Salt Lake Tribune

Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Jon Gardner used his Taser to zap a motorist who became uncooperative during a traffic stop.
Many people who viewed the confrontation after it was posted on the Web site YouTube thought Gardner was out of line.
However, UHP officials on Friday announced Gardner’s actions were justified when he shocked Jared Massey twice during the Sept. 14 incident in Uintah County.
Gardner’s actions “were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances,” UHP Superintendent Lance Davenport said at a news conference held at UHP headquarters in Taylorsville.
Internal investigators are continuing to review the case.
Davenport acknowledged there was a “communication breakdown” between Gardner and Massey, and that Gardner had alternative options that he didn’t use to resolve the situation. Gardner zapped Massey after he refused to sign a ticket, put his hand in his pocket and walked away from the trooper. Massey filed a public-records request after the incident and received the dashboard video from Gardner’s patrol car, which he posted on YouTube. The clip has reportedly been viewed more than 1 million times.

A short time later, an unidentified officer strolls up on scene and Gardner tells him that Massey “took a ride with the Taser.”
“That comment was inappropriate,” Davenport said Friday.

No shit. So I guess in Utah, putting your hands in your pocket is considered a threatening move. We blogged this story earlier and the video is here.



  1. John S says:

    You know if the driver would not have been a asshole about the ticket and simply signed it and fought it in court. He could have drove off and enjoyed the rest of his day. But, his ego trip about being right and the officer being wrong ended up getting him zapped!
    With the drivers poor attitude and coming unglued about a traffic ticket!
    I can see why the officer would want to protect himself. Plus, the girlfriend or wife made things worse by getting out of the vehicle.
    This put the officer at a disadvantage.
    Were is this guys respect for the law? He showed no respect at all for the officers directions!

  2. J says:

    OK Bullshit!

    Putting your hands in your pocket to a police officer means “I have something in there that I am going to pull out and kill you with it” especially when walking away and concealing your front side. For all he knows the kid has a switchblade or a small gun he is going to pop out and try to use. The kid has already shown himself to be combative and unresponsive so why would it be a stretch for him to jump to the next level and try to over power the cop?

    If you want to reach in your pocket when a cop has you pulled over you are supposed to tell them that you are going to reach in your pocket and the reason you are going to reach in your pocket. This way they don’t get jumpy and end up shooting you.

    Do you have any idea the kind of crazy shit people try on cops? Even with their pregnant wife and children on scene? I saw a guy punch the shit out a cop with his 9 year old son standing right there. So any argument about there being a pregnant wife and kid there is void.

  3. Robert says:

    Is this any different than spanking? The cop “Spanked” the lad for “not following directions”. If this is allowed under law then spanking my children for similar behavior should be allowed. All parents should have tasers and use them when appropriate.

  4. GregA says:

    Wow… The people with strong daddy complexes here don’t get it. This cop is learning the difference between being right, and dead right. Sure this cop was totally justified to tase this guy. However from the volume of death threats that he has received and apparently continues to receive his career as a cop is over.

    And good riddance, this guy is the archetypal bad cop that gives all cops a bad name.

  5. Mr. Fusion says:

    #31, John S.,

    What you don’t understand is that it costs money to fight a ticket. Usually more that the ticket is worth. The cost of fighting a ticket is not recoverable. So, maybe you don’t mind shelling out a few hundred bucks to fight it, more if he uses a lawyer, but most

    The cop didn’t tell him what the ticket was for. When asked several times, the cop still refused to tell him how fast he had been going and didn’t write the speed on the ticket. Also, if you watch the beginning of the video, the cop’s car obscures the temporary 40 mph sign.

    He had not been placed under arrest. That means he is under no obligation to follow the cop’s “directions”.

    After he was told he was under arrest, the cop told him he was being arrested for not signing the ticket and not following his orders. Not signing the ticket is not an offense. Speeding may be, but not signing the ticket isn’t.

    Therefore the arrest was illegal as there was no crime the guy committed.

    He did not put his hands in his pockets. He hooked his thumbs in is all. His fingers were visible at all times. That belies your threatening gestures.

    ***

    As an aside, watching the video, most of the passing traffic appears to be going much faster than 40.

  6. Mister Mustard says:

    >>when the man pulls you over he owns you.

    Until he starts shooting you with 50,000 volts for no reason, and screaming like a meth-head at your pregnant wife and your baby, and is fucking stupid enough to do it on videotape.

    In the old days, The Man did own you. He could beat you, stomp you, shoot you, do whatever he wanted to do and say it was “self defense”. In the era of the car-cam, that’s not so easy to get away with, and you end up with mental defectives like this guy, who not only want to bully harmless civilians and thier Pleasant Valley Leave-It-To-Beaver families, but they’re moronic enough to save it for posterity on tape.

    Haw! Law enforcement darwinism.

  7. natefrog says:

    #35, Fusion;

    While I agree with your position that the cop was unjustified in his use of force, you are incorrect on a couple of other issues.

    You do not have to be under arrest to be required to follow a police officer’s (lawful) order. I know in Nebraska, and most (if not all) states, there are laws requiring compliance with lawful orders given by a peace officer. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to obey the cop directing traffic, for instance…

    Also, in most states, you are required by law to sign a ticket. In some states it is an admission of guilt, but in the majority it is a “promise” to appear in court. Without the signature, they are authorized to take you to jail and have you post bond as your promise to appear.

