Author Topic: Another "compliance tasing" (Read 25971 times)

zahc · « **on:** August 19, 2009, 11:28:53 PM »

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31202935/ns/today-today_people/

Probably a "good tase" if you feel that using tasers for compliance like this is acceptable. I still tend to consider tasers a "less lethal" option and don't feel it's acceptable to tase people when they are not being violent.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:30:46 PM »

Are people required by law to sign these?

BReilley · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:45:24 PM »

Yes. Stupid old crank deserved what she got, although I don't believe that tasers should be used in such a manner. Unfortunately, our society(and, to an extent, our police) are such that the badge and uniform alone no longer command respect.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:49:03 PM »

...you're joking. I will just imagine you're joking.

Jim147 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:59:30 PM »

If the officer couldn't control the situation with a 72 year old woman, what would he do if he ever met a real bad guy?

jim

Northwoods · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:06:55 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on August 19, 2009, 11:30:46 PM

Are people required by law to sign these?

I believe so, yes. It is not an admission of guilt though. All it is is an acknowledgment that you have recieved the ticket, understand the offence for which it was written, and agree to appear in court, or pay the fine, or sign up for whatever diversion program is available (e.g. driving school, or like in WA you can pay $100 and as long you don't get another ticket for a year it gets wiped off your record).

Physics · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:13:29 AM »

He has no business tazing her. His shove to get her out of traffic yes, but she didn't pose a threat to him, at least not from my armchair. Handcuffs maybe for being crazy but a tazing at her age, no.

FTA84 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:05:38 AM »

I feel like there is some reasoning behind his actions.

If he manhandled her into cuffs, would he face some legal action?

He gave her so many warnings that it seemed to me he was trying to follow some sort of procedure.

I generally don't think a tazing should be done, but I don't feel the officer thought it necessary either. It even seemed like he prolonged physical intervention as long as possible.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:25:23 AM »

I'm having a real hard time finding any sympathy for the woman. She made a complete fool of herself the entire time of the stop and then dared the cop to taze her, and he eventually did. Well I suppose she got exactly what she asked for.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:38:01 AM »

These things always seem to come down to the question of whether tazing is preferable to "man-handling." Remember when the cops were confiscating guns in New Orleans, and they dog-piled on that old woman? Would that be better than a tazer?

We should also note that the woman seemed heedless to the danger of passing traffic. Watch how she slips away from him as he tries to cuff her, and heads in the direction of the passing cars. What if she got greased by one of them? What would we say then?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:50:31 AM »

Quote

These things always seem to come down to the question of whether tazing is preferable to "man-handling."

I don't think it's quite fair. I think at least some officers seem to think tasers are "safe" and so use them in cases where they'd never have used a gun or a night-stick. Think the good officer would have ever considered dropping the old lady in the OP to the ground and beating her with a stick?

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2009, 02:25:54 AM »

she is proof that age and wisdom don't always go together

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2009, 02:27:18 AM »

Her being a dumb person doesn't make the officer a good person.

FTA84 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2009, 02:32:16 AM »

So after thinking about this for a bit. It was clear the woman was not listening, was resisting arrest, and endangering herself.

The officer had to deal with all three of these, especially the later.

I feel bad for officers now, between the 'bad apple' officers, the shady lawyers, and the 'community organizers', every time they are forced into a position like this, they have to choose what is most common place and which ever is most safe/sterile/mechanical.

What if he went to force her into cuffs and his arm brushed against her chest? Would be he labeled as a granny molesting pervert? Granny already lied about the facts of the situation to the news, what if there were real facts, like a misplaced hand?

vaskidmark · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2009, 06:38:56 AM »

the problem with hands-on compliance techniques is that it is not possible to regulate the amount of force consistently. Joint locks and takedown techniques applied to the elderly, especially female elderly, may be "excessive" in the face of unknown physiological issues such as osteoporosis.

At least the taser is a regulated device. The question becomes one of how many times the current is applied given the facts of the situation and the behavior of the individual being tased.

AFAIK every state gives you the option of signing a traffic citation or being arrested and brought before a magistrate for a bond hearing. Signing is a statement of personal recognizance to appear in court - cops memorized the "It's not an admission of guilt" mantra decades before having to memorize "You have the right to ...." Granny refused to sign. End of option #1 and only option #2 left - "You are under arrest."

