Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This argument is invalid, Nkelsch. In the report linked at the beginning on this thread one of the policeman said the girl lunged at him and the knife was in his own words "way too close". Any person trained in edged weapon counter tactics-- as any worthwhile law enforcement member should be--would have used the opportunity to disarm the untrained little girl child. Deadshot is correct.
Well, I am trained in 'edged weapon counter tactics' (which is definately a much more awesome name from what our instructors call it) and I am a worthwhile (hopefully!) law enforcement member. And I have to say that unequivocally our training is very specific about open-handed moves against an assailant armed with an edged weapon. We have a few different kinds of block and that is it. My training when confronted with a knife is to keep a minimum safe distance. Training also dictates that if a suitably armed assailant attempts to approach or does indeed get within that safe distance the main priority is to re-establish that distance, and the use of CS/CAPTOR spray, baton or worse-case scenario, bare hands, is all about creating enough of a gap to re-establish that distance. Although we do get taught baton strikes to the arms and the use of spray which can result in subduing an armed assailant, that's basically a happy coincidence. We don't have sidearms or Tasers - ideally when confronted with a knife-armed assailant we should do containment until the specialist officers turn up with things like dogs (aka 'land-sharks' or 'furry Exocets'), public order gear, Tasers, baton rounds etc.
Now I know officers who have subdued attackers armed with weapons, and all of these incidents have resulted in injury to at least one party and sometimes both.
I completely disagree. Ongoing mental health awareness training for all officers and specialized crisis intervention skills training for specialized officers should be (and is) part of law enforcement training.
Whilst I agree that we should have mental health awareness training, the reality is that we don't (in Scotland at least). You pretty much learn as you go along which gives some very uneven results. The issue here - and it's another reason for the lack of training in open-handed disarms - is principally time. Bearing in mind that we don't have to do worry about firearms training, police officers spend a lot of time training to keep up with legislation and procedure, emergency response driving, first aid, use of IT systems and Officer Safety to name a few. I'd also mention here that in order to become proficient in unarmed combat - or indeed any kind of combat - you have to do a LOT of training until it becomes instinctual. Beat cops generally speaking don't have that time.
Throw in a specialism like Search, Public Order, Firearms, Family Liaison, Search and Rescue, etc etc and that's still more time that you have to spend training which equates to less time on the street. When you start including other factors like time off, giving evidence in court and being called out to use your specialist training it can get ridiculous.
The sad truth is that you can have cops who are zen masters of unarmed combat and mental health experts. But if you did they would maybe work a few days a month because they'd have to spend so much time training.
What I think has happened in this situation is that the cops have encountered a situation which is similar to what they've trained to deal with but with a twist. They've ended up falling back on their training to deal with it. I have absolutely no doubt that what Da Boss has said about how his father would have dealt with this situation is true because the old-school cops here would have done the same thing - probably walked up to her and slapped her and taken the knife from her and screw the risk, because that's how things were done in their time. Expecting cops nowadays to deal with a situation the same way it was dealt with twenty years ago is unrealistic - in any profession, working practices change over time and the persons within that profession are trained to follow those practices. It's the same whether you're a police officer, fire-fighter, paramedic, soldier, carpenter, plumber.....yet strangely I don't see any threads up arguing about how paramedics failed to resuscitate a person suffering from condition X and how they were really unprofessional and should have done Y instead of Z.....
Gonzo made one of the best posts in this thread. He made some excellent points. I'll add a few.
FWIW, I am a combatives instructor. The first rule about bladed weapon encounters without fire arms/electrical weapons is thus: you will get cut. Even a by the book, perfect disarming usually results in the officer and/or suspect be wounded. Severely or otherwise. We train with both plastic and rubber knives as well as shock knives. Nine out of ten students get shocked. It is an unfortunate fact of a knife, regardless of who is wielding it. Even a knife on the ground is not safe.
I'm not really a fan of electrical deterrents as a rule due to the variables that can vastly alter how a person will react to them. Having not been in the room, all I can say is that at that moment, the Officer made a force response based on the situation presented to them and the end result was no permanent injury to themselves or the subject. That has some worth to it all on its own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/13 19:16:24
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This argument is invalid, Nkelsch. In the report linked at the beginning on this thread one of the policeman said the girl lunged at him and the knife was in his own words "way too close". Any person trained in edged weapon counter tactics-- as any worthwhile law enforcement member should be--would have used the opportunity to disarm the untrained little girl child. Deadshot is correct.
