PDA

View Full Version : Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims


Pages : [1] 2

510dat
12-28-2009, 11:10 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/28/BA811BAG5G.DTL

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets judicial standards for police and for people who claim they were victims of excessive force after police hit them with a Taser dart.

"The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the 3-0 ruling.

Though stun guns may offer a valuable, nonlethal alternative to deadly force in defusing dangerous situations, Wardlaw said, they inflict a "painful and frightening blow" and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

"It's a significant use of force, not like cuffing someone or using pain compliance or pepper spray," said Eugene Iredale, a lawyer for a San Diego-area man who was Tasered by a police officer who had stopped him for not wearing a seat belt. "It's not to be used promiscuously or lightly."

The ruling allows Iredale's client Carl Bryan to go to trial in his damage suit against Brian McPherson, a policeman in Bryan's hometown of Coronado. McPherson's lawyers were unavailable for comment.

Tasers enjoy wide support among law enforcement officials, including George Gascón, San Francisco's new police chief, who is considering recommending the devices for his officers and has ordered a study of past police shootings to see whether stun guns would have made a difference. On the other hand, Amnesty International says 334 people died in the United States from 2001 to August 2008 after being hit by Tasers.

McPherson stopped Bryan's car on a summer morning in 2005 as the 21-year-old was driving home. Wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes, and upset at himself for forgetting to fasten his seat belt, Bryan swore at himself as he stepped out of the car, and was shouting gibberish and banging his thighs as he stood 15 to 25 feet away from the officer, the court said.

McPherson said Bryan then took one step toward him. Bryan denied it, and the court said the evidence indicated that Bryan was facing away from McPherson when the officer fired his Taser. Bryan fell on his face, breaking four front teeth, and needed a hospital visit to remove the electronic dart, the court said. He was charged with misdemeanors of resisting and opposing an officer, but prosecutors dropped the charges after the jury deadlocked.

Upholding a judge's refusal to dismiss Bryan's civil suit, the appeals court said a jury should decide whether the officer had used too much force to subdue someone who was not threatening him.

Bryan was clearly unarmed and did not challenge McPherson verbally or make any menacing gestures, Wardlaw said. She said McPherson's claim that Bryan had ignored an order to stay in the car - an order that Bryan denied hearing - would not justify a Taser shooting, nor would the officer's concern that Bryan might be mentally disturbed.

Other factors that could support a claim of excessive force, Wardlaw said, were the minor nature of the traffic offense, McPherson's failure to warn Bryan that he might be Tasered and the fact that other officers were on the way to the scene.

fullrearview
12-28-2009, 11:16 PM
So is it saying you must have fear for your life or others??? That being the case, NO cop will be wearing or using one...Myself included.

fullrearview
12-28-2009, 11:30 PM
I can't even read the comments any more.....LIBERALS SUCK!:banghead:

matrix056
12-28-2009, 11:38 PM
Of course this comes from SF Gate, the most liberal newspaper in CA. Terrible news, my Taser will now be collecting dust and cobb webs, it has become a liability.

bigcalidave
12-28-2009, 11:54 PM
It seems more like they don't want the police tasering someone who is naked and crazy on the balcony of a building, causing him to fall to his death. Or any of the other situations where people have died, including old ladies and kids being tasered for objecting loudly. If there is a reason for police to actually HAVE to use that kind of force, it should be easy to explain. Just like when they shoot someone. Why is that so bad.

kf6tac
12-28-2009, 11:54 PM
SF Gate, of course, took the "immediate threat" quote out of context. The ruling doesn't actually say that an immediate threat is required. Whether or not the suspect poses an immediate threat is just one of three non-exclusive, non-dispositive factors that make up a larger totality of the circumstances test that determine whether use of force is justified. The other two explicitly named factors are the severity of the crime and whether the suspect is attempting to resist or evade arrest. So the test may well point to an opposite outcome for a suspect who was posing no immediate threat but who had committed a more severe crime (say, stealing an expensive laptop from someone at a Starbucks) and was attempting to evade arrest (by running away).

Really the moral of the case is don't tase the guy you just pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt who is pissed off at himself for forgetting to do so but otherwise is not trying to run away or attack you and is just cussing at himself while chilling outside the car in his underwear.

cbn620
12-28-2009, 11:57 PM
I don't think the paper this comes from has anything to do with the court it came from. I don't think the decision to give police less leeway with tazing people is a liberal decision. Whatever dudes. Sorry you can't taze me in the back when I step out of my car because I said a naughty word and I'm wearing boxer shorts? I guess your job will just never be the same. :(

haodoken
12-29-2009, 12:10 AM
I guess it's back to batons and pepper spray...:eek:

FrankG
12-29-2009, 1:55 AM
dust off the hats and bats...

Kid Stanislaus
12-29-2009, 4:47 AM
It seems more like they don't want the police tasering someone who is naked and crazy on the balcony of a building, causing him to fall to his death. Or any of the other situations where people have died, including old ladies and kids being tasered for objecting loudly. If there is a reason for police to actually HAVE to use that kind of force, it should be easy to explain. Just like when they shoot someone. Why is that so bad.



Good points. It looks like a sound decision on the face of it. Of course, the devil is in the details and we'll have to wait and see how it plays out in the real world.

GrizzlyGuy
12-29-2009, 6:43 AM
This should really help Steven Anderson's case (https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/12/16/p199) (tasered and beaten for refusing to answer questions at a DHS checkpoint). Charges against him were dismissed with prejudice and he will now be suing for damages. 9th circuit already ruled favorably (https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/08/04/p164) in another checkpoint case, and he is using the same lawyer. Should be a slam-dunk win with a large amount of damages awarded.

These cases will hopefully send a strong message to law enforcement about the use of excessive force.

cdtx2001
12-29-2009, 7:05 AM
Don't taze me bro!! Especially if I'm in my underware and got my back to you.

AVgunGUY
12-29-2009, 8:26 AM
I'm not a highly trained LEO, but it seems to make sense that if you get pulled over for not wearing a seat belt (which I'll continue to assume is not a super big deal), get out of the car swearing up a storm, in your underwear, in the morning (not early morning where you would normally be wearing just your underwear in the car - Although I can't recall the last time I was out and about in the boxers), you're creating a fairly tense situation. You add an aggressive move to the mix and it shouldn't be surprising that there was a consequence - tased, a little baton action, etc.

Having said that, I'm guessing that Bob Egelko has written his article in such a way to play to his readership. Embellish where needed, omit if necessary - what ever makes a good story. Probably worth reading the actual case rather than Egelko.

hoffmang
12-29-2009, 8:41 AM
fullrearview - deep breath man. The paper did a bit of a hack job covering the actual decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf). I'm pretty confident that you would not have tasered the guy in this case. Basically to use your taser it looks like the suspect has to be coming at you or trying to flee. If he's just standing there pissed off, and not necessarily at you, well no tasing him bro... :D

-Gene

ilbob
12-29-2009, 8:42 AM
It seems more like they don't want the police tasering someone who is naked and crazy on the balcony of a building, causing him to fall to his death. Or any of the other situations where people have died, including old ladies and kids being tasered for objecting loudly. If there is a reason for police to actually HAVE to use that kind of force, it should be easy to explain. Just like when they shoot someone. Why is that so bad.

Society at large is more and more questioning police use of force of whatever kind, and they are not liking the answers.

Its up to the legislatures and the courts to determine what level of force is acceptable. Sadly, both have mostly avoided the tough job of taking on this question, instead deferring to police, who understandably have chosen to error on the side of maximum force.

Matt C
12-29-2009, 8:48 AM
Funny thing is I'd take a taser hit over oc spray ANY DAY.

fullrearview: Don't know why you are getting so upset, you can still carry a taser, now you simply know where it falls in the force continuum (after OC and before baton/working dog).

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 8:48 AM
I believe the standard for police should be the same as for citizens who have tasers. I know there is a law that says a citizen can only use a taser if there is an immediate risk of injury from an aggressor. My interpretation is that the taser is a defensive weapon. But when you watch the videos at taser international, they are used by police as an offensive weapon. Then there are those times, like the mom with her kid that was tased for merely walking away from a cop. What's up with that? Of course there is the college student that was tased by college cops because he wouldn't step away from a microphone or something equally as stupid, ergo the "don't tase me bro" comment that we have become all too familiar with.

I personally think tasers are along the same line as pepper spray, and you have to articulate concerns about injury by an attacker just the same as for a taser. In fact, I believe it's a felony if you use either without being able to articulate a valid reason. Why should police be any different?

Ron-Solo
12-29-2009, 8:49 AM
I like that part where it said a hospital visit was required to remove the dart. That's standard procedure in ANY taser incident. It's a puncture wound, although very minor, and has to be treated as such.

LASD has always held that the suspect must fall into the 'assaultive' or 'high risk' catagory before a taser is used, so no change there.

Very one-sided reporting in my opinion.

M1A Rifleman
12-29-2009, 8:50 AM
Good, I agree with this ruling, and I hope the kid gets a big settlement. Even the police can't go around clubbing and firing tasers at people because they don't do as ordered. :)

zum
12-29-2009, 8:59 AM
Meh... Doesnt suprise me

2 of my buddies just became LEO's and they are always excited when they get to tell a tazer story.

BigDogatPlay
12-29-2009, 9:02 AM
LASD has always held that the suspect must fall into the 'assaultive' or 'high risk' catagory before a taser is used, so no change there.

+1

The standard for LEA TASER use should be just about exactly that. It should be deployed in situations where the subject is physically (e.g. without a weapon) assaulting the LEO or another person, is actively and violently resisting arrest or when they fall into defined high risk categories as suggested above.

It should not be, IMO, used as a tool for mere compliance... such as tazing grannies who don't want to get out of the car as we've seen on countless videos.

It's still an excellent tool. There is no reason to leave it in the locker based on this decision.

ilbob
12-29-2009, 9:04 AM
Even the police can't go around clubbing and firing tasers at people because they don't do as ordered. :)

Actually, for the most part they can and do, and the courts say it is just fine. This is just a baby step in the right direction. But at least it is in the right direction.

eta34
12-29-2009, 9:17 AM
Funny thing is I'd take a taser hit over oc spray ANY DAY.

fullrearview: Don't know why you are getting so upset, you can still carry a taser, now you simply know where it falls in the force continuum (after OC and before baton/working dog).


No such thing as a force continuum anymore. The Supreme Court has established the standard of "objectively reasonable." That is, an officer does not have to go through "lesser" levels of force before using injuring or deadly force.

p7m8jg
12-29-2009, 9:18 AM
Another example of "The Tyranny of Judges". Decisions made in the quiet reflection of a judge's chambers by someone who usually has zero experience in dealing with violent people on the street.

You can't win. I'm glad I don't wear a badge at work anymore.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 9:26 AM
Another example of "The Tyranny of Judges". Decisions made in the quiet reflection of a judge's chambers by someone who usually has zero experience in dealing with violent people on the street.

You can't win. I'm glad I don't wear a badge at work anymore.

Actually, I as a citizen am tired of reading about cops getting away with things that I would be arrested and convicted for if I did it. Making a mistake is one thing, but when it costs an innocent person their life, saying oops, my bad doesn't cut it. And the tired old claim of "I want to go home at the end of the day" doesn't cut it anymore. If you can't stand the heat get the hell out! Obviously you chose to bail.

fullrearview
12-29-2009, 9:28 AM
As a disclaimer, I have never had to use physical force to a negotiate a situation as of yet. I am pretty good at defusing hostile situations, even when a taser, pepper spray, or baton, at least displayed, was warranted. That includes working Sac County jail for 8 months before I was laid off.

Now I work for a smaller dept. that has a limited budget and is very conscious about liabilities. I am not worried about not being able to use it, I am worried about the liability of using it.

From what it sounds, I could be perfectly justified in using deadly force, use the taser, and then have my department and me sued for using it.

now I will read the case.

fullrearview
12-29-2009, 9:37 AM
fullrearview - deep breath man. The paper did a bit of a hack job covering the actual decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf). I'm pretty confident that you would not have tasered the guy in this case. Basically to use your taser it looks like the suspect has to be coming at you or trying to flee. If he's just standing there pissed off, and not necessarily at you, well no tasing him bro... :D

-Gene

Even if not much has changed....I still hate liberals..:D

Again, I am just worried about the liabilities, even when justified.

mtptwo
12-29-2009, 9:38 AM
It seems more like they don't want the police tasering someone who is naked and crazy on the balcony of a building, causing him to fall to his death. Or any of the other situations where people have died, including old ladies and kids being tasered for objecting loudly. If there is a reason for police to actually HAVE to use that kind of force, it should be easy to explain. Just like when they shoot someone. Why is that so bad.

Because a lot of people here have two mindsets in common. One, people in uniform are somehow mystically above abuse of their power, and two, any court ruling against people in uniform must be part of a vast liberal agenda against conservative principles.

Personally, I think this is an excellent ruling, as any ruling that demands justification of use of power by those that wield it.

k1dude
12-29-2009, 9:51 AM
Unfortunately it appears this case is where one bad apple ruins the barrel.

We've all encountered bad LEO's with anger management problems while they make up violations. We always seem to remember the bad ones. Those bad ones also always seem to make the most impact on the public. Most LEO's are good, but we rarely recall those interactions. Basically the law abiding public fears LEO's based on our bad experiences. How often do you sweat when you see a patrol car pull in behind you? Even though you haven't done anything wrong you're sweating bullets afraid they might make stuff up. But we never remember that 99% of the time they don't pull you over.

99% of LEO's probably use their tasers appropriately. It's the 1% that make the news and give the all other LEO's a bad rep. So they make laws based on the 1% rather than the 99%. So now 99% of LEO's are screwed on how and when they can use the tools at their disposal.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 10:04 AM
Unfortunately it appears this case is where one bad apple ruins the barrel.

We've all encountered bad LEO's with anger management problems while they make up violations. We always seem to remember the bad ones. Those bad ones also always seem to make the most impact on the public. Most LEO's are good, but we rarely recall those interactions. Basically the law abiding public fears LEO's based on our bad experiences. How often do you sweat when you see a patrol car pull in behind you? Even though you haven't done anything wrong you're sweating bullets afraid they might make stuff up. But we never remember that 99% of the time they don't pull you over.

99% of LEO's probably use their tasers appropriately. It's the 1% that make the news and give the all other LEO's a bad rep. So they make laws based on the 1% rather than the 99%. So now 99% of LEO's are screwed on how and when they can use the tools at their disposal.

Let me take this one point at a time.

1. The bad ones make the most impact because they are the ones that will make your life unjustifiably miserable.

2. I remember the good ones, but there is nothing they have done that has improved my life.

3. It's called survival mode. When someone or something appears to be a threat, you become naturally concerned about their or its intentions.

4. I don't believe the 99% are screwed, but their boundaries in use of a taser are more defined.

tyrist
12-29-2009, 10:08 AM
There is positively no way a judge could ever comprehend every tactical situation that would arise in the field and by putting any legally defined limits on the use of the taser is a travesty. Why can't they just punish the individual instead of making a vast ruling setting a legal precedent for when it can be used. If the force was unreasonable the force was unreasonable; there is no need to actually define the limits.

Now any use although perhaps the better option causing the least amount of harm to both officer and suspect can be declared invalid because it doesn't meet the legally defined criteria.

HAVOC5150
12-29-2009, 10:48 AM
So what your saying is I have to wait til I'm in a physical confrontation before I could use a taser?

I don't know if you have ever been in a physical confrontation but ususally both my hands are tied up trying to restrain the suspect, and if back up is 5 minutes away thats a long fight. I was told in defensive tactics training that if I'm in a fight for 90 seconds or longer then its coming up on use of lethal force.

This guy got tased for failing to obey an officers orders, the whole reason he is suing is because he fell and lost 4 teeth (that is the only reason we are reading about it).

When did this incident occur? A lot of the time we don't know who we are dealing with till its to late, unless you work the same beat day in and day out and deal with the same people. Did it happen right after the POS got out of the car in Oakland and killed 2 cops then later in the day killed 2 more. Anyone can play monday morning QB when a situation like this happens but humans are the most unpredictable animals in the world.

I've delt with inmates who will befriend you, live with you then stand outside the door while you get rushed by 3 other inmates that are stabbing you. I do not condone tasing everyone that LEO come in contact with but I'm not going to take that option away from them.

All LEO's go through a rigorous background and psych evaluation and unfortunatly sometimes people with bad decision making skills get through the cracks.

I'm not going to wait till I'm in a fight where I can be seriously injured (if I go to the ground and break a bone or get knocked out) before I react to a situation because of public opinion, unlike what one member posted "you can't use going home at the end of your shift as an excuse anymore" the hell I can't and I will.

At my agency we have a use of force review board, everytime any officer gets into a physical with someone ie: taser, baton or hands on. Everytime that I went physical with someone, I was justified and cleared.

I'd rather an officer make a mistake every once in a while then go to his funeral because he failed to act because he was concerned about public opinion or some men and women in black robes don't know anything about the real world we live in.

Lone_Gunman
12-29-2009, 10:54 AM
Even if not much has changed....I still hate liberals..:D

Again, I am just worried about the liabilities, even when justified.



You need this bumper sticker. I just bought one after spending the holiday in Humboldt County visiting family.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=41387&stc=1&d=1262116287


Get it here. (http://store.unamerican.com/collections/stickers-s-z/products/shutuphippy)

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 11:49 AM
So what your saying is I have to wait til I'm in a physical confrontation before I could use a taser?

Why would you use it otherwise?

I don't know if you have ever been in a physical confrontation but ususally both my hands are tied up trying to restrain the suspect, and if back up is 5 minutes away thats a long fight. I was told in defensive tactics training that if I'm in a fight for 90 seconds or longer then its coming up on use of lethal force.

Maybe you should consider picking your battles wisely. Does an angry driver who refuses to sign a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt really justify getting into a fight with him? If he is violent, or runs away, isn't there something in your bag of tricks that will help you track him or her down?

This guy got tased for failing to obey an officers orders, the whole reason he is suing is because he fell and lost 4 teeth (that is the only reason we are reading about it).

Woohoo, maybe the cop should have taken some time to find out what the problem is, or is it a requirement to stop, ticket and leave in 60 seconds? All of the cops I know tell me that they actually have all the time in the world if necessary to remedy a problem.

When did this incident occur? A lot of the time we don't know who we are dealing with till its to late, unless you work the same beat day in and day out and deal with the same people. Did it happen right after the POS got out of the car in Oakland and killed 2 cops then later in the day killed 2 more. Anyone can play monday morning QB when a situation like this happens but humans are the most unpredictable animals in the world.

I thought you guys are trained to make snap decisions? How is a guy in a shirt and boxer shorts going to carry a gun? It may be an ignorant question to you, but I don't see it.

I've delt with inmates who will befriend you, live with you then stand outside the door while you get rushed by 3 other inmates that are stabbing you. I do not condone tasing everyone that LEO come in contact with but I'm not going to take that option away from them.

Has that actually happened to you? Why would you even befriend someone you don't know that is in jail? I can see being polite, or cordial, but calling them friend seems a little extreme to me. No one took the taser option away, but they did define it. From what I understand of cops, if you aren't told you can't do it, you will do it and try and justify it later regardless of the outcome.

All LEO's go through a rigorous background and psych evaluation and unfortunatly sometimes people with bad decision making skills get through the cracks.

And the ones that shouldn't be cops, that "slip through the cracks" are the ones I'm afraid of because they are the ones that could hurt or kill me without justification. After a day at work, I would like to go home alive as well.

I'm not going to wait till I'm in a fight where I can be seriously injured (if I go to the ground and break a bone or get knocked out) before I react to a situation because of public opinion, unlike what one member posted "you can't use going home at the end of your shift as an excuse anymore" the hell I can't and I will.

This is a red herring. The guy got tased because it's alleged by the cop that he didn't obey an order to get back in his car. He didn't have a gun, he didn't attack the offending cop, he wasn't even mad at the cop, he was pissed at himself. So please explain how any of that justified tasing the guy? You're twisting this completely out of proportion to justify your argument.

At my agency we have a use of force review board, everytime any officer gets into a physical with someone ie: taser, baton or hands on. Everytime that I went physical with someone, I was justified and cleared.

I won't presume to dispute your claim, so what's your point?

I'd rather an officer make a mistake every once in a while then go to his funeral because he failed to act because he was concerned about public opinion or some men and women in black robes don't know anything about the real world we live in.

This statement is scary to me. Please clarify this comment. To me, a mistake is leaving my coffee on the roof of the car and driving away. A mistake is leaving the front door of my house unlocked and leaving for the day. A mistake is forgetting to put batteries in my camera before I try to take a picture.

Seriously injuring or killing a person without justification is not a mistake, it's criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned.

So, are you suggesting that you would rather see a dead citizen, instead of a dead cop? I prefer neither myself.

Sniper3142
12-29-2009, 11:51 AM
Good, I agree with this ruling, and I hope the kid gets a big settlement. Even the police can't go around clubbing and firing tasers at people because they don't do as ordered. :)

I agree with what you said M1A Rifleman and this ruling 100% :)

There are now better defined LIMITS on when a LEO can use a taser. No longer will they be able to use a taser to cause pain or in a way, punish someone who just isn't following their "orders".

No more of the double standard where just Touching a LEO is considered Assault while a LEO can cause severe pain and/or injury to a citizen if they don't feel their orders are being followed to their liking and get away with it.

