Utah-LEOs have opened taser hunting season on drivers

[ghaverkamp]

Interesting parallel. Why shouldn't tips be a non-taxable gift from the customer to the wait(insert your favorite pc suffix)? Tips are freely given, and being classed as gifts would be totally in accordance with the tax law. But try to get a court to agree with that? Good luck!

 

I was just making something up, Dave. The extent of my knowledge about taxes is the help for confusing questions from TurboTax.

 

But to expand a bit on what I left out of the last message, imagine a court saying that tips where wait staff are already paid at or above minimum wage are gifts (in San Francisco, all wait staff must be paid at the city's minimum wage or higher), whereas tips when staff are paid below the prevailing minimum wage are taxable, because they're merely compensating for income.

 

I would imagine any actual change to use of course would be done by nipping at the edges in such a way.

[jaytee]

This was also not a search or detention argument as it was clear the intention was arrest. The grounds for the arrest are good, it was the execution of said arrest that were bad. The bad execution was exacerbated by the poor communication skills of the officer and poor life skills of our young driver friend.

 

Nervous officers tend to make it home at the end of their shift. To be perfectly frank with you, we can always go back to the simple argument of no contact, no problem. If you don’t break the law you’ll never find out how nervous I am, right?

My guess is that after a few thousand arrests and many roadside fights the nervousness just kind of creeps up on you over the years. It is very hard to ignore the God given gift of self preservation.

 

Well, eric...

 

This sounds like a resonable response and analysis of the actual event. So I guess despite all your (intentional?) earlier blustering you have a pretty good handle on these things!

 

I hate to say it, but I think I agree with everything you just wrote!

 

I think I'll call this thread done then and move on to other more weighty matters like Octane.

 

JT

[ericfoerster]

So I guess despite all your (intentional?) earlier blustering you have a pretty good handle on these things!

 

I am really not a bad person. I just saw all the blood in the water and I knew the sharks were in the area

 

Hey, it was a bad week at work and this provided me with some fun. In the end it turned into some good debate

 

 

 

 

 

Now where did I put that taser

[tobyzusa]

There's a vicious rumor circulating around Southlake that a taser was used by the Abilene football team causing a fumble with eight seconds left to play.

 

You know anything about that?

[ericfoerster]

uhmmm...errr....no

 

The mighty Eagles soared again today

 

 

I never heard of Hebron and I grew up in Hurst. Those guys sure had a quick offense and a hard hitting defense. I really like this time of year as the football is awesome.

[tallman]

Greg,

Roadside stops are about more than collecting fines.

I don't think a reasonable person believes that he/she is free to turn around and walk away from a police officer during a roadside stop.

Reasonable force is not used on reasonable people.

Reasonable force is used on unreasonable people.

We may disagree as to what is reasonable force, or what is unreasonable behavior. The courts will/do/have changed standards over time, and based on the composition of the bench.

I think I understand the point you are making, and we differ over the balance test. I don't think that the 4th Amendment rights were violated as the government's interest escalated from a traffic stop to a resisting arrest, possible fleeing by entering the car and driving away, or resisting with violence by obtaining a weapon in the car.

This escalation was precipitated by the actions of the driver and raised the stakes considerably, IMO.

As to being an immediate threat, that unfortunately may or may not be known until it is too late, and therefore it is reasonable to prevent the individual, who is acting unreasonably, from acting in a malicious/harmful manner to the LEO, by the use of reasonable force.

The government certainly has an interest in the safety of our police officers and the use of non-lethal, reasonable force, would be justified.

I think we agree on this concept, but not in the application in this case.

That's OK.

The driver would be lucky to have you as an advocate.

[awagnon]

I hate to revive this long thread, but it was reported in today's paper that the SUV driver has filed a suit against the highway patrol officer.

 

http://www.sltrib.com//ci_8018240?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

[motorman587]

Link will not work for me.

[Twisties]

Link will not work for me.

 

Try This

[ESokoloff]

Not a surprise to me

Keep us informed on any/all developments.