Well, I am trained in 'edged weapon counter tactics' (which is definately a much more awesome name from what our instructors call it) and I am a worthwhile (hopefully!) law enforcement member. And I have to say that unequivocally our training is very specific about open-handed moves against an assailant armed with an edged weapon. We have a few different kinds of block and that is it. My training when confronted with a knife is to keep a minimum safe distance. Training also dictates that if a suitably armed assailant attempts to approach or does indeed get within that safe distance the main priority is to re-establish that distance, and the use of CS/CAPTOR spray, baton or worse-case scenario, bare hands, is all about creating enough of a gap to re-establish that distance. Although we do get taught baton strikes to the arms and the use of spray which can result in subduing an armed assailant, that's basically a happy coincidence. We don't have sidearms or Tasers - ideally when confronted with a knife-armed assailant we should do containment until the specialist officers turn up with things like dogs (aka 'land-sharks' or 'furry Exocets'), public order gear, Tasers, baton rounds etc.
Now I know officers who have subdued attackers armed with weapons, and all of these incidents have resulted in injury to at least one party and sometimes both.
I completely disagree. Ongoing mental health awareness training for all officers and specialized crisis intervention skills training for specialized officers should be (and is) part of law enforcement training.
Whilst I agree that we should have mental health awareness training, the reality is that we don't (in Scotland at least). You pretty much learn as you go along which gives some very uneven results. The issue here - and it's another reason for the lack of training in open-handed disarms - is principally time. Bearing in mind that we don't have to do worry about firearms training, police officers spend a lot of time training to keep up with legislation and procedure, emergency response driving, first aid, use of IT systems and Officer Safety to name a few. I'd also mention here that in order to become proficient in unarmed combat - or indeed any kind of combat - you have to do a LOT of training until it becomes instinctual. Beat cops generally speaking don't have that time.
Throw in a specialism like Search, Public Order, Firearms, Family Liaison, Search and Rescue, etc etc and that's still more time that you have to spend training which equates to less time on the street. When you start including other factors like time off, giving evidence in court and being called out to use your specialist training it can get ridiculous.
The sad truth is that you can have cops who are zen masters of unarmed combat and mental health experts. But if you did they would maybe work a few days a month because they'd have to spend so much time training.
What I think has happened in this situation is that the cops have encountered a situation which is similar to what they've trained to deal with but with a twist. They've ended up falling back on their training to deal with it. I have absolutely no doubt that what Da Boss has said about how his father would have dealt with this situation is true because the old-school cops here would have done the same thing - probably walked up to her and slapped her and taken the knife from her and screw the risk, because that's how things were done in their time. Expecting cops nowadays to deal with a situation the same way it was dealt with twenty years ago is unrealistic - in any profession, working practices change over time and the persons within that profession are trained to follow those practices. It's the same whether you're a police officer, fire-fighter, paramedic, soldier, carpenter, plumber.....yet strangely I don't see any threads up arguing about how paramedics failed to resuscitate a person suffering from condition X and how they were really unprofessional and should have done Y instead of Z.....
Gonzo made one of the best posts in this thread. He made some excellent points. I'll add a few.
FWIW, I am a combatives instructor. The first rule about bladed weapon encounters without fire arms/electrical weapons is thus: you will get cut. Even a by the book, perfect disarming usually results in the officer and/or suspect be wounded. Severely or otherwise. We train with both plastic and rubber knives as well as shock knives. Nine out of ten students get shocked. It is an unfortunate fact of a knife, regardless of who is wielding it. Even a knife on the ground is not safe.
I'm not really a fan of electrical deterrents as a rule due to the variables that can vastly alter how a person will react to them. Having not been in the room, all I can say is that at that moment, the Officer made a force response based on the situation presented to them and the end result was no permanent injury to themselves or the subject. That has some worth to it all on its own.
"the end result was no permanent injury to themselves or the subject." I've been trying to get people to understand that for a long time.
Many of the times my children are misbehaving all I have to say is "do you want a spanking?" and it stops, just referencing it is enough.
Awesome, you're teaching your children that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with physical violence.
In the same way that threatening to take a way a child's favorite toy or video game system teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with theft?
In the same way that threatening to give a child a time out or make them stay in their room for awhile teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with confinement against their will?
Pretty much, yes.
Which is exactly why many parents these days try to avoid coercive behaviour management.
Judging by this line of reasoning, it's clearly better to just let children do whatever it is they want to do.
'Let them do whatever they want' and 'foster obedience through fear' are not the only options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/14 02:38:40
Many of the times my children are misbehaving all I have to say is "do you want a spanking?" and it stops, just referencing it is enough.