What amazes me is that according to the press report Granny made all sorts of noise about being mistreated until the dashcam video was released. Since then she has shut up, although it is said she has retained a lawyer.

Question for the lawyerly - with the release of the dashcam video, is it potentially an alleged violation of the Canon of Ethics for a lawyer to take on her case against the cop? Re-read all of the stuff above when considering a response.

stay safe.

skidmark

Dannyboy · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2009, 08:26:03 AM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on August 20, 2009, 06:38:56 AM

the problem with hands-on compliance techniques is that it is not possible to regulate the amount of force consistently. Joint locks and takedown techniques applied to the elderly, especially female elderly, may be "excessive" in the face of unknown physiological issues such as osteoporosis.

At least the taser is a regulated device. The question becomes one of how many times the current is applied given the facts of the situation and the behavior of the individual being tased.

AFAIK every state gives you the option of signing a traffic citation or being arrested and brought before a magistrate for a bond hearing. Signing is a statement of personal recognizance to appear in court - cops memorized the "It's not an admission of guilt" mantra decades before having to memorize "You have the right to ...." Granny refused to sign. End of option #1 and only option #2 left - "You are under arrest."

What amazes me is that according to the press report Granny made all sorts of noise about being mistreated until the dashcam video was released. Since then she has shut up, although it is said she has retained a lawyer.

Question for the lawyerly - with the release of the dashcam video, is it potentially an alleged violation of the Canon of Ethics for a lawyer to take on her case against the cop? Re-read all of the stuff above when considering a response.

stay safe.

skidmark

Sure, it's regulated but at that age a pacemaker is just as likely as any other medical issues. So, she gets zapped and dies and then what? All because she didn't sign a ticket? The cop didn't have to arrest her for that. It's not a , "Do it or you go to jail" thing. The cop has the discretion to arrest or not. Yeah, she was a pain in the ass but all this cop did was make the problem worse because he had to be a hard ass and show her who was boss. That's OK, though. Karma is a bitch, as they say.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2009, 08:38:31 AM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on August 20, 2009, 06:38:56 AM

AFAIK every state gives you the option of signing a traffic citation or being arrested and brought before a magistrate for a bond hearing. Signing is a statement of personal recognizance to appear in court - cops memorized the "It's not an admission of guilt" mantra decades before having to memorize "You have the right to ...." Granny refused to sign. End of option #1 and only option #2 left - "You are under arrest."

In NYS they don't ask you to sign the ticket when you receive it. There is a place on the back to sign if you want to plead guilty though.

makattak · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2009, 08:45:42 AM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on August 20, 2009, 08:26:03 AM

Sure, it's regulated but at that age a pacemaker is just as likely as any other medical issues. So, she gets zapped and dies and then what? All because she didn't sign a ticket? The cop didn't have to arrest her for that. It's not a , "Do it or you go to jail" thing. The cop has the discretion to arrest or not. Yeah, she was a pain in the ass but all this cop did was make the problem worse because he had to be a hard ass and show her who was boss. That's OK, though. Karma is a bitch, as they say.

Actually, in most jurisdictions, it IS a "do it or you go to jail" thing. If you don't acknowledge the ticket, they have to book you so that they have a written record you are aware of the charges against you.

Secondly, a belligerent woman is ignoring the officer and headed for her car. He has no idea what her intentions are- drive away, retrieve a weapon, run him down- and he told her to stop. I prefer his choice of the taser as opposed to tackling her.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:30:19 AM »

My understanding is that many jurisdictions dictate in their procedures that tasers are to be used before the laying on of hands for physical force. In all likelihood, the officer was following procedures.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_Police_taser_injured_boy_19_0726.html
This is one case that is harder to explain. I would also like to see a dash cam for this one.

Stand_watie · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:42:09 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on August 20, 2009, 09:30:19 AM

...http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_Police_taser_injured_boy_19_0726.html
This is one case that is harder to explain. I would also like to see a dash cam for this one.

"...The teen's father said that the use of the taser caused Mace to develop an elevated white blood cell count..."

