The recent posting of a video on You Tube shows a man in Utah being pulled over for speeding. Before the SUV is pulled over the cop’s car has a video camera in it, and the video clearly shows a construction sign, and then a sign that reads “SPEED LIMIT 40”.
Traffic noise impedes us from hearing the conversation between the driver and the cop, but you can hear the cop asking twice for license and registration. The cop also states that there was a speed limit sign. You can’t hear the driver but clearly the drivers is questioning why he was pulled over. The cop asks the man to step out of the vehicle and the man complies. The cops asks the man to put his hands on the cop car and the man refuses. The cop pulls a taster out and the man begins to walk away, all the while the cop is ordering him to turn around. The cop tazers the man and the man falls to the ground screaming.
The man’s wife, who is pregnant, gets out of the SUV and begins to scream. The cop orders her back into the vehicle, and he tells the man to roll over on his stomach and put his hands behind his back. The scene is surreal. The tazered man tries to explain to the cop why he wasn’t complying, while the cop explains why he has arrested the man. The man on the ground seems to be calm while he’s talking to the cop, who has handcuffed him.
Now, without addressing motive, the cop then goes over to the SUV, opens the door, and begins to try to explain to the woman why the man has been arrested. The cop is borderline rude asking, “Oh, you’re crying now?” The woman is very upset, and her husband tries walks over to where the cops is, and the cop forces him back. The woman, who then gets out of the car, yells at the cop, who threatens to throw her in jail, too. The cop takes the man off camera at this point.
The man keeps asking the cop to read him his rights. The cop threatens to tazer the man again. The man keeps asking the cop to read him his rights, the cop doesn’t, and keeps telling the man he is under arrest. The man repeatedly asks the cop to tell him why he’s being arrested. The cop finally tells him it’s for speeding, then the man repeatedly asks “ How fast? How fast?”
Still off camera, and seven minutes into the incident, another voice is heard, and the cops says, “Oh, he took a ride on the tazer!” The other voice replies, “Painful isn’t it?” The cop then once again goes to the SUV and this time he tells the woman, “Okay, he’s going to jail.” The woman and the cop have the same argument over whether or not the man knew why he was being arrested, verses the cop saying that the man refused to follow his orders. At this point another cop is seen in the scene, but he is silent. The cop and the woman continue to argue, but things seem to be calming down a bit.
The woman is allowed to drive the SUV away, and the two cops stand there and talk about what happened. The cop in question’s description is accurate, if not a little embellished.
Now, to begin with, even when I had long hair, I never argued with cops. It’s a no win situation. I have no idea if a driver can legally refuse to sign a ticket. If a driver can refuse to sign a ticket then the cop ought not to have asked him to step out of the SUV. But once out of the SUV, the driver should have known better than to try to walk off from the cop. If the man has a legal right to not sign, and if the subsequent arrest was found unwarranted, no pun intended, then the man would have legal recourse. That said, the cop might have tried to find a way around using force in this situation. As a police officer, is he not trained to deal with people who are argumentative? The driver most certainly was not compliant, but at no time did the man appear to be a threat.
A note to both the cop, and the driver: You both ought to be ashamed of yourself as human beings. You both were party to an incident that scared the hell out of a pregnant woman. Neither one of you gave a moment’s though to the fact there was a third party there, and if you had, you could have found a way to settle the situation as civilized human beings, and quite honestly, as men.
This is a break down of civility on the part of both parties involved, in my opinion. For there to be a lawful society, there must be a compact between those who enforce the law and their fellow citizens. This is a classic example of both parties being wrong. The driver ought to be charged with resisting arrest and speeding. The officer ought to be charged with improper use of a tazer, but I don’t think they ought to fire him for that.
His conduct with the woman is, in my opinion, irresponsible and reprehensible, and more so his conflict with the driver, the officers manner with a visibly shaken pregnant woman ought to cost him his job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
Take Care,
Mike
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 167
The world has gone to heck in a handbasket.
I agree Donna, with this and much else you've said, but the cop went way out of his way for trouble when he opened the door of that SUV to talk to her the first time.
He was begging for trouble, and he's lucky he didn't get more.