HAVOC5150
12-29-2009, 12:32 PM
Why would you use it otherwise?



Maybe you should consider picking your battles wisely. Does an angry driver who refuses to sign a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt really justify getting into a fight with him? If he is violent, or runs away, isn't there something in your bag of tricks that will help you track him or her down?

A person that refuses to sign a ticket can be arrested for it and persons that resist will be delt with accordingly. I don't have to let a person go because they refuse to sign a ticket. Some battles I don't have a choice, I'm sent there to deal with them. As far as a bag of tricks goes there is something there that is used to track them down its call a K9 and I'd much rather be tased than chewed up.



Woohoo, maybe the cop should have taken some time to find out what the problem is, or is it a requirement to stop, ticket and leave in 60 seconds? All of the cops I know tell me that they actually have all the time in the world if necessary to remedy a problem.

ok at what point does it become and unlawful detention for keeping him to long on a traffic stop.



I thought you guys are trained to make snap decisions? How is a guy in a shirt and boxer shorts going to carry a gun? It may be an ignorant question to you, but I don't see it.

maybe the officers xray glasses weren't working he couldn't see through the car door and the gun in his door handle or center console.



Has that actually happened to you? Why would you even befriend someone you don't know that is in jail? I can see being polite, or cordial, but calling them friend seems a little extreme to me. No one took the taser option away, but they did define it. From what I understand of cops, if you aren't told you can't do it, you will do it and try and justify it later regardless of the outcome.

I was using an example of an incident that happened to an inmate to make a point that you can not read what a person is thinking.




And the ones that shouldn't be cops, that "slip through the cracks" are the ones I'm afraid of because they are the ones that could hurt or kill me without justification. After a day at work, I would like to go home alive as well.

You and me both because they make everyone that works in law enforcement look bad.



This is a red herring. The guy got tased because it's alleged by the cop that he didn't obey an order to get back in his car. He didn't have a gun, he didn't attack the offending cop, he wasn't even mad at the cop, he was pissed at himself. So please explain how any of that justified tasing the guy? You're twisting this completely out of proportion to justify your argument.

-it says the guy got out of the car and was jumping around yelling gibberish and standing 15-25 feet away from the officer, you can close that gap really fast. Maybe the officer should have waited to see if the guy was going to kick his butt before he reacted and tased the guy. But he jumps out of his car yelling and cussing whats next.......who knows what the guy in the car is going to do, we don't read minds.

I won't presume to dispute your claim, so what's your point?

-most agencies now have use of force review boards that if you are found in the wrong you get hung out to dry.

This statement is scary to me. Please clarify this comment. To me, a mistake is leaving my coffee on the roof of the car and driving away. A mistake is leaving the front door of my house unlocked and leaving for the day. A mistake is forgetting to put batteries in my camera before I try to take a picture.

-To you those are mistakes, I understand your point. But would you rather have the officer just stand there with his hands in his pocket or react to what he\she preceives is a threat can get you killed.

Seriously injuring or killing a person without justification is not a mistake, it's criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned.
-Did his\her department clear him of this incident, is he\she with in the department guidlines of there use of force. Should this young man have stayed in the car and cussed instead of jumping out and acting a fool.

So, are you suggesting that you would rather see a dead citizen, instead of a dead cop? I prefer neither myself.-This question is not even worth responding to!

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 12:33 PM
-This question is not even worth responding to!

Could it be because you have no response to it?

xr650r
12-29-2009, 12:41 PM
I'm waiting for the case when the suspect is tased and then beats the crap out of the officer for tasing him (and no other reason)

:49:

HAVOC5150
12-29-2009, 12:45 PM
Could it be because you have no response to it?

yeah because its a stupid question

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 1:29 PM
yeah because its a stupid question

Is it? Well why don't you, with your vast amounts of intellect and wisdom enlighten me, so that I can understand just what the hell you're talking about then. Because by your comments, you were stomping your feet like some juvenile delinquent telling us how unfair it is for the courts to actually place restrictions on the amount of force you can use against someone who poses no threat to a cop other than perhaps his freaking ego. And then you top it off with people want to hurt me, so I need to be able to hurt people without restraint. And you go on to tell all of the uninitiated masses just how misunderstood you are because nobody knows what it's like to be attacked. Lastly, you attempt to justify your argument by saying that because police departments scrutinize the actions of their people, that is somehow good enough. Apparently it's not good enough, because people are attacked regularly by police with tasers, who pose no threat to them. What's the most scary about your tantrum is the fact that you suggest that it's better that a citizen is hurt or killed by a cops "mistake" than it is for a cop to be killed. Now you hopefully didn't mean it, but that's the message I got from it. So please, enlighten me.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 1:37 PM
Interesting that the lawyer considers a TASER to be greater force than Pepperspray. Most LE Agencies consider them to be the same level of force. Many consider the Taser & OC Spray to be less force than any "hands on" tactic.

I'm a firm believer that the TASER saves cop and suspect lives both. It would be unfortunate if the court restricts their use.

Electricboy
12-29-2009, 1:39 PM
If it requires imminent threat of bodily injury or death then why have a tazer at all? aren't those the same requirements for using your gun?

SteveH
12-29-2009, 1:43 PM
fullrearview - deep breath man. The paper did a bit of a hack job covering the actual decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf). I'm pretty confident that you would not have tasered the guy in this case. Basically to use your taser it looks like the suspect has to be coming at you or trying to flee. If he's just standing there pissed off, and not necessarily at you, well no tasing him bro... :D

-Gene

What is the courts recommendation in that situation? Pepperspray him? Grab him and shake the hell out of him? Hit him with a stick? Stand there and negotiate in the street until they both get hit by a passing car? Say nevermind and just drive away without writing the ticket, leaving the crazy half naked guy in the street? Doing nothing is rarely an option. Take away the taser option and the options that remain are more likely to cause injury than the Taser.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 1:53 PM
What is the courts recommendation in that situation? Pepperspray him? Grab him and shake the hell out of him? Hit him with a stick? Stand there and negotiate in the street until they both get hit by a passing car? Say nevermind and just drive away without writing the ticket, leaving the crazy half naked guy in the street? Doing nothing is rarely an option. Take away the taser option and the options that remain are more likely to cause injury than the Taser.

This was ignorant to begin with. You actually had a cop on a street corner looking for people who weren't wearing seatbelts. Is that what my taxes go for, keeping evil people off the street that don't wear their seatbelts? I drive a '64 Volkswagen, I don't need seatbelts. In fact, I took the ones out that were in there in protest of that stupid law. Now for the taser, no one said take the option away. But the option is now more defined. I wish I had half of the ability to defend myself from attack, I wouldn't have the scar on the back of my neck and the 8 scars from knife wounds I received when I was attacked four years ago.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 2:01 PM
I try not to bring my work to the boards. But for the record I train cops and one the the subjects is force options. I'm seeing a lot of ignorance in this thread.

What many are calling "Not following orders" is actually obstruction, resisting arrest, evading. THe police are allowed to use physical force to take a suspect into custody. The level of force used is determined by the suspect not the cops. The cops are required to use the least amount of force that will get the job done. Until now there was no form of force thatwas less force than a Taser, unless you count mere presence and verbal commands as "force." The Taser is less likely to cause injury than even control holds. Tasering someone to force them to comply with handcuffing is less likely to result in injury to the suspect or officer than wrestling with them to get them into handcuffs. Handcuffing someone that doesnt want to be cuffed without hurting him or yourself is one of the hardest things in the world. Tasers make it much easier and usually they do not result in any injury.

The FBI published a study a couple years back that showed that early decisive force results in less injury to the police and suspects both, compared to initially using too little force and working your way up.

I think the court made a half assed decision here. They told the cops what they cannot do without so much as a recommendation on what they can or should do in the same type of situation. I think I know how the cops are going to react though. They are going to go back to take downs and body weapons and injuries to suspects and cops both are going to increase.

It seems to me the court is saying the Taser is equal to the ASP, Baton or beanbag. I strongly disagree with that. Taser 10 cops in training and none of them will be injured. Hit 10 cops in training with a baton hard enough to force them to submit to handcuffing and they all will be injured. From a tactics standpoint this is a flawed ruling.

gabe123
12-29-2009, 2:03 PM
I believe the standard for police should be the same as for citizens who have tasers. I know there is a law that says a citizen can only use a taser if there is an immediate risk of injury from an aggressor. My interpretation is that the taser is a defensive weapon. But when you watch the videos at taser international, they are used by police as an offensive weapon. Then there are those times, like the mom with her kid that was tased for merely walking away from a cop. What's up with that? Of course there is the college student that was tased by college cops because he wouldn't step away from a microphone or something equally as stupid, ergo the "don't tase me bro" comment that we have become all too familiar with.

I personally think tasers are along the same line as pepper spray, and you have to articulate concerns about injury by an attacker just the same as for a taser. In fact, I believe it's a felony if you use either without being able to articulate a valid reason. Why should police be any different?

+1.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 2:08 PM
For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What tactic would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance? Is your preferred tactic more or less likely to result in injury to the police officer and/or suspect? What do you base that opinion on?

Matt C
12-29-2009, 2:14 PM
No such thing as a force continuum anymore. The Supreme Court has established the standard of "objectively reasonable." That is, an officer does not have to go through "lesser" levels of force before using injuring or deadly force.

I never understood the force continuum to be something that had to be gone through level by level before the next level could be used, you are not going oc a suspect with gun who is shooting at you. Rather, it is a guide for what level of force to use in a given situation based on the severity of the threat. Obviously policies could vary widely between agencies.

kf6tac
12-29-2009, 2:20 PM
For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What tactic would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance? Is your preferred tactic more or less likely to result in injury to the police officer and/or suspect? What do you base that opinion on?

If they're resisting, even if non-violently, I say tase away.

The issue here is that on summary judgment, because there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was resisting or not (the officer said he ignored an order to stay in the car -- if true, he was resisting; the plaintiff said he heard no such order -- if true, he was not resisting), and the officer was the one who moved for summary judgment, the court is bound by law to draw all reasonable assumptions in favor of the non-moving party (the plaintiff) and then rule. In this case, because it's one party's word against the other, the court was legally bound to assume that no order to stay in the car was heard and rule under the assumption that there was no active resistance.

If a jury subsequently finds that the officer's testimony was true, and that an order to stay in the car was being ignored, then the game changes entirely on appeal because the court can only throw out the jury's factual findings if they are arbitrary and capricious.

eta34
12-29-2009, 2:49 PM
I never understood the force continuum to be something that had to be gone through level by level before the next level could be used, you are not going oc a suspect with gun who is shooting at you. Rather, it is a guide for what level of force to use in a given situation based on the severity of the threat. Obviously policies could vary widely between agencies.

Understood. Unfortunately, many people believe that there is such a continuum.

ilbob
12-29-2009, 2:55 PM
The real problem is not LE using Tasers and other weapons in SD. No one that I have heard thinks they have no right to SD. The issue most of the time with bad uses of force is either excessive force, or cases where no force was warranted at all. The problem is the idea that LE orders must be obeyed w/o question. If someone is merely failing to do as they are told but are not harming anyone, there is no reason to Taser. Using Taser (or any level of physical force for that matter) merely to enforce compliance with dubious orders is just plain wrong.

Potentially lethal force should be reserved for SD and only SD.

aermotor
12-29-2009, 2:58 PM
Am I only one who thinks this is good? I can't count the amount of times I've been enraged at trigger happy flipping cops. Pisses me off to no end the power they abuse.

Sgt Raven
12-29-2009, 2:58 PM
I try not to bring my work to the boards. But for the record I train cops and one the the subjects is force options. I'm seeing a lot of ignorance in this thread.

......snip.........

It seems to me the court is saying the Taser is equal to the ASP, Baton or beanbag. I strongly disagree with that. Taser 10 cops in training and none of them will be injured. Hit 10 cops in training with a baton hard enough to force them to submit to handcuffing and they all will be injured. From a tactics standpoint this is a flawed ruling.

How's that done in training when you have 2 or more big guys holding the one being tasered up so he doesn't fall down and hurt themselves, vs. tasering someone on the street where they fall into what? A curb, traffic, or worse. The problem is when your brothers get up on their high horse because someone doesn't 'respect their authority'. I've read the web page cop ticketing cops, y'all sure get upset when your brothers in arms write y'all a speeding ticket. If you respect the law so much, why are you speeding in 1st place? :TFH:

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:02 PM
The real problem is not LE using Tasers and other weapons in SD. No one that I have heard thinks they have no right to SD. The issue most of the time with bad uses of force is either excessive force, or cases where no force was warranted at all. The problem is the idea that LE orders must be obeyed w/o question. If someone is merely failing to do as they are told but are not harming anyone, there is no reason to Taser. Using Taser (or any level of physical force for that matter) merely to enforce compliance with dubious orders is just plain wrong.

Potentially lethal force should be reserved for SD and only SD.

What tactic would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance? Is your preferred tactic more, or less, likely to result in injury to the police officer and/or suspect? What do you base that opinion on?

Cr6IC
12-29-2009, 3:22 PM
And what is your answer to the 300+ folks killed by tasers in the last five years, steveH? Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs? IMHO, tasers have a place as an LE tool, but I think cops can be rather flippant about the consequences of using them - tasimg young healthy guys in LE academy in a safe controlled environment is worlds away from using them on old, overweight or drug-addicted people on the street.

hoffmang
12-29-2009, 3:29 PM
Steve,

You are jumping the gun. This case goes back to a jury as there are factual disputes about whether the officer used too much force and the district court tossed the case before it could go to the jury. I expect your arguments will get made and then a jury will decide whether this use of force was acceptable.

-Gene

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:33 PM
Steve,

You are jumping the gun. This case goes back to a jury as there are factual disputes about whether the officer used too much force and the district court tossed the case before it could go to the jury. I expect your arguments will get made and then a jury will decide whether this use of force was acceptable.

-Gene

In the interest of risk management i will be telling my students to consider using OC spray whenever possible instead of the TASER. The court seems to be saying OC Spray is less force. The last thing I want my students doing is putting their hands on anyone for anything other than handcuffing and searching. Too much risk of injury to all parties with hands on tactics.

kf6tac
12-29-2009, 3:34 PM
Steve,

You are jumping the gun. This case goes back to a jury as there are factual disputes about whether the officer used too much force and the district court tossed the case before it could go to the jury. I expect your arguments will get made and then a jury will decide whether this use of force was acceptable.

-Gene

This. Denial of summary judgment is just the fancy legal way of saying, "Sorry, your case isn't the slam-dunk you claim it is."

Matt C
12-29-2009, 3:34 PM
For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What tactic would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance?

Call for back-up. When you have a 4-5 officer to one suspect ratios, use empty hand control to subdue the suspect.

Is your preferred tactic more or less likely to result in injury to the police officer and/or suspect?

If 4-5 of you can't subdue one non-combative subject without a greater risk of injury than paralyzing him where he stands with no support (never mind the risks of those barbed fishing hooks flying around, end the electrical shock issues) then you clearly need more training, either in the gym or in use of force techniques.

What do you base that opinion on?

Experience and training. I arrested more people during an average week as a loss prevention agent, without so much as a can of OC, than I ever did in LE with a full belt of gear and pistol. AS LE I never had to use OC let alone draw my pistol, and back-up was generally very limited (usually only 2-3 available persons on shift). In addition, the people were were dealing with were in shape combat veterans, not strung out junkies.

I see a lot of occasions where an officer acts arrogantly or in an inflammatory way because he knows ultimately he has the upper hand. This creates use of force situations that likely could have been avoided.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:35 PM
And what is your answer to the 300+ folks killed by tasers in the last five years, steveH?

I believe that statistic about as much as i believe the Brady Bunch's statistics. If Tasers were deadly people would be dropping dead in training. Yet not one single recruit, cadet or cop has died in taser training, anywhere.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 3:36 PM
What tactic would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance? Is your preferred tactic more, or less, likely to result in injury to the police officer and/or suspect? What do you base that opinion on?

Well, it would seem that those of you who view this decision as unacceptable seem to view a taser as a safe, less injurious form of restraint. However, when you factor in a persons uncontrolled falling and the injuries that follow, the fact that a person needs to have barbed darts medically removed from their body and the possibility, based on past incidents, of a person actually dieing from an attack with a taser, is it really as safe as you would have us believe? I am not opposed to police using tasers, and I'm certainly not opposed to police defending themselves, what I am opposed to is what I view as the police using it as a force multiplier more as a matter of convenience than of self defense. I won't presume to know what the judges were thinking, but they read the news, and they see the same things that we as citizens see. As for the issue of self defense, if a person has a stick, rock, knife, gun or anything that can be articulated to be a "weapon", I seriously doubt that a lone cop will resort to a taser. Most will use a gun and claim that they feared for their life. That's fine, but then I have a question for police, if a citizen used a gun based on the same circumstances, would you exonerate the citizen? Be careful how you answer, because I believe whatever conditions you place on citizens should be placed on police.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:38 PM
Call for back-up. When you have a 4-5 officer to one suspect ratios, use empty hand control to subdue the suspect.



If 4-5 of you can't subdue one non-combative subject without a greater risk of injury than paralyzing him where he stands with no support then you clearly need more training, either in the gym or in use of force techniques.



Experience and training. I arrested more people during an average week as a loss prevention agent, without so much as a can of OC, than I ever did in LE with a full belt of gear and pistol. I never had to use OC let alone draw my pistol, and back-up was generally very limited (usually only 2-3 available persons on shift).

I see a lot of occasions where an officer acts arrogantly or in an inflammatory way because he knows ultimately he has the upper hand. This creates use of force situations that likely could have been avoided.

I've seen a lot of lower back injuries, shoulder injuries and broken fingers from "control holds." Its unreasonable to expect every police applicant to have BJJ black belt. Wrestling with a suspect leads to suspect and officer injuries and puts the officers gun too close to the suspect.

hoffmang
12-29-2009, 3:40 PM
In the interest of risk management i will be telling my students to consider using OC spray whenever possible instead of the TASER. The court seems to be saying OC Spray is less force. The last thing I want my students doing is putting their hands on anyone for anything other than handcuffing and searching. Too much risk of injury to all parties with hands on tactics.

Can you effectively employ OC against a guy standing 20-25' away and not facing you?

The facts here are un-pretty for the officer in question - especially at a simple traffic stop.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:45 PM
Well, it would seem that those of you who view this decision as unacceptable seem to view a taser as a safe, less injurious form of restraint. However, when you factor in a persons uncontrolled falling and the injuries that follow, the fact that a person needs to have barbed darts medically removed from their body and the possibility, based on past incidents, of a person actually dieing from an attack with a taser, is it really as safe as you would have us believe?

Yes.

In fact in every police agency that tracks suspect injuries and officer workers comp claims the incidences of both have decreased upon adoption of the Taser.

Clearly some people have have been injured by the Taser. But many more have been injured from grappling. I've reviewed cases where someone refusing to put their hands behind their back resulted in "green limb" fractures of the arm or shoulder dislocation.

I'm aware of one agency that was very resistant to Tasers intially. They issued them on a limited test bases. After 6-months injuries to suspects and officers both decreased so dramatically that the agency did a complete turn around and ordered every officer to start carrying one.

Mayhem
12-29-2009, 3:47 PM
I don't mean to be devil's advocate but this has been a long time coming, and we all should have seen the writing on the wall.

Tasers are not "NON lethal". Maybe "less then lethal" with the potential to become lethal.

Tasers are more likely to be lethal then Words, Holds, Physical force, Chemical Sprays and Batons used by Law enforcement.

Private citizens are limited to compressed air tasers for use only for self defence. They can't use them to torture trespassers why should law enforcement be allowed to use them for torture.

Law Enforcement and Custodial Agencies have had plenty of time to rein in their officers by implementing proper procedures policies and training. The taser has been in limited use since the late 70's and early 80's. Yet we have had countless Taser incidents in the last few years leading to fatalities and litigation.

Officers mistaking their side arm for their taser resulting in the suspect being shot and killed Such as in the Mariposa county incident or the Bart incident.

Officers Torturing suspects into compliance with tasers resulting in death like in the Stanislaus county incidents.

We have dead kid that died from being tased by an officer because the kid was allegedly trying to destroy evidence by swallowing drugs.

A man died by being tased in Stanislaus county for refusing to leave his cell.

We have an elderly man in a wheel chair who cannot walk who was repeatedly tased for resisting arrest .... WTF they couldn't just Chock his tires? Now Merced PD is getting sued and they are going to loose.

In the Bart incident the suspect was already on the ground in hand cuffs.

In the Mariposa incident the suspect was in handcuffs in the back of the police car and was trying to bust out the side window. We used to Hog tie people that did this, now I guess it's just OK to torture them with a taser. unfortunately the officer mistook her gun for her taser.

Keeping in mind that a trained law enforcement officer can use a Baton without causing great bodily harm or death to the suspect as apposed to some one untrained, The taser belongs In the force continuum at the same level as the baton or just above it. Probably above it as the taser can kill far more often as far more unknown variables come into play.

We are also beginning to see more and more cases were a taser could have been used rather then lethal force were a suspect was armed with an edged weapon or a clubbing weapon. Were in a lone officer situation it would be advisable to jump to lethal force in a multiple officer situation were the officers are aproaching a lone suspect in the open one officer could use the taser were the second officer could stand by and use lethal force if the taser misses or fails. But that would require training.

