The following video and text was take from Live Leak.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=199_1199476044
<hr>
<h4>Bizarre taser video from Utah.Police dash cam.</h4>
Police taser an apparently intoxicated man on his own premises in Utah.Although this happened in March 07 this video was recently given to the guy who was tasered at his request.He claims he was tasered but never put under arrest.....it seems the officer tased him for acting suspiciously and hiding behind a vehicle.What is not clear is why the police were there in the first place.
<script>document.write('<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/player.s'+'wf?autostart=false&token=199_1199476044"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/player.s'+'wf?autostart=false&token=199_1199476044"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>')</script>
<hr>
What do you think?
-D-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=199_1199476044
<hr>
<h4>Bizarre taser video from Utah.Police dash cam.</h4>
Police taser an apparently intoxicated man on his own premises in Utah.Although this happened in March 07 this video was recently given to the guy who was tasered at his request.He claims he was tasered but never put under arrest.....it seems the officer tased him for acting suspiciously and hiding behind a vehicle.What is not clear is why the police were there in the first place.
<script>document.write('<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/player.s'+'wf?autostart=false&token=199_1199476044"><param name="movie" value="ht'+'tp://w'+'ww.liveleak.com/player.s'+'wf?autostart=false&token=199_1199476044"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>')</script>
<hr>
What do you think?
-D-
what do i think? well, i'm not sure i have enough data to really form an opinion. like why were the police there? i see wet tire tracks,were they in pursuit? what happened to cause officer to tasr the man? what happened after? would the man rather be tased or shot?
i'm not taking sides but, i don't think i know enough about the big picture to say.
i'm not taking sides but, i don't think i know enough about the big picture to say.
I agree. I would just question one thing. Seeing what I did see, the coversation was normal and the man had admitted to drink a 1/2 gallon of Vodka (yeah right). I also two officers using a taser when the man refuse to talk with them. The never arrested him. He has the right to remain silent. Only after he refuse to talk to them, did they taze him. It leaves me wondering if whether the use of tasers should be restricted with the rash of taser happy officer (especially here in Utah) that seem to be showing up in the media. Just a thought.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for officer safety, but sometime instances like this cannot be justified, not unlike the UHP instance that I posted recently that showed a UHP officer that tazed a young father in front of his wife when the man was trying to explain to the officer his point of view. Why was that officer so unwilling to "just have a conversation"? Instead that moron when for his taser, further escalating the situation he already made bad with his snide and condescending demeanor toward a citizen he works for. Some of these idiots need to be held accountable. Are they all idiots, hell no! I know a few great cops. I just think those that aren't so great, should not be them.
-D-
Don't get me wrong. I am all for officer safety, but sometime instances like this cannot be justified, not unlike the UHP instance that I posted recently that showed a UHP officer that tazed a young father in front of his wife when the man was trying to explain to the officer his point of view. Why was that officer so unwilling to "just have a conversation"? Instead that moron when for his taser, further escalating the situation he already made bad with his snide and condescending demeanor toward a citizen he works for. Some of these idiots need to be held accountable. Are they all idiots, hell no! I know a few great cops. I just think those that aren't so great, should not be them.
-D-
I do not see anything wrong with what the police did. They asked the individual to move from behind the vehicle (where they could see his hands) and he tried to go inside the house. At that time it becomes an
Yes, but the two officers could've used soft hands to hard hands. What would they have done prior to tasers???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
You don't immediately use a taser. You use it if they resist. They should've used hands on first. He was drunk a they were two. This tool is being abused. I think this video suggests it was the case here too. That's my opinion.
-D-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
You don't immediately use a taser. You use it if they resist. They should've used hands on first. He was drunk a they were two. This tool is being abused. I think this video suggests it was the case here too. That's my opinion.
-D-
http://www.policetest.info/FORCE_CONTINUUM_POLICE_USE_OF_FORCE.htm
Tasers are equivelant to an asp or pepper spray. You don't immediately start hitting a guy with a baton or asp, if they refuse verbal commands. Many of these officers are poorly trained. As I said, they need to retrained and some of them need to be fired or even jailed for their excessive use of force.