He should have never approached the woman one on one with her husband here. The second time he talked to her he was much nice, and he had someone else there, and the husband was in the squad car.
The cop blew this one, pure and simple.
Not because of what he and the driver went through, but because of how he treated the woman during that first encounter.
Something to think about, also. How smart is it for a cop to open the door of a SUV when he's alone with a handcuffed man at his back?
That cop went hard against a lot of training, I suspect, and that is going to get him fired, and well it should.
Did the driver think the cop just invented the speed limit sign? What a moron! If he thought he was right he could have just signed the damn ticket, then gone back and looked.
A driver should know the speed limit anyway.
I think the police officer did a fine job considering he didn't know if this guy was walking back to his vehicle to retrieve a gun perhaps. You never know when you're laying your life on the line. One of the reasons there are cameras on police cars is because officers conduct a routine traffic stop and get killed.
Obey a police officer. It's that darn simple. They have a difficult job protecting the public and they don't need some jerks thinking they can do whatever they feel like. He already told the guy why he was being arrested, yet he kept asking why he was being arrested. What? Did he have a freaking hearing problem?
Also, take the ticket and argue it in court, not by the side of the road. The police officer told him to tell his case to the judge and that's exactly right. I always act super nice to traffic cops when pulled over. I automatically get out my driver's license and insurance card. And twice now I have only gotten warning tickets. And even if they give me a ticket, I tell them "thank you" with a smile and drive off. Because I apreciate police officers and what they do for the public.
As for the pregnant woman. I don't care if she was pregnant. Sorry if that offends some people. She needed to keep her butt in the truck and not add to the situation. There's nothing more annoying than a screaming, hysterical woman.
Granted. Certainly true.
One of the reasons there are cameras on police cars is because officers conduct a routine traffic stop and get killed.
100% Correct.
Then why in the name of reason would the cop go back to the SUV to confront the woman once she was back inside?
That's where he went over the line.
I got no problem with him stopping the driver, or ordering the woman back into the SUV.
But to go looking for trouble when back-up was on the way?
That's just plain stupid.
That's funny!
Do you remember a time when we didn't?
That guy could have just as easily been walking away to pull out a weapon or something.
I agree, but the cop, in that same line of thinking, should not have gone back to the SUV without backup.
But he did. So what does that say about his frame of mine as far as safety goes?
I thought they might have booted him off long ago.
First of all the cop did not have to read him his rights. You only have to read them their rights if you are going to question them about details of the crime.
As a far as refusing to sign a ticket that is just plain stupid. My husband always tells the drivers. This is his actual statement
"signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt but it is mearly a promise that you will pay the fine or appear in court. Please press firmily your making five copies"
My husband also said that yes you can be arrested if you fail to sign the ticket and at least in our state that is written on the ticket.
As far as why he went back to the woman. When the officer first came up the the car he was scanning the car for weapons, smelling the car etc. He at that point had determined what type of threat the woman was. The second time he returned to the car he had determined that she was not to much of a threat because of her condition and it was probably to inform her of what was going to happen to her husband. not to "look for trouble" That is what he would have done.
Just another note verbal and physical noncompliance are both authorized reasons for an officer to use a taser. This individual did both.
Now an opinion of my own. I don't care if that woman was pregnant or not. Her husband was the one who determined how the traffic stop would go by his actions. The officer should not have acted any different then he normally would towards her husband just because she was pregnant.
Then I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, and his chosen field of work, and your choice in being the spouse of a cop, too. I won't tell you I understand how you must feel, because quite frankly I can't. But I do respect your point of veiw more because of this.
First of all the cop did not have to read him his rights. You only have to read them their rights if you are going to question them about details of the crime.
I couldn't understand what all that was about to begin with.
As a far as refusing to sign a ticket that is just plain stupid.
The driver's entire point of view was stupid. He was not only argumenative, but he was wrong. Now, he has the right to be wrong, but it was the wrong place and time to start that argument.
My husband also said that yes you can be arrested if you fail to sign the ticket and at least in our state that is written on the ticket.
I wonder what states do not have that on the ticket? I wonder if Utah does?