Officers are resorting to their taser way to fast, rather then using the proper levels of force and giving up on their "Verbal Judo" Skills. It only took a few officers to screw it up for everyone but we have had along time to fix this problem now some one else is fixing it for us.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 3:51 PM
Can you effectively employ OC against a guy standing 20-25' away and not facing you?

The facts here are un-pretty for the officer in question - especially at a simple traffic stop.

Clearly in the case in question the officer should have given clearer instructions. "Sir, I asked you to stay in the car which you ignored. Now I'm telling you to get out of the street, step over to the curb and sit down. We both need to get out of the street before we get hit by a car. Do it now or you will be arrested."

If he doesnt comply make him comply.


The problem is the courts ruling does not only effect this case. Agencies will modify their their Taser policy nationwide in response to yesterday's news. I strongly believe the end result will be more, not less, injuries to suspects and cops both.

Matt C
12-29-2009, 3:54 PM
I've seen a lot of lower back injuries, shoulder injuries and broken fingers from "control holds." Its unreasonable to expect every police applicant to have BJJ black belt. Wrestling with a suspect leads to suspect and officer injuries and puts the officers gun too close to the suspect.

I'll say it again with emphasis added: If 4-5 of you can't subdue one non-combative subject without a greater risk of injury than paralyzing him where he stands with no support (never mind the risks of those barbed fishing hooks flying around, end the electrical shock issues) then you clearly need more training, either in the gym or in use of force techniques. Period. You don't need a black belt to learn basic joint locks and take downs, just maybe an hour or two a week of training. If this is too much to ask, I respectfully submit that LE may be the wrong profession for you.

Clearly in the case in question the officer should have given clearer instructions. "Sir, I asked you to stay in the car which you ignored. Now I'm telling you to get out of the street, step over to the curb and sit down. We both need to get out of the street before we get hit by a car. Do it now or you will be arrested."

If he doesnt comply make him comply.

What do you have a one man department? Call for some damn backup, then make him comply. Use you cruiser to shut down traffic if there is such a great safety risk. Seriously, you are the TRAINING other cops? Concerning, to say the least.

hoffmang
12-29-2009, 3:56 PM
Clearly in the case in question the officer should have given clearer instructions. "Sir, I asked you to stay in the car which you ignored. Now I'm telling you to get out of the street, step over to the curb and sit down. We both need to get out of the street before we get hit by a car. Do it now or you will be arrested."

I bet this case comes out differently - even at this point if the LEO had simply said "Get back in the car/Sit down on the curb or I'm going to taze you!"

Having not done that, the balance doesn't look good for the officer. We'll see what happens down at trial. Remember we're at the court of appeals on a motion to dismiss so all the facts have to be seen the the best light for the plaintiff which will not be the case back below.

-Gene

Matt C
12-29-2009, 3:58 PM
Tasers are more likely to be lethal then Words, Holds, Physical force, Chemical Sprays and Batons used by Law enforcement.

I have to totally disagree on Batons, that is a deadly weapon, one blow to the head can and will kill. I think a Taser falls below that in "deadlyness".

SteveH
12-29-2009, 4:00 PM
I'll say it again with emphasis added: If 4-5 of you can't subdue one non-combative subject without a greater risk of injury than paralyzing him where he stands with no support (never mind the risks of those barbed fishing hooks flying around, end the electrical shock issues) then you clearly need more training, either in the gym or in use of force techniques. Period. You don't need a black belt to learn basic joint locks and take downs, just maybe an hour or two a week of training. If this is too much to ask, I respectfully submit that LE may be the wrong profession for you.

I train cops. I have a pretty good idea how much their employers are willing to spend on training in time and $$$. I'm unaware of any LE agency in so cal that gives its officers "an hour or two" of grappling training a week. 8-hours every 3 years is the POST requirement. As for 4-5 officers, that 2 or 3 more than are on duty on any given night shift in many cities. For that reason most of the force options we teach are based on a one or two officer per suspect scenario.

kf6tac
12-29-2009, 4:00 PM
The problem is the courts ruling does not only effect this case. Agencies will modify their their Taser policy nationwide in response to yesterday's news. I strongly believe the end result will be more, not less, injuries to suspects and cops both.

I don't think the agency-level changes will be nearly as sweeping as you fear. For one thing, the city and the police department kept their immunity; the Ninth Circuit's ruling only addresses the qualified immunity of officers in their individual capacities. Secondly, any agency that consults with a lawyer about how to respond to the ruling will likely be told, "If you don't want your officers to get sued, tell them to give clear instructions and warnings."

Ron-Solo
12-29-2009, 4:02 PM
The issue here is that on summary judgment, because there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff was resisting or not (the officer said he ignored an order to stay in the car -- if true, he was resisting; the plaintiff said he heard no such order -- if true, he was not resisting), and the officer was the one who moved for summary judgment, the court is bound by law to draw all reasonable assumptions in favor of the non-moving party (the plaintiff) and then rule. In this case, because it's one party's word against the other, the court was legally bound to assume that no order to stay in the car was heard and rule under the assumption that there was no active resistance.

If a jury subsequently finds that the officer's testimony was true, and that an order to stay in the car was being ignored, then the game changes entirely on appeal because the court can only throw out the jury's factual findings if they are arbitrary and capricious.

Good summation, keeping emotions and opinions (from both sides) out of the issue.

navyinrwanda
12-29-2009, 4:03 PM
It seems to me the court is saying the Taser is equal to the ASP, Baton or beanbag. I strongly disagree with that. Taser 10 cops in training and none of them will be injured. Hit 10 cops in training with a baton hard enough to force them to submit to handcuffing and they all will be injured. From a tactics standpoint this is a flawed ruling.
There's a big difference between a law enforcement professional in good physical condition voluntarily submitting to a supervised and controlled training exercise vs. the application of potentially lethal force in highly variable field conditions to a person of unknown health. If Taser training leaves LEO's with the impression that it is innocuous and entirely safe, then something's badly wrong with the training.

Also, this is not the first decision holding that a Taser is not "an insignificant quantum of force." And as Gene has said, the fact pattern in this case is not favorable to the officer.

Is there really this big of a difference of opinion between LEO's and the general public regarding how serious it is to attack someone with a Taser?

SteveH
12-29-2009, 4:03 PM
I have to totally disagree on Batons, that is a deadly weapon, one blow to the head can and will kill. I think a Taser falls below that in "deadlyness".

I agree. Batons, particularly the collapsable metal batons cause injuries. I've reviewed cases of batons resulting in broken ribs, collapsed lungs and broken arms. The Baton by definition is injury force. A properly used baton should cause an injury with each blow. The metal ASP has a nasty tendancy to break the skin on impact as well. So a single strike to the arm may result in a broken arm and a skin laceration.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 4:05 PM
Yes.

In fact in every police agency that tracks suspect injuries and officer workers comp claims the incidences of both have decreased upon adoption of the Taser.

Clearly some people have have been injured by the Taser. But many more have been injured from grappling. I've reviewed cases where someone refusing to put their hands behind their back resulted in "green limb" fractures of the arm or shoulder dislocation.

I'm aware of one agency that was very resistant to Tasers intially. They issued them on a limited test bases. After 6-months injuries to suspects and officers both decreased so dramatically that the agency did a complete turn around and ordered every officer to start carrying one.

Just wondering, how many of those incidents where a taser was drawn, did the cop actually shoot somone with it? What are an acceptable number of injuries and deaths of people who merely didn't immediately comply with a cops order. I won't even factor in unlawful order. I know that when police are killed, one death is considered too many by police, but what about citizens? How many citizens are an acceptable loss when all a person did was fail to wear a seatbelt or take their time in obeying the order of a cop? Let's go just one more. What about a person who just refuses to sign a ticket because they believe they are right and refuses to cooperate? Do you tase them to expedite things? Or do you get someone over there that hasn't pissed off the citizen to talk to them and defuse the situation?

Mayhem
12-29-2009, 4:06 PM
I have to totally disagree on Batons, that is a deadly weapon, one blow to the head can and will kill. I think a Taser falls below that in "deadlyness".

Normally I would agree, However Law enforcement and Custodial officers are Trained how to use them non-lethally. Although I hear LAPD has it the other way around.

But Ya a Baton could exceed it's place in the Force level due to missuse causing it to go lethal, but we aren't trained to use it that way. This is probably why you don't and haven't heard of Batons being used by LEOs or Custodial Officers causing that many fatalities, even before Tasers began being used.

I think Law enforcement has become to Dependant on the use of their tasers as a solve it all solution, at the cost of all their other skills. Sort of like Fighter jocks in Vietnam and missiles. They lost thier dog fighting skills and some fighters didn't even have guns on them.

Ron-Solo
12-29-2009, 4:07 PM
And what is your answer to the 300+ folks killed by tasers in the last five years, steveH? Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs? IMHO, tasers have a place as an LE tool, but I think cops can be rather flippant about the consequences of using them - tasimg young healthy guys in LE academy in a safe controlled environment is worlds away from using them on old, overweight or drug-addicted people on the street.

Your stats are flawed. Have you ever tried to subdue a drug crazed individual without injuring him. It's not as easy as you might think. Most of the "Taser" deaths you mention were becasue of other issues, usually lethal levels of drugs.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 4:07 PM
Is there really this big of a difference of opinion between LEO's and the general public regarding how serious it is to attack someone with a Taser?

Yes.

Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER. In many agencies if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?

50 Freak
12-29-2009, 4:09 PM
I usually don't agree with the 9th's decisions. But this one I am 100% behind.

Sorry but a taser in my book isn't equivalent to a slapping the wrist with a ruler. It is a harsh tool used to gain compliance through pain. Some might compare that to torture.

Neverless, I believe the taser has been used a little too "liberally" and some guidelines must and finally have been put in place.

Bravo.

five.five-six
12-29-2009, 4:09 PM
I will just add this to the conversation


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlUVGf8B2yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlUVGf8B2yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SteveH
12-29-2009, 4:10 PM
What about a person who just refuses to sign a ticket because they believe they are right and refuses to cooperate? Do you tase them to expedite things? Or do you get someone over there that hasn't pissed off the citizen to talk to them and defuse the situation?

What i would tell my students is they are required to take that person before a magistrate or to jail if the magistrate is not available. They should explain that to the suspect and give him one last chance to sign the promise to appear. If he refuses to sign the promise to appear then tell him he is under arrest. How much force gets used effecting the arrest is determined entirely by the suspects actions.

Ron-Solo
12-29-2009, 4:14 PM
How many citizens are an acceptable loss when all a person did was fail to wear a seatbelt or take their time in obeying the order of a cop?

The issue is not that he was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. He was acting bizarre and failing to comply with lawful orders. His actions fall into the catagory of a violent mentally ill person or someone on drugs

Let's go just one more. What about a person who just refuses to sign a ticket because they believe they are right and refuses to cooperate?

They go to jail, since they are refusing their promise to appear

Do you tase them to expedite things?

Only if they resist arrrest or become assaultive

Or do you get someone over there that hasn't pissed off the citizen to talk to them and defuse the situation?

Whenever possible



Believe it or not, we prefer when things go smoothly and calmly.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 4:15 PM
Yes.

Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER. In many agencies if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?

If this is true, I think the police have their priorities all screwed up. I will be asking the police I know where the taser and hands on fall as a priority.

Matt C
12-29-2009, 4:19 PM
I train cops. I have a pretty good idea how much their employers are willing to spend on training in time and $$$. I'm unaware of any LE agency in so cal that gives its officers "an hour or two" of grappling training a week. 8-hours every 3 years is the POST requirement. As for 4-5 officers, that 2 or 3 more than are on duty on any given night shift in many cities. For that reason most of the force options we teach are based on a one or two officer per suspect scenario.

Perhaps, but around where I live cops seems to like to swarm in even greater numbers to any incident. The department in question has 67 officers plus reserves, I think that adds up to more than 3 per shift.

Sniper3142
12-29-2009, 4:22 PM
Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER. In many agencies if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?

Hearing this from someone who says they TRAIN police officers is VERY TROUBLING!!

Do you REALLY think grabbing someones arm or shoulder is LESS FORCE than shooting them with a Taser that Might KILL them?!?!

How many people have been killed by Pepper Spray?!? (less than 10 I'm betting)

:(

If that is true, I am truly worried about the level and quality of training LEO are currently receiving!

eta34
12-29-2009, 4:24 PM
Yes.

Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER. In many agencies if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?

Please give me some departments who teach that TASER is the least amount of force there is. Thanks.

I am a use of force instructor, trained at LASD, and I can emphatically say that your statement is not true of that department, nor for the departments they train.

Cr6IC
12-29-2009, 4:28 PM
Ron-Solo - those stats may indeed be flawed. I haven't taken the time to look into them. Both you and steve are missing the point, however, in that tasing young healthy guys in a controlled environment in training can be vastly different to tasing citizens out in the world who are not so healthy. Not everyone who is razed is a drug- crazed individual, and not everyone who is taser is as in good a shape as LE trainees. The safe training LEOs get with tasers may lead to complacency about real world effects on other people. People can and have died from tasing. Taser admitted as much just a few weeks ago. Placing limits on taser use is a good thing. It is not a "compliance device". It is a weapon. Yes, cops should have it as part of the repertoire of tools, but the training on when it is appropriate to use is very important, and there need to be defined limits. You don't like limits being placed on when and how you electrocute people?

Matt C
12-29-2009, 4:29 PM
I train cops. I have a pretty good idea how much their employers are willing to spend on training in time and $$$. I'm unaware of any LE agency in so cal that gives its officers "an hour or two" of grappling training a week. 8-hours every 3 years is the POST requirement.

Yeah and the Army only makes me shoot my rifle/9mm twice a year. So who's to blame if I do the bare minimum and hadji abducts my arse and I get to star in a decapitation video? If I could barely qualify I'd be a damn poor soldier. And if you can't control an average couch potato suspect, even 3 on 1, you are a damn poor cop. I don't really see any room for argument here. Hell most officers work 3 on 3 off right? When I was active duty we worked 13 hour shifts 5-7 days a week, PLUS pt on our own time.

Maybe the real issue here is that the standards need to be higher, especially considering the pay. I can't believe that there is no physical fitness requirement once an officer is out of the academy.

Kid Stanislaus
12-29-2009, 4:30 PM
HAVOC 5150 wrote: "I don't know if you have ever been in a physical confrontation but ususally both my hands are tied up trying to restrain the suspect, and if back up is 5 minutes away thats a long fight. I was told in defensive tactics training that if I'm in a fight for 90 seconds or longer then its coming up on use of lethal force."

That's only a minute and one half, it you can't engage in hand to hand combat for longer than that then I'd say its time to get back to the gym!! Lethal force? If those same standards were applied to non-LEO citizens then the murder rate would go through the ceiling.

navyinrwanda
12-29-2009, 4:31 PM
Yes.

Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER. In many agencies if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?
If that's the case, then police training is not in compliance with clear judicial precedent — nor, apparently, with general public opinion.

It seems that the high probability for serious (indeed, sometimes fatal) injury from Taser attacks in not understood by law enforcement. "Zapping" someone into temporary unconsciousness — even if totally painless (which Tasers are surely not) — is fraught with potential harm. And that harm is much more unpredictable than injuries caused by other compliance methods.

Maybe it is this unpredictability that is not fully appreciated? I can understand why Taser International would want to project an image of a safe and reliable product... but it is the responsibility of government officials to insure that those claims are fully supported.

Kid Stanislaus
12-29-2009, 4:32 PM
HAVOC5150 wrote: "All LEO's go through a rigorous background and psych evaluation and unfortunatly sometimes people with bad decision making skills get through the cracks."

From my experience I'd say its not rigorous enough.

kf6tac
12-29-2009, 4:39 PM
That's only a minute and one half, it you can't engage in hand to hand combat for longer than that then I'd say its time to get back to the gym!! Lethal force? If those same standards were applied to non-LEO citizens then the murder rate would go through the ceiling.

Whoa. No. This isn't a UFC match we're talking about here. If anybody -- LEO or otherwise -- is in a hand-to-hand combat situation where the other guy is still enough of a threat after 90 seconds that continued hand-to-hand combat is necessary, then they are already facing imminent risk of death or grave bodily injury. Definitely a "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" situation.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 4:48 PM
The issue is not that he was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. He was acting bizarre and failing to comply with lawful orders. His actions fall into the catagory of a violent mentally ill person or someone on drugs

He was angry because he had a bad day and the cop simply escalated the problem, and from what I read in the court documents may have even lied to justify his actions.

They go to jail, since they are refusing their promise to appear

Fine, no argument there. How many actually explain this to the person and make sure they understand that before they attack?

Only if they resist arrest or become assaultive

If the person actually makes things worse after the police explain what's going on, then I have no problem with police doing their job. If a person attacks the police, I think the police have the right to defend themselves. But if the police just attack without soliciting compliance first, I think that's where the police fall short and need to work on their people skills.

Whenever possible

All of the videos I have watched where police shoot someone with a taser, indicate otherwise. Most of the time it's 1. do what I tell you to do without question, 2. the cop grabs the person and surprises or scares the person, 3. when the person responds with the normal tendency to defend themselves from a surprise attack, they get tased by the cop.

Believe it or not, we prefer when things go smoothly and calmly.

In the long run, I don't believe the person who simply failed to wear a seatbelt did it so they could get stopped and eventually tased. Perhaps the police could become less impersonal and maybe empathize with the person they stopped. There is the old saying, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I'll bet a warning goes a long way, and in the long run a person will be more cognizant of wearing their belt and more supportive of the police if they are warned, instead of contempt for the police because all they have are negative contacts. Most people only talk to police when they get stopped. So how does that help with citizen/police relations?

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 5:01 PM
Please give me some departments who teach that TASER is the least amount of force there is. Thanks.

I am a use of force instructor, trained at LASD, and I can emphatically say that your statement is not true of that department, nor for the departments they train.

Thanks for being a voice of common sense. I found it hard to believe that police would actually consider a taser to be less force than hands on.

ilbob
12-29-2009, 5:20 PM
No more of the double standard where just Touching a LEO is considered Assault while a LEO can cause severe pain and/or injury to a citizen if they don't feel their orders are being followed to their liking and get away with it.

They will still get away with it. Just need to be more creative in their report writing and use the right weasel words. I suspect that will be what this case ends up being about more than anything else, just like most court cases on LE use of force.

Kid Stanislaus
12-29-2009, 5:27 PM
I will just add this to the conversation


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlUVGf8B2yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qlUVGf8B2yc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I don't think that contributed one positive thing to this thread. Portraying the police as retards is uncalled for. About 99% of the time they do their jobs by the book and 1% of the time some bozo in uniform screws up. But oh, that one per cent!! Lets do try to keep it civil.

zum
12-29-2009, 5:42 PM
this...


Maybe the real issue here is that the standards need to be higher, especially considering the pay. I can't believe that there is no physical fitness requirement once an officer is out of the academy.

+10000000000000000000000 just like firefighters

good article about this very issue!!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/12/beating_the_police_force_into.html

Kid Stanislaus
12-29-2009, 5:48 PM
Whoa. No. This isn't a UFC match we're talking about here. If anybody -- LEO or otherwise -- is in a hand-to-hand combat situation where the other guy is still enough of a threat after 90 seconds that continued hand-to-hand combat is necessary, then they are already facing imminent risk of death or grave bodily injury. Definitely a "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" situation.

OK, I can buy that.

Sick Boy
12-29-2009, 5:51 PM
Ok, so it seems to me you may as well just pull your pistol if things are going that far already?? WTF??!!

aermotor
12-29-2009, 6:20 PM
I believe that statistic about as much as i believe the Brady Bunch's statistics. If Tasers were deadly people would be dropping dead in training. Yet not one single recruit, cadet or cop has died in taser training, anywhere.

I don't think a young, in-shape and fit cadet/cop has the same physiology as a 40+ soccer mom; an old man; ad infinitum; you have NO CLUE what preexisting conditions these people may have. To say that is quite close minded to me. To think someone with say, a heart condition getting a 50,000 volt shock doesn't have the possibly of killing them? Cops are using them because they are lazy, not because they are in fear. Go watch the countless vids on Youtube, then think how many aren't filmed.

Makes me sick that some cops forget they are CITIZENS FIRST and cops second. When you no longer have that badge, you're just the same as me and everyone else. You're a public servant. Treat people with respect and as you'd like to be treated.

If a cop is actually being attacked or about to be attacked, by all means, use it! But when it's used just because you're lazy, out of shape, or mentally incapable of handling a person is just gross.

/rant

fullrearview
12-29-2009, 8:03 PM
Treat people with respect and as you'd like to be treated.


Thats a two way street.

Roadrunner
12-29-2009, 8:28 PM
Thats a two way street.

Respect can only be earned, not demanded. It's interesting that police appear to look at their position differently than how their job is defined by various people and the law. For example, it is common knowledge that police are viewed as "public servants". Under the law, police are referred to as "community caretakers", and their position has a "community caretaker function". Yet, more and more, the position I gather from some police is that they view themselves more as an overlord of public order and less of a public servant who actually serves the community. That could pose an ominous problem for the community. An attitude like that could create a divide between police and the citizens in that community. What's even more interesting is that it is more apt to occur in Urbania than in a rural community where the police can't be anonymous and word travels faster and easier about who has the attitude and who doesn't. So, the bottom line is this, police have the responsibility to render appropriate respect to the community they have chosen to serve. When the police who carry a chip on their shoulder stop demanding respect and give respect, the community who wants to be supportive of their police will return the respect their police have earned.