-D-
Tasers are equivelant to an asp or pepper spray. You don't immediately start hitting a guy with a baton or asp, if they refuse verbal commands. Many of these officers are poorly trained. As I said, they need to retrained and some of them need to be fired or even jailed for their excessive use of force.
-D-
What they would have done before there were taser
Wrong, they do not escalate from verbal to impact weapons. That's not correct.
-D-
-D-
someone is under the mistaken assumption that you have a right to remain silent. There is no right in the constitution or curent law in any state. You are required to give your name when asked by a police officer.
You have a "right" not to say anything that may incriminate you. yet even then it is questionable. your right to not answer certain questions only extends to the ability to keep the answers from being used against you.
im sure thats clear. I'm all for use ot the taser by the way, and no i dont carry one now. I carry a 9mm all the time and prefer the effects of that as opposed to the taser.
this is the mr. the misses packs a 38..
You have a "right" not to say anything that may incriminate you. yet even then it is questionable. your right to not answer certain questions only extends to the ability to keep the answers from being used against you.
im sure thats clear. I'm all for use ot the taser by the way, and no i dont carry one now. I carry a 9mm all the time and prefer the effects of that as opposed to the taser.
this is the mr. the misses packs a 38..
It's called brotherhood and it doesn't make it right. It also depends on your locale. If the officer was in a more liberal state where police are not allowed to terrorize the citizenry, these officers would be working unarmed at the mall, at the very least. Explaining how they get away with it, doesn't justify it.
SIMPLEPLEASURES,
I think the taser is great too. That is, when it's used properly and when it's called for. Not just because the officer has a chip on his shoulder that stemmed from his early life's failures and decided to be a cop to take it out on other people. Some of these idiots decide to use it, before they ever get out of the car.
No one will ever convince me that a taser is necessary when someone disobeys verbal commands. It's the officer's responsibility to mantain control They should've never let him walk away. Again, this just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree. It's ridiculous to believe all cops are justified all the time. They're human too and not above the law. They too, should be held accountable.
-D-
SIMPLEPLEASURES,
I think the taser is great too. That is, when it's used properly and when it's called for. Not just because the officer has a chip on his shoulder that stemmed from his early life's failures and decided to be a cop to take it out on other people. Some of these idiots decide to use it, before they ever get out of the car.
No one will ever convince me that a taser is necessary when someone disobeys verbal commands. It's the officer's responsibility to mantain control They should've never let him walk away. Again, this just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree. It's ridiculous to believe all cops are justified all the time. They're human too and not above the law. They too, should be held accountable.
-D-
no mater what walk of life there are people doing a job that they should not be doing.there are laws that require you to obey any lawful order issued by a law enforcment officer once he has been identified as an officer. what i don't know is what are the rules of engagement for law enforcement. but i do know the tasr was made available as a non-letal tool for the police to protect civilians from deadly force and to protect law enforcement from having to endanger themselves by using physical force. like i said i don't know enough about the whole action to really make a decision
These officers were within the law. They did nothing wrong. It is in the best interest of a civilian to listen to the officer. It is better to do what he says then get a bullet in the rear.
As for instances where a person has been killed accidentally as stated before by another member. I go back to stating, It all depends on the perception of the police officer. If the police officer believes he/she is under threat
As for instances where a person has been killed accidentally as stated before by another member. I go back to stating, It all depends on the perception of the police officer. If the police officer believes he/she is under threat
The law states and the department states that he has to use force reasonable to execute arrest or maintain control. If this situation were to come before me as a jury in a civil trial, I would find in favor of the victim (citizen).
The officer does not just have to say that he felt threatened. Any other evidence that shows he had other alternatives can weigh against him. The officer's word isn't the only factor. Again this officer didn't follow standard departmental procedure. You said it yourself, this officer had no reason to fear for his life. An officer is not suppose to jump from verbal to impact weapons without a reasonable need to do so. It doesn matter what we as the public think, because it is often juries that decide and not the officer's word.
