More on the Utah Taser incident
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.
Report here
Atlanta sued in police killing of 92-year-old
Woman's relatives act after two officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter
The family of a 92-year-old woman fatally shot during a botched drug raid has filed a lawsuit against the city and police on the first anniversary of the killing. The State Court lawsuit was filed Wednesday by a niece of Kathryn Johnston, accusing them of racketeering, civil rights violations, assault, false imprisonment and negligence. The suit targets the city, Police Chief Richard Pennington and five current and former police officers. The family is seeking unspecified damages.
Hezekiah Sistrunk Jr., an attorney for the niece, Sarah Dozier, said they had attempted to talk to the city about a settlement. "That has been unsuccessful. That is why we are here today," he said at a news conference.
Plainclothes narcotics officers burst into Johnston's home Nov. 21, 2006, using a no-knock warrant. Johnston was killed during the raid in a hail of nearly 40 police gunshots. Prosecutors said the officers obtained the warrant by falsely telling a judge that an informant confirmed drug dealing at the home. The informant later told federal investigators he was told by police to concoct the tale.
Prosecutors also said that one of the police officers planted three bags of marijuana in Johnston's home as part of a cover-up after no drugs were found. The suit accuses officers who raided the home of violating Johnston's constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the use of unreasonable and excessive deadly force. It cites witness tampering in its racketeering accusation.
Prosecutors charged three officers involved in the raid. Two of the officers, Jason R. Smith and Gregg Junnier, pleaded guilty to state manslaughter and federal civil rights charges. They have left the police force. A judge Tuesday ordered the two to turn themselves in by Dec. 3. No sentencing date has been set. A third officer, Arthur Tesler, who is on administrative leave, faces charges of violating the oath of a public officer, making false statements and false imprisonment under color of legal process. His attorney has said Tesler expects to go to trial. All three are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
"I am thankful my aunt's innocence has been proven," Dozier said in a statement read to reporters. "I am also deeply saddened that the city of Atlanta has refused to admit responsibility for unconstitutional practices." Dozier was not present at the news conference.
Beverly Isom, a spokeswoman for Mayor Shirley Franklin, declined to comment on the suit, referring calls to an attorney for the city. The attorney, Jerry De Loach, declined to comment, saying the city had yet to be served with the lawsuit and wanted to review it before responding. Officer Ronald Campbell, a spokesman for Atlanta police, said, "We are unable to comment on anything because of the legalities of it."
Report here
(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)
3 comments:
Sir Robert Peel wasn't an American, so it's not really appropriate to use his quotes as a basis for what law enforcement in the United States should be.
Furthermore, why is no one looking at Jared Massey's role in this? In spite of the fact that Officer Gardner was polite from the very beginning of the traffic stop, Jared Massey was belligerent and non-compliant the entire time.
What so many people are failing to grasp (except for the minority in support of Gardner who actually get it) is that Officer Gardner did in fact have the right to make the decision whether or not to arrest Massey for his non-compliance, and he also had the right to subdue Massey when he resisted the arrest procedure with further non-compliance.
Had Jared Massey acted like a resposible citizen, first by obeying the posted speed limits, and second by not acting like an arrogant, non-compliant jerk to Officer Gardner when Officer Gardner DID HIS JOB by pulling him over for speeding and attempting to cite Massey for that offense, none of this would have happened. Jared Massey would have gone on his way, fought the citation in court if he chose to do so (the proper way) and no one would be up in arms because they don't understand that officer Gardner acted appropriately in subduing a non-compliant, surly, belligerent citizen.
"Sir Robert Peel wasn't an American, so it's not really appropriate to use his quotes as a basis for what law enforcement in the United States should be."
That's ridiculous. Sir Robert Peel was a human. Sir Robert Peel was the inventor of the modern police force. The words of the inventor of the police force are relevant to how police should be governed.
Saying that his words aren't applicable becase he's British is like saying the theory of relativity doesn't work because Einstein was born a German.
The police carry weapons to protect themselves - not us. This has been established by legal precedent.
However, in this instance, the taser was not used to protect the officer, it was used to express the fact that he was pissed off. It was used to enforce an authority that he had not the personal control to assert. He was losing the contest of wills and he responded the way the uncivilized often do - with the violent use of a weapon.
Massey was no threat to the officer. If the officer was annoyed, he should have found a way to deal with that without dumping a paralyzed citizen inches from the traffic lane.
Furthermore he knew he was in the wrong, which is why he lied to the other officer.
Massey should sue for civil damages, and Gardner should find another line of work. Following that, this case should be used as a training resource for other officers, on how not to handle a situation and how not to embarrass your entire state and the law enforcement profession.
You've taken what I said out of context - We are talking about what is or isn't law here in the United States in the 21st Century, not in Great Britain in the 19th Century - it's a quite different code of laws.
Also, in case you have missed it, the Utah Highway Patrol has cleared Officer Gardner of wrong doing. Let's put this in a way you can actually understand it - he did nothing wrong and acted appropriately given the circumstances. Officer Gardner had no idea what Jared Massey was capable of or was going to do, not to mention that he was turning his back to the officer AND had his hand in his pocket.
I have a friend who is a police officer and was involved in a shooting where the guy was pulling what turned out to be a BB gun out of his waist band. My friend didn't hesitate to pull the trigger - he says that it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
But getting back to the subject, you fail to realize that there should never be a contest of wills between a police officer and a citizen - the officer is ALWAYS in charge. Jared Massey failed to realize this and in doing so, paid the price for his actions - a mistake I doubt he'll ever make again. Again I submit that if Jared Massey had acted like a responsible citizen, NONE of this would have happened. He would have been cited for speeding - something the officer was well within his right to do - and he would have been on his way. Period. End of Statement.
You would do well to remember the next time you get pulled over that the officer is always in charge and the side of the road is not the time nor the place to argue whether or not the citation is valid.
Post a Comment