N6ATF
12-29-2009, 9:27 PM
Funny thing is I'd take a taser hit over oc spray ANY DAY.

How many teeth do you have? I like my set, TYVM! :p

MrClamperSir
12-29-2009, 10:51 PM
Yes.

Police officers are trained that a TASER is the least amount of force there is. Equal to OC spray. [B]That any form of touching the suspect with your hands, to include grabbing them by the elbow to guide them to another location is more force than the TASER In many agencies [B]if a cop touches a suspect with his hands the first thing the review board will ask is why did you escalate to control holds? Why not Taser him instead?

ANY form of touching the suspect with your hands? So EVERY time you put handcuffs on a suspect they should get Tasered first? you don't believe that?

Safety concerns come with the job. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is 100% safe. Safety concerns need to be balanced and if anything it should be balanced in the public's favor IMO. After all we are a free nation of men. LE should be more respectful of the rights of the people and the people should be more involved in their own communities. Helping LE deal with the scum in your own neighborhoods can go a long way.

fullrearview
12-29-2009, 10:58 PM
Respect can only be earned, not demanded.

Yes and no. To a complete stranger respect is mandatory until they prove otherwise. Once you loss it, it has to earned back.


What's even more interesting is that it is more apt to occur in Urbania than in a rural community where the police can't be anonymous and word travels faster and easier about who has the attitude and who doesn't.

I do agree but....

size SHOULDN'T matter(no pun intended). Like you said earlier. treat people how you want to be treated....its a two way street.


So, the bottom line is this, police have the responsibility to render appropriate respect to the community they have chosen to serve. When the police who carry a chip on their shoulder stop demanding respect and give respect, the community who wants to be supportive of their police will return the respect their police have earned.

That I don't agree with. Between movies, music and a general fear of the cops, we will never gain the full respect of some comunities. You could take the most polite, understanding officer in the world, make 1500 copies of him and place them in Oakland and he/she will get crapped on now and forever.

That doesn't give them the right to treat the community like crap, but I don't mind an officer treating an individual A-hole like an A-hole, if it warrants it.

fullrearview
12-29-2009, 11:02 PM
LE should be more respectful of the rights of the people and the people should be more involved in their own communities. Helping LE deal with the scum in your own neighborhoods can go a long way.

This is probably the best statement here. The only reason we have so much gang crime is because the community allows it.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 11:43 PM
Please give me some departments who teach that TASER is the least amount of force there is. Thanks.

I am a use of force instructor, trained at LASD, and I can emphatically say that your statement is not true of that department, nor for the departments they train.

It would be unethical to disclose my clients by name.

However i will post one agencies UOF continuem

from least force to most force:

Mere presence
Vebal commands
Taser/OC Spray
Control holds/Caratoid control hold/takedowns/body weapons
Baton/K-9
Less leathal shotgun
Handgun/Rifle/Shotgun

In that agency the Taser is less force than any hands on tactic. They also treat the "choke holds" as less force than other agencies while at the same time treating the less leathal shotgun as more force than most agencies.

clearly every agency is different. But i have to teach to the POST guidlines and agency policy for the agencies i provide training. My personal opion of where each force option lies is completely irrelevant.

SteveH
12-29-2009, 11:46 PM
ANY form of touching the suspect with your hands? So EVERY time you put handcuffs on a suspect they should get Tasered first? you don't believe that?.

handcuffing is non-force.

but yes tasering to enable cuffing is less force than arm bars or take downs to enable cuffing in some agencies.

mattmcg
12-29-2009, 11:54 PM
Finally, a court ruling on this most over-used use of restraint by police. The continued abuse of Tasers by cops all but created a foregone conclusion with this court ruling.

I can't tell you how many times I've sat around the table with LEO that bragged about how many times they had used their Taser on a person that simply wasn't complying with questionable instructions. Sounds like abuse will finally be curbed once the pile of lawsuits commences and department policies are finally adjusted......

MrClamperSir
12-30-2009, 12:13 AM
handcuffing is non-force.

but yes tasering to enable cuffing is less force than arm bars or take downs to enable cuffing in some agencies.

Tasering in an uncontrolled take down. The subject has no control to prevent his head/face from slamming into the concrete. At least a judo throw the guy is unlikely to be injured. If you don't agree with this I'd like to see you volunteer to be tased in the middle of the street with no support of any kind.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 12:52 AM
This was ignorant to begin with. You actually had a cop on a street corner looking for people who weren't wearing seatbelts. Is that what my taxes go for, keeping evil people off the street that don't wear their seatbelts? I drive a '64 Volkswagen, I don't need seatbelts. In fact, I took the ones out that were in there in protest of that stupid law. Now for the taser, no one said take the option away. But the option is now more defined. I wish I had half of the ability to defend myself from attack, I wouldn't have the scar on the back of my neck and the 8 scars from knife wounds I received when I was attacked four years ago.

Yes that is one of the things your taxes go for. LEO's are hired and sworn to enforce the law. Sometimes they are ordered to concentrate on minor things like Click it or Ticket, jaywalking enforcement, littering, and other minor issues. Many times they are ordered to take these enforcement actions because some citizen complained to their elected official who then complained to the Chief. LEO's don't make these laws and if you have a problem with the law, or it's enforcement, then take it up with the people that wrote it and the people that voted for them.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 1:17 AM
Tasering in an uncontrolled take down. The subject has no control to prevent his head/face from slamming into the concrete. At least a judo throw the guy is unlikely to be injured. If you don't agree with this I'd like to see you volunteer to be tased in the middle of the street with no support of any kind.


The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.

cbn620
12-30-2009, 1:40 AM
It's cases like this that really separate the wheat from the chaff. This issue boils down to a simple principle involving everyone having the same rights. I highlight that this is a simple principle because without it we wouldn't have a country. It is so basic and fundamental that it hurts to think some people don't understand it.

You can't simply tase a person for whatever stupid reason you want to. This is called violating a person's rights. You have authority behind you and the power is balanced in your favor so that there is no legal precedence established determining when you can and cannot tase someone. Well, that has to change. And maybe "change" is not the right word, because all we're doing is "changing" back to the way things used to be, which is some kind of paradox.

The idea we are spoon fed from birth this day and age, an idea absolutely contrary to the founding ideals of this country, is that if you're wearing a different type of clothing than I'm wearing you can do as you darn well please and don't have to answer to anyone for it. Well I'm sorry, but no, you have the law and the Constitution to answer to and it was written over 200 years ago, so it's about time we take some step towards actually making it stick. You're on the same level as us normal folk, where you have to ponder such finicky little details as to, "do I really need to inflict harm upon this person, and am I in the legal right to do so?"

I'm really, really, really so darned sorry the "tribe has spoken" so to speak as to say you can't friggin shock me with 50,000 (or however many) volts of electricity and send such energy radiating through every neuron in my body until I fall onto the floor like a limp little subservient dog, all for whatever reason you came up with after the fact. I'm sorry that the law you enforce is supposed to be equal as described in Constitution, and further established under Reconstruction.

We all have rights. That's the whole idea of rights. Things that everyone has are rights. Things that only some people have are privileges. Those of us in the "wheat" category understand this. I can't walk up to you and shock you with a taser for whatever reason so why should you be able to? Those in the "chaff" category love to cheer about the Constitution, America, and our Bill of Rights, and laud every decision that gives them any sort of power. They are granted privileges that go above and beyond the law and everyone else's rights to the point that they are tyrannical. They incorrectly champion these tyrannical privileges as "rights" but go into instant aggressive mode any time someone tells them they are not above the most fundamental tenets of individual liberties.

They get angry when someone tells them they can't violate other peoples' rights, and that the pendulum is swinging back to the center in representation of the balance of power; that no, you too have to follow the rules--you too must respect the rights of all individuals just the same as the rest of us.

The privileges bestowed upon law enforcement to do special things in the service of justice that some of us simply can't do are not limitless. There is a very, very fine line between serving justice and enacting tyranny and I'm sorry that you take it as such an insult, especially to your profession, when someone points this out. I'm sure that someone reading this will take this simple, elementary explanation of the way things are supposed to work in a democratic republic and label it as anti-law enforcement. Such a person should take a long hard look at what they're arguing.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 1:40 AM
And what is your answer to the 300+ folks killed by tasers in the last five years, steveH? Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs? IMHO, tasers have a place as an LE tool, but I think cops can be rather flippant about the consequences of using them - tasimg young healthy guys in LE academy in a safe controlled environment is worlds away from using them on old, overweight or drug-addicted people on the street.

300+ folks killed by tasers in the last 5 years? So there are 300 death certificates listing being tasered as the cause of death? I don't think so.
This is the same type of FUD the Anti-gunners use, and it's just as easy to check on before passing it on.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html
Since 1999, more than 300 people have died in North America following police Taser shocks. The vast majority of those deaths have not been linked to the stun gun. But medical examiners have cited the gun directly or could not rule it out as a factor in nearly 10 percent of the cases, an The Arizona Republic investigation found.

cbn620
12-30-2009, 1:47 AM
The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.

How backwards. I certainly wouldn't decide to be arrested, and I'm sure I am not the only one. And by decide I mean even tacitly, as in I have committed a crime which could be construed as to "deciding" I am to be arrested. Can you really back up this 99% number? How can a person be in any control of a situation as to decide how an arrest is to proceed if they have not decided to be arrested? When an arrest happens it is involuntarily, period. Even if I am the biggest d-bag in the world and flail around like an idiot, make no bones about it, I was not the one who initiated anything.

As to "making the choice to comply or resist" I just find that line of thinking chilling. Even if the person being arrested is the worst person in the world who has committed the most heinous of acts, I think that kind of preconceived notion is very telling as to how you reason. So are people just supposed to "comply" in whatever way you define "compliance," and if they delineate from this standard you create in even the slightest way, they are suddenly deserving of everything you can and will do to them on the basis that they "decided" their own fate? Really? That kind of authoritarianism is scary and has no place in a free country.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 1:52 AM
cbn620

I don't know who you are directing your post at, but if you think that any LEO posting on this thread is advocating that a LEO should be able to "shock me with 50,000 (or however many) volts of electricity and send such energy radiating through every neuron in my body until I fall onto the floor like a limp little subservient dog, all for whatever reason you came up with after the fact." then you are way off base and we are all suffering from a failure to communicate.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 2:02 AM
How backwards. I certainly wouldn't decide to be arrested, and I'm sure I am not the only one. And by decide I mean even tacitly, as in I have committed a crime which could be construed as to "deciding" I am to be arrested. Can you really back up this 99% number? How can a person be in any control of a situation as to decide how an arrest is to proceed if they have not decided to be arrested? When an arrest happens it is involuntarily, period. Even if I am the biggest d-bag in the world and flail around like an idiot, make no bones about it, I was not the one who initiated anything.

As to "making the choice to comply or resist" I just find that line of thinking chilling. Even if the person being arrested is the worst person in the world who has committed the most heinous of acts, I think that kind of preconceived notion is very telling as to how you reason. So are people just supposed to "comply" in whatever way you define "compliance," and if they delineate from this standard you create in even the slightest way, they are suddenly deserving of everything you can and will do to them on the basis that they "decided" their own fate? Really? That kind of authoritarianism is scary and has no place in a free country.

No, people in a civilized society are expected to comply with the rules/laws established by that society. Without that we would not have a free society, we would have anarchy.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you are making stuff up and acting like a troll.
A well versed troll, but still a troll.

anthonyca
12-30-2009, 5:21 AM
As a disclaimer, I have never had to use physical force to a negotiate a situation as of yet. I am pretty good at defusing hostile situations, even when a taser, pepper spray, or baton, at least displayed, was warranted. That includes working Sac County jail for 8 months before I was laid off.

Now I work for a smaller dept. that has a limited budget and is very conscious about liabilities. I am not worried about not being able to use it, I am worried about the liability of using it.

From what it sounds, I could be perfectly justified in using deadly force, use the taser, and then have my department and me sued for using it.

now I will read the case.

You sound like the kind of LEO we need and respect. They were not going after you with this decision. We all know there is a small minority of LEOs who get in the job to legally bully people. ( this is NOT the majority of LEOs). The two biggest bullies I have ever met have become LEOs. Could we taze our kids or dogs for not listening?

I think it's a good ruling.

Mayhem
12-30-2009, 5:29 AM
300+ folks killed by tasers in the last 5 years? So there are 300 death certificates listing being tasered as the cause of death? I don't think so.
This is the same type of FUD the Anti-gunners use, and it's just as easy to check on before passing it on.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html
Since 1999, more than 300 people have died in North America following police Taser shocks. The vast majority of those deaths have not been linked to the stun gun. But medical examiners have cited the gun directly or could not rule it out as a factor in nearly 10 percent of the cases, an The Arizona Republic investigation found.

Trickster Stanislaus County Jail has had 3 deaths in 5 months. Thats one small part of one law enforcement agency (stanislaus county sheriff's Department). I don't think the whole of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department has killed that many people in the last 5 months with their firearms.

I don't see 300 people in all of north america over a 10 year period as being an imaginary stretch.

Sniper3142
12-30-2009, 7:29 AM
No, people in a civilized society are expected to comply with the rules/laws established by that society. Without that we would not have a free society, we would have anarchy.


True, citizens are expected to obey the laws and rules.

HOWEVER, not every word that comes out of a LEOs mouth is suddenly a LAW. We DO NOT have to OBEY police officers. We have to Obey the LAW. Cops are not Judge Dredds who get to make up any law they want and expect us sheep citizens to obey it!

And anyone who simply does a search on Youtube for "Police Taser" will see that cops have been tasing people for not instantly obeying orders or instructions that are in fact not laws. They tase people to punish or to force compliance.

This legal rulling doesn't take away an officers ability to use a taser. It simply puts REASONABLE LIMITS on when and how it can be used.

YubaRiver
12-30-2009, 7:47 AM
300+ folks killed by tasers in the last 5 years? So there are 300 death certificates listing being tasered as the cause of death? I don't think so.
This is the same type of FUD the Anti-gunners use, and it's just as easy to check on before passing it on.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html
Since 1999, more than 300 people have died in North America following police Taser shocks. The vast majority of those deaths have not been linked to the stun gun. But medical examiners have cited the gun directly or could not rule it out as a factor in nearly 10 percent of the cases, an The Arizona Republic investigation found.


Notice how Taser is now warning not to shoot people in the chest.

http://www.taser.com/Search/Results.aspx?k=chest%20shots

ilbob
12-30-2009, 8:14 AM
The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.
The simple truth is that most of us agree that the vast majority of the time police use of force is warranted and even reasonable.

I am not concerned about those cases, although it would be nice to have some transparency and openness in the way complaints are handled, which would go a very long way toward resolving a lot of the mistrust of LE by the average citizen. I am concerned about the dubious ones where it appears that no use of physical force was warranted at all, or was even contra-indicated.

Despite the fact the the medical examiners refuse to admit it (keep in mind they work for the same government that thinks it is fine to Taser people), it is fairly clear that there are a fair number of deaths if not directly caused by Tasers, at least the Taser appears to have been a factor. Its also fair to point out that Tasers have probably saved some lives (of both LE and suspects), and may well have reduced the number of LE injuries. However, since the statistics for injuries to suspects are not real easy to come by, it hard to say with any certainty whether suspect injuries have been reduced. In fact, I am not aware of any studies of LE injuries that conclusively showed that the mere use of the Taser was responsible for any reduction in injuries, although it seems possible that is the case. its also possible that other changes in work practices and training might also have been factors in reducing injuries to LE.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 9:29 AM
True, citizens are expected to obey the laws and rules.


This legal rulling doesn't take away an officers ability to use a taser. It simply puts REASONABLE LIMITS on when and how it can be used.

How limited won't be decided until the police policy makers reveiw the courts decision and publish their new policies. They typically error on the side of caution so i expect it will be placed at less lethal status with the bean bag shotgun in many agencies.

Kid Stanislaus
12-30-2009, 10:32 AM
300+ folks killed by tasers in the last 5 years? So there are 300 death certificates listing being tasered as the cause of death? I don't think so.
This is the same type of FUD the Anti-gunners use, and it's just as easy to check on before passing it on.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html
Since 1999, more than 300 people have died in North America following police Taser shocks. The vast majority of those deaths have not been linked to the stun gun. But medical examiners have cited the gun directly or could not rule it out as a factor in nearly 10 percent of the cases, an The Arizona Republic investigation found.

There's a thing called "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Its one of the common fallacies in logic that means "after this therefore because of this". No, we cannot say that a person was killed by the taser without an autopsy to substantiate the claim. However, if there truely WERE 300 people who died in the last ten years soon after being tased then it would be appropriate to investigate that very closely. I don't know that a thorough and professional investigation of the phenomenon has occured.
I doubt that anybody at the Arizona Republic has the prerequisite expertise to do such a study.

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 10:48 AM
Yes and no. To a complete stranger respect is mandatory until they prove otherwise. Once you loss it, it has to earned back.

People confuse being polite and cordial with respect. I am polite and cordial with people until they earn my respect.

I do agree but....

size SHOULDN'T matter(no pun intended). Like you said earlier. treat people how you want to be treated....its a two way street.

The problem is, because most police live outside the community they live in (at least that's what I'm told), they have no personal identity with the people who live in the community. In a large community with a large police force, the cop with an attitude can get lost in a sea of blue unless a citizen has the mindset to actually identify the cop at the moment of contact. Most citizens don't think about it, so the offending cop gets away with his offensive behavior. Couple that with people visiting or just passing through a community and there is no real incentive for the cop that lacks people skills to improve his attitude and be less offensive. In a rural community, a cop can't really get away with the bad attitude and not expect some repercussions to follow. While your absolutely correct that it shouldn't happen, unfortunately, it does. A citizen can be very polite, but there are some people, some of them are cops, who view being polite as a weakness and take advantage of that.

That I don't agree with. Between movies, music and a general fear of the cops, we will never gain the full respect of some comunities. You could take the most polite, understanding officer in the world, make 1500 copies of him and place them in Oakland and he/she will get crapped on now and forever.

That doesn't give them the right to treat the community like crap, but I don't mind an officer treating an individual A-hole like an A-hole, if it warrants it.

Unfortunately, you have communities that have been mismanaged so badly that the community has deteriorated into a place that most decent people will never live in. But a community is not beyond redemption so long as the police focus more on the criminal element and less on people who are not the problem. Unfortunately, because some police work in a city that has deteriorated that far, it appears that some police don't differentiate the remaining decent people from the A-holes in the community. So getting back on track, when you tase an otherwise decent member of the community because they aren't responding in a way you want them to respond, all that does is create another enemy and even the decent people begin to hate the police.

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 11:09 AM
Yes that is one of the things your taxes go for. LEO's are hired and sworn to enforce the law. Sometimes they are ordered to concentrate on minor things like Click it or Ticket, jaywalking enforcement, littering, and other minor issues. Many times they are ordered to take these enforcement actions because some citizen complained to their elected official who then complained to the Chief. LEO's don't make these laws and if you have a problem with the law, or it's enforcement, then take it up with the people that wrote it and the people that voted for them.

"Click it or ticket" is a bad joke. And I seriously doubt that a citizen will complain about someone not wearing their seatbelt. In fact, click or ticket is a contrivance of the government, not based on some citizens complaint. Rape, robbery and murder are far more problematic than a person who isn't wearing their seatbelt. Telling me to take it up with a politician is a non-answer designed to shift the blame to me. Police can influence laws far more than the average citizen, because they are the ones that are considered the experts. God knows that politicians look to the police for "facts" to support new laws they want to implement, so suggesting that I have more influence than the police is just ignorant.

NorCalMama
12-30-2009, 11:14 AM
A tazer is a form of electrocution. In spite of more people than not walking away unscathed, ultimately it is a risky thing to inflict on a person. Furthermore, to not set basic parameters is haphazard and gives some very unstable individuals too much leash to interpret when they should or should not use "non lethal force" that could in fact prove deadly. However, death is not the thing that concerns me when a cop discharges a tazer. It's more the principle of how much power do we grant LE? They are US citizens and as their job title implies, are there to enforce the law. As a private sector member, that says to me they should be held even MORE accountable than I or someone who is not LE. I am not badmouthing cops, but I do want to see them held accountable, seriously, for what they do. Not in a manner that ties their hands behind their backs, but does truly protect the public from those who seek to abuse their positions. Ultimately there is too much Chicago style "stuff" going on that allows too many in LE to get away with proverbial murder and leaves people like me with little recourse to seek justice.

Again, I am NOT badmouthing LE, I am simply giving my private citizen perspective on something that legitimately concerns some of us who are non LE.


*Note, I do not agree with calling LE "the largest street gang in America" but the film itself poses an interesting perspective.
gH9k8L3oDa4

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 11:31 AM
The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.

Or perhaps over reacts as is the case of this incident in which a San Bernardino County deputy shot an unarmed individual.

yhYyXL_Utbg

tyrist
12-30-2009, 11:35 AM
"Click it or ticket" is a bad joke. And I seriously doubt that a citizen will complain about someone not wearing their seatbelt. In fact, click or ticket is a contrivance of the government, not based on some citizens complaint. Rape, robbery and murder are far more problematic than a person who isn't wearing their seatbelt. Telling me to take it up with a politician is a non-answer designed to shift the blame to me. Police can influence laws far more than the average citizen, because they are the ones that are considered the experts. God knows that politicians look to the police for "facts" to support new laws they want to implement, so suggesting that I have more influence than the police is just ignorant.