Awesome, you're teaching your children that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with physical violence.
In the same way that threatening to take a way a child's favorite toy or video game system teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with theft?
In the same way that threatening to give a child a time out or make them stay in their room for awhile teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with confinement against their will?
Pretty much, yes.
Which is exactly why many parents these days try to avoid coercive behaviour management.
Judging by this line of reasoning, it's clearly better to just let children do whatever it is they want to do.
'Let them do whatever they want' and 'foster obedience through fear' are not the only options.
In reality, I think what forms of discipline are used should probably be tailored to the individual child. Different people respond differently (and better or worse) to different things, and that goes for children as well. Some children might need a form of coercive behavior management (both with corporal and non-corporal punishment) to get their attention, while others might respond much more readily to something else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/14 02:43:59
Many of the times my children are misbehaving all I have to say is "do you want a spanking?" and it stops, just referencing it is enough.
Awesome, you're teaching your children that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with physical violence.
In the same way that threatening to take a way a child's favorite toy or video game system teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with theft?
In the same way that threatening to give a child a time out or make them stay in their room for awhile teaches them that in order to cooperate, you have to threaten others with confinement against their will?
Pretty much, yes.
Which is exactly why many parents these days try to avoid coercive behaviour management.
Judging by this line of reasoning, it's clearly better to just let children do whatever it is they want to do.
'Let them do whatever they want' and 'foster obedience through fear' are not the only options.
In reality, I think what forms of discipline are used should probably be tailored to the individual child. Different people respond differently (and better or worse) to different things, and that goes for children as well. Some children might need a form of coercive behavior management (both with corporal and non-corporal punishment) to get their attention, while others might respond much more readily to something else.
RJCarrot wrote: A better solution would have been better parents who could have contained the issue before it go to that level.
Because nothing helps foster understanding like making snap judgements of other peoples' parenting skills based on a news report.
as opposed to making snap judgments about professional police officers policing skills based on a news report? (which only tells the woman's side for the most part)
the parents made parenting decisions that led to their daughter doing this, they should be locking up knives and guns around kids, their parenting led to this situation that they could not control, and had to get the cops to come contain.
its its as simple as the mother said, why does she need to call the cops in the first place? just "grab the knife" yourself if its so simple.
knowing to lock up dangerous weapons like knives and guns around kids and the mentally unstable is common sense, let alone parenting sense, they are liable for the situation for leaving this stuff around.
the cops made a decision, based on their judgement of that situation, as well as professional training, and it resulted in a diffused situation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/14 03:58:26
insaniak wrote: Because nothing helps foster understanding like making snap judgements of other peoples' parenting skills based on a news report.
as opposed to making snap judgments about professional police officers policing skills based on a news report? (which only tells the woman's side for the most part)
When did I do that?
its its as simple as the mother said, why does she need to call the cops in the first place? just "grab the knife" yourself if its so simple.
The mother wasn't the one who called the police.
knowing to lock up dangerous weapons like knives and guns around kids and the mentally unstable is common sense, let alone parenting sense, they are liable for the situation for leaving this stuff around.
There's nothing in the news article about her being mentally unstable. At least not before being tasered.
I wouldn't expect to have to 'lock up' kitchen knives away from an 8-year-old unless they had a history of being violent. I was cooking my own meals by the time I was 8.
FACT: Taser use by law enforcement has contributed to the deaths of 530 Americans (to 2013).
Taser use should not be a means to expedite a process. Increasingly, taser use in the US is becoming a matter of convenience. Currently, police are allowed to go buck wild with tasers. Tasers can harm or kill people particularly due to age, weight, and health factors, so they should be used under extremely specific circumstances and in judicious manner. The child had, in point of fact, not done any actual harm to anyone, including herself. The police went from entering the premises to tazing the child in two minutes.
My premise is that the police did not assess the situation correctly.
For those of you arguing about disarming vs. tazing, can we acknowledge that there were other means available to the officers for resolving the incident?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/14 04:15:53
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
AesSedai wrote: For those of you arguing about disarming vs. tazing, can we acknowledge that there were other means available to the officers for resolving the incident?
Without having been there, or having access to all the details of the incident?
No, not really.
I'm not a fan of the idea of tazering an 8-year-old, but I can acknowledge that I don't know enough about the situation to say I know better than the guys who actually dealt with it.
AesSedai wrote: For those of you arguing about disarming vs. tazing, can we acknowledge that there were other means available to the officers for resolving the incident?
Without having been there, or having access to all the details of the incident?
No, not really.
