Police Tazer - Judge for yourself


PDA






TechBrute
June 9, 2005, 12:04 PM
Here is a police tazer video that you can watch beginning to end. Any comment?

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Tazer - Judge for yourself" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
red_devil1469
June 9, 2005, 12:08 PM
I haven't seen the one on that site, but this one is the complete footage.You can see the events more clearly.
http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1158.htm
This should also be under legal and political.

Spreadfire Arms
June 9, 2005, 01:16 PM
i see there is an Air Taser for sale to civilians in Texas. i also see the police model which is smaller, has the laser and light, and has more voltage. it is also smaller.

Taser International's policy is for sale only to LE agencies and individual officers.

what is the law in Texas? can a citizen have the "police model," since it is not restricted by law to possess or use? the D.A.'s office in Travis County stated that all uses of the Taser will be judged in accordance with the same legal scrutiny in regards to whether or not DEADLY FORCE was justified if you use a taser as a citizen.

but they did not say it was illegal to possess either model. any opinions?

George Hill
June 9, 2005, 01:31 PM
That woman has no dignity or self respect.

chopinbloc
June 9, 2005, 01:33 PM
Taser International's policy is for sale only to LE agencies and individual officers.
i'm pretty sure that's not the company policy as there are several stores in the phoenix area that sell both m-26 (larger, older model) and x-26 to civilians. one has to fill out a form with all your vital information and show picture id when buying the cartridges, though. my friend has the x-26.

TechBrute
June 9, 2005, 01:34 PM
That woman has no dignity or self respect. Yeah, but she has enough attitude to go around...

Steve, I'm not really sure what the laws are. I've never looked into it. If I carried a Taser in addition to the gun, mag, BUG, flashlight, keys, etc, I'd need a full-up duty belt.

the D.A.'s office in Travis County stated that all uses of the Taser will be judged in accordance with the same legal scrutiny in regards to whether or not DEADLY FORCE was justified if you use a taser as a citizen. Interesting, because that's sure not the criteria they are holding police to.

TheFederalistWeasel
June 9, 2005, 01:51 PM
Interesting, because that's sure not the criteria they are holding police to.

I’m sure Texas has similar statues like GA has which apply to general use of force and force used to effect an arrest.

Georgia Code – Title 16-3-21.
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Georgia Code – Title 16-3-23.
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Georgia Code – Title 17-4-20.
(a) An arrest for a crime may be made by a law enforcement officer either under a warrant or without a warrant if the offense is committed in such officer’s presence or within such officer’s immediate knowledge; if the offender is endeavoring to escape; if the officer has probable cause to believe that an act of family violence, as defined in Code Section 19-13-1, has been committed; if the officer has probable cause to believe that an offense involving physical abuse has been committed against a vulnerable adult, who shall be for the purposes of this subsection a person 18 years old or older who is unable to protect himself or herself from physical or mental abuse because of a physical or mental impairment; or for other cause if there is likely to be failure of justice for want of a judicial officer to issue a warrant.
(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.
(c) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict the use of deadly force by employees of state and county correctional institutions, jails, and other places of lawful confinement or by peace officers of any agency in the State of Georgia when reasonably necessary to prevent escapes or apprehend escapees from such institutions.
(d) No law enforcement agency of this state or of any political subdivision of this state shall adopt or promulgate any rule, regulation, or policy which prohibits a peace officer from using that degree of force to apprehend a suspected felon which is allowed by the statutory and case law of this state.
(e) Each peace officer shall be provided with a copy of this Code section. Training regarding elder abuse, abuse of vulnerable adults, and the requirements of this Code section should be offered as part of at least one in-service training program each year conducted by or on behalf of each law enforcement department and agency in this state.


16-3-21 and 16-3-23 is applied to civilians who use force

16-3-21, 16-3-23 and 17-4-20 is applied to officers who use force while in the line of duty or in GA if they use force while off duty when it is reasonably established that they had properly identified as a Peace Officer.