Traffic accidents cause more serious injury and death than rape, robbery and murder. You can also usually avoid most rape, robbery and murder if you don't hang around criminals or are a felon yourself.

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 11:54 AM
Traffic accidents cause more serious injury and death than rape, robbery and murder. You can also usually avoid most rape, robbery and murder if you don't hang around criminals or are a felon yourself.

The seatbelt laws are another way the government tells us that they know better than we do how to take care of ourselves. Violent crime is more of a concern to me than some individual that doesn't wear his seatbelt. In fact, I place the not wearing of seatbelts right up there with skydiving, rock climbing, scubadiving, skiing, snowboarding, motorcycle riding, motorsports of any kind, hang gliding or any other thing we view as risky. We know that not wearing a seatbelt can be hazardous but that should be the individuals choice, not the governments. I consider you comment that victims of rape, robbery, and murder are criminals themselves offensive. As a victim of an unprovoked attack and robbery, you are way off base.

Sniper3142
12-30-2009, 12:30 PM
*Note, I do not agree with calling LE "the largest street gang in America" but the film itself poses an interesting perspective.
gH9k8L3oDa4

Yes it does pose a troubling question.

Why do we continue to see event such as these where police are NOT held accountable?!?

Most people understand that it is a few bad apples causing most of these problems. Most folks understand that the majority of LEO are decent, hard working people trying to do a difficult job. They understand that incidents are the exception and not the rule for police behaviour.

That famous "Blue Wall of Silence" is part of the problem. When rank and file police support the outragous and criminal behaviour of those out of control cops, it paints ALL OF THEM with the same brush of abuse.

:mad:

navyinrwanda
12-30-2009, 12:32 PM
Traffic accidents cause more serious injury and death than rape, robbery and murder.
Seatbelts don't cause traffic accidents. They can only affect the probability of surviving an accident.

Also, traffic accidents don't cause "robbery and murder." An accident is not a willful act.

zum
12-30-2009, 12:48 PM
Or perhaps over reacts as is the case of this incident in which a San Bernardino County deputy shot an unarmed individual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhYyXL_Utbg&feature=player_embedded

that was such a messed up case! that guy was a soldier that had just got back from a tour in Iraq and he gets shot and almost killed by his own.:(

IrishPirate
12-30-2009, 12:52 PM
will plate tectonics PLEASE hurry up and break S.F. off of California and make them their own little island state.....this is just rediculous....lets give criminals more rights shall we? IF THEY WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAZED!!!!! I thought the 9th circuit had more sense than that! I understand the use of excessive force needs to be addressed....but if a cop's life is in danger they're going to reach for a gun, not a tazer...

zum
12-30-2009, 1:08 PM
will plate tectonics PLEASE hurry up and break S.F. off of California and make them their own little island state.....this is just rediculous....lets give criminals more rights shall we? IF THEY WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAZED!!!!! I thought the 9th circuit had more sense than that! I understand the use of excessive force needs to be addressed....but if a cop's life is in danger they're going to reach for a gun, not a tazer...

hello there:seeya:think this issue goes way deeper then the article

might want to scan over some of the posts and arguments being made here

NorCalMama
12-30-2009, 1:09 PM
will plate tectonics PLEASE hurry up and break S.F. off of California and make them their own little island state.....this is just rediculous....lets give criminals more rights shall we? IF THEY WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAZED!!!!! I thought the 9th circuit had more sense than that! I understand the use of excessive force needs to be addressed....but if a cop's life is in danger they're going to reach for a gun, not a tazer...

WHOA! I think what you're saying is interesting... "lets give criminals more rights shall we?". No, that's not the point. When an officer pulls somebody over, for whatever reason, they are INNOCENT until proven guilty as our law so rightly grants. And it's not the point of "If they weren't breaking the law they wouldn't have to worry about getting tazes." It's about making it so those sworn to uphold the law (not protect the public mind you) do so without abusing their power and subsequently, upholding the individual getting pulled over's Constitutional Rights. By keeping those who represent the law in check, that protects then general public from a police state.

As was stated by another member, obviously, nobody is saying most or many cops are crooked, but this is more or less a way to keep the police as a whole in check because sadly, there are those who couldn't care less about the awesome responsibility they have in the position they hold. That's all.

NorCalMama
12-30-2009, 1:10 PM
Yes it does pose a troubling question.

Why do we continue to see event such as these where police are NOT held accountable?!?

Most people understand that it is a few bad apples causing most of these problems. Most folks understand that the majority of LEO are decent, hard working people trying to do a difficult job. They understand that incidents are the exception and not the rule for police behaviour.

That famous "Blue Wall of Silence" is part of the problem. When rank and file police support the outragous and criminal behaviour of those out of control cops, it paints ALL OF THEM with the same brush of abuse.

:mad:

EXCELLENT post!

aermotor
12-30-2009, 1:23 PM
A tazer is a form of electrocution. In spite of more people than not walking away unscathed, ultimately it is a risky thing to inflict on a person. Furthermore, to not set basic parameters is haphazard and gives some very unstable individuals too much leash to interpret when they should or should not use "non lethal force" that could in fact prove deadly. However, death is not the thing that concerns me when a cop discharges a tazer. It's more the principle of how much power do we grant LE? They are US citizens and as their job title implies, are there to enforce the law. As a private sector member, that says to me they should be held even MORE accountable than I or someone who is not LE. I am not badmouthing cops, but I do want to see them held accountable, seriously, for what they do. Not in a manner that ties their hands behind their backs, but does truly protect the public from those who seek to abuse their positions. Ultimately there is too much Chicago style "stuff" going on that allows too many in LE to get away with proverbial murder and leaves people like me with little recourse to seek justice.

Again, I am NOT badmouthing LE, I am simply giving my private citizen perspective on something that legitimately concerns some of us who are non LE.


*Note, I do not agree with calling LE "the largest street gang in America" but the film itself poses an interesting perspective.
gH9k8L3oDa4

Reminds me why I don't like cops. Good or bad, they've got a bad rep as a whole. And the "blue wall of silence" makes me absolutely disgusted.

aermotor
12-30-2009, 1:37 PM
Sorry to get off topic... but this is absolutely unreal, watch part #3 – So outraged... the guy is flipping insanely burned and wrecked from a brutal, brutal car accident and they kill the guy. All cause the guy didn't want blood on him. Just get in your car! Another case of officers lying to protect each other when witnesses say otherwise. I'm shocked out how poor their judgment is in the entire thing. "Hey I know you're naked, burned head to toe and bleeding, but we need you to lie on the ground to make sure you have no weapons... Oh no? Okay, us 3 will tase you then, see how you like that" Are you serious?

On36mB9egR4

MrClamperSir
12-30-2009, 1:37 PM
The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.

I'm not sure that is the truth. 99% is a pretty high percentage and it does not factor in the officers attitude or communication to the suspect.

eta34
12-30-2009, 1:38 PM
Frankly, I am completely sick of the poor arguments and gross generalizations by both "sides." I am tired of those who complain that cops (in general) are corrupt, lazy, authoritarian jerks who enjoy abusing their power. The majority of us are not that way.

On the flip side, I am weary of the philosophy that "officer safety" is an excuse to do anything and everything. I knew this was a dangerous job when I took it. A citizen calling me an a-hole is not justification to use force on him.

Both camps are irritating, ill-informed, and intellectually dishonest.

MrClamperSir
12-30-2009, 1:47 PM
Frankly, I am completely sick of the poor arguments and gross generalizations by both "sides." I am tired of those who complain that cops (in general) are corrupt, lazy, authoritarian jerks who enjoy abusing their power. The majority of us are not that way.

On the flip side, I am weary of the philosophy that "officer safety" is an excuse to do anything and everything. I knew this was a dangerous job when I took it. A citizen calling me an a-hole is not justification to use force on him.

Both camps are irritating, ill-informed, and intellectually dishonest.

Agreed.

TRICKSTER
12-30-2009, 2:43 PM
"Click it or ticket" is a bad joke. And I seriously doubt that a citizen will complain about someone not wearing their seatbelt. In fact, click or ticket is a contrivance of the government, not based on some citizens complaint. Rape, robbery and murder are far more problematic than a person who isn't wearing their seatbelt. Telling me to take it up with a politician is a non-answer designed to shift the blame to me. Police can influence laws far more than the average citizen, because they are the ones that are considered the experts. God knows that politicians look to the police for "facts" to support new laws they want to implement, so suggesting that I have more influence than the police is just ignorant.

I only wish this was true. Police Chiefs and Sheriffs may have some influence, but one must remember that in most cases,they are also elected politicians. The average street cop has almost no influence.
The average citizen has more power than they think. I have been assigned to watch an intersection every morning between 0300-0330 for a week because some citizen complained that someone kept "rolling" through the stop sign at that time. I have been ordered to concentrate my patrols in areas that are perfectly safe because some citizens complained that they felt uncomfortable because they didn't see enough police patrols. In the mean time crime is out of control in the adjoining sector where we were really needed. When it was pointed out through the use of our crime stats where we were really needed, it was ignored. It has been my experience over the last 30 years that the true "experts" the cops that do the job every day, and know what and were to patrol, are often ignored.

Sniper3142
12-30-2009, 3:02 PM
Sorry to get off topic... but this is absolutely unreal, watch part #3 – So outraged... the guy is flipping insanely burned and wrecked from a brutal, brutal car accident and they kill the guy. All cause the guy didn't want blood on him. Just get in your car! Another case of officers lying to protect each other when witnesses say otherwise. I'm shocked out how poor their judgment is in the entire thing. "Hey I know you're naked, burned head to toe and bleeding, but we need you to lie on the ground to make sure you have no weapons... Oh no? Okay, us 3 will tase you then, see how you like that" Are you serious?

On36mB9egR4

Wow

In a world where Justice ruled and the law was applied to everyone equally...

These two Officers would be given a fair and impartly trial...

Followed by a First Class Hanging.

:mad:

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 3:33 PM
I only wish this was true. Police Chiefs and Sheriffs may have some influence, but one must remember that in most cases,they are also elected politicians. The average street cop has almost no influence.
The average citizen has more power than they think. I have been assigned to watch an intersection every morning between 0300-0330 for a week because some citizen complained that someone kept "rolling" through the stop sign at that time. I have been ordered to concentrate my patrols in areas that are perfectly safe because some citizens complained that they felt uncomfortable because they didn't see enough police patrols. In the mean time crime is out of control in the adjoining sector where we were really needed. When it was pointed out through the use of our crime stats where we were really needed, it was ignored. It has been my experience over the last 30 years that the true "experts" the cops that do the job every day, and know what and were to patrol, are often ignored.

The police chief and sheriff are cops, and I do consider them more accountable than their subordinates. In fact anyone in a leadership role is more responsible for the successes and failures than are the people they command. When the state legislature was considering the .50 cal. ban, it was the LAPD SWAT team with their Barrett .50 Cal that stood up and talked about how bad and evil the rifle is. It's also the reason why Ronnie Barrett won't sell his .50 Cal rifles to any police department in California. So yes, I do consider police to be highly influential in when it comes to new laws being made. As for a police chief or sheriff keeping their job by simply saying whatever the politicians holding the purse strings want to hear, I could care less if they stay employed when what they say is at least wrong, and a worst a lie.

NorCalMama
12-30-2009, 4:15 PM
Sorry to get off topic... but this is absolutely unreal, watch part #3 – So outraged... the guy is flipping insanely burned and wrecked from a brutal, brutal car accident and they kill the guy. All cause the guy didn't want blood on him. Just get in your car! Another case of officers lying to protect each other when witnesses say otherwise. I'm shocked out how poor their judgment is in the entire thing. "Hey I know you're naked, burned head to toe and bleeding, but we need you to lie on the ground to make sure you have no weapons... Oh no? Okay, us 3 will tase you then, see how you like that" Are you serious?

On36mB9egR4

Just seeing the thumbnail of that officer gave me the chills and made me feel ill. I remember when I watch this entire film and it horrified me when it came to this story. :mad: The officers involved have to live with what they did and I can only hope all involved in the cover up are eaten away by their consciences.

kcbrown
12-30-2009, 5:23 PM
Between movies, music and a general fear of the cops, we will never gain the full respect of some comunities. You could take the most polite, understanding officer in the world, make 1500 copies of him and place them in Oakland and he/she will get crapped on now and forever.


Crapped on now? Yes.

Crapped on forever? No.

If you place a bunch of good cops in a crappy neighborhood, the good people in that neighborhood will eventually gravitate towards them and perhaps rally around them. They'll need experience with the cops that tells them that they really can trust those cops, that the cops really are on their side and not only understand what they're going through but will help them get through it.

That takes a lot of time. It took time for the animosity between cops and ordinary people to build to what it is today. It'll take time to sweep it away.

The good cops need to become an integral part of the community. The kind of trust we're talking about takes a long time to build and is relatively easily broken until it's fully built up, so for it to work the cops that get put into the area will all have to be excellent people. Get one bad one in there and he will easily screw things up for the rest.

You good cops are going to have to start policing yourselves, to stop tolerating the bad elements within your ranks. We citizens are not in any position to make that happen. I'd love to know what we citizens can do to help in that regard but I suspect the majority of the burden will be on you.

Until you/we make it painful enough for bad cops that they can no longer hold onto their jobs and have sufficient incentive to stay away from LE, we'll continue to have this problem and it'll likely continue to get worse.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 5:50 PM
The simple truth that people fail to understand is that 99% of the time, it is the suspect has all the control. He is the one who decides how the arrest is going to go down. He makes the choice to comply or resist. The officer then reacts to the suspect's decision.

True. Once told he is under arrest, the suspect decides to submit to handcuffing or to resist arrest. If he submits to handcuffing then no force is used. If he resists arrest then as much force is used as needed to force him to submit to arrest.

cbn620
12-30-2009, 5:54 PM
Frankly, I am completely sick of the poor arguments and gross generalizations by both "sides." I am tired of those who complain that cops (in general) are corrupt, lazy, authoritarian jerks who enjoy abusing their power. The majority of us are not that way.

On the flip side, I am weary of the philosophy that "officer safety" is an excuse to do anything and everything. I knew this was a dangerous job when I took it. A citizen calling me an a-hole is not justification to use force on him.

Both camps are irritating, ill-informed, and intellectually dishonest.

I'm sure more people in this thread would agree with your second paragraph in its entirety than they would that "cops in general are corrupt, lazy, authoritarian jerks who enjoy abusing their power." I personally don't think cops in general are, but some people who are apparently law enforcement have in this very thread made authoritarian arguments contrary to the sentiment expressed by you in your post.

Sniper3142
12-30-2009, 6:05 PM
Crapped on now? Yes.

Crapped on forever? No.

If you place a bunch of good cops in a crappy neighborhood, the good people in that neighborhood will eventually gravitate towards them and perhaps rally around them. They'll need experience with the cops that tells them that they really can trust those cops, that the cops really are on their side and not only understand what they're going through but will help them get through it.

That takes a lot of time. It took time for the animosity between cops and ordinary people to build to what it is today. It'll take time to sweep it away.

The good cops need to become an integral part of the community. The kind of trust we're talking about takes a long time to build and is relatively easily broken until it's fully built up, so for it to work the cops that get put into the area will all have to be excellent people. Get one bad one in there and he will easily screw things up for the rest.

You good cops are going to have to start policing yourselves, to stop tolerating the bad elements within your ranks. We citizens are not in any position to make that happen. I'd love to know what we citizens can do to help in that regard but I suspect the majority of the burden will be on you.

Until you/we make it painful enough for bad cops that they can no longer hold onto their jobs and have sufficient incentive to stay away from LE, we'll continue to have this problem and it'll likely continue to get worse.


I just wanted to quote what you said becuase it is an OUTSTANDING piece of writing!

Well Said indeed sir!

Bravo!

SteveH
12-30-2009, 6:05 PM
This Deputy should have deployed a Taser by the 45 second mark at the latest.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=637_1173997492

I'll bet it gets brought up when they go over the cops training in this case too. Every cop in the country has seen this tape. Its where the whole "ask, tell, make" timeline comes from.

ilbob
12-30-2009, 6:47 PM
This Deputy should have deployed a Taser by the 45 second mark at the latest.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=637_1173997492

I'll bet it gets brought up when they go over the cops training in this case too. Every cop in the country has seen this tape. Its where the whole "ask, tell, make" timeline comes from.

If he had a Taser. The real problem was when he needed to start shooting for some reason he didn't.

But this is a fairly clearcut case where the suspect is both nuts and aggressive toward the cop. Not someone more or less minding his own business and not acting in a violent or aggressive manner.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 6:50 PM
If he had a Taser. The real problem was when he needed to start shooting for some reason he didn't.

It got to that point because he did not use decisive force early. The second time he told the suspect "Get back" was when the negotiations should have been over. THe officer did not take control early and died because of it.

Matt C
12-30-2009, 6:52 PM
This Deputy should have deployed a Taser by the 45 second mark at the latest.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=637_1173997492

I'll bet it gets brought up when they go over the cops training in this case too. Every cop in the country has seen this tape. Its where the whole "ask, tell, make" timeline comes from.

WTF? Do you work for Taser or something? Right about the time the suspect pulled a GUN he should have deployed his FIREARM not a damn Taser. Up unstill that point the guy was not using any force and was simply being detained for a traffic stop. A Taser wold have been totally inappropriate, what he did was call for back up and wait, which was correct.


His mistakes were in not firing when the suspect deployed a firearm (supposedly because he had been disciplined for drawing his weapon a short time before this incident) and parking his cruiser in a way (directly facing the car he pulled over rather than angled toward the road) that gave him no cover when the shooting started.

Matt C
12-30-2009, 6:55 PM
It got to that point because he did not use decisive force early. The second time he told the suspect "Get back" was when the negotiations should have been over. THe officer did not take control early and died because of it.

So it does not concern you at all that when facing a potentially armed and aggressive subject you are going to have nothing but a 1 shot less-lethal device in your hand instead of a firearm, with no back up/deadly force available?

cbn620
12-30-2009, 6:57 PM
I might add, one thing that could really help improve law enforcement in this country is education. Law enforcement as a job title has all the tenets of a professional career besides the education. For "good cops" this may not be an issue. Honestly I don't know how we could do this without putting undue punishment on good cops, but I think it's worth pursuing as an idea. Think about this way: people aren't writing songs about "f the doctors" or "f the lawyers" or "f the nuclear physicists." I'm not saying cops need ten years of college to do their job right, but I think more education is a start. I think the problem with the "bad cops" we hear about is they don't know how to do their jobs.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 6:57 PM
WTF? Do you work for Taser or something? Right about the time the suspect pulled a GUN he should have deployed his FIREARM not a damn Taser. Up unstill that point the guy was not using any force and was simply being detained for a traffic stop. A Taser wold have been totally inappropriate, what he did was call for back up and wait, which was correct.


His mistakes were in not firing when the suspect deployed a firearm (supposedly because he had been disciplined for drawing his weapon a short time before this incident) and parking his cruiser in a way (directly facing the car he pulled over rather than angled toward the road) that gave him no cover when the shooting started.

So you would have allowed a suspect who had already rushed you and challanged you to shoot him to return to the vehicle? Screw that, under no circumstsances to his hands go back into that vehicle following that. He would have been justified in shooting him as soon as h reached behind the seat. But the early application of the Taser when the suspect refused to follow reapeated commands to "get back" would have saved both mens lives.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 7:01 PM
So it does not concern you at all that when facing a potentially armed and aggressive subject you are going to have nothing but a 1 shot less-lethal device in your hand instead of a firearm, with no back up/deadly force available?

That's why TASER is a weak side weapon. if it fails drop it and draw your firearm. Are you actually saying he wasnt justified in using a TASER but at the same moment was justified in pointing a firearm at the suspect? I think the time to go to guns was the second the man reached behind the seat. Though i would have closed with him and never allowed him back to the truck to begin with.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 7:04 PM
I might add, one thing that could really help improve law enforcement in this country is education. Law enforcement as a job title has all the tenets of a professional career besides the education. For "good cops" this may not be an issue. Honestly I don't know how we could do this without putting undue punishment on good cops, but I think it's worth pursuing as an idea. Think about this way: people aren't writing songs about "f the doctors" or "f the lawyers" or "f the nuclear physicists." I'm not saying cops need ten years of college to do their job right, but I think more education is a start. I think the problem with the "bad cops" we hear about is they don't know how to do their jobs.

I agree.

It goes both ways though. The public should be well versed in the law as well as the policies and procedures of their local cops. When they disagree with those proceedures they should work to change them. I've noticed if you run the grand jurers or the reporters through a FATs system or a few Tueller drills they suddenly become much more open minded about police use of force. Education is a good thing.

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 7:05 PM
Law enforcement as a job title has all the tenets of a professional career besides the education

I'm not saying cops need ten years of college to do their job right, but I think more education is a start

underhanded complement much??


FWIW, we don't often see, doctors, lawyers, or nuclear physicists arresting and detaining gang bangers and rap stars

Kid Stanislaus
12-30-2009, 7:10 PM
You can also usually avoid most rape, robbery and murder if you don't hang around criminals or are a felon yourself.

Now that's as about as blatant a "blame the victem" statement as I've ever heard.