The second time he returned to the car he had determined that she was not to much of a threat because of her condition and it was probably to inform her of what was going to happen to her husband. not to "look for trouble"
It was the wrong thing to do, simply put. Having her handcuffed husband behind him, the officer invited trouble. He invited the husband to react to him confronting his wife, he invited the wife to react to him having to deal with the husband.
Ask your husband where that woman's husband shoulsd have been, standing behind him, or tucked away in the squad car.
Ask him what would have been better, to go to that SUV alone with the husband there or with another officer with the husband secured.
To be a cop is to have to put yoursefl above reproach. In this, this cop failed. I agree he had to stop the driver from getting back into the SUV. I agree he had to keep the woman inside the SUV.
But he lost control of the situation when he could have very easily kept it.
That's my issue with his actions. This is the character flaw revealed in how he treated the woman.
The officer should not have acted any different then he normally would towards her husband just because she was pregnant.
Again, an officer has to be above reproach. You will see the word "pregnant" attached to this video as if it is the single defining condition of the stop. It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter, because it's all some people will see and hear.
Not to mention the fact that we have two men, one a cop and the other a alleged husband, who allowed this situation to get out of hand.
Her husband was the one who determined how the traffic stop would go by his actions
You know, that's real one word of truth here. That man could have just said, 'Screw it, I'll sign the damn ticket." and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
The driver of the SUV could have made the whole thing a one minute video.
But I bet you won't hear that said on CNN, or you tube, or anywhere else.
That, more than anything else, is why cops have got to be careful when they come into contact with morons.
Take Care,
Mike
"Ask your husband where that woman's husband shoulsd have been, standing behind him, or tucked away in the squad car.
Again this is his department and all departments are different. For officer safety he should be in the back of the squad car but you are not allowed to leave the suspect/prisoner in the car unattended.
"Ask him what would have been better, to go to that SUV alone with the husband there or with another officer with the husband secured"
Obviously with another officer but he also had no way of knowing when backup would arrive. In some cases like with my husbands department the back up does not arrive until the traffic stop is finished if it arrives at all.
My husband also mentoned he does not make it a habit to second guess an officers actions because you never know what could have happened and you never know how you would react in the same situation. Hindsight is of course 20/20. He will question the tone an officer speaks to another person though.
"That, more than anything else, is why cops have got to be careful when they come into contact with morons. "
LOL You have no idea how many there are out there. You would be amazed at some of the stories he has come home and told me.
"Ma'am, why do you want it back?" the cops asked. Now this is a man in uniform, wearing a badge, a gun, and he just got out of a car with blue lights.
"In case the cops want to see it." She said.
It got weird after that.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977125276
<*B> This causes text to be BOLD!</*B>
You can also use lower case b
change the b to an u and you'll get underlined.change the b to an i and you'll have italics.
But he did. So what does that say about his frame of mine as far as safety goes?
Unfortunately, cops have to do their jobs all the time without back up. There just isn't the funding necessary to protect the world from stupid people.
There's a Great Truth if I ever read one.
Chris YES he does NEED to be read his rights.
If there is just one that is too many.
Generalizations, however, are not what we're dealing with here. The question, I think, is this one: who was right, and who was wrong?
I think both.
That's inflammatory, Lori.
I would perfer that you use logic and reasoning here.
I've already pointed out I think the cop invovled made some very serious errors in judgement, and if can point out anything else either party did wrong I'd like to read it.
You think the driver did nothing wrong? It's a serious question.
tis to be hoped.
I would suggest if you dont want anyone to be able to comment on your articles except for the people that think and talk just the way you do....make them private.
As I have already pointed out, you and I seem to be in agreement that the cop did not use good juegment.
I merely asked you to state your case in a manner in which it deserved, did I not?
I've never deleted a comment. I might, if I think it merited such action, but I don't think you've said anything that more people were not already thinking.
Controlling? I requested you rephrase your thoughts, not rewire your brain.
Here, under ideal circumstances for discussion, with little provocation, already there has been a sense of polarization.
Paul's comment might be better recieved if he had pointed out that the cop in the video seemed to be on a mission to be obeyed rather then being concerned about protecting and serving.
Kathirine's commnet that the two civilians were stupid misses the point that the woman in question had done nothing at all wrong, and did, in point of fact, obey the officer's commands to get back into the SUV.