Spreadfire Arms
June 9, 2005, 01:52 PM
you're right about Travis Co. DA's office's opinion that a taser used by a civilian is justified only where deadly force itself would be justified, but not when it comes to the police using it. im sure a half-brained defense attorney could pull up the use of force policies for every LE agency in the area in regards to the taser and tear apart the case the DA's office had anyway. they could also get Taser International's sales presentation material and show that its purpose, when used correctly, is not to inflict deadly force.

remember the Travis Co. D.A. Ronnie Earle is an anti-gun democrat. he probably believes that Tasers are equivalent to firearms.

so if an FFL sold a Taser to a citizen does it involve a 4473?

Specialized
June 9, 2005, 02:42 PM
That woman has no dignity or self respect.
Yeah, but she has a newfound respect for electricity, I reckon! :)

I about laughed myself silly watching this video, especially the attitude change. Whoever said 'the best defense is a good offense' clearly hadn't taken into account Tasers!

There are times when the Jesse Jackson approach just ain't gonna fly. 51 in a 35 and DWLS/R is one of them.

jamz
June 9, 2005, 06:02 PM
Hehehe. Stupid indeed hurts. :)

-James

Godfather
June 9, 2005, 06:24 PM
Had to turn down the volume after she got the zap... friends thought I was watching some "entertainment" in here.

Police are allowed more leway with weapons. They can point their gun at you without being threatened yet.

I heard about this clip about a week ago, some debate over whether or not the cops should use it.

"Put your hands behind your back!"

"I can't!"

yeah, right. I've seen guys tazered, and once the user shuts it off, you're pretty mobile as soon as you're entirely aware again.

And cops have to have non-lethal weapons used on them before they can carry them (mace, tazers, etc.) so they know when that kind of force is needed.

The only real civilian use I've seen for these so far is teachers using them to restrain suicidal kids since they aren't alowed to touch them with their hands. I think the cop at my school might too, but I'm not sure.

cidirkona
June 9, 2005, 06:50 PM
Hahaha, remind me not to make phone calls while getting pulled over and talking back to the cop!

-Colin

AK-74me
June 9, 2005, 08:46 PM
Dealing with alot of people similar to her in the past i can appreciate that.

Mad Man
June 9, 2005, 08:55 PM
I really don't see the police doing anything wrong in this situation.

Of course, I wasn't there, I've never been a cop, I don't have all of the facts, there may have been other factors, blah blah blah.

Therefore, I have no right to judge the actions of these officers...

one45auto
June 9, 2005, 09:49 PM
I found that video extremely disturbing. :uhoh:

Strings
June 9, 2005, 10:05 PM
I had seen an abreviated version of that video (omitted the first bit, picked up when he's telling her to put the phone down). I'd say the officer was justified, although I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Tasers being used as a compliance device...

Don't get me wrong: I understand that SOMETHING needed to be done. I can just see this being seriously abused.

As for civilian carry: I'd consider adding one to the "Bat-belt". Or would, if WI "allowed" mere serfs to carry...

Coronach
June 9, 2005, 10:15 PM
I'm on a borrowed computer, so I'm not going to go to the Bigboys site. Is this the one from a few days/weeks ago where she is placed under arrest and she refuses to exit the vehicle? An officer then reaches inside, something happens, and he pulls back, then Tasers her?

If so (just going on the facts in evidence and providing some color commentary based on experience)...

1. Cops are very loathe to start wrestling matches with ANYONE still seated at the controls of a motor vehicle. One motion with the hand and one with the foot and the whole affair can turn into a 0-60 event with a cop and possibly the suspect being seriously injured or killed (to say nothing of other motorists/pedestrians).