Kid Stanislaus
12-30-2009, 7:13 PM
IF THEY WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING TAZED!!!!!

Posting it in upper case letters does not make it true.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 7:15 PM
I'm a little slow on the uptake sometime. But in reviewing this thread its clear many of you see falling down as a result of the TASER to be a significant force aspect of the Tasering. One poster used the term "uncontrolled take down."

In training we do address that issue. You try to avoid tasering someone if they could fall off a ledge or into water. If possible do it over grass instead of pavement, ect. But the fall and any injury sustained is a related side effect of the apprication of force, not part of the force process itself. That's why we treat the TASER as such a low level of force. Its two pin *****s and 5 seconds of pain followed by a complete recovery. We do not assume the person being tasered will be injured from a fall. In most instances there are no injuries at all even when they do fall.

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 7:15 PM
Now that's as about as blatant a "blame the victem" statement I've ever heard.

don't blame tyrist, that's just the way progressives see things

Matt C
12-30-2009, 7:17 PM
So you would have allowed a suspect who had already rushed you and challanged you to shoot him to return to the vehicle?

Would I use potentially deadly force on a person who only committed a minor traffic infraction and was acting ridicules but had not actually assaulted me? No, I would call for back up and wait. If he moved to go back to the vehicle I would order him to the ground and draw my firearm if he did not comply (obviously this guy was not complying).

He would have been justified in shooting him as soon as h reached behind the seat.

Maybe to you, but I don't shoot people because of what they MIGHT be doing. I would think it acceptable to use a Taser at that point, were it not for the fact that I only have two hands and I sure as hell would not be putting down my firearm. If I had back-up with a long gun ready I might consider deploying the Taser.

That's why TASER is a weak side weapon. if it fails drop it and draw your firearm.

And while you are trying to react to the failure and/or the suspect deploying a firearm, dropping your Taser, and drawing your firearm, all the suspect has to do is shoot. No thanks.

Are you actually saying he wasnt justified in using a TASER but at the same moment was justified in pointing a firearm at the suspect? No, both occur at the same time here, which is why the Taser is useless in this situation. By the time it's ok to use the Taser, you damn well better have your firearm in your hand.

Though i would have closed with him and never allowed him back to the truck to begin with. Why would you CLOSE? Are you going to tackle him? You don't even know who or what is in that truck still. What if you Taser him nicely then bad guy number two jumps from the truck with a gun? What if you miss and he draws?

Matt C
12-30-2009, 7:25 PM
That's why we treat the TASER as such a low level of force. Its two pin *****s and 5 seconds of pain followed by a complete recovery. We do not assume the person being tasered will be injured from a fall. In most instances there are no injuries at all even when they do fall.

First off, falling is very dangerous, the amount of force generated from a fall just from a standing position can EASILY kill someone, and can certainly cause traumatic brain injury, broken bones and other injuries.

If possible do it over grass instead of pavement, ect. But the fall and any injury sustained is a related side effect of the apprication of force, not part of the force process itself.

Ok, now I think you might just be a troll. I mean seriously, you are suggesting that injures caused by a fall caused by application of the Taser are not due to application of the Taser? That it is not a direct result of the use of that force?

SteveH
12-30-2009, 7:27 PM
Why would you CLOSE? Are you going to tackle him? You don't even know who or what is in that truck still. What if you Taser him nicely then bad guy number two jumps from the truck with a gun? What if you miss and he draws?

You can see there is a dog in the car, no second suspect. You always assume that if the suspect is going back to the car its to retrieve a weapon or flee. You close to prevent him from getting that weapon. Tackle him? No. Use a Taser or baton instead. Better a broken arm from baton strikes than having to shoot him because he reached behind the seat going for a weapon. Somtimes you have to cause people alittle temporary pain to save their life.

Your patrol model seems to be based around never make a tough decision. Just wait for back up and hope nothing bad happens. We trainers call that indecisiveness and failure to engage. If it shows as a pattern of conduct its sometime called cowardness and grounds for termination. It can usually be fixed before that point though. Either in training or the tougher way is through hard earned scars and experiance. Deputy Dinkhellers made his mistakes and others should learn from them and not repeat them.

tyrist
12-30-2009, 7:29 PM
Now that's as about as blatant a "blame the victem" statement I've ever heard.

Not blaming the victim just making the statement if you live a clean life your chances of becoming a victim of violent crime is severely reduced.

It shocked the heck out of me too when I discovered it.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 7:29 PM
I mean seriously, you are suggesting that injures caused by a fall caused by application of the Taser are not due to application of the Taser? That it is not a direct result of the use of that force?

No, they are clearly caused by the Tasering. But are not the mechanism by which the TASER works. They are a variable, not a constant in the equasion. We dont assume a fall resulting in injury will result. The opposit is usually true. Have you personally witnessed hundreds of people being tasered then falling? If so you would have noticed that with a frontal shot the suspect usually falls onto the back. The stiffening from the taser usually causes the head and neck to moved forward due to the tightening of the abdominal muscles. The back takes a slight turtle shell like curve and the suspect kind of rocks backwards without the back of the head ever touching the ground. Application to the back are more dangerous though as a face forward fall can result in tooth loss. I encourage people to target the thighs or abdomin with the TASER for this reason.

rambo
12-30-2009, 8:04 PM
This was ignorant to begin with. You actually had a cop on a street corner looking for people who weren't wearing seatbelts. Is that what my taxes go for, keeping evil people off the street that don't wear their seatbelts? I drive a '64 Volkswagen, I don't need seatbelts. In fact, I took the ones out that were in there in protest of that stupid law. Now for the taser, no one said take the option away. But the option is now more defined. I wish I had half of the ability to defend myself from attack, I wouldn't have the scar on the back of my neck and the 8 scars from knife wounds I received when I was attacked four years ago.

Hey if you ever go to coronado you will see the police in action all they do is drive around looking for nickle and dime tickets. we joke about charging people extra for jobs we bid in coronado just for the police harrasment. its realy kind of funny if it was not so sad.:( I am glad to see them put some restrictions oon these tasers I think cops have got use to using them as a attention getter and thats not right, do as i say or zap! :mad:

Kid Stanislaus
12-30-2009, 9:23 PM
Not blaming the victim just making the statement if you live a clean life your chances of becoming a victim of violent crime is severely reduced.

Now THERE'S a statement that speaks for itself!

Roadrunner
12-30-2009, 9:55 PM
Not blaming the victim just making the statement if you live a clean life your chances of becoming a victim of violent crime is severely reduced.

It shocked the heck out of me too when I discovered it.

This kind of goes along with chiefs of police and sheriffs who think we don't need guns to protect ourselves....because we all know that a person who was raped, robbed, or murdered was probably a criminal and probably brought it on themselves.

I don't know what antigun propagandist spewed this crock of crap, but I seriously doubt that the 2.5 million legal firearm owners who have used their firearms for self defense in the past year would agree with you.

Hoop
12-30-2009, 10:56 PM
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/02/20080502taser0503.html
Since 1999, more than 300 people have died in North America following police Taser shocks. The vast majority of those deaths have not been linked to the stun gun. But medical examiners have cited the gun directly or could not rule it out as a factor in nearly 10 percent of the cases, an The Arizona Republic investigation found.

Taser and the City of Akron sued the medical examiner, saying examiners in the case lacked the proper training to evaluate Tasers.

Probably why they are hesitant to declare the taser as a cause of death.

When I was in AZ awhile back I read a newspaper story about some idiot police chief who zapped a 14 year old girl in the back of her head with a taser and the barbs had to be surgically removed from her brain.

A "Taser" isn't a "Phaser". It's not some miracle device that never hurts anyone and there should be standards for its use.

Hoop
12-30-2009, 10:58 PM
you live a clean life

I don't necessarily disagree with you but that's a very poor choice of words.

SteveH
12-30-2009, 11:15 PM
From the LA Times

"The ruling does not appear to affect the LAPD, which has a relatively strict policy on Taser use. Gennaco said that the same is more or less true of the Sheriff's Department, but that he would discuss with Sheriff Lee Baca the possible need for "tweaking" the policy and training.

The Orange County Sheriff's Department seems more likely to be affected. Spokesman John McDonald said the department's policy allows officers to fire Tasers at people who try to flee an encounter with police or who refuse, for example, to comply with an officer's order to lie down during an arrest. Those scenarios appear to be prohibited under the court's ruling.

"It sounds like this court is attempting to raise the bar for nonlethal use of force," Meyer said.


Does appear OCSD will have to change their Taser policy. McDonald seems to indicate their current policy is the Taser is justified for non-violent resistance to arrest.

MrClamperSir
12-31-2009, 1:04 AM
I'm a little slow on the uptake sometime. But in reviewing this thread its clear many of you see falling down as a result of the TASER to be a significant force aspect of the Tasering. One poster used the term "uncontrolled take down."

In training we do address that issue. You try to avoid tasering someone if they could fall off a ledge or into water. If possible do it over grass instead of pavement, ect. But the fall and any injury sustained is a related side effect of the apprication of force, not part of the force process itself. That's why we treat the TASER as such a low level of force. Its two pin *****s and 5 seconds of pain followed by a complete recovery. We do not assume the person being tasered will be injured from a fall. In most instances there are no injuries at all even when they do fall.

That's why when you are volunteering to be tased you have a couple of guys holding you up and it's done on a mat, because you "do not assume the person being tasered will be injured from a fall".:rolleyes:

You seem to talk in circles.

sniper5
12-31-2009, 8:11 AM
Interesting to read all this. Some thoughts to share, from when I first started working as a paramedic and was licensed under the Wedsworth-Townsend act when paramedicine was a pilot program and had to achieve public acceptance in order to survive. These were some principles we had drummed into us over and over:

1. How would you look on TV doing your job? Is it something you want the public to see? Someday they will.

2. How would you look to your wife and children doing your job? Is it something you want them to see (without you being there to explain it)? Someday they will.

3. How do you look/sound to others when you talk about your job between yourselves or others? Do you say things or do things you hope other people never hear? Someday they will.

4. Could people watch you doing something and say "There ought to be a law. . ."? Someday they'll see it. And someday there will be.

5. Could people watch you doing something and say "We ought to get rid of these guys!" Someday they'll see it. And someday they will.

6. You don't ever represent yourself. You represent your profession. Even when you think no one is watching.

7. Never forget the golden rule. Treat people like you would like to be treated if you were in their place. Someday you will be.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 9:17 AM
The Ninth Circuit's year-end 'gift' to law enforcement
By LAPPL Board of Directors on 12/30/2009 @ 11:55 AM


On the heels of an appalling district court decision overturning the California law banning the possession of body armor by violent felons, another court decision has us scratching our heads in disbelief.

This time it was a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, essentially ruling that unless an officer is actually under physical attack, he/she cannot use a Taser to subdue a suspect. And, for good measure, these starry-eyed jurists, who probably have never been in a physical fight in their lives, opined that police officers should not fear irrational suspects defying officer commands as long as the suspect stays 15 feet from the officer.

As every street cop knows, any suspect within 15 feet who is actively resisting verbal commands is a threat to officer safety.

If a suspect complies with an officer’s commands, the use of force or a weapon is unnecessary. When a suspect fails to comply with verbal commands, it means the situation is rapidly escalating and some form of force will be required to gain compliance.

Non-lethal force is the safest and best way to obtain the needed compliance. Non-lethal force instruments are designed to avoid injury to both officers and suspects by swiftly incapacitating the suspect. Stand-off instruments such as Tasers ensure officer safety. Inhibiting officers from using the Taser option puts them, suspects and innocent bystanders in greater danger.

About the only positive thing we can find in the opinion is that Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the authors of this decision, was recently reversed 9-0 by the U.S. Supreme Court in a death penalty case where, unbelievably, he was found to have fabricated facts in his opinion. We can only hope that either the Ninth Circuit en banc, or the U.S. Supreme Court, reverses yet another terrible ruling by Reinhardt.

MrClamperSir
12-31-2009, 9:44 AM
Non-lethal force is the safest and best way to obtain the needed compliance. Non-lethal force instruments are designed to avoid injury to both officers and suspects by swiftly incapacitating the suspect. Stand-off instruments such as Tasers ensure officer safety. Inhibiting officers from using the Taser option puts them, suspects and innocent bystanders in greater danger.



Officer safety is important but it not the only issue at hand.

BTW, I notice you chose not to respond directly to my last post.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 9:50 AM
Officer safety is important but it not the only issue at hand.

BTW, I notice you chose not to respond directly to my last post.

Because you for some reason assumed what you watch on the internet is indicative of all Taser training or how I do taser training. Your question simply doesnt apply to me. I dont do it that way. Someone who does use that method of Taser training would better be able to answer your question. Though I assume their answer would be for the same reason you wear safety glasses on the range. You don't assume you will get an eye injury, its not common, but you take what steps you can in training to avoid it.


BTW: Have you answered my question yet? For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What force option would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance?

SteveH
12-31-2009, 9:53 AM
Officer safety is important but it not the only issue at hand.

Correct. The safety of the suspect is also important. Tasering him is safer than hitting him with a club or dog piling him.

Matt C
12-31-2009, 11:57 AM
BTW: Have you answered my question yet? For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What force option would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance?

I did answer it.

Hans Gruber
12-31-2009, 12:10 PM
Cop Tasers Unconscious Diabetic 11 Times:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/28/23144.htm

Right, police don't need new guidelines at all...

ilbob
12-31-2009, 12:13 PM
For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What force option would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance?
The whole compliance thing is a big mess that the legislature and the courts need to look at real closely.

There is some line that needs to be crossed before we allow government agents to shock people to force them to do as told by those government agents. This is the USA, not some third world backwater where you do as told or the government agents come out at night and drag you out of bed, or beat you in the street for not doing as told. At least that is what we want to believe.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 12:43 PM
I did answer it.

Yes, but your opinion is not the only one that I am interested in. Ideally everyone who agrees with the courts ruling would at least answer the question. "I agree with the court, the cops should use OC instead." "I agree with the court the cops should use a wrist lock, dog pile, verbal judo, baton, pressure points, rear naked choke, pretty please with sugar on top, instead." If nothing else it will shed some light on public opinion of the issue.

I've been fielding emails on the subject from former students and for now my recommendation is follow your department policy. Consider using OC spray in those instances you used to use the Taser. Treat the taser as injury force until this issue is further resolved.


On the LE forums the majority opinion seems to be OC Spray or Baton with some going as far as suggesting they will just leave the Taser in the trunk from now on.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 12:49 PM
The whole compliance thing is a big mess that the legislature and the courts need to look at real closely.

There is some line that needs to be crossed before we allow government agents to shock people to force them to do as told by those government agents. This is the USA, not some third world backwater where you do as told or the government agents come out at night and drag you out of bed, or beat you in the street for not doing as told. At least that is what we want to believe.

So people should be able to ignore lawfull commands like "stop" in the case of fighting or running. "Step out of the vehicle" in the case of a stolen car or drunk driver. Or you are under arrest, "turn around and place your hands behind your back"????

Clearly there is no duty to follow an unlawfull command. But in order to take someone under arrest you must limit and control their movement and access to avenues of escape or weapons and place them into handcuffs. When verbal command fail you have to use force to do so.

Roadrunner
12-31-2009, 1:10 PM
Yes, but your opinion is not the only one that I am interested in. Ideally everyone who agrees with the courts ruling would at least answer the question. "I agree with the court, the cops should use OC instead." "I agree with the court the cops should use a wrist lock, dog pile, verbal judo, baton, pressure points, rear naked choke, pretty please with sugar on top, instead." If nothing else it will shed some light on public opinion of the issue.

I've been fielding emails on the subject from former students and for now my recommendation is follow your department policy. Consider using OC spray in those instances you used to use the Taser. Treat the taser as injury force until this issue is further resolved.


On the LE forums the majority opinion seems to be OC Spray or Baton with some going as far as suggesting they will just leave the Taser in the trunk from now on.

Personally, I think pepper spray is less lethal than a taser. Let's think about it, it's an organic, food grade compound, that irritates the eyes and can easily be washed away, versus an electrical charge that interrupts muscle function. Now lets think about what parts of the body are muscle. Actually you have three types of muscle, those being skeletal, smooth muscle found in the intestines, and CARDIAC muscle also known as the heart. Some of the cops I know, that have been police long before tasers were invented, say they prefer the taser over pepper spray because pepper spray evaporates and can irritate everyone in the police car if the one that has been pepper sprayed stays in the car for a certain amount of time. I personally think that as soon as a person has been pepper sprayed and then arrested, the pepper spray should be washed off of them, that way no one else will be effected.

mej16489
12-31-2009, 1:21 PM
Personally, I think pepper spray is less lethal than a taser. Let's think about it, it's an organic, food grade compound, that irritates the eyes and can easily be washed away, versus an electrical charge that interrupts muscle function. Now lets think about what parts of the body are muscle. Actually you have three types of muscle, those being skeletal, smooth muscle found in the intestines, and CARDIAC muscle also known as the heart. Some of the cops I know, that have been police long before tasers were invented, say they prefer the taser over pepper spray because pepper spray evaporates and can irritate everyone in the police car if the one that has been pepper sprayed stays in the car for a certain amount of time. I personally think that as soon as a person has been pepper sprayed and then arrested, the pepper spray should be washed off of them, that way no one else will be effected.

Tasers for the everyday cop are before my time. Pretty much only supervisors had them in the car. Amazingly effective for getting someone into custody when OC was ineffective...PCP was allot more common then.

The biggest deterent to OC use are the aftereffects on the nearby LEOs. Different people have differring levels of tolerance for it...it effected me pretty badly so I tried as hard as possible to avoid using it. There doesn't really seem to be much if any deterant to a current day LEO using a taser.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 2:18 PM
Personally, I think pepper spray is less lethal than a taser. Let's think about it, it's an organic, food grade compound, that irritates the eyes and can easily be washed away, versus an electrical charge that interrupts muscle function. Now lets think about what parts of the body are muscle. Actually you have three types of muscle, those being skeletal, smooth muscle found in the intestines, and CARDIAC muscle also known as the heart. Some of the cops I know, that have been police long before tasers were invented, say they prefer the taser over pepper spray because pepper spray evaporates and can irritate everyone in the police car if the one that has been pepper sprayed stays in the car for a certain amount of time. I personally think that as soon as a person has been pepper sprayed and then arrested, the pepper spray should be washed off of them, that way no one else will be effected.

There are some negatives to OC Spray. Amnesty international claims it can kill people with lung deseases like asthma. Yes, some people have died following OC Spray exposure. Though their is usually some other issue at work like Excited Delerium or drug overdose. The LA Times claims 61 Fatalities related to OC Spray between 1990 & 1995.

Cross contanimation of the arresting officer, back up officers, victims and witnesses is a possibility, even likely.

The effects are long lasting even after decontamination.

The biggest negative for OC Spray is it works by pain compliance alone. It doesnt actually stop someone like the TASER, it only encourages them to stop via chemical irritation. It is usually effective though on those who have never been sprayed before. With repeated exposure you develop a metal/emotional tolerance to the physical effects.

I do think the court is saying use OC instead though.

Roadrunner
12-31-2009, 3:49 PM
There are some negatives to OC Spray. Amnesty international claims it can kill people with lung deseases like asthma. Yes, some people have died following OC Spray exposure. Though their is usually some other issue at work like Excited Delerium or drug overdose. The LA Times claims 61 Fatalities related to OC Spray between 1990 & 1995.

Cross contanimation of the arresting officer, back up officers, victims and witnesses is a possibility, even likely.

The effects are long lasting even after decontamination.

The biggest negative for OC Spray is it works by pain compliance alone. It doesnt actually stop someone like the TASER, it only encourages them to stop via chemical irritation. It is usually effective though on those who have never been sprayed before. With repeated exposure you develop a metal/emotional tolerance to the physical effects.

I do think the court is saying use OC instead though.

I really have a hard time listening to anything Amnesty International or the L.A. Times says. Amnesty International also claims that allowing citizens to carry guns for self defense is somehow a human rights violation of other people around them. So any "facts" they may claim are dubious at best as far as I'm concerned. As for the effects of pepper spray, since I've never been sprayed with it, I can only imagine what it's like in the eyes as compared to some serious salsa with habanero chilies in it. So, if the stuff actually effects people around the person that's been sprayed, how bad is it? Is it worse than being around an onion that's been cut or is it worse? It was mentioned that there are after effects. I can understand that. I would imagine it's probably as bad as the pain after washing the aforementioned salsa down with beer, or in this case water. But, are the after effects from pepper spray as bad a having one inch barbs removed from your body? Or in the case of people uncontrollably falling, is pepper spray as bad as a serious injury from hitting the pavement? While I don't intend to get hit with either, I think I would prefer pepper spray to a taser.

TRICKSTER
12-31-2009, 4:03 PM
I really have a hard time listening to anything Amnesty International or the L.A. Times says. Amnesty International also claims that allowing citizens to carry guns for self defense is somehow a human rights violation of other people around them. So any "facts" they may claim are dubious at best as far as I'm concerned. As for the effects of pepper spray, since I've never been sprayed with it, I can only imagine what it's like in the eyes as compared to some serious salsa with habanero chilies in it. So, if the stuff actually effects people around the person that's been sprayed, how bad is it? Is it worse than being around an onion that's been cut or is it worse? It was mentioned that there are after effects. I can understand that. I would imagine it's probably as bad as the pain after washing the aforementioned salsa down with beer, or in this case water. But, are the after effects from pepper spray as bad a having one inch barbs removed from your body? Or in the case of people uncontrollably falling, is pepper spray as bad as a serious injury from hitting the pavement? While I don't intend to get hit with either, I think I would prefer pepper spray to a taser.

