Sun 25 Nov 2007
That’s how UHP Officer John Gardner jokingly described his Tasering of Jared Massey to another police officer minutes after the incident on September 14th 2007. Officer Gardner let Jared pass him along a Vernal highway before immediately pulling him over and accusing him of speeding (how you manage to accurately gauge someone’s speed from behind you without a radar detector is just one of the questions I have…)
I’m getting ahead of myself. Have you seen the video? If not, scroll down and click to watch the dashboard cam video. Jared filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the video before posting it on YouTube. Nearly a million people have seen it, and about ten thousand have left comments on the posting. I’ve watched the video several times.
Obviously I recognize a police force is necessary to preserve order in a modern society. That said, I am incensed at this officer’s actions. In general, the problem with any police force is oversight (”who polices the police”) and I believe our police has devolved into a force highly peopled with egotistical God-complexed bullies coked to the gills with Cops episodes, ready to pull the trigger and beat down citizens whenever possible. Not all officers are like that, but my experience has shown to me that a growing percentage have this attitude.
Let’s talk Tasers. A Taser is weapon that shoots metal barbs into your skin before sending a stun-gun level of electricity though the attached wires. It collapses the targeted individual with blinding pain. Though it’s billed as “non-lethal” there have been at least three incidents in the national news in the last week alone where people have died from a police Tasering. In short, it’s not to be done lightly.
Let’s talk policy. The Utah Highway Patrol Taser Policy, that is, when it’s use is appropriate, is as follows:
- 1. When a person is a threat to himself, an officer or another person
- 2. In cases where the physical use of force would endanger the person or someone else
- 3. When other means of lesser or equal force by the officer have been ineffective and a threat still exists
Let’s also recap the situation: Jared is a physically un-intimidating individual who was pulled over for an alleged traffic violation. His record was checked by the officer and ostensibly came up clean. Understandably, Jared is not pleased with the officer’s conduct and doesn’t comply with the officer’s orders. The officer tells him to get out of the car, which Jared believes is to look at the speed limit sign. The officer immediately escalates the situation by un-holstering his Taser and yelling at Jared. Confused, Jared turns his back and begins to walk towards his car whereupon he is Tased. Disabled, Jared falls onto the highway into a lane of traffic. The Taser barbs are ripped out and Jared is cuffed, but lies in the road for a minute or two.
I have several problems with the conduct of Officer John Gardner, who I view as nothing more than a mentally impaired,trigger-happy tyrant. Specifically,
- 1. Officer Gardner needlessly escalated the situation and did nothing verbally explain his viewpoint to Jared.
- 2. Gardner expected Jared to obey all his instructions. Court cases have shown that you do not have to obey everything a police office tells you to do. Police do not have unlimited power to boss citizens around. A recent case of an officer arresting a reporter for not complying with his “lawful order” to get off a sidewalk highlights this. The reporter was vindicated when the court agreed that the officer had no power to order him around at will when no law was being broken. Said Gardner in the video, “You know what, you should have followed my instructions.” That is simply not true.
- 3. Not only was Tasering unwarranted and an excessive use of force (per the policy above), but it was done in such a manner that Jared fell into a lane of traffic, severely risking his life.
- 4. Did I mention that Jared was Tased over an argument concerning a TRAFFIC VIOLATION?!?
- 5. Jared was Tasered before being put under arrest. That’s outrageous and criminal. As well, Officer Gardner didn’t tell Jared what specifically what he had done wrong: The trooper did not state the offense he was citing, e.g. fifty miles per hour in a forty mph zone.( “You’re kinda going fast” doesn’t cut it.)
- 6. Fundamentally, I am irritated that the cop pulled Jared over from behind without using a radar detector. This highlights a pandemic problem with small-town cops. They ticket out-of-town travelers to bring money into their local coffers. As well, many Utah police offices have quotas (”recommended ticket issuances”) each officer is expected to fill. That is a misaligned incentive strategy which can only cause distrust and harm.
I am very annoyed. On Monday I am going to call the UHP office at (801) 965-4518 and the Governor’s office at (801) 538-1000 and yell at someone. Officers are supposed to be public servants. We pay them to protect the citizenry and to enforce the law. This officer did none of these. I am going to request that the officer be permanently released from duty and charged with assault and that all Tasers be removed from officers pending further review of the Taser policy.
What remains is the extremely sad truth is that were it not for the press caused by the video, I’m confident that the UHP would have done nothing in this case. Like the Mafia, or any other corrupt institution of power, the UHP protects its own.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Here’s how I saw the incident through the unedited video and media interviews:
1. Massey is driving behind Ofcr Gardner.
2. Gardner pulls to the side of the rode, blocking view of the 40 MPH sign.
3. Massey drives passed Gardner at what appears to be a reduced speed.
4. Gardner pulls Massey over without knowing how fast he was driving at the point he drove past the 40 MPH sign.
5. The two quibble.
6. Gardner tells Massey to get out of the vehicle to arrest him, though Massey believes it is to look at the sign.
7. Gardner immediately pulls out his taser the moment his hands are free, which Massey thinks is a gun (as did I when I first saw the video).