If you have brotherhoods that protect eachother, even in the matter of police brutality, what does that tell you about the system. It needs to change. It needs to be regulated by an unbiased independant entity. We need to police the police.
-D-
The officer does not just have to say that he felt threatened. Any other evidence that shows he had other alternatives can weigh against him. The officer's word isn't the only factor. Again this officer didn't follow standard departmental procedure. You said it yourself, this officer had no reason to fear for his life. An officer is not suppose to jump from verbal to impact weapons without a reasonable need to do so. It doesn matter what we as the public think, because it is often juries that decide and not the officer's word.
If you have brotherhoods that protect eachother, even in the matter of police brutality, what does that tell you about the system. It needs to change. It needs to be regulated by an unbiased independant entity. We need to police the police.
-D-
You are correct, in this case the officer did not feel as if his life was threatened. That is why he used a taser (Non-deadly force).
You are looking after the fact, what I was stating, is that the officer only has to feel threatened to use deadly force (At that moment). For example
You are looking after the fact, what I was stating, is that the officer only has to feel threatened to use deadly force (At that moment). For example
Oh totally. I am the son of a Police Officer. Having learned the use of force continuum myself as a Armed Nuclear Security Officer at a Nuclear Plant, where I had the arrest powers of a deputy sheriff and the power to exercise deadly force, beyond that of a police officer. By that, I mean that I could interpose myself between an intruder and sensitive areas (ie. Radiation Control Area) of the plant and use deadly force to protect it. Where as a police officer is not permitted to do so.
I went through 10 weeks of SWAT style training, where we were taught the state's use of force continuum, because we carried AR15's slung and 9mm (pieces of shit) on our side. It stated that you do not escalate the use of force beyond what is necessary to effect arrest or maintain control. In my judgment, this officer had obvious alternative. Again, you <u>do not</u> jump from verbal commands to hard impact weapons without legitimate provocation.
The taser in this situation was not necessary. Yes, you are correct in that because of current loose legislation and improper training <u>some</u> of these idiots, like the officers in the last two videos, are getting away with exessive use of force and brutality. Just because the law isn't up to speed with the technology, doesn't mean that these officers are right. I don't think they deserve to ride our streets.
Again, I enjoy reading your replies and respect your opinion. Please know that while I don't totally agree with you, I see your points. :-)
-D-
I went through 10 weeks of SWAT style training, where we were taught the state's use of force continuum, because we carried AR15's slung and 9mm (pieces of shit) on our side. It stated that you do not escalate the use of force beyond what is necessary to effect arrest or maintain control. In my judgment, this officer had obvious alternative. Again, you <u>do not</u> jump from verbal commands to hard impact weapons without legitimate provocation.
The taser in this situation was not necessary. Yes, you are correct in that because of current loose legislation and improper training <u>some</u> of these idiots, like the officers in the last two videos, are getting away with exessive use of force and brutality. Just because the law isn't up to speed with the technology, doesn't mean that these officers are right. I don't think they deserve to ride our streets.
Again, I enjoy reading your replies and respect your opinion. Please know that while I don't totally agree with you, I see your points. :-)
-D-
I would like to know why the cops were there in the first place.....if it was a report of domestic violence, man with a gun etc etc etc....then light him up like a christmas tree if you ask me.
If he was drunk on his own property, they have no right to even be there. So you have to look at the complete picture, which you never get from 3 minute video clips.
Cops are people too, humans make human errors. Everybody wants to jump all over cops when stuff likes this happens. To me, it is like arm chair quarterbacking, unless you have worked in law enforcment (sorry not talking military here cause that is a different animal all together) you have no fucking clue and your opinion is nothing more than supposition and conjecture.
I could give a fuck less if some drunk fucker rides the lighting for walking away from the cops if the context was right, I was way more offended (but not really
)by the cops tasing of andrew meyer, he was outnumber 5 to 1 and was not hostile just uncooperative, just vocal.
Politicians take our civil liberties every day to eggregious lengths, I guess since nobody make a video of it we just go on about our merry little clueless lives.
Corporations sell our health and safety down the river minute by minute to make a buck...again no video so who cares, right?
