Judge dismisses suit against cop who shot motorist

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Chris Plummer RE: Mike Richards
    June 17, 2008 5:19 p.m.

    You and I don't agree on much but I'm with you on this. I have too many other problems then to have to worry about some hot shot cop with a point to prove.

    In either case this police office should in the least be required by the department to take some gun safety lessons....

    And why was his gun out in the first place. Not every situation needs a GUN to be pulled out. That may be one of the problems.

    I've seen too many times a testosterone pumped policeman escalate a situation by not showing the civilians any respect and demanding it in return.

  • Mike Richards
    June 17, 2008 3:42 p.m.

    To 3:11 p.m.,

    "Whether you like it or not swallow your pride and choose to fight another day not get hurt or die because of it."

    Is that what "law enforcement" means to you, conflict, use of force when no force is needed, shooting someone just because you have a gun and you can?

    You want to live in a police state where you have to prove your innocence in court? You want to cower before any and every police officer just because they might decide to shoot you if they don't like your attitude?

    In all three examples that I cited, the citizen used no lethal force against anyone - including the police office. The citizen, in the case of the man in Vernal had 100% right to NOT sign the ticket. He knew it and the police officer knew it, but he was still tasered. The man in Parley's Canyon was chased like a rabbit before hounds because the police that the "right" to chase. The man, whose case was dismissed, was shot, SHOT, by an off-duty policeman for weaving in and out of traffic.

    Police State. Yes or No?

  • Basketkase
    June 17, 2008 3:35 p.m.

    This is what happens when we have uneducated officers making twelve dollars an hour policing us. The officer should be charged with a crime, of negligence at the very least, as should the motorist if he was indeed intoxicated.

    In a perfect world, anyone wanting to be a police officer would instantly be denied this opportunity. People become officers for a reason, and honestly, there is no selfless reason for this. I know that if I was a cop, I'd probably be the dirtiest one on Earth, simply because I can. And this is why I am not an officer. The job breeds corruption and vindication. A good officer does not exist. This incident is more proof of that.

  • JJ
    June 17, 2008 3:15 p.m.

    The Officer was in the right.

  • ID Jazz
    June 17, 2008 3:11 p.m.

    I have to respond to Mike Richards stupidity and ignorance.

    This is really simple and it goes to choices. If the man in Vernal would have simply signed the ticket or even if he did not want to sign the ticket then do as the policeman asked and do it calmly and respectively and you live to fight it in court. But jump out of your vehicle screaming and pointing and ignoring commands then you put the officer in a situation to do something whether it be right wrong or in different. The man in Parleys made a choice he could have pulled over dissolved whether the accusation was true or not but he decided to put himself, officers, and multiple motorists at risk all by his own choice and he died by his own choice. The man in the parking lot could have let the cop go with his keys and called the police after all it was just keys not his vehicle. All three people made choices that made someone react to there choices. Whether you like it or not swallow your pride and choose to fight another day not get hurt or die because of it.

  • CRAIG
    June 17, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    I strongly disagree with Forrest that Tena Campbell is a great judge, I believe she dismissed this case because if the facts came out, she would have to sit in judgement of a police officer and she would not know how to do that. she sides with law enforcement and Joe Citizen gets the book thrown at them

  • Left is the natural way
    June 17, 2008 2:11 p.m.

    Keep posting 'em' Mike Richards.
    Your clear-cut rightist authoritarian philosophy deserves all the exposure it craves. :>
    It's what America needs now to realize just how liberal (sorry Mike Richards, but that is a POSITIVE thing - not a negative) they actually are.

  • Runnerboy3118
    June 17, 2008 1:40 p.m.

    "a West Valley police officer who accidentally shot a motorist he thought was driving intoxicated " -Thought- Is the key word class. Its says nowhere in this story that he was intoxicated. Why would they not let this go to court?

  • Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    When I was 14 years old a drunk driver took the life of my best friend. The drunk driver walked away with a small bruse and a traffic ticket. Slapped on the wrist.
    The part of this case that makes me angry is that the off duty police office took the attention off the drunk driver. I do feel that his taking that mans keys away proably saved an innocent life. The officer did not kill him, but he could have driven right into one of us. We are all here to pass judgement and complaints; in part because of that officer taking that man off the roads.

    Good Job Officer...Thank You!

  • Forrest
    June 17, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    Tena Campbell is a great judge.

  • Mike Richards
    June 17, 2008 1:29 p.m.

    Law Enforcement exists to Protect Us. The Highway Patrolman who used a Taser against the man near Vernal, Utah, the Police who chased a man to his death in Parley's Canyon, and in this case, where an off-duty officer shot a man in the shoulder, all point to the use of excessive force by the police.

    The Highway Patrolman in Vernal knew that he could submit the ticket without a signature. The police who chased a man to his death in Parley's Canyon knew that their only "hard evidence" was that someone had made a telephone call and claimed that he/she had been defrauded. In this case, an off-duty policeman used his weapon and shot a citizen in the shoulder.

    At the very least, the case should be heard in court where all of the evidence could be presented.

    We do not live in a "Police State". We should not have to fear that a "Police Officer" will shoot us or chase us to our death or taser us because the officer is having a bad day and doesn't like our attitude. We don't live in a "bully" State with bullies looking for an excuse to "show us who's boss".

  • Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    In a perfect society make sure you are the guy who gets to carry a gun.

  • Cops
    June 17, 2008 1:22 p.m.

    That cop in vernal said that he told the motorist he was under arrest. Video says opposite. Of duty cops should have no business doing stuff like this. We know the cop was not in uniform, that is all I need to know.

  • Doug Short
    June 17, 2008 1:06 p.m.

    Bad judge = bad decision.

  • Don't tase me dude!
    June 17, 2008 1:04 p.m.

    There are very, very few valid cases of police brutality, inappropriate use of force, etc. In almost every case, the person that got tasered, clubbed, slammed into the ground, or shot got what he or she deserved (and usually less). Unfortunately, we have a lot of people in our society that think they can act inappropriately and then get babied by the police, etc., when they get caught.

    Sorry, this isn't soccer, and not everybody gets a trophy.

    Basically, if you don't do something stupid or bad, you have absolutely nothing at all to fear from law enforcement officers.

    Remember: Your choices. Your consequences.

  • re: Anonymous @ 12:23pm
    June 17, 2008 12:57 p.m.

    And how do you propose we obtain the "real facts", assuming we trust the media of course!

  • Mike Richards
    June 17, 2008 12:46 p.m.

    To 12:33,

    You're assuming facts that are not in evidence. The case was dismissed before the evidence could be presented.

  • missing the point
    June 17, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    Why do you miss the point that the victim started the whole process by choosing to drive impaired. Individual accountability seems to have vanished and blame someone else for our mistakes and bad choices. That is the real problem with society.

  • Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    Here we go again - passing judgment. All we know is what the media puts in print or verbally. I suggest you not criticize until you have all the facts in front of you. Then and only then should you be making any judgment calls. The media reports something based on how the reporter sees it or how they want it to be perceived. Know the real facts and then make your judgment call.

  • Where's the Accountability?
    June 17, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    It seems more and more, that law enforcement no longer stands accountable for "mistakes" in judgement; nor, outright police harrassment or brutality. If there are "no" consequences, it will only continue. And I don't see administrative paid leave as a consequence at all - it's a vacation and an award for bad behavior.

  • Mike Richards
    June 17, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    There are times when going to court will allow all facts in a case to be presented. As it now stands, the public will always think that the off-duty police officer acted inappropriately and that a Federal Judge acted without regard to the Public's best interests.

  • Anonymous
    June 17, 2008 11:56 a.m.

    Well, the story stated that the motorist was shot in the shoulder. I think that constitutes injury, the officer should pay all medical expenses and time for the inujury to heal if it made the motorist miss work.

    If it was someone else you know that they would have been held liable. It's okay for off duty police officers to take someones keys and point guns at them.