2. If it is that one, the female allegedly struck the officer when he was leaning into the car.

3. Officers are also more likely to use a Taser on combative suspects who are physically smaller than them (especially women) because Tasers don't cause injury (injuries from falling excepted), whereas any wrestling match with a really motivated suspect will result in bruises, at the least. (A note on taser deaths: we've had deaths from wrestling for years now, and deaths from macings, too. All appear to be associated with cardiac frailty and/or drug use, and IMO (unscientific) if you are at risk from the Taser you're at risk from wrestling with the cops, too).

Mike

Sergeant Sabre
June 10, 2005, 01:46 AM
She was driving with a suspended license, so she was going to be arrested one way or another. The officer said that she took a swing at his back-up officer (we can't see from the video). The suspect was obviously uncooperative. The options were to either A: Taze her, or B: Forcibly arrest her. In option "B", both the suspect and the officer(s) are at risk of physical injury. Not so with option "A". I agree with the officer's actions.

jefnvk
June 10, 2005, 02:03 AM
Conorach, yes that is the one.

She was given AMPLE time to comply. By about the fifth 'I'm gonna tase you if you don't get out of the car', she should have gotten the idea. If not, well, I could make jokes about beauty pagent contestants and intelligence, but they really wouldn't be jokes ;)

ExtremeDooty
June 10, 2005, 02:43 AM
She had to know that her license was suspended and thought she could bully the officer into letting her go. Wrong. I have no sympathy for her as she was given several opportunities to comply.

Until we have "phasers on stun" the tazer is a good non-lethal option for cops to have. She'll have her day in court without needing a trip to the hospital.

landon74
June 10, 2005, 03:12 AM
My wife and I heard this on the radio today, and I was certain that it had been staged, but I didn't know there was video on the net....

Watching the video makes my father's advice about dealing with LEO's even more sage, comply with their requests and call them 'sir'......

I'm sure the lady is happy they decided to use the taser rather than their night sticks....

TarpleyG
June 10, 2005, 09:42 AM
Hmmm. Very interesting sequence of events. We can Monday morning quarterback this to death guess. I honestly believe that a tazer would have needed to be employed at some point during this altercation just because of the way this woman was acting from the get-go but I believe it occurred too early. The officer never once told her why he was arresting her before he tazed her. Doing so may have de-escalated the situation. Again, I ask, what did we do before OC spray and tazers???

Greg

pythonguy
June 10, 2005, 10:35 AM
What the hell is wrong with people? The officer pulls her over for speeding, broken windshield, tail light out, runs her license and it is suspended, asks her to exit the vehicle, and she's talking on the phone? She then takes a swing at the second officer and finally get what she deserves, lighting on a string. She wasn't going to cooperate, that Tazer saved an escalation of the situation and they were able to cart her off. She needs psychological help if you ask me, plus a major fine and some correction facility therapy. I'll bet anything she sues the police and a racial descrimination charge is leveled. I feel for all the police, they get royally stressed and then screwed.

SlabSlinger
June 10, 2005, 11:12 AM
That incident occurred in Delray Beach, FL. I live in the vicinity and can say from experience that, in general, people have very little respect for authority down he-uh. Having moved from Illinois (Land of Lincoln) at one time, I call South Florida the "Land of Litigation". The disposition of the general population could be characterized as cantankerous, people seem overly focused on "their rights", and many folks seem to think that the law only applies to other people. In light of this and considering that the PO-lice have to forsake any form of pleasantry down here in order to get a modicum of compliance, I think he was very professional.

Good job, officer! I would have been tempted to wear down the batteries on that thing, which is why I would not make a good police officer. :D

lysander
June 10, 2005, 01:01 PM
Higher Power forbid that anyone would get tangled up in the mortal sin of being "overly focused on their rights." Why you'd think that people might want to live in a place where they can go about their business and all... :neener:

That being said...this is an event that deserves blame placed on both sides. The woman driving is in the wrong on many levels (license suspension, speeding, windshield, tailight, etc), however...you sure get the sense that once the officer decided it was time to drop the hammer on this lady...that he wasn't interested in having his authority challenged. Why escalate? Let the lady vent, cite her for her violations, and have a bench warrant issued for her arrest. On some levels it is the policeman's job to take guff from the citizenry, if you expected otherwise you shouldn't take the job. Having the scenario turn out like this,and then end up in the public eye, does nothing but add fuel to several burning fires.

