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.

Nurglitch wrote:Tasers are psychic weapons? How is being zapped not being physically engaged?

Well, unless you beat the crap out of the guy after he's down zapped, i don't think it qualifies as being physically engaged. Tasers were made especially to avoid physical confrontations with possible harm being done to the officer.

I'll take comfort in that the next time I get tasered. "Okay, I'm in searing pain, but at least I'm not in a physical confrontation! It's all in my mind!"

Yep, in this case all i can say is "sucks to be you dude!" That's why i always keep my mouth shut around the police. They are known for quick tempers

Mannahnin wrote:I tend to be of Fraz’ opinion on the new story. If the guy’s drunk enough to run from the cops, he’s potentially hazardous. Better to stop him. Dropping him in the gravel deliberately would be inappropriate, but not so brutal as to be totally indefensible.

As for the original story, based on the facts as reported in the newspaper article, including the quotes from the court record, the cop is a violent jackass and was out of line. The kid had the right to stay nearby, to wait for his ID to be returned. He certainly would be out of line to actually interfere with the police, but the facts as reported don’t show that he did. There may be more to the story, but based on what we have, it’s bad police work and abuse of authority. The kid did not curse, raise his voice, or escalate to violence. The officer did. The officer is an armed and trained public servant, who is supposed to be capable of de-escalating confrontations. Many good officers do it every day.

Agreed. Tyyr's story is only concerning from a "motivation" standpoint. Did the officer zap the kid to prevent him from driving drunk or to punish the kid for running? Luckily, the kid just had some scrapes it was good all around and provides a funny story to tell. Had the kid had a heart condition (shock puts him in cardiac arrest) or a blood disorder (bleeds out from road rash), then things change... Likewise, had the cop let the kid go, he quite possibly could have hurt someone driving. So probably the cop made a good decision, but I just wonder if it was the best decision and for the right reasons.

The first story had fault on both sides (the guy should have backed off some and kept quiet), but the biggest fault does lie with the cop for allowing a non-beligerent, non-threatening, non-swearing, non-abusive guy to get under his skin enough to cause the officer to escalate the situation. I think that the guy getting hit with community service for "interfering" isn't too unreasonable as he was interrupting the questioning and whatnot. However, the cop should also be held accountable for his actions in turning a simple senile old lady traffic stop into a "don't tase me bro" story.

In any case, I'm interested to see what that court ruling does to the use of tazers.

Gornall wrote:

Tyyr wrote:The tazer is intended to allow an officer to subdue a suspect without having to physically engage them. It takes the place of all physical force right up to the point where the officer needs to use deadly force.

Is that the policy? If so, then I'll be quiet as the cop was completely within his rights. I'm arguing under the assumption that tasers are meant as a replacement for deadly force. I think the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Tasers should only be used by police in situations where the person poses an obvious danger. If that is the new precedent, that means that tasing fleeing or uncombatitive suspects probably goes away.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/30/local/la-me-taser30-2009dec30

no thats not how it works. Deadly force is used for the threat of deadly force only, not to subdue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I tend to be of Fraz’ opinion on the new story. If the guy’s drunk enough to run from the cops, he’s potentially hazardous. Better to stop him. Dropping him in the gravel deliberately would be inappropriate, but not so brutal as to be totally indefensible.

As for the original story, based on the facts as reported in the newspaper article, including the quotes from the court record, the cop is a violent jackass and was out of line. The kid had the right to stay nearby, to wait for his ID to be returned. He certainly would be out of line to actually interfere with the police, but the facts as reported don’t show that he did. There may be more to the story, but based on what we have, it’s bad police work and abuse of authority. The kid did not curse, raise his voice, or escalate to violence. The officer did. The officer is an armed and trained public servant, who is supposed to be capable of de-escalating confrontations. Many good officers do it every day.

Ragnar has the way of it lads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:I'll take comfort in that the next time I get tasered. "Okay, I'm in searing pain, but at least I'm not in a physical confrontation! It's all in my mind!"

Next time you get tasered? How often do you get tasered Nurgly? I'd imagine if they caught you drinking with underage high school kids that tasers would be the least of your concerns.

Frazzled wrote:no thats not how it works. Deadly force is used for the threat of deadly force only, not to subdue.

I'm not saying it correctly. Originally I thought Tasers were meant to used as a stopgap to subdue/handle a suspect that was violent/posed a danger that otherwise (assuming no taser option) would be dangerous enough to warrant using a firearm. Under that policy, tasing a running guy seems excessive. However, it seems now that they are used in a much broader fashion, including stopping fleeing suspects and getting apprehended suspects into handcuffs. Under that guidance, these cases don't seem as outlandish. As long as an officer is operating within his departments policy/guidance, then he's covered. Whether or not that policy is correct is an entirely different debate.

That court ruling I just linked to seems to indicate that they should be used in situations of obvious threat, only, and not the other situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'd imagine if they caught you drinking with underage high school girls that tasers would be the least of your concerns.

Yeah... he ought to be more concerned about the wife.

Frazzled wrote:

Gornall wrote: At worst he sobers up and they get him the next day when he tries to come back to his apartment and nail him with providing booze to underage kids.