I had to go back and reread that, slowly, due to the irony of the tased fellow's first name being "Mace".

vaskidmark · « **Reply #20 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:46:49 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on August 20, 2009, 09:30:19 AM

My understanding is that many jurisdictions dictate in their procedures that tasers are to be used before the laying on of hands for physical force. In all likelihood, the officer was following procedures.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_Police_taser_injured_boy_19_0726.html
This is one case that is harder to explain. I would also like to see a dash cam for this one.

Apparently incoherent teen refusing to place his hands behind his back so he can be cuffed for the officer's safety. Words reported as coming out of his mouth may be either threats to cop on scene or report of an event that took place already - responding cop does not know.

But repeated tasering when the individual remains both noncompliant to verbal instruction and remains incoherent and physically nonthreatening? I don't think so!

This one stinks of cop demands immediate compliance without regard to material facts presently being observed. At least in this case all the tasering left was an elevated WBC count. In the good old days the kid would have had knots & lumps & bruises and maybe a few more bones broken.

stay safe.

skidmark

vaskidmark · « **Reply #21 on:** August 20, 2009, 11:01:51 AM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on August 20, 2009, 08:26:03 AM

Sure, it's regulated but at that age a pacemaker is just as likely as any other medical issues. So, she gets zapped and dies and then what?

As a wearer (?) of a combination pacemaker/defibrilator, I'd like to comment based on conversations with my cardiologist team WRT tasers.

#1 - pacemakers kick in when your heartbeat becomes too slow. They will not be set off by a taser jolt. In the unpossible (so my cardiologist says the manufacturer says) event it is triggered, all it would do is tell my heart to speed up to a point well below what it would be if I was already tazed.

#2 - a defibrilator might be more likely to go off if I were to be tazed, as the tazing might elevate my heart rate above the target trip point (in my case 120 bpm). If the defibrilator were tripped, it would be trying to slow my heart rate by a sudden stop then jump-start to within the preset limits.

#3 - the difference between a defibrilator and a taser is that a defibrilator is one jolt, while a taser is a prolonged series of jolts. One quick kick to my heart vs multiple kicks to my complete neuro system. Per my cardiologist, the manufacturer of my defibrilator says a prolonged tazering would be more likely to burn out my defibrilator circuitry that it would be to mess up my heart. My danger is from the defibrilator overheating and causing burns internally.

No, I am not volunteering to test out the protective qualities of my defibrilator against the effects of being tazed.

stay safe.

skidmark

Thor · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:32:18 PM »

There are TONS of recent examples of wrongful Taser use:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/20/illinois-officers-sued-for-unprovoked-tasering/

http://admin-www.latina.com/lifestyle/news-politics/video-police-taser-pregnant-woman-grandfather

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/03/grandpa-pregnant-woman-tasered-at-baptism-party/

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/mom_in_minivan_tasered_in_traf.html

These are just a few more recent examples. Apparently, the Law Enforcement Agencies are being taught that Taser ARE to be used as a compliance weapon nowadays. I am much against this. Tasers, at their inception into law enforcement, were to be used as a less than lethal option to a potentially deadly situation. For example, a man with a knife or other weapons just as deadly could be disarmed by use of a Taser vs shooting them with a gun. At that point, they seemed like a GREAT idea. However, they have apparently been found to be acceptable to use in many situations that could be handled differently, with MINIMAL or NO use of force. Many cops seems to be lacking the leadership skills that could make the difference of using force or not using force. Then, there's the whole "militarization" of our Police Forces thing. "To protect and serve" seems to be a long distant memory relegated to the 20th century.

lupinus · « **Reply #23 on:** August 20, 2009, 02:59:43 PM »

IMO Tasers, pepper spray/mace/etc, and other things of the general nature should in no way be used as a "compliance" tool. If a person needs to be detained, do so. If not, they are and should be free to leave. If the cop doesn't like being disrespected or anything else to damn bad it isn't against the law.

They were designed as and should be a less then lethal option for stopping a threat. No threat, no use IMO. Circumstances that would create a bad shoot with the officers sidearm should create a bad tase.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2009, 03:00:44 PM »

so how would you suggest detaining someone who says no?

News:

Author Topic: Another "compliance tasing" (Read 25971 times)