I'm betting he wins this........... & I'm not a betting man

[ericfoerster]

Massey later pleaded guilty in Uintah County Justice Court and agreed to pay $107 for the speeding citation.

 

 

Hmmm....I'm guessing a summary judgement in favor of the cop. Bad legal advice for shocker boy to plea.

[ghaverkamp]

Hmmm....I'm guessing a summary judgement in favor of the cop.

 

Considering the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff?

 

I doubt it will end with a summary judgment. If it gets kicked, I'd suspect it to be because of damages that might not meet the statutory threshold. Assuming he's already racked up medical and counseling bills, that could be shot.

 

There are almost unquestionable triable issues of material fact.

 

Bad legal advice for shocker boy to plea.

 

How so? Whether or not he was speeding isn't at issue, and this limits its likelihood of appearing at trial.

[awagnon]

Bad legal advice for shocker boy to plea.

 

I'm betting his lawyer advised him to plead guilty and pay the fine to show what a good "law-abiding citizen he is". Never mind that he mouthed off at the LEO and acted like an ass. I'm guessing it will be settled out of court just to make it go away (unless shocker boy just wants to make a statement like he did at the side of the road and later by posting the video on the internet).

[ghaverkamp]

This "close case" that some claimed would be summarily tossed has been settled.

[ESokoloff]

I have to say that I'm surprised by the outcome...

 

I would have expected a much higher figure.

[Firefight911]

This "close case" that some claimed would be summarily tossed has been settled.

 

Nuisance value so the blood suckers, oops, sorry, "lawyers" can get their fees.

 

Said to say that this decision to settle for money most likely came to stem the rising cost of defending the action. Right, wrong, or indifferent there are many lawyers out there that will pursue an action for just this monetary nuisance value.

 

After having had the 'pleasure' of working for an attorney in S. Cal for 3 years and having been an aide/investigator working along side Gerry Spence on a 8 digit action that we won I have seen it first hand.

 

Sign the ticket, go on your way, and if you feel you are so in the right take it to the proper venue and state your case there.

[ericfoerster]

This "close case" that some claimed would be summarily tossed has been settled.

 

40-50% to the lawyer and some to taxes. I'd say the lawyer knew it was a no-win for the kid.

 

The state has lawsuit insurance and this didn't even meet the deductible.

 

I'd say the state still won by a mile. A mere bump in the road.

 

Good day

[ghaverkamp]

40-50% to the lawyer and some to taxes. I'd say the lawyer knew it was a no-win for the kid.

 

It's unlikely the lawyer will take more than 40%, as (at least in California) he'd probably get nailed for collecting excessive fees.

 

Of course, what I read here repeatedly was that any judge would just toss it out of court. Clearly, that didn't happen.

[ericfoerster]

Of course, what I read here repeatedly was that any judge would just toss it out of court. Clearly, that didn't happen.

 

 

 

DUH...it didn't make it. Greg, sometimes you are just too much. You know it was wash or it would have gone to court, clearly.

I must say that we have patched holes in the streets that cost three times as much as they paid for this.

If there was a case; any lawyer worth his/her salt would have never let him settle for that, and you know it.

[Firefight911]

Of course, what I read here repeatedly was that any judge would just toss it out of court. Clearly, that didn't happen.

 

 

 

DUH...it didn't make it. Greg, sometimes you are just too much. You know it was wash or it would have gone to court, clearly.

I must say that we have patched holes in the streets that cost three times as much as they paid for this.

If there was a case; any lawyer worth his/her salt would have never let him settle for that, and you know it.

 

Don't worry Eric. Once he actually passes the Bar exam and gets out there in the real world, he'll lose the God complex . . . we hope!

[Mike]

Of course, what I read here repeatedly was that any judge would just toss it out of court. Clearly, that didn't happen.

 

 

 

DUH...it didn't make it. Greg, sometimes you are just too much. You know it was wash or it would have gone to court, clearly.

I must say that we have patched holes in the streets that cost three times as much as they paid for this.

If there was a case; any lawyer worth his/her salt would have never let him settle for that, and you know it.

