We’ve covered abuse committed by police and private law enforcement before, but today we have a story that is really going to shock you. A man in Utah has not only been tased for speeding, and then requesting to know what the cop was pulling him over for (with almost no warning before the taseing), but to top it all off, the Cop refused to read him his rights.
The victim of police brutality was a motorist named Jared Massey. Mr. Massey was pulled over on a Utah highway for allegedly speeding. When Mr. Massey asked the officer why he was being pulled over, and then to help him understand why he was accused of speeding before he signed the ticket, the officer ordered him to exit the vehicle. Mr. Massey was then asked to turn around and put his hands behind his back. Mr. Massey began walking back towards the car, obviously confused as to why he was being ordered to put his hands behind his back, and less than 10 seconds later was tased. While Mr. Massey was definitely acting a bit like an ass, I think we can all agree the cop was abusing his power. The Mr. Massey was neither violent, nor belligerent, so why did the cop feel so threatened that he had to tase this guy? Furthermore, why did the cop repeatedly refuse to:
- Read the Mr. Massey his rights.
- Tell the Mr. Massey the crime he was accused of, when it was requested.
Both of these are rights guaranteed to all American citizens. What is perhaps most alarming, however, is that despite the fact that the police officer accused of abuse is currently under an investigation by internal affairs, he is still on duty.
The first responsibility of a police officer is the safety of the community, including those individuals he suspects of a crime. Taseing an unarmed man who is accused of speeding is a breach of the social contract between police and the citizens they are supposed to protect. Police should use tasers as a weapon of last resort, not as a tool of personal convenience.
What can we do to prevent things like this in the future? Discuss.
Update: Mr. Massey discusses the incident, and his decision to post the video online.
-Angry Midwesterner
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
November 28, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Don’t tase me, bro! Again, I think we really need to wait until the inquest to make up our minds about what exactly happened here.
One thing that makes a lot of sense is to have secured cameras in cop cars. This is good for both sides in a dispute since all too often it comes down to “he said, she said” type things. There are a bunch of ways that this could go wrong, e.g., car pointed in the wrong direction, an arrest on foot, etc., but it just adds a layer of relatively difficult to game accountability.
November 28, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Of course, the video IS from a cop camera. Note to self: Should watch before commenting…
November 28, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Oh darn did we have to have the “Don’t taze me bro” joke in the first comment, couldn’t that have waited at least 3 or 4? :p
As for discussion, preventing this is easy:
#1) Do not mouth of to the officer (court not the roadside is the place to argue your case)
#2) Comply with directions given, “Sign here” means sign here or go to jail, “Hands behind your back” does not mean walk away.
#3) Of course the easiest is: don’t speed hehe.
November 28, 2007 at 7:36 pm
While your points are valid AFL, it doesn’t stop the fact that this was an abuse of power. I wouldn’t be batting an eyelash, but for the fact that:
A) The cop tased a man for no good reason (the subject was not being violent and a taser is a weapon).
B) The cop refused to read this man his rights.
November 28, 2007 at 7:39 pm
On this one I’m with the cop, though he’s probably screwed for the failure to read rights.
Stuff like this gets explained in court not on the side of the road, as the cop said.
June 18, 2009 at 11:19 pm
I think it funny that so many people think they have the traning that comes with being a police officer or an officer of the court. Why is it that people think you have to have you r rights read to you when you are being arrested. 2 thing must be in place in order for a person rights to be read to them. First they have to be in police custody. 2nd the officer is going to ask the person questions. Such as a interview or to find out further information about a particular case. This officer placed him under arrest for refusing to sign the citation and we he still refused and resisted law enforcement by starting to make his way away from the officer and back to the drivers door of the vehicle.
The officer did everything right and by the book. Good Job!
November 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm
MPA said: On this one I’m with the cop… Stuff like this gets explained in court not on the side of the road, as the cop said.
While I agree this dude was out of line, I can’t side with the cop on this because he used excessive force.
If the guy had moved to strike the officer, or in any way acted violent, then yes, by all means, tase him. But he didn’t, and the fact is that tasers aren’t tools, they’re less lethal weapons. Not non-lethal, less lethal. People still die from taseings, and being tased is not a small matter.