One inch barbs? Where are you getting your information?

Doheny
12-31-2009, 4:08 PM
Or perhaps over reacts as is the case of this incident in which a San Bernardino County deputy shot an unarmed individual.

That officer was found not guilty.

.

GrizzlyGuy
12-31-2009, 4:09 PM
Yes, but your opinion is not the only one that I am interested in. Ideally everyone who agrees with the courts ruling would at least answer the question. "I agree with the court, the cops should use OC instead." "I agree with the court the cops should use a wrist lock, dog pile, verbal judo, baton, pressure points, rear naked choke, pretty please with sugar on top, instead." If nothing else it will shed some light on public opinion of the issue.

My amateur opinion, use the following in the order presented until the person complies:

pretty please with sugar on top
verbal judo
wrist lock
pressure points
taser
OC

Statistics and studies may say otherwise, but I'd prefer getting a short-term zap from a taser, as opposed to dealing with burning eyes and possibly respiratory effects for many minutes. No worries for me in any case, I won't be resisting past the verbal stage, and only then if I didn't understand or didn't hear the order/command.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 4:15 PM
I really have a hard time listening to anything Amnesty International or the L.A. Times says. Amnesty International also claims that allowing citizens to carry guns for self defense is somehow a human rights violation of other people around them. So any "facts" they may claim are dubious at best as far as I'm concerned. As for the effects of pepper spray, since I've never been sprayed with it, I can only imagine what it's like in the eyes as compared to some serious salsa with habanero chilies in it. So, if the stuff actually effects people around the person that's been sprayed, how bad is it? Is it worse than being around an onion that's been cut or is it worse? It was mentioned that there are after effects. I can understand that. I would imagine it's probably as bad as the pain after washing the aforementioned salsa down with beer, or in this case water. But, are the after effects from pepper spray as bad a having one inch barbs removed from your body? Or in the case of people uncontrollably falling, is pepper spray as bad as a serious injury from hitting the pavement? While I don't intend to get hit with either, I think I would prefer pepper spray to a taser.

Having been exposed to both repeatedly I can tell you I'd take the Taser everytime. The Taser is 5 seconds of loss of muscle control and pain localized between the two probes, followed by a complete recovery. The OS spray is 30-45 minutes of agony. Even dunking your head in a bucket of water doesnt take away the irritation. As soon as the water evaporates off your face the pain starts again. The best part is when you take a shower hours later resulting in the residue making your junk feel like its on fire <G> I've still got the first training video I made on OC Spray somewhere. Filmed in 1993. The test subject couldnt open his eyes even 20 minutes later even though he had access to a garden hose for decontamination the entire time. That said he was still able to beat on a heavy bag following application. It hurts, but you can fight through it.

As for secondary exposure to bystanders. You are talking about some coughing, watery eyes and runney nose. Unless you actually catch some of the spray yourself because you were scuffling with the suspect when another officer deployed the spray. There is also the issue of the wind blowing the spray back onto the arresting officer. Like any tool it has its good points and bad points. The good point is it allows some distance between you and the threat. The bad points are it not terribly effective and the effects are long lasting.


Taser effects on the otherhand are 90% effective or greater and short lived. The taser barbs are not an inch long and surprisingly they dont even hurt very much after application, during or after removal. If you fall from a Taser application, and you do about 80% of the time, you are usually uninjured from the fall. Fall related injury is possible, but it is not common. If the majority of Tasers suspects were injured by falling the Risk Management folks would have took them away from the cops a long time ago.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 4:19 PM
One inch barbs? Where are you getting your information?


He's probably including the rear of the projectile that connects the wires but doesnt penetrate the skin. I forget the actual measurement of the barbs, there are two versions, but the one common in Cali looks like its about 1/4". The other version is for cold climates where thicker clothing is normal.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 4:26 PM
My amateur opinion, use the following in the order presented until the person complies:

pretty please with sugar on top
verbal judo
wrist lock
pressure points
taser
OC

Statistics and studies may say otherwise, but I'd prefer getting a short-term zap from a taser, as opposed to dealing with burning eyes and possibly respiratory effects for many minutes. No worries for me in any case, I won't be resisting past the verbal stage, and only then if I didn't understand or didn't hear the order/command.

There one cop that asks suspects something to the effect of "Is there anything I can do or say to get you to comply with my commands?" before any use of force. Predictably the suspects usually with reply with some negative profanity laced response. That makes it really easy to defend using force in court as the suspect by his own admission stated there was nothing that would make him cooperate.

Kid Stanislaus
12-31-2009, 6:20 PM
That officer was found not guilty.

.

The guy who was shot was not able to testify!! The only witnesses were the cops perhaps?

TRICKSTER
12-31-2009, 6:59 PM
The guy who was shot was not able to testify!! The only witnesses were the cops perhaps?

:fud:
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6273628
But what is clear about the videotape of the Elio Carrion shooting is that it wasn't enough to convict the gunman.

Former San Bernardino County sheriff's Deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. was acquitted Thursday of all criminal charges against him for the shooting of the off-duty airman after a high-speed chase.

Confusing, deceiving, unclear were all words used by the jurors in San Bernardino to describe the video that many outside the jury box viewed as the crucial piece of evidence.

But if a video showing Webb firing three shots at an unarmed Carrion in Chino isn't enough to convict the ex-deputy, what is?

In officer-involved shootings, it comes down to the fear factor, experts said.

Jurors on Thursday said Webb's fear for his safety was believable. In their explanation, they stressed that Carrion was intoxicated and not complying with orders. Webb was also alone, without any backup, they said.

Roadrunner
12-31-2009, 8:24 PM
One inch barbs? Where are you getting your information?

From the sample barbs that I saw at Bass Pro.

SteveH
12-31-2009, 10:24 PM
From the sample barbs that I saw at Bass Pro.

I'll have top ask my Taser rep if the C2 uses different barbs than the X26. I know the C2 has shorter leads and a longer cycle. Not going to fire one of the wifes C2 cartridges just to check <G>

cbn620
12-31-2009, 10:50 PM
The standards that appear to have been set by this ruling do not say you can't taser people period or anything. Does anyone really defend this incident of the guy in his underwear getting tasered in the back as he gets out of the car? Are you serious? The court is simply saying stuff like that can't happen anymore. It says he must actually be a threat, that you just can't taser him for not hearing you.

MrClamperSir
01-01-2010, 12:14 AM
Because you for some reason assumed what you watch on the internet is indicative of all Taser training or how I do taser training. Your question simply doesnt apply to me. I dont do it that way. Someone who does use that method of Taser training would better be able to answer your question.

So how do you train with Tasers? You stated "We do not assume the person being tasered will be injured from a fall'. How do you train without injury and no support or mats on the ground?

BTW: Have you answered my question yet? For those opposed to Taser use for compliance. What force option would you use to force a resisting suspect to submit to handcuffing/arrest if the suspect is using active but non-violent resistance?

One shoe doesn't fit all. Every circumstance is different and Tasers I believe are very useful to LE and citizens alike. But there should be a justification in using one considering they can/do cause serious injury and death.

okimreloaded
01-01-2010, 12:23 AM
as a regular joe, I can't just go around tasing people for no good reason. Why should a cop be able to? Look, if it comes to the point where you have to smack someone in the mouth with a baton or spray them with pepperspray so be it, these tools and the taser as well are necessary. HOWEVER I'm sick and tired of cops just getting off on using the taser willy nilly.

my opinion of a taser is that it should be used when a person poses a threat to others or yourself but not just because they weren't listening to a command or because they were yelling or screaming. if they've got a knife or are actively trying to punch you in the head then tase em.

If you youtube taser incidents you'll see a lot of different videos of people being tased under questionable circumstances. It's good to see that if i'm ever subjected to this kind of brutality I may have some legal recourse.

MrClamperSir
01-01-2010, 12:35 AM
Correct. The safety of the suspect is also important. Tasering him is safer than hitting him with a club or dog piling him.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Besides it all boils down to justification. If you can justify Tasing than go for it. LE should have to think about the consequences of their actions just the same as I'm expected to. It's a tough job that is dangerous. If your a cop than you knew that going in to it. No amount of safety for anybody is worth giving up our freedoms. Citizens should not have to fear the state and it's representatives.

okimreloaded
01-01-2010, 12:41 AM
Hey if you ever go to coronado you will see the police in action all they do is drive around looking for nickle and dime tickets. we joke about charging people extra for jobs we bid in coronado just for the police harrasment. its realy kind of funny if it was not so sad.:( I am glad to see them put some restrictions oon these tasers I think cops have got use to using them as a attention getter and thats not right, do as i say or zap! :mad:

If there are any cops reading this : I agree and I'm sick of chicken *** tickets! I don't pay taxes so that you guys can wait around and pull me over for some dumb *** crap. We pay taxes so you catch murderers and rapists and thieves.

I don't like coming within 100 feet of a cop because I'm worried they're going to try to catch me on some dumb little thing and I end up paying 400 dollars I could have spent on guns on something else.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 9:12 AM
The standards that appear to have been set by this ruling do not say you can't taser people period or anything. Does anyone really defend this incident of the guy in his underwear getting tasered in the back as he gets out of the car? Are you serious? The court is simply saying stuff like that can't happen anymore. It says he must actually be a threat, that you just can't taser him for not hearing you.

Nope. But the court took the one incident and say the cops cant use the Taser for non-violent resistance anymore.

Examples of non-violent resistance would be refusing to exit the drivers seat when drunk, refusing to turn around and put your hand behind your back after being told you are under arrest. Used to be the cops would taser those people. Now they have to spray them, wrestle with them, or beat them to get them to submit to lawfull commands/arrest.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 9:52 AM
Nope. But the court took the one incident and say the cops cant use the Taser for non-violent resistance anymore.

Examples of non-violent resistance would be refusing to exit the drivers seat when drunk, refusing to turn around and put your hand behind your back after being told you are under arrest. Used to be the cops would taser those people. Now they have to spray them, wrestle with them, or beat them to get them to submit to lawfull commands/arrest.

Yep, I guess the courts prefer broken wrist, ankles and kneecaps. I have seen way more people get hurt while fighting to get out of control holds, getting hit by a baton or just being taken to the ground, than have suffered an injury from a taser. It seems that people just fear what they don't understand.

jeffm223
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Wow, so is what I'm hearing that since they can't instantly taser someone who doesn't "immediately comply with our orders", they're going to just beat them up instead? Unreal. Hopefully this ruling will lead to another that raises the bar for use of force generally, instead of just for tasers.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 12:28 PM
Yep, I guess the courts prefer broken wrist, ankles and kneecaps. I have seen way more people get hurt while fighting to get out of control holds, getting hit by a baton or just being taken to the ground, than have suffered an injury from a taser. It seems that people just fear what they don't understand.

Yep, you're right, I don't understand why some police feel the need to over react. That is unless I factor in the need to administer a little street justice just to teach the presumptuous citizen to respect police authority.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 12:37 PM
Yep, I guess the courts prefer broken wrist, ankles and kneecaps. I have seen way more people get hurt while fighting to get out of control holds, getting hit by a baton or just being taken to the ground, than have suffered an injury from a taser. It seems that people just fear what they don't understand.

This is true.

Clearly the court does not understand the Taser. for example they stated The ECD "Instantly overrides the victims CNS, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless."

That is a gross exaggeration. It is factually incorrect. only the muscles between the barbs are effected. The court was fed a line of BS about the Tasers effects and bought into it hook line and sinker. No wonder they are overturned so often.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 12:40 PM
Wow, so is what I'm hearing that since they can't instantly taser someone who doesn't "immediately comply with our orders", they're going to just beat them up instead?

Actually the court ruling seems to imply the police should pepper spray them or use takedowns/control holds instead.

This was never a question of when is force acceptable. It was a question of which force option is acceptable to make a suspect submitt to lawfull commands like "stop" "step out of the vehicle" "Get back" or "Turn around and place your hands behind your back."

SteveH
01-01-2010, 12:45 PM
Yep, you're right, I don't understand why some police feel the need to over react.

I don't understand why you "feel" that when a cop tells some drunk to step out of the vehicle, or some guy with a warrant to "turn around and place your hands behind your back" that the suspect can just ignore the cop and the cop cannot use any force at all to effect the arrest.

The court is just saying pepper spray those guys or wrestle them and cuff them rather than Taser them.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 12:47 PM
This is true.

Clearly the court does not understand the Taser. for example they stated The ECD "Instantly overrides the victims CNS, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless."

That is a gross exaggeration. It is factually incorrect. only the muscles between the barbs are effected. The court was fed a line of BS about the Tasers effects and bought into it hook line and sinker. No wonder they are overturned so often.

Of course, if we take into consideration your aforementioned comment in bold, the fact that police are trained to shoot center mass, the possibility of effecting someone with poor heart MUSCLE or a person with a pacemaker, somehow, I think that they may have taken more things into consideration than the court records may indicate. Now, we could consider other factors that you may want to throw into the mix, but I think we can safely rule out violent criminals who have a history of assaulting police, as being in the category of heart patients. In fact I will even grant that some exist, but I believe that would be a very rare exception to the rule.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 12:50 PM
Of course, if we take into consideration your aforementioned comment in bold, the fact that police are trained to shoot center mass, the possibility of effecting someone with poor heart MUSCLE or a person with a pacemaker, somehow, I think that they may have taken more things into consideration than the court records may indicate. Now, we could consider other factors that you may want to throw into the mix, but I think we can safely rule out violent criminals who have a history of assaulting police, as being in the category of heart patients. In fact I will even grant that some exist, but I believe that would be a very rare exception to the rule.

THere is no indication the TASER has any effect on the heart or the pacemaker. Hell paramedics defib people with implanted pacemakers. THey are well shielded. Plus the Taser works ona wave length that effects skeletal muscle, not the heart muscle. Be like trying to find your favorite FM radio station on the AM band. Its not going to happen.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 1:03 PM
I don't understand why you "feel" that when a cop tells some drunk to step out of the vehicle, or some guy with a warrant to "turn around and place your hands behind your back" that the suspect can just ignore the cop and the cop cannot use any force at all to effect the arrest.

The court is just saying pepper spray those guys or wrestle them and cuff them rather than Taser them.

This is a straw man argument, because I didn't say that at all, and I don't believe the court said that either. But here's what I've seen in a number of police videos

Cop: Step out of the car, please.

Citizen: Why, what did I do?

Cop: Step out of the car, now.

Citizen: What did I do?

Cop: Draws taser, and fires.

So, what's up with that? Was the citizen posing a threat? I personally don't think so. Now, if the person has some kind of serious warrant out for their arrest, I have serious doubts that one cop would arrest the person by themselves. In fact, as one of the uneducated masses in the skills of being a cop, I would suspect that the cop would bring as many people as they think they need to arrest the person.

I suppose this is one of those questions that we will have to agree to disagree on and let the court use their authority to rein the police in.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 1:28 PM
THere is no indication the TASER has any effect on the heart or the pacemaker. Hell paramedics defib people with implanted pacemakers. THey are well shielded. Plus the Taser works ona wave length that effects skeletal muscle, not the heart muscle. Be like trying to find your favorite FM radio station on the AM band. Its not going to happen.

Well, here's an article that would indicate otherwise. Just taking excerpts from the article it says:

A Chicago medical examiner has ruled that shocks from a Taser were responsible for the death of a man in February, marking the first time that the electronic stun gun has been named as the primary cause of death.

Medical examiners are medical doctors with expertise in how the body works.

The autopsy said methamphetamines contributed to Hasse's death.

So the medical doctor said that it contributed to his death but wasn't the primary factor which means that all of the tests indicated that the dead guy didn't take a lethal dose.

Taser strongly criticized the Medical Examiner's Office in a statement Friday and said it will challenge the autopsy.

No surprise here, the doctor is blaming their product.

This is not the first time Taser has challenged a medical examiner. For years, Taser officials publicly said the stun gun was never cited in an autopsy report. But an Arizona Republic investigation last year revealed that Tasers have been cited repeatedly by medical examiners in death cases and that Taser did not start collecting autopsy reports until last April.

Cover up? Perhaps, but I won't go there.

Taser officials later maintained that the medical examiners in those cases were wrong and did not have the credentials or expertise necessary to examine deaths involving stun guns. They now maintain that Tasers have never been cited by a medical examiner as "the sole cause of death."

So the guy who has an expertise on how the body functions is clueless, and the guys who make Tasers know better. Hm, yeah probably not.

Denton told the Sun-Times that he reviewed thousands of pages of information provided by Taser. But he said his conclusion was also based on the findings of James Ruggieri, an electrical engineer who in February made a presentation to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in which he said Taser shocks could cause cardiac arrest.

So a person who works for Taser says they're safe, yet an independent electrical engineer says cardiac arrest is possible from a Taser.

Since these are only excerpts, I will link to the article (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html)

Your comments are welcome.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 1:38 PM
Well, here's an article that would indicate otherwise. Just taking excerpts from the article it says:



Medical examiners are medical doctors with expertise in how the body works.



So the medical doctor said that it contributed to his death but wasn't the primary factor which means that all of the tests indicated that the dead guy didn't take a lethal dose.



No surprise here, the doctor is blaming their product.



Cover up? Perhaps, but I won't go there.



So the guy who has an expertise on how the body functions is clueless, and the guys who make Tasers know better. Hm, yeah probably not.



So a person who works for Taser says they're safe, yet an independent electrical engineer says cardiac arrest is possible from a Taser.

Since these are only excerpts, I link to the article (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html)

Your comments are welcome.

Try to think rationally. If the Taser caused cardiac incidents why hasnt a single recruit, cadet, cop or soldier dropped dead from the Taser in training? There are trainers in their 50's who have taken hundreds of Taser applications. Yet nobody has ever had a cardiac incident.

How do you expalin that no one has had a heart attack or died in training if the Taser effects the heart muscle?

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 1:45 PM
Try to think rationally. If the Taser caused cardiac incidents why hasnt a single recruit, cadet, cop or soldier dropped dead from the Taser in training? There are trainers in their 50's who have taken hundreds of Taser applications. Yet nobody has ever had a cardiac incident.

How do you expalin that no one has had a heart attack or died in training if the Taser effects the heart muscle?

Did you even bother to read the article? In case you didn't here's another excerpt.

Dolton, Ill., filed a class-action lawsuit against Taser, becoming the first police department to take legal action over what it described as Taser's exaggerated claims of safety. The city said it paid $8,572 for stun guns that are too dangerous to use on the street.

Here is the final definitive paragraph as far as I'm concerned. Is that rational enough for you?

SteveH
01-01-2010, 1:55 PM
Did you even bother to read the article? In case you didn't here's another excerpt.



Here is the final definitive paragraph as far as I'm concerned. Is that rational enough for you?

I read the article and no rational answer has been posted as to why if the Taser causes heart attacks have none of the hundreds of thousands of people shocked in training had a heart attack.

I'll tell you why some people die after Taser application. They are under the influence of drugs and in poor health to an extent that ANY sudden physical exertion will kill them. Doesnt matter if its a Taser or a wrestling match, the sudden exertion of resisting arrest pushes them over the endge. Its not the Taser.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 2:02 PM
I read the article and no rational answer has been posted as to why if the Taser causes heart attacks have none of the hundreds of thousands of people shocked in training had a heart attack.

I'll tell you why some people die after Taser application. They are under the influence of drugs and in poor health to an extent that ANY sudden physical exertion will kill them. Doesnt matter if its a Taser or a wrestling match, the sudden exertion of resisting arrest pushes them over the endge. Its not the Taser.

Well, those who are actually independent experts on the function of the body and how the taser works in relation to the body seem to disagree with you. I might also add that physical conditioning may mitigate the dangerous effects, but not everyone is in top physical shape. Perhaps we could shoot a couple of fat cops who haven't exercised since they began riding a desk, and let them drop like a stone on the pavement and see what happens. Any volunteers?

SteveH
01-01-2010, 2:10 PM
Well, those who are actually independent experts on the function of the body and how the taser works in relation to the body seem to disagree with you. I might also add that physical conditioning may mitigate the dangerous effects, but not everyone is in top physical shape. Perhaps we could shoot a couple of fat cops who haven't exercised since they began riding a desk, and let them drop like a stone on the pavement and see what happens. Any volunteers?

Cops of all ages and sizes have been Tasered in training. None have had a heart attack or died.

If the good doctor is so convinced he should do a peer reviewed study. take 1,000 voluteers and Taser them then check for heart damage. I've got a pretty good idea what the result would show.


ETA here's an actual scientific study on the matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19555610
studied the effects of prolonged Taser use on exhausted subjects.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 2:44 PM
Cops of all ages and sizes have been Tasered in training. None have had a heart attack or died.

If the good doctor is so convinced he should do a peer reviewed study. take 1,000 voluteers and Taser them then check for heart damage. I've got a pretty good idea what the result would show.