 

Eric--

 

You've been spending too much time reading news stories on the Internet. The huge civil awards that make news headlines are actually very rare. And an overwhelming majority of civil suits never go to trial.

 

$40K for a simple assault that didn't involve life-threatening injuries is a pretty good award. I didn't read the news account, but these settlement agreements often include an agreement to pay the plaintiff's attorney's feels and court costs. And, as far as tax is concerned, it depends on how the loss is characterized. If, for instance, an individual is physically injured and the settlement is characterized as the amount necessary to make that person whole, no income tax is paid.

 

There are risks in any litigation, and there are myriad factors unrelated to the merits of a case that may drive the parties to settle (you might recall that the officer in this case started receiving death threats after the YouTube video was posted, which prompted the motorist to make a public appeal for people to lay off).

 

The plaintiff might have walked away with nothing, and, on the other hand, the State could have found itself at the losing end with a much bigger jury award. This settlement is substantial enough to suggest to me that both parties knew that they faced the possibility of losing.

[ericfoerster]

Eric--

 

You've been spending too much time reading news stories on the Internet. The huge civil awards that make news headlines are actually very rare. And an overwhelming majority of civil suits never go to trial.

 

 

I am well aware of that. I've been involved with numerous suits involving these types of claims.

I really don't consider this settlement substantial by any means.

I am also aware that many lawyers are not trial lawyers and they bank on filing these suits for quick payment knowing that there will be an offer due to public outcry.

By having the plaintiff sign away the right to all future claims is a sure sign to me that there was not much merit to the claim in the first place.

40K to make this go away is cheap...real cheap. Anyone involved with the legal system knows it would have taken 40K just to get to the first hearing. When/if a trial would have started the numbers would jump to 80-100K with expert witness's and medical reviews.

[smiller]

Yeah, only $40k. That all but proves the officer was in the right.

[motorman587]

Yeah, only $40k. That all but proves the officer was in the right.

 

Was the officer wrong??????????

[ericfoerster]

Yeah, only $40k. That all but proves the officer was in the right.

 

No, but it does prove that the state has enough fiscal sense to not fight something just to fight it. This is not a unique course of action in today’s world. Many suits are settled because it is the most practical means to end. This is no way implies that either side is right or wrong.

[lawnchairboy]

yeah, we don't need no stinking tort/legal reform

[DavidEBSmith]

By having the plaintiff sign away the right to all future claims is a sure sign to me that there was not much merit to the claim in the first place.

 

Wha? Getting the other side to waive any future claims would be part of any settlement. Permanently ending the litigation is the whole point of settling. Signing away future claims is a sure sign of nothing more than that they settled the case.

[ESokoloff]

I'd say the state still won by a mile. A mere bump in the road.

 

 

On this we both agree.

However the reason for this figure is pure speculation from all but those in the know.

 

I would like to think it's because Massey was not in it for the money (mostly) but rather for the principal of the mater.

 

Regardless Eric, the next time we meet (hopefully under better circumstances then the last ) I'll show up wearing aluminum foil undies

[ghaverkamp]

Regardless Eric, the next time we meet (hopefully under better circumstances then the last I'll show up wearing aluminum foil undies

 

I'll be wearing one of these:

 

[ericfoerster]

Wha? Getting the other side to waive any future claims would be part of any settlement. Permanently ending the litigation is the whole point of settling. Signing away future claims is a sure sign of nothing more than that they settled the case.

 

Bingo...and if my attorney advised me settle and I had a good claim I'd be pissed.

That is what makes me think this was a case of posturing vs. legitimate litigation.

Any good trial attorney would have never settled for this if there was something there. There are very few good trial attorneys left.

 

The only other option would have been if discovery revealed another side of the story that the attorney did not like. I am sure that being a state officer his training records were well kept and he was current on all the madated stuff that attorneys usually go after. Fail to train, fail to supervise, and negligent hiring were all probably out of the question.

This limits the quest for the deep pockets.

[DavidEBSmith]

That is what makes me think this was a case of posturing vs. legitimate litigation.

Any good trial attorney would have never settled for this if there was something there. There are very few good trial attorneys left.