November 28, 2007 at 7:46 pm
AM I understand where you are coming from but remember several key points:
#1) He refused to sign the ticket promising to come to court etc. (this means that he is going to be arrested)
#2) He is told to put his hands behind his back and that he is under arrest. He replies with “are you crazy” and begins to walk away (you do not have that right, even for false arrest, at this point he is resisting arrest and the officer may use force to subdue him. It does NOT require that he be violent, merely that he be non-compliant, which is clearly the case).
#3) Many jurisdictions allow the officer to use the tazer in lieu of physical force at their discretion. We do not know the rules for this highway man and my quick search for them did not show up. However it is highly probable that he is NOT required by law to use manual force, and MAY use the tazer instead.
While I have stated before that I generally disagree with the use of tazers etc unless necessary, I am not about to cry ‘abuse’ every time an officer uses one unless they are actually going beyond their mandate to use them. Which in this case they are apparently not. Had he used the tazer on the guy before the guy got out of the car or before he attempted to walk away, then he would have been in breach.
November 28, 2007 at 7:54 pm
AM on the issue of the rights, I can not say much. I am not an expert on such legal matters. I do not know precisely how long he has to read the man his rights.
It seems to me that the officer was fed up with the mans belligerent attitude. In the dynamics of power struggle it is highly evident that the man was trying to gain a modicum of control by ‘forcing’ the officer to do something. As such the officer (whose responsibility and training preach to maintain control of the suspect and situation AT ALL TIMES, refused.
So long as they read him his rights prior to whatever the time limit is, I am inclined to say fine. If not then absolutely the officer should be punished accordingly.
November 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm
It seems to me that the officer was fed up with the mans belligerent attitude.
Tough cookies. That doesn’t give him the right to respond with violence. His duty isn’t to keep himself from being fed up, but to maintain public safety. The man was not being a threat to public safety, and was obviously confused by the entire situation. Since there was no reasonable threat, the officer could have continued to talk, explain the situation, and why the man was being arrested.
In the dynamics of power struggle it is highly evident that the man was trying to gain a modicum of control by ‘forcing’ the officer to do something. As such the officer (whose responsibility and training preach to maintain control of the suspect and situation AT ALL TIMES), refused.
Great, but he doesn’t have to use violent and possibly lethal force to maintain control of a peaceful, non-violent individual.
November 28, 2007 at 8:20 pm
AM both quotes you are responding to stem from my comment solely on the issue of reading the man his rights.
However I would like to remark that I think this is an example of the disconnect and misconception that the average citizen has that creates these situations:
“Since there was no reasonable threat, the officer could have continued to talk, explain the situation, and why the man was being arrested.”
True, and thus most people assume that the officer MUST do this, but there is no such law. Hence if they simply resort to force against someone who is resisting arrest, even non-violently they are following procedure. In many cases this INCLUDES tazers. If you want to call tazers police brutality then the laws on rules of force would have to be changed first.
“Great, but he doesn’t have to use violent and possibly lethal force to maintain control of a peaceful, non-violent individual.”
Again the average citizen seems to misunderstand this concept. See actually, yes it DOES mean that he has to use force (which by its very nature is violent) to maintain control if the suspect fails to comply. They may try to use persuasion but if the suspect refuses a direct command the officer has NO CHOICE (as in following procedure) but to use force. If the public doesn’t like that, then change the laws, but stop accusing every officer who follows procedure of abuse. Abuse is a term for when they go outside their mandate, which is not the case here (with the possible exception of the Miranda rights issue).
November 28, 2007 at 9:15 pm
The Miranda decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police
November 28, 2007 at 9:22 pm
He wasn’t being questioned.
November 28, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Jamer, thank you very much, that is most useful information relating to the discussion, most appreciated.
November 29, 2007 at 5:02 am
your welcome, seems to me from the very beginning this guy wasn’t going to comply no matter what. You just don’t go around questioning the authority of police on the side of the road, thats why we have the court system.
November 29, 2007 at 8:54 am
A couple of things I found worth noting that haven’t been examined here yet. First, the summary at the end of the video appears that the cop has his story shift ever so slightly, a disturbing development albeit minor and one that could be easily sorted out in court. The cop says he warned the guy that he would taser him, and the video shows at no point where he was warned he would be tasered except for the cop holding the taser in an armed position. If it can happen on a incident like this where there was a clear resistance to arrest, it makes me wonder what would’ve happened when the line isn’t so clear with this cop.