Ok, getting back on track, it was suggested that the court's decision is in error because the taser is safer to use than any other method police have at their disposal. According to evidence available, that is probably an erroneous assumption on the part of police since there are numerous incidents of death from the use of the taser in real situations. The fact that the taser hasn't caused any injuires or death in a controlled environment is not relevant since I am reasonably sure that none of the volunteers had any history of health problems. I am also equally as sure that no volunteer with health problems would be used as a test subject, nor would any test subject be allowed to undergo the same circumstances as what would occur in a real situation.

The bottom line for me is this, the court has put a leash on the indiscriminate use of tasers by police. You can thank those in your ranks who abuse the weapon, for the courts close scrutiny and the boundaries they have set. I think this is a good lesson for those of you effected that just because no law says you can't do something, doesn't necessarily mean you can do something. Perhaps a little self restraint in the future might be in order.

SteveH
01-01-2010, 2:58 PM
Ok, getting back on track, it was suggested that the court's decision is in error because the taser is safer to use than any other method police have at their disposal. According to evidence available, that is probably an erroneous assumption on the part of police since there are numerous incidents of death from the use of the taser in real situations.

Can you find me a single study that says injuries to police officers or suspects increased when Tasers were adopted?

Its well established that the Taser is safer than other forms of force. for example:

"Chico (CA) reported only 2% of suspects exposed to
the TASER ECD were injured while 79% of suspects who were batoned were injured and 53%
of suspects who were physically taken to the ground were injured."

Tasers resulted in an 80% decrease in injuries to officers and suspects in Austin Texas the first year they were issued. 80% thats huge.

Ive never been able to find any statics that show an increase in injury to suspects or officers following Taser adoption.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 4:00 PM
Can you find me a single study that says injuries to police officers or suspects increased when Tasers were adopted?

Its well established that the Taser is safer than other forms of force. for example:

"Chico (CA) reported only 2% of suspects exposed to
the TASER ECD were injured while 79% of suspects who were batoned were injured and 53%
of suspects who were physically taken to the ground were injured."

Tasers resulted in an 80% decrease in injuries to officers and suspects in Austin Texas the first year they were issued. 80% thats huge.

Ive never been able to find any statics that show an increase in injury to suspects or officers following Taser adoption.

We are talking about two entirely different things here. You continue to attempt to convince me about the safety of the taser, while I am more focused on the frequency and apparent indiscriminate use of this weapon. My concern where injury occurs is the reasonableness of the attack in the first place. Is it reasonable to escalate something as minor as not wearing a seatbelt to the point where you shoot someone with a weapon that could potentially seriously injure someone? Are traffic tickets really that important? I've already acknowledged in a number of my posts that I think tasers have their place, but from everything I've read, some police use the thing as a matter of convenience and not necessarily as a defensive weapon; and I believe the courts made the same observation when they made their decision. One thing is certain about this whole thing. If police are forced to implement weaponless forms of compliance, rather than picking up a weapon whenever a citizen doesn't move fast enough, they will either adapt or they will resort to what I've heard is called "creative writing" which is nothing less than lieing. Why is it so damned important for someone to sign the ticket in the first place? I know that in some states, it isn't necessary to sign the ticket. If you write a parking ticket, is it necessary for the owner to sign it? What about those red light tickets, no one signs those. I think that's really the issue. What is the necessity of doing something?

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 4:00 PM
Wow, so is what I'm hearing that since they can't instantly taser someone who doesn't "immediately comply with our orders", they're going to just beat them up instead? Unreal. Hopefully this ruling will lead to another that raises the bar for use of force generally, instead of just for tasers.

You are only hearing what your preconceived prejudices want you to hear. I have been a LEO for 30 years and have had very few unnecessary use of force complaints and have never had one sustained. The one federal lawsuit that was filed against me during that time was so pathetic the judge threw it out. What I am saying is that LEOs deal with violent people at times, and as in any type of physical confrontation, people can and do get hurt. That is the reality of the job. If you think you can do it better, you are welcome to apply.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 4:10 PM
Well, here's an article that would indicate otherwise. Just taking excerpts from the article it says:



Medical examiners are medical doctors with expertise in how the body works.



So the medical doctor said that it contributed to his death but wasn't the primary factor which means that all of the tests indicated that the dead guy didn't take a lethal dose.



No surprise here, the doctor is blaming their product.



Cover up? Perhaps, but I won't go there.



So the guy who has an expertise on how the body functions is clueless, and the guys who make Tasers know better. Hm, yeah probably not.



So a person who works for Taser says they're safe, yet an independent electrical engineer says cardiac arrest is possible from a Taser.

Since these are only excerpts, I will link to the article (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html)

Your comments are welcome.

Same tactics the Brady Bunch uses against "Assault Weapons". Funny how you believe one but not the other.

bohoki
01-01-2010, 4:14 PM
they just need to switch to stun batons its the act of penetrating someone flesh with barbed darts that is disturbingly intrusive

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 4:20 PM
Same tactics the Brady Bunch uses against "Assault Weapons". Funny how you believe one but not the other.

That's called projecting. You are believing what the maker of the product wants us to believe and discounting the independent experts, and then presenting me as doing the opposite. I've said there is a time and place for a taser, but some here seem to think that anytime a person hesitates is a good time to nail them.

Play that game with someone else, not with me.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 4:46 PM
That's called projecting. You are believing what the maker of the product wants us to believe and discounting the independent experts, and then presenting me as doing the opposite. I've said there is a time and place for a taser, but some here seem to think that anytime a person hesitates is a good time to nail them.

Play that game with someone else, not with me.

I'm not discounting anything. I have been trained in the use of the taser, I know how they work and I even know how long the barbs are. I have used the taser and have been tased myself. I have kept up on the claims both pro and con and have come to my own conclusions after reading both sides. As far as claims by "independent experts" I have had one "independent expert" claim that OC causes permanent eye damage by scarring the eyes and that it should be outlawed. I have received the same speech from a ER Dr. after taking a suspect in for medical clearance prior to booking. "Independent experts" are rarely as independent as they claim.

jeffm223
01-01-2010, 5:18 PM
You are only hearing what your preconceived prejudices want you to hear.

I think that you (and a few others posting in this thread) are only seeing things from your own perspective and prejudices. Ironic eh? Because you and your immediate circle don't misuse your authority, you extend that benefit of doubt to all other LEO's. This is understandable to a degree, but manifestly incorrect. The LEO population is like any other, a bell curve on which you have a full continuum of personalities. Some will be "good", others "bad". Most will fall somewhere in the middle. I don't see anyone in this thread making generalizations that all LEO abuse their power.
That said though, there is a large enough bulk of publicly available information out there to show that tasers are being used in situations where NO use of force is called for, simply because they are perceived as "harmless" by the LEO community. Since there are documented cases where people have died while being tasered, I think it is fair to assume that they are not universally harmless:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/14/crimesider/entry5013690.shtml

Simply type "taser death" into google and you will find a multitude of examples from mainstream sources that are similar to the above. Enough so that any reasonable, non-biased person might conclude that there is some risk to their use. I'd rather have a broken arm than a heart attack myself, but I won't generalize and say that everyone else shares my preference :D.

NorCalMama
01-01-2010, 5:24 PM
The thing I can NOT understand about this "debate" is this-why is it not acceptable to make an overall guideline holding LE accountable for using "non lethal" force? The ruling isn't saying LE can't use tasers, it's simply saying you can't just taze somebody because they aren't complying.
Also, where did the 9th Circuit Court (which 99.9% of the time I don't agree with their rulings) say LE CAN'T EVER use a taser? Or does it? I think that many people are attaching to the fact that this ruling, came from a notoriously liberal court that typically rules in favor of what's wrong, and are ignoring what the overall ruling states.

navyinrwanda
01-01-2010, 6:10 PM
Can you find me a single study that says injuries to police officers or suspects increased when Tasers were adopted?

Its well established that the Taser is safer than other forms of force. for example:

"Chico (CA) reported only 2% of suspects exposed to
the TASER ECD were injured while 79% of suspects who were batoned were injured and 53%
of suspects who were physically taken to the ground were injured."

Tasers resulted in an 80% decrease in injuries to officers and suspects in Austin Texas the first year they were issued. 80% thats huge.

Ive never been able to find any statics that show an increase in injury to suspects or officers following Taser adoption.

Even if one infers from these data points that the use of tasers results in fewer injuries that other compliance tactics (e.g., batons and physical take-downs), it does not follow that tasers represent a lower "quantum of force" than other tactics. Tasers also inflict pain.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” is a violation of the Eight Amendment. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). “As the Supreme Court has said, pain, not injury, is the barometer by which we measure claims of excessive force, see id. at 9, and one need not have personally endured a taser jolt to know the pain that must accompany it, see Hickey v. Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[A] stun gun inflicts a painful and frightening blow [that] temporarily paralyzes the large muscles of the body, rendering the victim helpless.”); see also Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 256 n.2 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that a taser “sends an electric pulse through the body of the victim causing immobilization, disorientation, loss of balance, and weakness”). Thus, we hold, as the first rung in the ladder of our analysis, that the use of a taser gun against a prisoner is more than a de minimis application of force.” See Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 475 (7th Cir. 2009).

Lewis v. Downey was a case from the Seventh Circuit concerning a federal prisoner in pre-trial detention in county jail in northern Illinois. In this case, the court denied (in early September 2009) a qualified immunity defense for a prison guard accused of tasering an inmate for refusing to follow orders. No claim of resistance or threat was made; the prisoner was tasered simply for being non-compliant. There are other cases concerning the use of pain as a compliance tactic (OC spray), See Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, (9th Cir. 2001); however, Lewis is the most recent case where a taser was used.

If a federal appeals court in the midwest thinks that prisoners shouldn't be tasered for simply refusing to follow a guard's orders, it seems that citizens on the west coast should enjoy similar protections from the police. That law enforcement may no longer be free to enforce strict compliance through the unlimited application of pain — even if it results in no injury — is a good development.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 6:11 PM
I'm not discounting anything. I have been trained in the use of the taser, I know how they work and I even know how long the barbs are. I have used the taser and have been tased myself. I have kept up on the claims both pro and con and have come to my own conclusions after reading both sides. As far as claims by "independent experts" I have had one "independent expert" claim that OC causes permanent eye damage by scarring the eyes and that it should be outlawed. I have received the same speech from a ER Dr. after taking a suspect in for medical clearance prior to booking. "Independent experts" are rarely as independent as they claim.

Well, when you become an expert in human anatomy and physiology, and electrical engineering or provide experts that aren't on the Taser payroll, then we'll talk. There are certain things that occur at the cellular level that aren't readily apparent, and in fact concentrations of oleo capsicum can cause skin tissue to blister. Even constant exposure to capsicum at the levels in jalapeno peppers can blister the skin, so I think the expert you are citing probably knows what he's talking about.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 6:18 PM
I don't see anyone in this thread making generalizations that all LEO abuse their power.
Really, what about statements like,
Wow, so is what I'm hearing that since they can't instantly taser someone who doesn't "immediately comply with our orders", they're going to just beat them up instead? Unreal. Hopefully this ruling will lead to another that raises the bar for use of force generally, instead of just for tasers.
which are totally untrue. Please post the location on this thread where a LEO endorsed this.





Simply type "taser death" into google and you will find a multitude of examples from mainstream sources that are similar to the above. Enough so that any reasonable, non-biased person might conclude that there is some risk to their use. I'd rather have a broken arm than a heart attack myself, but I won't generalize and say that everyone else shares my preference :D.

Simply type "assault weapon" into google and you will find a multitude of examples from mainstream media sources that are similar to the Brady Campaign's position on assault weapons. Enough so that any reasonable, non-biased person might conclude that there is some truth to their position. But we know better don't we?

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 6:26 PM
Well, I think I'm done with this. The bottom line is this, if a cop uses a taser outside the parameters allowed by the court, there is the potential for relief and the opportunity to attack the purse of the city, county or state that employs them. That's a good start as far as I'm concerned.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 6:40 PM
Well, when you become an expert in human anatomy and physiology, and electrical engineering or provide experts that aren't on the Taser payroll, then we'll talk. There are certain things that occur at the cellular level that aren't readily apparent, and in fact concentrations of oleo capsicum can cause skin tissue to blister. Even constant exposure to capsicum at the levels in jalapeno peppers can blister the skin, so I think the expert you are citing probably knows what he's talking about.

So since you think this expert knows what he is talking about, you would agree with him that OC should be outlawed? According to the "expert" we are talking about "permanent eye damage by scarring the eyes". After all, we need to be consistent in our position, don't we? Does resisting arrest justify an officer possibly blinding someone?

While were on the subject of consistency, what are your qualifications to debate the use of the taser. Are you "an expert in human anatomy and physiology, and electrical engineering"?

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 6:52 PM
So since you think this expert knows what he is talking about, you would agree with him that OC should be outlawed? According to the "expert" we are talking about "permanent eye damage by scarring the eyes". After all, we need to be consistent in our position, don't we? Does resisting arrest justify an officer possibly blinding someone?

That's a generalized question, and I think you know that. Putting myself in the role of being attacked, I would use whatever is available to me and is appropriate to the attack, because I know as a private citizen that if I use anything beyond that, someone like you will do their dead level best to see that I'm prosecuted and thrown in jail for a very long time. Since I've never arrested anyone, your question is irrelevant to me.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 7:16 PM
That's a generalized question, and I think you know that. Putting myself in the role of being attacked, I would use whatever is available to me and is appropriate to the attack, because I know as a private citizen that if I use anything beyond that, someone like you will do their dead level best to see that I'm prosecuted and thrown in jail for a very long time. Since I've never arrested anyone, your question is irrelevant to me.

Using your rational, taser use should also then be "irrelevant" to you.

Interesting that you didn't answer my question.
"what are your qualifications to debate the use of the taser. Are you "an expert in human anatomy and physiology, and electrical engineering"?
Do you meet the same requirements you require of others to discuss the subject?

MrClamperSir
01-01-2010, 7:17 PM
That's a generalized question, and I think you know that. Putting myself in the role of being attacked, I would use whatever is available to me and is appropriate to the attack, because I know as a private citizen that if I use anything beyond that, someone like you will do their dead level best to see that I'm prosecuted and thrown in jail for a very long time. Since I've never arrested anyone, your question is irrelevant to me.

^This is the bottom line for me. LE should be held to whatever standards the rest of us are held to.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 7:32 PM
^This is the bottom line for me. LE should be held to whatever standards the rest of us are held to.

Not a problem, as long as the job description and restrictions are lowered or raised to match those standards across the board.
I wonder how long that would last?

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 7:35 PM
Using your rational, taser use should also then be "irrelevant" to you.

Only to the point that I don't own one. But if I did, and I was attacked by someone who could easily overpower and seriously injure me, I would certainly use it because I am not allowed to carry a firearm for self defense. I would also use pepper spray if I had it and I thought it would keep me from being attacked and injured. But again, from my point of view, I will be scrutinized and possibly arrested if it can be rationalized that my use of the items was not according to law.

Interesting that you didn't answer my question.
"what are your qualifications to debate the use of the taser. Are you "an expert in human anatomy and physiology, and electrical engineering"?
Do you meet the same requirements you require of others to discuss the subject?

I will confidently guess that I know far more about human anatomy and physiology than you do. I have serious doubts that you could carry on an intelligent conversation with me about things like the electron transport system or glycolysis, how the loop of henley functions or even where it is without doing a google search. Perhaps you could explain what the sinoatrial node does, but I doubt it.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 7:42 PM
Not a problem, as long as the job description and restrictions are lowered or raised to match those standards across the board.
I wonder how long that would last?

Well, let's see, most police departments only require a high school diploma for employment, and as I understand it, police only spend a maximum of 6 months going through some sort of training. The rest from what I've been told is intermittent at best and months or years can be between training sessions. How am I doing so far?

MrClamperSir
01-01-2010, 7:42 PM
Not a problem, as long as the job description and restrictions are lowered or raised to match those standards across the board.
I wonder how long that would last?

How long what would last? I'm not sure I understand your post. My point is LEO are important and necessary but they are still civilians and are no different than any other (reasonable/responsible) citizen. They should not get special privileges or leeway.

ilbob
01-01-2010, 7:52 PM
Nope. But the court took the one incident and say the cops cant use the Taser for non-violent resistance anymore.

Examples of non-violent resistance would be refusing to exit the drivers seat when drunk, refusing to turn around and put your hand behind your back after being told you are under arrest. Used to be the cops would taser those people. Now they have to spray them, wrestle with them, or beat them to get them to submit to lawfull commands/arrest.

At some point there is justification for using physical force of some kind to affect an arrest of a non-violent subject. No force should be used until all other options are exercised. No way all other options have been exercised within the few seconds that many of the dubious uses of Tasers have occurred in.

Let the drunk sit in his car for 10 or 15 minutes. Or an hour.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 8:07 PM
Only to the point that I don't own one. But if I did, and I was attacked by someone who could easily overpower and seriously injure me, I would certainly use it because I am not allowed to carry a firearm for self defense. I would also use pepper spray if I had it and I thought it would keep me from being attacked and injured. But again, from my point of view, I will be scrutinized and possibly arrested if it can be rationalized that my use of the items was not according to law.



I will confidently guess that I know far more about human anatomy and physiology than you do. I have serious doubts that you could carry on an intelligent conversation with me about things like the electron transport system or glycolysis, how the loop of henley functions or even where it is without doing a google search. Perhaps you could explain what the sinoatrial node does, but I doubt it.

No, I am not an expert in the ETC, or kidney function, or the electrical charge that causes the heart to beat. But at least I have been trained on the item being discussed, used it, had it used on me, know the specifics of it's design and have done some research on it. I have not made false claims such as the Dr having to dig out a 1" barb after taser use. I have made thousands of arrest and yes, sometimes that involved the use of force. If you are claiming to be an expert or at a minimum have any experience with arrest control techniques, proper use of force, dealing with violent criminals, or how the taser effects the ETC, the loop of henley, or sinotrail nodes, I am willing to listen since this is the subject of this thread.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 8:14 PM
How long what would last? I'm not sure I understand your post. My point is LEO are important and necessary but they are still civilians and are no different than any other (reasonable/responsible) citizen. They should not get special privileges or leeway.

Would you then agree that they should not be held to a higher standard than the average citizen? That they should be free to associate with whomever they please, say whatever they want, walk away from any situation that may be dangerous, and basically do whatever legal activity they want off duty, just like any other reasonable/responsible citizen.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 8:24 PM
At some point there is justification for using physical force of some kind to affect an arrest of a non-violent subject. No force should be used until all other options are exercised. No way all other options have been exercised within the few seconds that many of the dubious uses of Tasers have occurred in.

Let the drunk sit in his car for 10 or 15 minutes. Or an hour.

No one is saying that there hasn't been dubious use of tasers, but unless you are on scene, dealing with the situation, it's hard to make that call. Let the drunk get back in the car and sit for 10 or 15 minutes can result in the drunk having access to a gun or weapon, or driving off and getting in a pursuit causing injury or death. You never know who your dealing with or what they may do. Hind site is 20/20, that's why the law gives the police some leeway and follows what a reasonable officer with the same experience and training would do, not what is the perfect thing to do.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 8:26 PM
No, I am not an expert in the ETC, or kidney function, or the electrical charge that causes the heart to beat. But at least I have been trained on the item being discussed, used it, had it used on me, know the specifics of it's design and have done some research on it. I have not made false claims such as the Dr having to dig out a 1" barb after taser use. I have made thousands of arrest and yes, sometimes that involved the use of force. If you are claiming to be an expert or at a minimum have any experience with arrest control techniques, proper use of force, dealing with violent criminals, or how the taser effects the ETC, the loop of henley, or sinotrail nodes, I am willing to listen since this is the subject of this thread.

Well, I'm impressed, you do know how to use google and wikipedia. You're the one that asked me if I was an expert in anatomy and physiology. My knowledge of anatomy and physiology says that the article I linked to is sound. Having done research and been stung by companies that endorse their own products, I find independent experts more credible than those that are on the company payroll. The fact that a police department in Illinois says that they are too dangerous to be used on the street also causes me to pay attention to what those same independent experts say. Let me put this into perspective in a way that you may be able to understand. If you thought that I committed a crime, and my wife gave me an alibi, but someone not related to me witnessed me commit the crime, who would you believe? That is like the experts that are directly related to Taser international versus independent witnesses who have nothing to gain either way. Couple that with a police department who sued them for false or misleading claims, and finish that off by Taser international changing their story on taser related deaths, I personally am suspicious of the product and I would be very hesitant to use the product except in defending my life only because I can't carry a loaded firearm.

MrClamperSir
01-01-2010, 8:33 PM
Would you then agree that they should not be held to a higher standard than the average citizen? That they should be free to associate with whomever they please, say whatever they want, walk away from any situation that may be dangerous, and basically do whatever legal activity they want off duty, just like any other reasonable/responsible citizen.

???Do they not have that freedom now? If you are talking about what they do while on duty they should be held to whatever standard their employer holds them to. If you're talking about officer safety they should have to live within the same guidelines the rest of us live with. Their lives are worth no more or less then the rest of us.

TRICKSTER
01-01-2010, 8:38 PM
Well, let's see, most police departments only require a high school diploma for employment, and as I understand it, police only spend a maximum of 6 months going through some sort of training. The rest from what I've been told is intermittent at best and months or years can be between training sessions. How am I doing so far?

Not to well as the post was in response to holding law enforcement to the same standards as citizens in response to being attacked. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Being as you have no experience in the subject being discussed and this has degraded to nothing but a put down session, unless you can provide some actual facts, I see no reason to continue.