 

Any good trial attorney would have evaluated the risks and rewards and the time value of the case. If he determined that he had a good claim for $100,000, a 70% chance of winning, and to litigate it would take 4 years, taking the $40K now is not unreasonable. And it would be the lawyer's duty to lay this all out for the client.

 

Don't forget, there were lawyers for the state, too, and they came up with the same conclusion.

 

I think your prejudgment that it's all about EEEEVIL TRIAL LAWYERS!!!!!! is clouding your analysis.

[Mike]

Wha? Getting the other side to waive any future claims would be part of any settlement. Permanently ending the litigation is the whole point of settling. Signing away future claims is a sure sign of nothing more than that they settled the case.

 

Bingo...and if my attorney advised me settle and I had a good claim I'd be pissed.

That is what makes me think this was a case of posturing vs. legitimate litigation.

 

Eric, methinks you're revealing your clear pro-LEO bias. The breadth of reactions to the video on this DB is at least a rough indication of how this might have been viewed if it had gotten to a jury--some folks thought the officer's conduct was outrageous and some thought the perp was asking for it. You'd have to factor into the equation the fact that LEOs and those who had previously had bad dealings with LEOs would probably be dismissed from the jury panel, of course, and see how it went.

 

I have had a bit of experience handling tort claims for and against the USG, and I can tell you that this case is one that I wouldn't want to see go before a jury if I were representing the State. As the attorney who was representing the State of Utah noted, it was "defensible," but a "close case." Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that a jury saw it that way, finding fault on the part of both parties, or even coming to a tentative conclusion that the officer was probably right. The moment they saw the second zap and the officer's smartass remark, "Hurts, doesn't it?" the verdict could have been transformed from a finding for the State into a huge award for the plaintiff. If I were working for the Utah AG, I wouldn't want to take it to trial--that smartass remark, admittedly uttered under stress, changed everything. That's why the State of Utah thought it was best to settle out of court.

[ericfoerster]

I think your prejudgment that it's all about EEEEVIL TRIAL LAWYERS!!!!!! is clouding your analysis.

 

 

I think you misread my feelings here. I don't think real trial lawyers are bad. I actually have great respect for them. My thought process is just the opposite.

I don't think there are enough good trial lawyers out there. Most attorneys I know agree when they check their ego's.

 

I am speaking of true courtroom warriors. The guys and gals that quote case law verbatim and make you feel violated when you leave the stand.

 

In 17 years I've only seen it twice. I was impressed.

 

Mike, I understand your apprehension on this case. Is it really the statement by the officer that would throw the case? Or, is it the win loss record that could be stained by a not-so-sure case going to trial?

 

My guess is the attorney took the case on a contingency basis and saw something he/she didn't like during discovery.

I think there was something that made them apprehensive as well. Venue, criminal history, driving record, and other factors came into play here too.

[Christian_rider]

The taser is the best thing since the police car! I have saved lives both on the police and civilian side with it! I have caught countless criminals I would have not caught if I had not had it. I can point a gun at a felon and he will simply laugh as he turns and runs but not the taser. The increase in jail population and the use of the taser really does go hand in hand. I have used it 27 times but am not proud of that number. I have used it 4 times versus shooting someone. That I am proud of as I have yet to and hope never to take another mans life. Will it be abused? Yes, but a lot less than most abuse or overstep the boundaries most all of us have in our right hand while riding, myself included. Few officers are able to not only control but use to their advantage the adrenalin rush that comes in these circumstances, let alone keep it on a leash the whole way through if need be. Let your adrenalin ride you on that K1200S or that police car in pursuit what happens? Harness and tame it, channel it and what do you have. An experienced well rounded rider or pursuit expert! Same control with the taser but I will go home at the end of the shift!

[Christian_rider]

Also look at ODMP it can be googled as spelled. Read a little of that. I have 5 friends that I worked with on that site. Really good guys!

[Mike]

Mike, I understand your apprehension on this case. Is it really the statement by the officer that would throw the case? Or, is it the win loss record that could be stained by a not-so-sure case going to trial?

 

My guess is the attorney took the case on a contingency basis and saw something he/she didn't like during discovery.