Second, and something that relies on conjecture, the 40 MPH sign that the cop conveniently pulled in front of to let this guy pass him could have been the first on the road. Obviously, this is something we the viewer are not privileged to know unless we either drove on that stretch of highway at the same time of this incident. Since that was the primary source of the guy’s questioning, it is probably an issue worth examining if this goes to trial.
November 29, 2007 at 9:41 am
Just one quick point. TASER International has been sued 50 times for taser-related deaths. They have won every single lawsuit. Every single one.
This doesn’t change AM’s point that tasers, like every weapon are not “non-lethal” but “less-than-lethal.” They could, perhaps, kill.
However, it does point out that each time a court has examined whether a taser or something else caused the death of somebody, it was something else. In at least some cases, that “something else” was probably in part physical force.
Physically restraining a resisting adult human being is not easy to do without risking serious injury to both sides. If a cop has to choose what to use to subdue a suspect resisting arrest, the taser is probably a better choice than other physical action.
And note that the cop cannot allow the guy to get back to his car without risking either a high speed pursuit or the use of the one weapon which can threaten somebody inside the car: his firearm.
Of course, a clear statement that the suspect is under arrest should probably precede use of any physical force. But the officer did give him a direct order several times and might simply have been trying to avoid a formal arrest.
November 29, 2007 at 9:44 am
Also, two points in general:
1) If you watch carefully you see that the cop pulls to the side of the road in front of the 40 mph sign and is immediately passed by the vehicle. (Note that the cop never comes to a complete stop, he’s passed as he’s pulling to the side.)
2) Later, as the driver is arguing about having just passed the sign, the cop informs him that he passed another similar sign earlier.
Since the driver admits to going well above the speed limit just before the sign in the video, he’s just admitted to speeding in the middle of a 40 mph zone. In fact, he just sped past a cop directly in front of a speed sign.
These two points dropped my sympathy for the driver dramatically.
December 2, 2007 at 9:50 am
The officer’s instructions seemed very clear to me. If you don’t sign the ticket saying that you will attend court or pay the fine the only other alternative is to be placed under arrest. The driver by refusing said arrest me.
He then proceeded to resist arrest.
The officer knew that there was somebody else in the vehicle and that he was possibly out numbered. Bonnie and Clyde ring any bells here?
The taser was the best way of dealing with the offender while leaving the officer reasonably able to possibly deal with their “side-kick”
As for the use of the taser. The officer pointed it at him when instructing him to turn around. Now if I see a police officer point a taser at me after I’ve refused to comply with what was initially a reasonable request following an obvious offence, why would I resist his instructions in such a manner? All I can think is this guy was pushing it, looking to create an incident or prove to his partner that he had bigger balls than the officer. This officer had every right to protect himself using minimum force and that is exactly what he did.
As for the discrepancy in what the officer said later verses the footage it is tough to remember verbatim what is said in a stressful incident which is why the cameras are there. While there may not have been a verbal warning, pointing a taser at me would have been enough of a hint. After all if you don’t intend to use a weapon you should have one pointing at someone.
At this point also I would really like to state my opposition to using terms like fascist to describe this kind of police action. It demeans the real meaning of fascism rendering it useless. It’s the kind of thing ” Old Radical Jack” would say to the crossing guard who made him wait. It cheapens the term and makes the commentator look like a teenager who has been grounded.
December 2, 2007 at 10:56 am
At this point also I would really like to state my opposition to using terms like fascist to describe this kind of police action.
It isn’t used anywhere to describe this.
December 3, 2007 at 6:59 pm
one of the tags certainly identified it as fascism, or is it really fascism-y?
December 4, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Dave C wrote:
###one of the tags certainly identified it as fascism, or is it really fascism-y?###
AM has a very expansive notion of the term fascism, one that edges mighty close to Godwinization IMO, but he and I have to agree to disagree on that point.
###It demeans the real meaning of fascism rendering it useless. It’s the kind of thing ” Old Radical Jack” would say to the crossing guard who made him wait. It cheapens the term and makes the commentator look like a teenager who has been grounded.###
Indeed, sir.
December 4, 2007 at 7:34 pm
one of the tags certainly identified it as fascism, or is it really fascism-y?
It’s called looking for hits. I don’t think this was culture either, but some people might.