If he was drunk on his own property, they have no right to even be there. So you have to look at the complete picture, which you never get from 3 minute video clips.
Cops are people too, humans make human errors. Everybody wants to jump all over cops when stuff likes this happens. To me, it is like arm chair quarterbacking, unless you have worked in law enforcment (sorry not talking military here cause that is a different animal all together) you have no fucking clue and your opinion is nothing more than supposition and conjecture.
I could give a fuck less if some drunk fucker rides the lighting for walking away from the cops if the context was right, I was way more offended (but not really
)by the cops tasing of andrew meyer, he was outnumber 5 to 1 and was not hostile just uncooperative, just vocal.Politicians take our civil liberties every day to eggregious lengths, I guess since nobody make a video of it we just go on about our merry little clueless lives.
Corporations sell our health and safety down the river minute by minute to make a buck...again no video so who cares, right?
LOL, Rob already knows I use HTML. Perhaps you can report youself for attacking me without provocation? Think about that you big baby. Did him tattle on me. Why don't you just refrain from getting personal with me and I'll do the same. Try not acting like a 45 year old petulant child.
-D-
-D-
why do people here think this is all about arguing.....
we all have different points of view. this is called " discussions"
once again it needs to be said so often, if you dont like it....move on to the next forum
now my thoughts are DONT TAZE ME BRO....
we all have different points of view. this is called " discussions"
once again it needs to be said so often, if you dont like it....move on to the next forum
now my thoughts are DONT TAZE ME BRO....
JETFIRE,
If you read, Alton the taterhead attacked me personally out of the blue. This was retalliation for my spanking him like a child verbally the other day, after he insulted my wife and TRIXIE911 among others. He's just being a troll.
-D-
If you read, Alton the taterhead attacked me personally out of the blue. This was retalliation for my spanking him like a child verbally the other day, after he insulted my wife and TRIXIE911 among others. He's just being a troll.
-D-
to kristylynn what the fuck is the difference in tr looking for a good debate and you looking for an excuse to put more pictures on here.now while kristy is not bad looking i've seen enough.and it seems like you are always against whatever is said on the forums.everyone has an opinion if you do not like it don't read it.
have a good day................peace,love,and happiness to all
have a good day................peace,love,and happiness to all
Ok, come on, it is just a nice little conversation. That
Thanks Highway. You and I have had our differences too, but you are man enough to leave it here. I appreciate you words man. You have honor. Thanks.
Sincerely,
-D-
Sincerely,
-D-
Alton,
The thread in the group is gone. Drop it now. Just heed my warning. It is I Don (Mr. Tequila Rose) that posts in the forum. If you have an issue with me. Let's have it out in the group. Just leave my wife out of your remarks and I will kindly do the same. Deal? I'll be the first to say. I apologize to you and your wife. I sincerely apologize Kristy and Alton. Now let's put this shit behind us and move on, shall we?
-D-
The thread in the group is gone. Drop it now. Just heed my warning. It is I Don (Mr. Tequila Rose) that posts in the forum. If you have an issue with me. Let's have it out in the group. Just leave my wife out of your remarks and I will kindly do the same. Deal? I'll be the first to say. I apologize to you and your wife. I sincerely apologize Kristy and Alton. Now let's put this shit behind us and move on, shall we?
-D-
Anyone (Alton) know the first thing about the English language? Just curious. Isn't there an Elma Woodheads speed readin course? You should take it. Oh yeah, and hooked on phonics would be helpful too..
Pert near sounded condescending fer a minute..
Mr. UtHot
Pert near sounded condescending fer a minute..
Mr. UtHot
AGREED
ALTON
ALTON
WILDNCRAZY2SUM,
We'll pick this up later. It was very nice corresponding with you. Thanks for the good debate. Gotta run, gonna hang with two kick ass people.
-D-
P.S. More later...
We'll pick this up later. It was very nice corresponding with you. Thanks for the good debate. Gotta run, gonna hang with two kick ass people.
-D-
P.S. More later...
I apologize
Alton
Alton
Accepted. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Don
Sincerely,
Don
and Thank you
also
a & k
also
a & k
LOL!