I'm not a fan of the idea of tazering an 8-year-old, but I can acknowledge that I don't know enough about the situation to say I know better than the guys who actually dealt with it.
The release linked at the beginning of this thread lays out the circumstances. By your logic, how could people not present at the event ever question the officer's actions? Are you saying because you weren't there, their actions are beyond reproach? Knowing that you are both a logical and reasonable individual, I must be misunderstanding you.
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
AesSedai wrote: The release linked at the beginning of this thread lays out the circumstances.
So it does. The first post just had the news article, which was a fairly bare-bones summary. The linked investigation report on the CNN page is much more thorough.
After reading that, I still don't agree that the taser was the best option, but I can understand their reasoning for going with it.
Are you saying because you weren't there, their actions are beyond reproach?
Not at all. Just that newspaper articles can be a poor basis for making an informed decision on someone's actions, as they often don't tell the whole story, or get details wrong.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Are other countries really soo much better? Let's be honest, we all harbor unfair stereotypes about other countries.
Oh, we all have stereotypes but I'm not holding any grudge toward America. Others made their lil "joke comment" on this topic, I was just feeling doing the same.
It's just that in Belgium, our policemen usually don't use tasers (only the special units are authorized to do so and they rarely use it - only a few times in six years). As far as I know, it doesn't mean my country is burning while ravening hordes of murderous children with knifes wreak havock. We have more troubles with alcohol, to be honest - since our beer is sooo much stronger than what you drink in the USA.
It's the use of taser in this case I find questionable (especially here because it involves a child), -at least from my point of view. I can perfectly understand those men did what they think was right at this time. That doesn't mean there can't be other ways to deal with that kind of situation, that's all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/14 11:40:27
Thats why twelve Germans were able to take over your country in 17 hours. Here in the Land of Freedom, even our 8 years olds will cut you. Even the sons of samurai were afraid of our pickup truck driving, gun toting redneck hordes.
America Hurr!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, it's always easier to win wars when you have more men and tanks than the opponent - even more if you came at the very end when the enemy is already exhausted by fighting others on the ground for a few years.
Beside, resistance in Belgium was much more than that. But I can't blame you for not knowing our history - it's already hard enough for americans to actually know Belgium exist at all and is not a part from France or Holland.
Sarouan wrote: Well, it's always easier to win wars when you have more men and tanks than the opponent - even more if you came at the very end when the enemy is already exhausted by fighting others on the ground for a few years.
Beside, resistance in Belgium was much more than that. But I can't blame you for not knowing our history - it's already hard enough for americans to actually know Belgium exist at all and is not a part from France or Holland.
See if France had armed 8 year olds like we did, Belgium would be French.
(alternatively if Frazzled's kin had stayed... but thats kind of the same thing).
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Beside, resistance in Belgium was much more than that. But I can't blame you for not knowing our history - it's already hard enough for americans to actually know Belgium exist at all and is not a part from France or Holland.
Hey now... I know of 3 things that Belgium does... gakky beer (I honestly prefer German beer), cycling (apparently it's like soccer for the rest of the world, or Football for Americans), and Waffles
My daughter once thought it was funny to swipe at me with a magic marker. She was only playing, and you know what, it was hard to get it away from her. The difference in size meant I needed to squat to be able to reach anything on her to grab. While getting the magic marker away from her we both got marked.
This girl had TWO knives for double the fun.
I've been both Tasered and Pepper Sprayed before (one was a bet, one was an accidental dropping of a pepper spray can that exploded on impact with pavement). I've got to say that I'd honestly rather be tasered. Sure you fall to the ground, but after that it's over in seconds. Pepper spray burns like heck for half an hour.
It's also a fact that the ONLY people that have died from being Tasered were either on drugs, had a pacemaker, were elderly, or had pre-existing medical conditions. This girl was obviously NOT elderly, probably wasn't a crack-head, probably didn't have a pacemaker.
As for the report that she was "thrown against the wall from the electrical shock", that's just ridiculous. Tasers don't throw you back. At worst she tensed up and fell backward.
It's also a fact that the ONLY people that have died from being Tasered were either on drugs, had a pacemaker, were elderly, or had pre-existing medical conditions. This girl was obviously NOT elderly, probably wasn't a crack-head, probably didn't have a pacemaker.
Let me educate you. Israel Hernandez, aged 18, in the prime of his life dead after being tasered last year in Florida. He was not a crack head nor did he have a pace maker. He died of cardiac arrest according to the M.E.'s report. In case you didn't know what the difference is between a fact and a misinformed opinion is, now maybe you do. Don't make grandiose claims next time.