    However, being that in some jurisdictions, signing a ticket is an admission of guilt, the cop handled this situation poorly. The proper response would have been, “Sir, signing a ticket is merely a promise to appear in court and is not an admission of guilt. It is required by law, so I would advise you to sign it.”

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #37 nate,

    When I wrote that I thought about “directing traffic” and the such. I didn’t want to make the comment TOO long and was trying to stick to the relevancy. You are quite correct though.

    The cop told him he was under arrest for not signing the ticket and not following his directions.

    In this case, it can not be a crime to not sign something. That is what he was arrested for. As you point out, the signature is an acknowledgment to appear in court. That makes the signature the bond. The “crime” is the speeding. The cop did not arrest him for the speeding.

    The cop does not have the authority to just order a citizen around. Not following a cop’s “directions” is not a crime. If the cop were directing traffic and the motorist disobeyed, then yes, that would be Obstructing Police”. Because there was no authority of public interest, the cop’s directions were without proper authority and may be rightly refused. Of course, that is right up until the cop tells the motorist he is under arrest then he does have to comply.

    That makes the arrest illegal since there was no proper crime identified to the motorist. In order to effect an arrest, the cop needs probable cause. If the law does not exist that the motorist is being arrested for, it cannot be a proper arrest.

  9. Li says:

    The number of people willing to justify and unjustifiable force is stunning to me. Did you even watch the video, or did you not have time between marathon rounds of bootlicking?

  10. Li says:

    an unjustifiable use of force. . .that’ll teach me to post without proofing!

  11. Sean says:

    This really wasn’t the most unreasonable use of a taser that we’ve seen, however it should be made standard procedure for the officer to announce what’s about to happen. “you’re gonna get tased if you don’t put your hands on the car”.

  12. James Hill says:

    Way to make the simple complicated, guys. Good job.

    #9 – We both know that being “under arrest” is meaningless in this situation. An individual does not need to be placed in a certain state before action is taken against him.

    #5 – I agree: The issue is that the driver forced the issue, and displayed behavior that caused the office to act. To not point to the driver as being the tipping point of the confrontation is to deny reality.

    It could have been worse, and it wouldn’t have been the officer’s fault. Once again, the driver should consider himself lucky.

    However, there is a more important issue to discuss…

    You all missed the easy joke: Why did only one of his wives get out of the car? Where were the others?

  13. Mister Mustard says:

    >>To not point to the driver as being
    >>the tipping point of the confrontation
    >>is to deny reality.

    Jesus, Mr. Hill, how timid does a behavior have to be before you are willing to admit that it’s not “threatening”.

    The guy was walking back to his car, slowly, four fingers of each hand in clear view, wondering “what the fuck kind of drugs is this fruitcake on?”, when “Pakeww, Pakeww, argh, ya got me” the cop opens fire with 50,000 volts right in his unsuspecting back.

    And if it was the “tipping point”, that’s only because the lunatic cop had already verbally abused the guy, his pregnant wife, and scared the shit out of the baby to the extent where I guess the only thing left for him to do was to shoot the guy.

    Thugs like this should be drummed out of the police force and made to do some hard time (in General Population, perferably, not some TV-and-roast-beef protective custody cell).

    It would have been interesting if the guy died; I understand Utah allows the firing squad as a means of execution. That would be what went around coming around, eh?

  14. Terry says:

    Having been to traffic school a few years ago, I watched the video to see what went “wrong.” Jared Massey clearly attended a similar class sometime before, because he did everything correctly. He had the right to ask the officer to see the radar gun to confirm that he had been speeding. He never got the chance before he was assaulted. He had the right to walk back to the speed limit sign with the officer and measure the distance travelled. He never got the chance before he was assaulted. Once the officer said he was being arrested, he had the right to ask why he was being arrested and what law he had broken (refusing to sign a ticket is not against the law). Upon being arrested, the officer is REQUIRED to read him his Miranda rights. Massey even asks him to do this, but the officer refused and tasered him. The guy’s pregnant wife is screaming at the policeman, begging him to stop tasering her husband, but the cop threatens to arrest her as well.

    And then, of course, when the second officer arrives, Gardner claims Massey was uncooperative and had to be subdued, even though the video shows no such thing happened.

    This is the kind of bully who should never have been given a badge or a gun, the kind who should be put behind bars for a very long time. But as long as his department supports such actions in spite of video evidence of his crime, he will never have to answer for his actions.

    It’s really astounding that a regular citizen knows the law far better than a police officer who has sworn to uphold it.

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #44, Terry,

    You are correct except for the “Miranda Rights”. It is only required that you be told your right before being questioned. If the cop does not question you then he does not have to read you your rights. Again, you are quite correct and the cop must tell him why he is being arrested which didn’t happen.

  16. n monte says:

    The use of non-lethal weapons will be more prevelant in our society as police will find themelves confronted with criminals (not motor vehicle violators)that are taking desparate measures in desparate times.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4596 access attempts in the last 7 days.