-D-
-D-
TR...
AHA!!! Got ya...Mostly I agree with you...But this time, I can't....
The man was told MORE than once to stop, he did not...He was tased because the officer needed to maintain control, as you said is his job. The man was drunk, more than likely making an ass of himself, the officer was trying to maintain peace, the drunk refused to listen, thusly he was tased.
I have been tased, it is NOT fun, BUT I have also been shot, ALSO not fun...I would MUCH rather be tased than shot...
When someone is drunk, they cannot think clearly. He was obviously drunk OR mentally incapacitated in another way.
In Florida (that did not happen here, I can see the mountains, we have none) on your license and ID (for those who do not have a license) it says you must turn it over to a law enforcement officer upon demand. Now, looking at the video, the officer was there for a reason. It seems to me, the set up was that there was either drug dealing or a domestic thing going on, at 9 am, no one should be drunk, so logic dictates one or the other. We do not know why he was there, what type of neighborhood it was, or anything.
The video AT BEST shows an officer who had to deal with a drunken asshole. That is all.
Once while in Washington, DC, I was in line to get the tour of the White House. A drunk man came to the gate, without waiting in line, forced his way into the gate, past the uniformed police, stating, "I was in school with Bill (Clinton was President at the time), I wanna have a fucking drink with him again!" Well...He had 4 9MM on him, 2 people with the assault rifles in the bag (yeah...no one knows what's in the bag), and who knows how many snipers on his ass. He, smartly, stopped and left. He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, but had he pushed, he would have been dead. Would that be wrong?
AHA!!! Got ya...Mostly I agree with you...But this time, I can't....
The man was told MORE than once to stop, he did not...He was tased because the officer needed to maintain control, as you said is his job. The man was drunk, more than likely making an ass of himself, the officer was trying to maintain peace, the drunk refused to listen, thusly he was tased.
I have been tased, it is NOT fun, BUT I have also been shot, ALSO not fun...I would MUCH rather be tased than shot...
When someone is drunk, they cannot think clearly. He was obviously drunk OR mentally incapacitated in another way.
In Florida (that did not happen here, I can see the mountains, we have none) on your license and ID (for those who do not have a license) it says you must turn it over to a law enforcement officer upon demand. Now, looking at the video, the officer was there for a reason. It seems to me, the set up was that there was either drug dealing or a domestic thing going on, at 9 am, no one should be drunk, so logic dictates one or the other. We do not know why he was there, what type of neighborhood it was, or anything.
The video AT BEST shows an officer who had to deal with a drunken asshole. That is all.
Once while in Washington, DC, I was in line to get the tour of the White House. A drunk man came to the gate, without waiting in line, forced his way into the gate, past the uniformed police, stating, "I was in school with Bill (Clinton was President at the time), I wanna have a fucking drink with him again!" Well...He had 4 9MM on him, 2 people with the assault rifles in the bag (yeah...no one knows what's in the bag), and who knows how many snipers on his ass. He, smartly, stopped and left. He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, but had he pushed, he would have been dead. Would that be wrong?
Hey Jstjim I live in Florida and I must have a defective license as mine does not say i must hand it over.I do not believe any where in the U.S.A. does a person have to even carry an ID. All you have to do is identify yourself.
I agree that the video was vague.There was no sound at first so who knows what was being said.I did not see any laws being broke,assuming he was at his own house and feel the taser was unwarranted.there should have been some hands on first.Hell had the cops just left everything would have been fine,with the available info.
And as far as answering questions you do not have to.It is called the bill of rights.you do not have to submit to a search of any kind.And once you ask for a lawyer all conversation is suppose to cease
I agree that the video was vague.There was no sound at first so who knows what was being said.I did not see any laws being broke,assuming he was at his own house and feel the taser was unwarranted.there should have been some hands on first.Hell had the cops just left everything would have been fine,with the available info.