EDIT: "accidental death due to electrical discharge" to be precise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/14 18:53:54
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
It's also a fact that the ONLY people that have died from being Tasered were either on drugs, had a pacemaker, were elderly, or had pre-existing medical conditions. This girl was obviously NOT elderly, probably wasn't a crack-head, probably didn't have a pacemaker.
Let me educate you. Israel Hernandez, aged 18, in the prime of his life dead after being tasered last year in Florida. He was not a crack head nor did he have a pace maker. He died of cardiac arrest according to the M.E.'s report. In case you didn't know what the difference is between a fact and a misinformed opinion is, now maybe you do. Don't make grandiose claims next time.
He still could have had a pre-existing medical condition. Taser related deaths are extremely rare.
*edit becuz wordz is supa hard.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/14 18:55:16
It's also a fact that the ONLY people that have died from being Tasered were either on drugs, had a pacemaker, were elderly, or had pre-existing medical conditions. This girl was obviously NOT elderly, probably wasn't a crack-head, probably didn't have a pacemaker.
Let me educate you. Israel Hernandez, aged 18, in the prime of his life dead after being tasered last year in Florida. He was not a crack head nor did he have a pace maker. He died of cardiac arrest according to the M.E.'s report. In case you didn't know what the difference is between a fact and a misinformed opinion is, now maybe you do. Don't make grandiose claims next time.
EDIT: "accidental death due to electrical discharge" to be precise.
I remember that case. If I remember correctly it was revealed in the autopsy that did in fact have a pre-existing medical condition.
It's also a fact that the ONLY people that have died from being Tasered were either on drugs, had a pacemaker, were elderly, or had pre-existing medical conditions. This girl was obviously NOT elderly, probably wasn't a crack-head, probably didn't have a pacemaker.
Let me educate you. Israel Hernandez, aged 18, in the prime of his life dead after being tasered last year in Florida. He was not a crack head nor did he have a pace maker. He died of cardiac arrest according to the M.E.'s report. In case you didn't know what the difference is between a fact and a misinformed opinion is, now maybe you do. Don't make grandiose claims next time.
EDIT: "accidental death due to electrical discharge" to be precise.
I remember that case. If I remember correctly it was revealed in the autopsy that did in fact have a pre-existing medical condition.
So what we are getting at is that they are super safe if you are not somebody that it could kill? One of those somebodies that you are completely incapable of identifying externally. Those types of people that have no idea what a tazer could do to them. Sounds pretty safe I must admit. Just roll the die every time you taze somebody. Hmmmm, rolled a one, oops guess you had and unknown medical condition. Too bad, not my fault or the tazers you should of told me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/14 23:07:47
cuda1179 wrote: If I remember correctly it was revealed in the autopsy that did in fact have a pre-existing medical condition.
Finding out about it at that point in the process could be argued to be a little late to be useful...
But incidents like that being so rare, I think that tazers are a relatively "safe" tool to use for taking in/down an unruly person. Obviously, there are going to be some outliers that are going to come up from time to time, but those situations can/do provide more information to help in gaining further knowledge of appropriate instances to use a tazer.
cuda1179 wrote: If I remember correctly it was revealed in the autopsy that did in fact have a pre-existing medical condition.
Finding out about it at that point in the process could be argued to be a little late to be useful...
But incidents like that being so rare, I think that tazers are a relatively "safe" tool to use for taking in/down an unruly person. Obviously, there are going to be some outliers that are going to come up from time to time, but those situations can/do provide more information to help in gaining further knowledge of appropriate instances to use a tazer.
I agree 100%. It's kind of like those idiots that refuse to get vaccinations for their children because they "give some children autism". Let's just assume they are right (they aren't right, but let's just assume they are), even if this was true, I'd still get my kid vaccinated because the .1% chance that he gets autism is better than the chance of him dying from an easily preventable disease.
This is just like Tasers. 99.9% of the time they are used they provided the officer a way of subduing a suspect that minimizes the chances of injury to everyone involved. Although that remaining .1% has tragic consequences it is still better than the alternative that would leave several more injured or dead.
Unstable + Unwilling to Respond to an Officer talking them down + Knifes = OK to tazer. No matter what the age.
Don't want to get tazerd? Drop the freakin knife.
I am pretty sure with a Negotiator and a Tazer instructor on site, they exaused their skill set with no response before escalating.
You think a Tazer instructor wants to taze people knowing that they MAY die? Do you know what kind of lawsuits will come after tazing even if it is warranted? I bet he did. He was probably all like, aw crap I am going to have to go to court for this before he pulled the trigger.