8. Massey’s mind is obviously reeling and makes the poor judgment of returning to his vehicle - the last place he felt safe in the situation.
9. Gardner loses patience and tasers Massey, against regulations.
10. Gardner lies to the fellow cop who comes by afterward, exaggerating the situation.
My guess is that Massey was paying attention to the officer’s vehicle when he pulls to the side of the road rather than a temporary traffic sign. I believe he truly did not see the sign. I also believe he wasn’t going 68 MPH when he passed the sign.
The fact that Gardner exaggerated (lied) shows that he didn’t feel comfortable in using the level of force he did.
Both guys were arrogant. Arrogance is not a crime. Tasering someone against regulations is.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Wow. Reprehensible. Serve and protect, serve and protect.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
(hick accent)
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!
November 27th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I sent this over to the ACLU… maybe they can help assist Massey’s situation.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
good strategy– we can let evil battle evil!
November 27th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
That poor passenger too. She probably thought her friend (?) had gotten shot/hurt/whatever and looked scared out of her mind.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The passenger was his 6-month pregnant wife. The reports stated that Massey’s head got injured when he hit the pavement.
Frankly Massey’s behavior wasn’t exemplary . But don’t get me wrong, the cop was completely unjustified (in my estimation) to behave the way he did. I’d push for firing him since we don’t need loose cannons like him (a) endangering citizens and (b) opening UHP for liability. Plus it would serve as a nice reminder to the other cops that the Taser isn’t a toy and should be treated with nearly as much caution as their primary weapon.
Three cheers for Freedom of Information Act and YouTube!
November 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Ahhh, oh no, William is here to shed some light on the mistakes made by the innocent.
Let’s take a look at the problem here. The focus is not on the police officer not explaining the ticket, nor is it on the individual for assuming that the cop wanted to see the sign. The individual was pointing at the 40mph sign when he got out of the vehicle, which means he knew the speed limit dropped. It seems the focus, right now, is on the police officer tasering this individual.
Do I believe the tasering was incorrect? Actually, I do not believe that at all. I am on the cops side when it comes to the taser. Don’t worry, I will explain myself.
The officer was not correct in not explaining the citation. He was incorrect in trying to arrest the individual, which means he was incorrect in ordering the invidivual out of the car. The individual assumed the cop wanted to be shown the speed limit sign, when the officer was planning on arresting him. Frankly did not listen to the officer when instructed to put his hands behind his head, and to add to it, he turned his back to the officer, with one hand in his pocket, and started to walk away. At that point, you can imagine the cop wondering a) what’s in this guys pocket, and b) what’s in his other hand that I can’t see. At that point, the individual (Frank) stopped and, if I can see this right, starts to turn back (not sure if he got much of a movement off) at which point the officer fires the taser.
The events leading up to the tasering, which seem to be ego based, were incorrect. Frank’s actions a few seconds prior to the tasering were bad on Frank, and the officers reaction of disabling Frank were correct. Sure, the officer could have said “Stop, take your hand out of your pocket and put both hands behind your head!” but how many times does he have to say that? He said it multiple times “Put your hands behind your head!” and Frank listened to none of it.
The officer seems incorrect in his actions with the citation, and incorrect in not reading Frank his rights and arresting him, but the protective action of the officer at the time of the tasering was not incorrect. This was a life event, and based on Franks actions of not listening or complying with the officer, his actions right before being tasered, and his continued actions and disobidience of the officer would have put me on edge, and probably caused me to taser him, too.
The officer was wrong in some aspects, but the tasering was justified. You can argue that the officers actions leading up to the tasering, and his actions afterwards put everything in the wrong. If we take that a step further, the officer not being born would have also meant this wouldn’t happen.
I know, an extreme, but we don’t go back and change the paste, we react to the present, which is exactly what the officer did.
Do I believe the officer should get away with his actions and letting his ego take charge? No, I do not. This officer was incorrect, as we all agree and can see, but the tasering itself in a reaction to Franks own actions, was correct in preserving the officers own wellbeing.
That’s it for me.
–Will
November 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Ryan, your #6 could be incorrect, some police vehicles have forward, reverse, and side radars that are active at all times.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312466,00.html
The Utah Highway Patrol has a nine-page policy on Taser use, including in instances where “a subject is threatening himself, an officer or another person with physical force, and when other means of controlling the subject are unreasonable or could cause injury to the officer, the subject or others,” Nigbur said.
Where was the “physical force” from the driver? or how was he being “unreasonable?” Cause injury to whom?
