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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

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.

Or batons and baton rounds.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:


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.

No. I've not read or heard anything to support that.

Again, if you provoke an officer to the point they feel threatened enough to have to use a tazer and you die. It's your fault.

If I pull a gun on a cop and they shoot me and I die, was it their fault that I got shot?

Here is how I assume it went down.

Negotiator: "Please put down the knife" (multiple times in multiple ways.

Kid: No response or replys no.

Negotiator: If you do not drop the knife we are going to have to taze you, do you know what that means (explains)

Kid: No response or replys no.

Negotiator: Ok do it.

Tazer guy: Zap....

If it went down like that or even close to that, the kid had it coming and they did nothing wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidebar: If I was a tazer specialist I would have AC/DC's thunderstruck on my phone to play at a moments notice.

If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

 d-usa wrote:
If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

Doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes the person with the knife's answer is no.

There are rules and steps in place for when they should take what action. As long as they were followed then that is all that matters.

I know I am not getting near someone who has a knife and has ill intentions. You can cut yourself chopping veggies let alone trying to take a knife away from an unstable person.

 d-usa wrote:
If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

To be fair, negotiating with an apparently deranged 8 year old is completely different from a situation with an adult hostage taker.

RJCarrot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

Doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes the person with the knife's answer is no.

And the professional negotiator spend how many minutes talking to this mastermind before deciding to give up?

I truly think that "I'm a grown-ass man, I'm not fething around with a fething 8 year old, light her up" may have been a factor here.

Because if that is the best negotiating that the police department has to offer that town is fethed.

RJCarrot wrote:
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.

Who needs to think when you can just act, amirite? Let's not look to closely at the details, ok? The great state of South Dakota has invested me with the power to put 50, 000 volts into an eight year old and by God if I am allowed to do it I should do it. RJ, I love the binary decision making process you outlined--I believe it was just so. Sure, rarely results in death is like, basically safe. That's really simple and easy on the brain. Exhausted their skill set indeed. A whole two minutes from start to finish--a real wham, bam, and back to the clubhouse for in time for donuts. It's not like American police have a reputation for excessive force, surely not. It's not like ~5000 civilians have been killed by police since 9/11. And if so, that's like, totally reasonable right? What's a guy or four to do when faced with knife wielding eight year olds and a depleted skill set??

 d-usa wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

Doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes the person with the knife's answer is no.

And the professional negotiator spend how many minutes talking to this mastermind before deciding to give up?

I truly think that "I'm a grown-ass man, I'm not fething around with a fething 8 year old, light her up" may have been a factor here.

Because if that is the best negotiating that the police department has to offer that town is fethed.

I can say the same thing just on the opposite side.

The guy spent multiple hours negotiating and it came to a last resort.

The article doesn't state the time taken.

What I am saying is, if sufficient action and time was taken to try and resolve the situation and there was still an unfavorable outcome, the kid had it coming. If not then the officers should be reprimanded. But nowhere does it say.

My statements are all under the assumption that the police officers did their job to the books. If not then it is right for them to be under investigation.

My statement is, that under no circumstances is it "out of the question" to taze anyone of any age if they are acting in a manner that requires it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AesSedai wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:
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.

Who needs to think when you can just act, amirite? Let's not look to closely at the details, ok? The great state of South Dakota has invested me with the power to put 50, 000 volts into an eight year old and by God if I am allowed to do it I should do it. RJ, I love the binary decision making process you outlined--I believe it was just so. Sure, rarely results in death is like, basically safe. That's really simple and easy on the brain. Exhausted their skill set indeed. A whole two minutes from start to finish--a real wham, bam, and back to the clubhouse for in time for donuts. It's not like American police have a reputation for excessive force, surely not. It's not like ~5000 civilians have been killed by police since 9/11. And if so, that's like, totally reasonable right? What's a guy or four to do when faced with knife wielding eight year olds and a depleted skill set??

I don't see what is wrong with it being binary.... its an easy decision.

Did the kid do something that required tazing and was the proper amount of non tazing resolution occurring. If so. Taze. If not. Don't.

Again my statement is, if the kid was talked down and didn't respond and the resort was finally to taze her, then she had it coming. Potential for death or not.

Drop the fething knife....

RJCarrot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If your hostage negotiator can't handle an 8 year old for any length of time then you should probably look into a replacement...

Doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes the person with the knife's answer is no.

And the professional negotiator spend how many minutes talking to this mastermind before deciding to give up?

I truly think that "I'm a grown-ass man, I'm not fething around with a fething 8 year old, light her up" may have been a factor here.

Because if that is the best negotiating that the police department has to offer that town is fethed.

I can say the same thing just on the opposite side.

The guy spent multiple hours negotiating and it came to a last resort.

The article doesn't state the time taken.

