/7. This would make life easier for the cops and the people they serve - and perhaps lessen the danger to all parties somewhat.