For example:
1) The police are racist and where is Jesse Jackson to help me fire.
or
2) The police are statists and I am aghast at their use of a taser as a brutal compliance tool fire.
or
3) The I can't believe this stupid woman she should just follow the rules like everybody else and I'm glad she got zapped fire.
and lets not forget the ever present
4) I was doing it to protect the children fire.

cidirkona
June 10, 2005, 01:21 PM
Let the lady vent, cite her for her violations, and have a bench warrant issued for her arrest.

Can they let someone go whom they're supposed to arrest? Arrest her. If she doens't wanna go... too bad!

She was on the phone telling someone that she was getting arrested. The officer tazed her immediately after she told whoever (Mark?) was on the phone where she was. At that point, I think the officer was just in tazing her to stop her conversation for his own safety. He had no idea if she was calling for 'help.'

-Colin

walking arsenal
June 10, 2005, 01:23 PM
Wait, i keep reading that running thousands of volts of electricity through your body doesnt cause harm?

How many threads have we read were the guy tazed dies?

These tazers are a menace in my opinion, i can see way too many cases of trigger happy with these things just because "they cause no harm".



Question though from a budding law enforcement student.

Do you have to carry mace and a tazer? because if they have to try them on me so i know what its like, i'd like to have the option to say "no thats ok". plus i hate having 40 pounds of stuff around my waist.

cidirkona
June 10, 2005, 01:26 PM
i hate having 40 pounds of stuff around my waist.

...but how else are the COPS camera men supposed to keep up with you when they're carrying 40 pounds worth of recording equipment/batteries?!

-Colin

walking arsenal
June 10, 2005, 01:39 PM
I suppose i'll just have to shoot the BG in the leg so he doesnt run so fast.




Bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do? watcha gonna do when comes for youuuuuuuuu. :D

cidirkona
June 10, 2005, 01:53 PM
Or even better, Taze him! They don't make that neat ZZZZZzzzt "Gwaawawawahwaagawgawa...." sound otherwise...

-Colin

walking arsenal
June 10, 2005, 02:15 PM
I know but BLAAAAAAAAAMMMM! OW! Thud! Is so much quicker.

lysander
June 10, 2005, 02:17 PM
Can they let someone go whom they're supposed to arrest? Arrest her.

Most likely no. I'm not a cop so I wouldn't know the specifics. Perhaps a fellow THR member who is an LEO in the area in question could shed some light?

All I am trying to say is this: Does driving with a "suspended license" and getting belligerent with an officer really warrant two "tazings"? I certainly don't want to get into some kind of a libertarian argument regarding the validity of licensing in the first place...but really...should you be zapped because your papers are not in order with the state? Why was her license suspended? Is she a habitutal drunk driver or is her license suspended because has a tendency to speed in a vehicle that isn't "up to code" (broken windshield and taillights)? If the offense is bureacratic in nature shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

What if we substitute the taser with a billy club? Or replace the offense with something even more innocuous than driving with a suspended license, like jaywalking? Is it not possible to see an unsettling trend in the use of "compliance force" like this?

Warbow
June 10, 2005, 02:27 PM
All I am trying to say is this: Does driving with a "suspended license" and getting belligerent with an officer really warrant two "tazings"? I certainly don't want to get into some kind of a libertarian argument regarding the validity of licensing in the first place...but really...should you be zapped because your papers are not in order with the state? Why was her license suspended? Is she a habitutal drunk driver or is her license suspended because has a tendency to speed in a vehicle that isn't "up to code" (broken windshield and taillights)? If the offense is bureacratic in nature shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

She wasn't tased because her "papers weren't in order." She was tased because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the officer (and allegedly swung at the other officer).