What I am saying is, if sufficient action and time was taken to try and resolve the situation and there was still an unfavorable outcome, the kid had it coming. If not then the officers should be reprimanded. But nowhere does it say.

My statements are all under the assumption that the police officers did their job to the books. If not then it is right for them to be under investigation.

My statement is, that under no circumstances is it "out of the question" to taze anyone of any age if they are acting in a manner that requires it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AesSedai wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:
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.

Who needs to think when you can just act, amirite? Let's not look to closely at the details, ok? The great state of South Dakota has invested me with the power to put 50, 000 volts into an eight year old and by God if I am allowed to do it I should do it. RJ, I love the binary decision making process you outlined--I believe it was just so. Sure, rarely results in death is like, basically safe. That's really simple and easy on the brain. Exhausted their skill set indeed. A whole two minutes from start to finish--a real wham, bam, and back to the clubhouse for in time for donuts. It's not like American police have a reputation for excessive force, surely not. It's not like ~5000 civilians have been killed by police since 9/11. And if so, that's like, totally reasonable right? What's a guy or four to do when faced with knife wielding eight year olds and a depleted skill set??

I don't see what is wrong with it being binary.... its an easy decision.

Did the kid do something that required tazing and was the proper amount of non tazing resolution occurring. If so. Taze. If not. Don't.

Again my statement is, if the kid was talked down and didn't respond and the resort was finally to taze her, then she had it coming. Potential for death or not.

Drop the fething knife....

It took 2 minutes.

If that is the case then it was wrong. Unless the kid was advancing on them with the knife. Then again, she deserved it.

My statement is that is OK to taze a child if the circumstances present themselves.

 d-usa wrote:

It took 2 minutes.

I mean, this will be comparing apples to T-Bone steak, but sometimes situations escalate/deescalate very quickly... All of the firefights that I was in in Iraq lasted 1 minute or less.

When someone is having a stroke, how many minutes does it take for doctors to make decisions?

Obviously, we weren't present in this situation, however I do feel that, given a certain set of circumstances, it probably wouldn't take 2 minutes to go through the department guidelines.

RJCarrot wrote:


Don't want to get tazerd? Drop the freakin knife.


I don't see what is wrong with it being binary.... its an easy decision.

Did the kid do something that required tazing and was the proper amount of non tazing resolution occurring. If so. Taze. If not. Don't.

Again my statement is, if the kid was talked down and didn't respond and the resort was finally to taze her, then she had it coming. Potential for death or not.

Drop the fething knife....

Holy crap, you are a salty boy.

Binary thinking is ok. Tazing eight year old girl--sure, it's an easy decision. Two minutes of dialogue is proper before juicing her. She had it coming, huh, potential for death or not.

 AesSedai wrote:

Binary thinking is ok. Tazing eight year old girl--sure, it's an easy decision. Two minutes of dialogue is proper before juicing her. She had it coming, huh, potential for death or not.

I'm not defending him or his line of thinking, but without actually being there, I dont think many of us are really qualified to outright state that the officers did or did not appropriately go through the proper deescalation steps.

RJCarrot wrote:
If that is the case then it was wrong..

Faith somewhat restored.

RJCarrot wrote:
Unless the kid was advancing on them with the knife. Then again, she deserved it.

She was not at the time of the tazing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

Binary thinking is ok. Tazing eight year old girl--sure, it's an easy decision. Two minutes of dialogue is proper before juicing her. She had it coming, huh, potential for death or not.

I'm not defending him or his line of thinking, but without actually being there, I dont think many of us are really qualified to outright state that the officers did or did not appropriately go through the proper deescalation steps.

Nevertheless, we have both a right and a responsibility to question the use of force against a child. Procedure is not above reproach.

 AesSedai wrote:

RJCarrot wrote:
If that is the case then it was wrong..

Faith somewhat restored.

RJCarrot wrote:
Unless the kid was advancing on them with the knife. Then again, she deserved it.

She was not at the time of the tazing.

Where are you getting the information from or am I just missing it (I just glanced over the article).

Not being there I can't speak for the situation either way. My statement is just meant to be, that if the situation presents itself and cannot be resolved it should not be unthinkable to taze a kid.

If it were my kid, and they had a knife (my kid would have been dropping it because I said so way before police were involved) and did not listen to an authority figure who was telling them to drop it, and the proper amount of time was involved in talking them down. Then I would understand if they tazed my kid. And shortly after I would spank them for not listening and getting tazed in the first place. But like I said... my kid knows better.

Yeah and in 2 minutes and 1 second she could of slit her own throat attacked the police officers or even attacked the babysitter who was also in harms way.

Alpha 1 wrote:
Yeah and in 2 minutes and 1 second she could of slit her own throat attacked the police officers or even attacked the babysitter who was also in harms way.

Also true, hence why I said if she even showed a sign of advancing they should have taken her down.