You ask me to define what I mean by logic and reason, and this is how I will define it for you; express yourself on either side of the argument, or both sides, neither side, a new side, or just an opinion, but do so in a manner that might lead to a resoultion as to what could be done, by anyone invovled, to prevent such an occurrance as we've seen on the video.
Again, the question I put to you is a serious one: Do you think the driver did nothing wrong?
Shame on them both.
I agree.
Chris YES he does NEED to be read his rights.
why?
They were both wrong.
The man should not have acted the way he did especially with his pregnant wife in the car.
The officer should not have reacted to this man the way he did.
We have rights in this country and one of them is to know if you are arrested you are not convicted of the crime on the spot. You are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers not a young state trooper with a big attitude.
Why would you assume this is why he was acting that way? Don't get me wrong, I think we can take that video, look at what happened, and very clearly there is a point in time, where the cop crosses a line.
As an officer of the law, if he is above anything at all, that is the sort of thing he ought to be truly above; crossing that line between doing his job, and letting the situation control him.
You are assuming he's being affected by the power of the situation, and quite frankly, I'm not sure you're wrong. But why do you think so?
That is the question, Lori.
of them is to know if you are arrested you are not convicted of the crime on the spot
Really?
All the times I've been arrested I've never heard that one before. Damn, I should go get my record cleared.
You are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers not a young state trooper with a big attitude.
They never read me that one either.
From memory:
You have the right to remain silent.
Clearly, the man may have had the right, but lacked the ability.
Anything you say can be used against you in court, if you surrender the right to be silent.
You have the right to have legal representation during questioning.
You will be provided legal representation if you cannot afford it.
Would you describe this as accurate, Lori?
But after reading those rights you have to realize that they address only the subject of information obtained during questioning.
You may have hit the nail on the head with your theory about why the driver was askign his rights to be read to him, but the fact that he knew he had rights also suggest he already knew them.
Do you think the driver knew he was on tape?
Do you think he did anything wrong?
I just wonder what was said that we couldnt hear because of all the background noice.
IMO this cop jumped the gun...or taser.
Just because you have the means to taser someone doesnt mean you should.
Does that make sense.
Damn. As obvious as that is, I had not considered it until now. That may be the whole damn fucking mess encapsulated all nice and neat.
Try this:
The driver argues with the cop about the speed limit, the cop gets pissed, the refuses to sign the ticket, the cops tells him to get out of the SUV, the man begins to walk back towards the SUV, the cop whips out the tazar.
The driver is thinking, "Damn, I hope he doesn't use that thing on me, but I can't just stop now, I'll look like a wimp on film."
The cop is thinking, "Damn, I don't want to use this thing but I can't let him get back into that SUV I'll look like a wimp om film."
This wouldn't be the most stupid thing two men had allowed themselves to get into over less.
NO he does not need to read him his rights I explained why. I have a number of police officers in my family. All of them have said the same thing on th past. My husband has been a police officer for 9 years and graduated number one in his class he knows the law like the back of his hand. Don't tell me I am wrong. This is not an opinion it is a fact. One that if need be I could have him bring home his general orders book and quote it word for word. So don't try to argue a fact with me and don't insult me or my husband by implying that he does not know his job.
Yeah. me too.
I think they both acted irresponsible.
Yeah, me too.
Just because you have the means to taser someone doesnt mean you should.
That does make sense, but when it comes right down to it, the cop had to keep the guy from getting back into the SUV.
What happens next if the driver gets behind the wheel again? High speed chase? Does the driver have a gun?
At that point, the cop, has been neatly boxed into a corner. Partly his doing, partly the driver's doing.
And with their training he should have handled the situation better
I bet they ring him up not for the tazar, but for the way he treated the woman.
I will also bet that video becomes a part of their training films from this point on.
That whole thing could have been so much worse for everyone with just a little bit more stupidity.
As I said also, those rights only apply to information obtained during questioning.
As he wasn't being questioned, it really doesn't matter.
I think it is very telling that he kept asking the cop to read him his rights though. I think they showed he knew he was on tape, and he was trying to ensure that it went on record he hadn't been read his rights, like that's an get out of jail free card or something.