This article says it well about the police and their use of the taser: http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=379
“Instead of allowing officers to use Tasers on a “dangerous or violent subject” who “communicates” his or her resistance, opposition or attempt to flee, Anderson permitted officers to use the electric volts when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.”
“I don’t think it’s appropriate to use a Taser because somebody is verbally expressing their opposition,” Anderson said Tuesday. “That gives a lot of latitude. Somebody could be lipping off to a police officer and that might be construed as verbally opposing or resisting.”
My dad was a cop for 24 years. I know the types of individuals that these guys can come across. The fact is that this cop was not paying attention to what the driver was saying to him, and was not effective in communicating things. Whenever I have gotten a speeding ticket, the cop always says, “This is not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear in court.” This cop was an idiot. He did not make that clear.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
William,
I disagree with you that the officer was justified at the very moment of tazer’ing the motorist. Just because the motorist had his hand partially in his pocket does not justify being tazer’d. True, he could have had a weapon, but then again, perhaps not. You likely wouldn’t have justified the officer shooting the motorist with his firearm based on the supposition. Just because the tazer is a “non-lethal” weapon does not justify shoot first, ask questions later mentalities. We should also expect him to at least warn the motorist of the consequence of non compliance. Not a requirement but lack of communicating the consequences worsened the situation.
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the “reading your rights” item. The cop didn’t need to read him his rights. I think they only have to read your rights if they’re going to question you. If you like Wikipedia, read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights. And watch less CSI, eh?
It might actually be to your advantage to not have your rights read to you.
Frankly the motorist could have done some things different and kept this from escalating. Sure. But this is not some less than amicable disagreement between two parties. This is a disagreement between a private citizen and a representative of the state. The cop represents you and I and as such we have every reason to expect him to use that authority with care and not be some trigger happy loose cannon. There was no reason to arrest the motorist no matter how irritating he was. Just write “refused to sign” and continue on. Let the courts deal with it. He had all of the guys info. The cop’s failure to diffuse the situation and instead aggravate it by pulling the tazer and arresting the motorist was what led to this whole mess.
The way I see it, the cop decided to teach this guy a lesson and inconvenience him. I think the cop was irritated with the motorist’s argumentative, blow hard behavior and let his ego take over. He didn’t need to arrest the motorist, he certainly didn’t need to tazer him and he also (hopefully) doesn’t need to work for the UHP anymore.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Also about radar, I think you’re correct that there are front/back/side radar detectors. I could be wrong but as I understand it many radar guns used in traffic only work if the target’s motion is not perpendicular with the gun because of the pulse-Doppler effect. However I could be wrong and making this up
November 27th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Potentially relevant Tasering: UF Student Tasered at John Kerry Speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag
November 27th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
an admittedly liberal blogger (Digby) wrote this: “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.”
November 27th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
a trooper’s take on the incident: http://www.ryanbyrd.net/mirror.php
November 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
more Tasering blogs: http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2007/11/more-on-utah-taser-incident.html
“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. …”
November 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Sorry Byrd, there’s no way I’m going to a site with the domain name of “[deleted]”. Mind paraphrasing for us cowards?
November 27th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
The troopers take is awesome. Makes total sense.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
a most unfortunate part of it all: Cameron Roden, a spokesman for the Utah Highway Patrol, told ABC News. “But with it coming out on the Internet, we’re trying to move the investigation along.”
November 27th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
sorry Spig. i didn’t notice the URL…
here’s a copy:
http://www.ryanbyrd.net/mirror.php
November 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I just realized my Wikipedia link was malformed with the added period: Here it is and hopefully this one works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights
November 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Excellent article on the taser situation, like you stated there was a lot said of no compliance of the subject towards the police but never did the police officer answer a question of the subject. Good job with that observation of the radar, and I also noticed that when the police cruisier was pulling over he blocked the sign and the subject would not have been able to see it with subject vehicle, was this on purpose,in this cast there was no VISIBLE SIGN.Also the subject does a pretty good job of following orders he was directed to exit the vehicle and did so, the officer was allready waiting to use the taser at this point, the officer gave another directive, turn around which the subject did,I have written in 4 differeny forrums allready and the one thing that needs to addressed is education, how well does a highschool grad listen to people? is a high school grad intelligent enough to make a decision on death or not,My personal feeling on this is all police officers need to have college degrees , subjects to include criminal justice,psychology, behavioural management,and stress management.
Ryan: I myself will make these same phone calls,maybe we can do something about this, the stats are so high on utah being a leader in our country in death by police, this really needs to stop.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
[…] has emerged as a predicted perversion of justice, the UHP’s internal investigation of the Tasering of Utah motorist Jared Massey concluded that Officer John Gardner’s actions were “reasonable.” Said UHP […]