I think there was something that made them apprehensive as well. Venue, criminal history, driving record, and other factors came into play here too.

 

Eric, as you very astutely note there's a lot we don't know. The perp may have had a history, the cop may have had past instances in which his judgment or conduct were called into judgment, etc., etc., etc. These things, which seem awfully important to the layman, are often inadmissible, but whether there were any preliminary motions on evidentiary issues is something I just don't know (though I'd guess not).

 

It's also very much worth noting that we saw all of this through the lens of a fixed, somewhat narrow-angle lens. A lot could have been happening outside our view. Others may witnessed the situation, a car might have pulled off the shoulder in back of the LEO's car, or God-knows-what.

 

My limited experience in these things--and it's been a while since I've been heavily involved in them--is much along the lines of what Eebie suggested. Both parties look at the pros and cons, try to guess their likelihood of prevailing, and factor in the award they expect or fear. There's always a lot of subjectivity in that exercise, and that's largely what distinguishes the wealthy PI lawyers from the guys driving Kias--their ability to pick and choose cases, assess the risks and benefits, and optimize their client's position.

 

The range and averages of awards for different types of torts are published and pretty readily accessible to attorneys and judges. My impression is that there is typically a fairly narrow monetary range within which you can expect the verdict to fall. It's generally only when you get into outrageous conduct on the part of the tortfeasor or cases involving a very sympathetic victim that the damage awards can get wacky.

[smiller]

I have used it 27 times but am not proud of that number. I have used it 4 times versus shooting someone.

Certainly a Taser can be used with a positive outcome vs. deadly force, but the subject of the thread concerns how a Taser was used in a specific instance. When you use a Taser whould you consider taunting the subject with comments such as 'Hurts, doesn't it?' (as the officer who is the subject of this thread was reported to have done) to ever be acceptable behavior, under any conditions?

[ericfoerster]

Both parties look at the pros and cons, try to guess their likelihood of prevailing, and factor in the award they expect or fear. There's always a lot of subjectivity in that exercise, and that's largely what distinguishes the wealthy PI lawyers from the guys driving Kias--their ability to pick and choose cases, assess the risks and benefits, and optimize their client's position.

 

Sure, and we both know that emotions were running high at the time of the event. Our young driver approaches the firm of Dewey, Scewem and Howe and their eyes glaze over with dollar signs flashing like a Vegas casino.

An intrepid young attorney then fires a salvo in the hopes of eternal wealth.

 

I am sure the original court papers started out with something like, "On a dark and stormy night a taser was used." I'll bet there was even a picture of our driver friend with a puppy posted on facebook or something.

 

Even close to what may have really happened?

 

ps...The KIA comment makes me laugh. We all know "that" guy. I was in court with him yesterday

[dba]

Is there another link to the video. Couldn't find it at the highway patrol site.

[ericfoerster]

Just google Utah tasering or Utah taser incident and you'll hit about a hundred or so.

[Bob_Minor]

Is there another link to the video. Couldn't find it at the highway patrol site.

 

I think you'll find it on page 3.

 

If this went to trial the most damning piece of evidence in favor of the kid occurs when cop1 lies to cop2 about having given a warning to the effect of 'I told him to put his hands behind his head or I'd taser him'. He never said anything close to this, cop obviously knows he did wrong, decision for the plaintive. As for damages, the kid has no long term damages. Heck for 40K I'll be glad to take a tasering. I'd give him about 10K + legal fees. But I'm pretty sure the kid would have prevailed in a trial

[ghaverkamp]

Sure, and we both know that emotions were running high at the time of the event. Our young driver approaches the firm of Dewey, Scewem and Howe and their eyes glaze over with dollar signs flashing like a Vegas casino.

An intrepid young attorney then fires a salvo in the hopes of eternal wealth.

 

Bob Sykes:

Education: University of Utah, J.D., 1974, University of Utah, B.A., honors, magna cum laude, Political Science, 1969

 

Admitted: 1974, Utah, U.S. District Court, District of Utah, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court

 

Maybe young in comparison to some DB members...