I think he will file a lawsuit, but I'm not sure on what grounds. The only thing I see that he's got ground for is the fact that the cop freaked his wife out.
That might be enough.
Wonder when the ACLU will rear their ugly heads into this.
"Many people believe that an officer must automatically read a person his or her Miranda rights as part of performing an arrest, either immediately before or immediately after an arrest is made. This is also myth.
The truth is that the only time an officer must read a person his or her Miranda rights is when: (1) the person has been taken into custody, and (2) the officer is about to question the person about a crime."
Sorry to be so slow. The site update has made it take several minutes for the page to load at times.
This doesn't feel like something that would get into. I'm willing to bet that when it is all said and done, they offer to drop charges against him, resisting arrrest, speeding, and that sort of thing, if he'll drop any lawsuits.
I would really love to know what we missed on that tape, though.
I wonder, also, who his wife blames.
Chris and unless you are a cop and went through training dont use anyone else to debate this with.
Honestly is that all you are getting out of this discussion?
I am not so sure about the ACLU thing....the reason I say this is because the ACLU has been critisized for taking only cases for minorities and this would be their chance to show that they protect everyone.
Or do they still need a warrent?
You tell me not to debate it unless I have been through traning yet you sit there and debate it using your supposed father in law who had been a police officer for40 years.
What a hypocrite.
I already discussed this issue in this thread. I got plenty out of it. I will not however sit back and let you insult my husband who s a police officer. You are not.
As you may know from my past posts. I do not post anything that I can not back up with proof. I have offered that to you several times. You are coming across as a person who knows everything and won't accept thefact hat someone who is actually in this field of work knows more than you.
So it is more the car search that should have prompted the reading of the miranda rights more so than the arrest....now imagine if they would have found something in the car.
They would have had to have something to back up their reasoning to search the car.
And if your husband is such a by the book cop then why did you have to google when to read the miranda rights?
I am sorry but that is but a small piece of the whole puzzle that you seem to be fixated on....why not join the debate about the rest of what happened.
I for one would be interested to know your husband perception of what happened.
The whole point of that article was to show that not everything on the internet is correct.
Usually most cops will go by the book when they suspect a person is possessing drugs or something like that...and frankly with this guys irational behavior it wouldnt have been a far stretch for this guy to have drugs or alcohol..
That is why I say he should have had his rights read.
Care to call me more names because I have an opinion?
Send me a link if you do another article updating this....or I could send you a connection request.
Can you not read? I said you come across that way. Not you are that way.
I googled it so I would have something in print to show you. Since I have said on several ocassions that he does not have his law book with him to quote word for word. What does me giving youproof have to d with my husband being a by the book police officer?
The reason I will not respond to everything else is one the site is so slow for me tonight I can't even keep up with what you are postng now and because honestly we are sitting here shaking our heads over how ignorant some of your comments are but hey ignorance is not a crime.
Have a good nite.
The way I understand it the only time that the police are required to read someone their Miranda rights is when they attempt to obtain a confession from a defendant that will be used at the trial. Don't believe everything you see on TV. lol
He said because of this guys irrational behavior during a traffic stop he would have searched the car after he arrested the guy he would have read him his rights prior to that just because it would have saved time if he had found something in the car because then he would have had to have read the miranda rights to the guy....and he didnt even have to google it.
How was your turkey day lera?
What you are saying in regards to the miranda rights is not an opinion. What the law states is not debateable. You were the one who came out and said my husband was wrong in regards to the law. You gave nothing to back up your claim. I on the other had offerend you plenty to show you that in fact you were wrong.
Lori I could care less if I am not creditable to you from the start you automatically had in your mind that you were right I was wrong and would not listen to anything I said and Mike even said the same thing.
To answer your question if the officer had found something and wanted to question him THEN he would have needed to read him his rights. You said IF though. I am not talking about ifs I am talking about what actually happened.
Lera I will catch up to you in a bit.
I agree with your assessment on virtually all points. The police officer was clearly full of himself, which is an occupational hazard, and nothing one ought to find surprising, but that does not excuse his haste in using force. The gentleman does nothing threatening than I can see, and being anxious to have the officer reconsider his original evaluation of what he believed the driver had done, is not only understandable, but seems rather more like common sense than the approach the officer responded with.