And as far as answering questions you do not have to.It is called the bill of rights.you do not have to submit to a search of any kind.And once you ask for a lawyer all conversation is suppose to cease
<div style="padding: 4px; background-color:#000000"><p style="color:#ffffff; padding: 4px;">Jim,
You don't answer verbal non-compliance with impact weapons on an unarmed subject/suspect. I didn't hear anyone yell "weapon". There was no arrest made. I will agree that while someone is being detained for an interview, the police may restrain you and use <u>necessary</u> force to make you that way. However, upon questioning the subject, if the subject does not comply, you arrest them and haul their ass in, after reading them their miranda rights. Then you <u>do</u> have the right to remain silent. You do not have to do shit, but sit in jail and wait to see the judge.
Here is a great article regarding the UHP incident:
<font color="#999999">
<b>More on the Utah Taser incident</b>
by: J.D. Tuccille
Most reaction to the tasering of Jared Massey by Utah Highway Patrol Officer John Gardner has been, quite rightly, supportive of Massey. Not just in the United States, but around the world, sensible people realize that Gardner was out of control, and that the officer responded with force to a situation that should have been engaged by conversation, or (if the officer has extremely poor control of his temper) by his leaving the speeding ticket with Massey and just driving away. It's worth pointing out that, only now, with the video of the incident available on the Internet, is UHP taking Massey's complaint seriously and scrambling to investigate the incident.
But a strident minority of voices defend Gardner and insist that Massey had an obligation to tug his forelock and obey every order issued by Gardner, and that his failure to do so justified Gardner's use of force in the incident.
This is ridiculous. At no time did Massey become aggressive toward Gardner. At no time did Massey pose a danger to police or the public. Massey did nothing more threatening than question the grounds for issuing a speeding ticket. Gardner may not like being questioned, but his pride simply doesn't enter into it. If he didn't want to continue discussing the matter with Massey, Gardner could have simply left the already-issued ticket with the driver -- signed or not -- and driven off.
There's no obligation on the part of any person to refrain from questioning police officers about their actions.
Let's remember the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel when he established the modern policing profession. Principle seven states:
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Remember that: police are only members of the public working full time to keep the peace. None of us -- with or without a badge -- have a right to assault people, even lawbreakers, simply because they vex us with questions or treat us without the respect we believe is our due. That's right, Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern police departments, never intended for police to have special rights to use force in circumstances where it would be inappropriate for the average person to throw a punch or draw a weapon.
If nobody has the right to use force against a man who does nothing more than ask questions and decline to sign a ticket, that raises some interesting thoughts about the Massey incident. Most importantly, it means that Mrs. Massey would have been completely within her rights to respond to Gardner's assault on her husband with whatever force was necessary to disarm or disable the officer and rescue Jared Massey. Under the circumstances, with her husband lying bleeding and stunned by the side of a highway because of the actions of an armed and aggressive man, the pregnant woman might well have been fully within her rights to draw a gun and shoot Officer Gardner.
It's fortunate that didn't happen. A living and intact John Gardner may yet have time to atone for his error and become fit company for the decent members of the human race. More important though, in a world that has become accustomed to treating police officers as a specially entitled aristocracy, the Masseys would have had a difficult time explaining their act of self-defense to a legal system that protects its own. Defensive force would have been justified, but it would have landed the Masseys in a world of hurt.
So it's good to know that Jared Massey has the opportunity to bypass official channels and take his case to the public. Embarrassed and under siege, UHP and Officer Gardner now have to explain a violent assault on a peaceful man. </font>
source: http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2007/11/more-on-utah-taser-incident.html
-D-</div>
You don't answer verbal non-compliance with impact weapons on an unarmed subject/suspect. I didn't hear anyone yell "weapon". There was no arrest made. I will agree that while someone is being detained for an interview, the police may restrain you and use <u>necessary</u> force to make you that way. However, upon questioning the subject, if the subject does not comply, you arrest them and haul their ass in, after reading them their miranda rights. Then you <u>do</u> have the right to remain silent. You do not have to do shit, but sit in jail and wait to see the judge.