No, the idiocy of that statement is staggering. The worst is he gets in a car and highspeeds it out. In his drunken hottheadness he then sideswipes a car and kills everyone inside it. Come on wise up a little.

That are the fact that the officer did not arrest him that night could lead to a possible reasonible doubt that he was not the guy that ran. Esc if the other people refuse to testify against him.

Gornall wrote:

Frazzled wrote:no thats not how it works. Deadly force is used for the threat of deadly force only, not to subdue.

I'm not saying it correctly. Originally I thought Tasers were meant to used as a stopgap to subdue/handle a suspect that was violent/posed a danger that otherwise (assuming no taser option) would be dangerous enough to warrant using a firearm. Under that policy, tasing a running guy seems excessive. However, it seems now that they are used in a much broader fashion, including stopping fleeing suspects and getting apprehended suspects into handcuffs. Under that guidance, these cases don't seem as outlandish. As long as an officer is operating within his departments policy/guidance, then he's covered. Whether or not that policy is correct is an entirely different debate.

That court ruling I just linked to seems to indicate that they should be used in situations of obvious threat, only, and not the other situations.

Gotcha. No tasers would put into use as a substitute for more violent and dangerous actions-use of nightsticks/PR-24s, chokeholds, that sort of thing. Thats why Tyyr is reacting. Tasers are a humane substitute for anything beyond your standard takedown. Its less damaging to them and to the officer, and occasionally you get the Rodney King scenario with just sticks etc.

Language alert, but I got reminded of this vid by this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iORpLPmFfHU

The tasering part was probably uncalled for but when you get all up in a cops face and start running your mouth like the "good samaritan" did you risk pissing off a cop. Nobody likes to be hassled; not cops, not you or I, not store grocery clerk, not the parking meter lady. The dude might have been in a hurry to get home but until the cop gave him his license back so he could leave he should have stood or sat there on his car, kept his mouth shut and let the cop do his job.

I've been pulled over a few times and while I wasn't always too keen about it I always talked to the cop with respect; never ran my mouth; never cut him off mid-sentence and I've never gotten anything more than a warning. I've gotten warned half a dozen times in the past 3 years about speeding but never once had to pay a fine. It's because I wasn't a dick about it (that and the fastest I ever got clocked was 15 over so I avoided the entire reckless driving charge.

Most of the ones who end up with a ticket for going 80 in a 70 probably had to run their mouth and get pissy with the cop. Cops are trained in a confrontation that doesn't involve innocent bystanders (such as a routine traffic stop where the driver starts getting flaky and pissy) to protect their ass first and foremost. Getting agitated around a cop will put the cop on the defensive and will lead to bad things for the guy/gal putting him there.

The guy was most likely no threat to the cop but the guy starts to run his mouth and starts heckling the cop the officer had no choice but to calm the situation. If the guy resists arrests the cop can taser him to get him to comply. Given the choice no cop on Earth is going to tackle someone to the ground if he can reach for his taser and put the perp down that way.

Fateweaver wrote:The tasering part was probably uncalled for but when you get all up in a cops face and start running your mouth like the "good samaritan" did you risk pissing off a cop.

The guy was most likely no threat to the cop but the guy starts to run his mouth and starts heckling the cop the officer had no choice but to calm the situation.

The guy in the first story did none of that. He didn't heckle or verbably abuse the cop. He stayed on the sidewalk (didn't back off but didn't approach either) and asked questions (possibly too loudly). But you're right... someone who yells at or swears at a cop or takes a step towards the cop is basically asking for whatever comes his way. I don't think that was the case in the first story though.

I agree, the officer went way over the top.

BUT, he asked that guy to move along apparently a few times. He should of just done what was asked of him, and got on his merry way.

I'm sorry, but I don't see where anything the officer did was proper concerning his interaction with the young man who had assisted the elderly woman.

The young man did not verbaly assualt the officer (the officer however did use profanity directed at the young man).

The young man did not initiate physical contact with the officer/or threaten him in any way (the officer admits he made first physical contact).

So basicly it seems a young man helps an elderly lady,sticks around due to his concern for the elderly lady,and gets tazzed for not mindlesly obeying and unjust directive.
Personaly I think the cop should be fired at the very least.

FITZZ wrote: Personaly I think the cop should be fired at the very least.

Nah... Firing is a bit harsh. I say put through the IA wringer where he's the one trying to defend his actions. That and some psych testing wouldn't hurt to see if he has anger issues. Then give him some administrative discipline and anger management courses and have him on a short leash for a while. Basically what happened to the civilian. I still think he should be held to a higher standard as he is charged with defending the public, but I think tanking his career over one cluster where both sides were partially to blame is a touch rough.

Gornall wrote:

FITZZ wrote: Personaly I think the cop should be fired at the very least.

Nah... Firing is a bit harsh. I say put through the IA wringer where he's the one trying to defend his actions. That and some psych testing wouldn't hurt to see if he has anger issues. Then give him some administrative discipline and anger management courses and have him on a short leash for a while. Basically what happened to the civilian. I still think he should be held to a higher standard as he is charged with defending the public, but I think tanking his career over one cluster where both sides were partially to blame is a touch rough.

Perhaps your correct,but it should be some considerable time before this officer is allowed to interact with the public again.

Clearly this guy didn't get his liter of cola.