Police are servants, not masters of the public. Every reasonable measure ought to be employed before force, and the officer clearly decided to cut some corners, and use his authority to grant himself the right to impose his will on a citizen. Had the officer simply listened to the man's basic assertion, that there was another sign involved, and checked to make doubly sure about his first impression, I fail to see any indication that all would not have resolved itself without the use of force, or the wasting of either parties time.
I do not think the officer ought to lose his job, but merely be reminded of his servile role in society, and given some pointers on how to respond to a person that believes no crime was committed at all. If proving or disproving that fact is easily done, there is no reason to play boss-man. If no crime was committed, regardless of the officers impression of the speed of the car being above 40 miles per hour, the citizen would be hard pressed to prove their innocence in court. Those are portable signs, and the officer ought to have realized that signing the ticket for speeding, while not an admission of guilt, would be a tacit admission to a transient circumstance, which may never have existed at all.
However, I agree that both these guys were idiots, but the driver especially, should have known that the place to argue any case is in court. Not on the side of the road!
As for Miranda rights, there is no law that says they have to be read to you immediately upon being cuffed. One might sit in a police car for an hour or two and still not hear them until sometime after you reach the station, or when you are actually 'booked'.
And I also agree that we all watch too much T.V.! LOL!
Yes, I noticed just what you noted, and the whole stop is questionable, and I doubt the Judge will uphold the speeding charge for that reason alone. I certainly agree that the gentleman appears somewhat foolish at points, but must also note again, that this is a "transient" speed zone, and so immediate confirmation or disproving of the driver's claim is perhaps the only way he could imagine that his innocence could be proven. He has no way of knowing what the tape would reveal, nor whether the officer is above "relocating" the signs to remove evidence of innocence.
We do not get to hear clearly what transpired in the earlier conversation while the driver was seated in the car, and IF that conversation revolved around the notion that he was being "trapped", as we all know has occurred before, he may not have felt at all comfortable in "playing along".
If it were me, and I saw what we can see he must have seen, and can reasonable conclude he believed he saw which we can not (another portable sign), I would certainly be anxious to have the officer look again, and when he wouldn't, suspect it was indeed a "speed trap" situation. I certainly would not moved away, I hope, but if one believes they are confronted by a dishonest officer, and that officer pulls a weapon, there may be a rather strong urge to move away, which does seem to be revealed by the drivers words and rather halting retreat.
If it were me, I would have simply cooperated with the patrolman, and then returned to the area with a video camera or even just a camera, and documented what the scene looked like - including the 'transient' signs and all other pertinent objects in the area. Then, as I stated before, I would have argued my case in court. It is there that I would have taken the opportunity to make an ass out of him. The only problem is that will have taken time out of my life to deal with this BS.
When about 20 I was walking down a somewhat busy street (for that hour, in the west San Fernando Valley, [L.A. area]), when two officers pulled over to the curb and got out of the car heading to me. I slowed as I approached them, and kinda did the body language version of "what's up guys?", and one asked; "Do you have any guns or handgrenades on you"? I was so stunned, that before I could catch myself, I repeated in a "taken aback", good natured voice; "handgrenades?"
They both jumped back, drawing their guns, and shouting for me to put my hands in the air. Needless to say I complied even more thoughtlessly than I spoke. But, still, I have no idea how close I was to doing something "foolish", if thought of in terms of outcomes. What I did wrong, was merely to see the men as friendly protectors.
That's an assumption I make a bit more . . . carefully, now.
Granted, the traffic stop is not the time to argue the ticket. That's an example of Massey (the motorist) doing things the hard way. But Gardner (the cop) decided to do things the hard way when he didn't just write "Refused to Sign" on the ticket and get back in his car and go catch other speeders or whatever he does to protect the public.
Already, all the charges against Massey have been dropped except for the original speeding ticket, which he's contesting in court. It'll be interesting to see if he wins.
I think it's clear that Gardner has no business being a cop, or even a mall security guard, but unfortunately he'll probably keep his job.
Pretty much an " Old West " style shootout in the making with all participants out there with their entire bodies exposed.