Here is a great article regarding the UHP incident:
<font color="#999999">
<b>More on the Utah Taser incident</b>
by: J.D. Tuccille
Most reaction to the tasering of Jared Massey by Utah Highway Patrol Officer John Gardner has been, quite rightly, supportive of Massey. Not just in the United States, but around the world, sensible people realize that Gardner was out of control, and that the officer responded with force to a situation that should have been engaged by conversation, or (if the officer has extremely poor control of his temper) by his leaving the speeding ticket with Massey and just driving away. It's worth pointing out that, only now, with the video of the incident available on the Internet, is UHP taking Massey's complaint seriously and scrambling to investigate the incident.
But a strident minority of voices defend Gardner and insist that Massey had an obligation to tug his forelock and obey every order issued by Gardner, and that his failure to do so justified Gardner's use of force in the incident.
This is ridiculous. At no time did Massey become aggressive toward Gardner. At no time did Massey pose a danger to police or the public. Massey did nothing more threatening than question the grounds for issuing a speeding ticket. Gardner may not like being questioned, but his pride simply doesn't enter into it. If he didn't want to continue discussing the matter with Massey, Gardner could have simply left the already-issued ticket with the driver -- signed or not -- and driven off.
There's no obligation on the part of any person to refrain from questioning police officers about their actions.
Let's remember the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel when he established the modern policing profession. Principle seven states:
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Remember that: police are only members of the public working full time to keep the peace. None of us -- with or without a badge -- have a right to assault people, even lawbreakers, simply because they vex us with questions or treat us without the respect we believe is our due. That's right, Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern police departments, never intended for police to have special rights to use force in circumstances where it would be inappropriate for the average person to throw a punch or draw a weapon.
If nobody has the right to use force against a man who does nothing more than ask questions and decline to sign a ticket, that raises some interesting thoughts about the Massey incident. Most importantly, it means that Mrs. Massey would have been completely within her rights to respond to Gardner's assault on her husband with whatever force was necessary to disarm or disable the officer and rescue Jared Massey. Under the circumstances, with her husband lying bleeding and stunned by the side of a highway because of the actions of an armed and aggressive man, the pregnant woman might well have been fully within her rights to draw a gun and shoot Officer Gardner.
It's fortunate that didn't happen. A living and intact John Gardner may yet have time to atone for his error and become fit company for the decent members of the human race. More important though, in a world that has become accustomed to treating police officers as a specially entitled aristocracy, the Masseys would have had a difficult time explaining their act of self-defense to a legal system that protects its own. Defensive force would have been justified, but it would have landed the Masseys in a world of hurt.
So it's good to know that Jared Massey has the opportunity to bypass official channels and take his case to the public. Embarrassed and under siege, UHP and Officer Gardner now have to explain a violent assault on a peaceful man. </font>
source: http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2007/11/more-on-utah-taser-incident.html
-D-</div>
WOW...You're right, they took it off of the license...I saw it on the old ones...
TR..OK...Touche! The video did NOT have the article attached to it, no sound, you do not know what was being said...ETC....
Now...with the article, an educated opinion can be formulated...BUT only partly, due to the fact that the UHP and the officer are NOT in the article...But IF the article is correct, it IS a bit excessive...
TR..OK...Touche! The video did NOT have the article attached to it, no sound, you do not know what was being said...ETC....
Now...with the article, an educated opinion can be formulated...BUT only partly, due to the fact that the UHP and the officer are NOT in the article...But IF the article is correct, it IS a bit excessive...
I think what your looking for is a little taze yourself. "Not tease" and i have just the thing. It doesnt put out the respected 50,000 volts for 5 seconds but it does carry a punch, its called a tens unit and it kicks quite a wallop. Years ago when i was walki g a beat as a Houston Cop i was injured and now have the little darling when pain get annoying.
Well the misses and I one day thought what the hell, (Sorry dont mean to offend with the language, this is Utah) lets put one lead on her lips and the other on my shaft, now that was an electrifying sexual experience.
I feel so much better, my theripist has said I have some deep routed issues. I think that may have been it.
Well the misses and I one day thought what the hell, (Sorry dont mean to offend with the language, this is Utah) lets put one lead on her lips and the other on my shaft, now that was an electrifying sexual experience.
I feel so much better, my theripist has said I have some deep routed issues. I think that may have been it.