What if we substitute the taser with a billy club?

Take a trip back to the 50s, 60s and 70s and you'd get just that substitute.

Deep Blue
June 10, 2005, 02:38 PM
Wait, i keep reading that running thousands of volts of electricity through your body doesnt cause harm?

Its not the volts that do the damage, its the amps. A couple of thousand volts is painfull, but not lethal. I believe it only takes something like one-hundredth of an amp to kill you however. As long as the amperage that the Tasers put out is low, the voltage can be relatively high, and there shouldn't be any danger.

lysander
June 10, 2005, 02:41 PM
She wasn't tased because her "papers weren't in order." She was tased because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the officer (and allegedly swung at the other officer).

Which helps us drill down deeper towards what I am getting at. It should make people in this country uncomfortable that those who issue the "lawful orders" have the ability to "safely" induce pain to gain compliance. Again let me stress that I believe this woman to be wrong on many levels, in violation of the law on many levels, however...it worries me that the typical response to this type of incident is the much lauded and overworked "she deserved it" statement.

I certainly wish people could be more civil in their behavior and responsible in their actions...but I get squeamish when I see incidents like this because it adds to my existing knowledge base that the state is only benign until it turns its eyes on YOU. When that does happen...you had better hope that you: a) aren't doing ANYTHING wrong (near impossible in today's day and age)which can later be used to justify how you are treated, and b) you get a patient and decent "peace officer" on the other side of your car door.

I think many of the "law and order" or "she deserved it" folks on THR may have never found themselves on the wrong side (whether deserving or not) of the law. It will change your perspective.

SlabSlinger
June 10, 2005, 02:47 PM
Higher Power forbid that anyone would get tangled up in the mortal sin of being "overly focused on their rights." Why you'd think that people might want to live in a place where they can go about their business and all...

Lysander, when I used the phrase "their rights", I was referring to the perception of many folks that they can do anything they please (legal or otherwise) without consequense; however, I really think that you knew that.

lysander
June 10, 2005, 02:58 PM
Slabslinger,

I did...hence the :neener:

As Barney Fife once said: "I was being fesishsus."

Bad Words
June 10, 2005, 03:17 PM
I think the cop was very much in the wrong in this one. I saw no reason at all to use force against her as she wasn't a threat to the officers. Also, the officer claims that he tazed her because she swung at his partner, while the partner was on the other side of the vehicle and you don't see her moving in the back windshield and can hear her talking calmly on her cell phone. I highly doubt she really swung at them, besides the fact that the officer told her before he did it that it was because she refused to exit the vehicle. The woman was clearly naive of laws, and I think she would have cooperated if she understood the situation she was in.

MikeIsaj
June 10, 2005, 03:20 PM
Higher Power forbid that anyone would get tangled up in the mortal sin of being "overly focused on their rights."
Nothing wrong with being focused on your rights but, if you are going to be so emphatic about your rights being respected, you owe it to the rest of society to know what your rights are and aren't. Otherwise you get yourself in a mess because you are stupid.

That being said...this is an event that deserves blame placed on both sides.

Nope Only one person to blame here. Only one person broke the law and the response was reasonable. Only thing I would have done different is I would not have talked to her so much. My philosophy is, argue your case in the courtroom, not the curb. You want to argue the case, I am not going to participate in that discussion.

Why escalate? Let the lady vent, cite her for her violations, and have a bench warrant issued for her arrest.

This woman has been permitted to vent too often already. How do you think she got this way? She learned a valuable lesson in acceptable public behavior. Eventually you will run into someone who isn't going to put up with your nonsense. Better it be a professional police officer with a level of self control than some citizen in a bar who just can't stand listening to another word.


On some levels it is the policeman's job to take guff from the citizenry

Nope again. Not at all. Police aren't the community whipping boys. They put up with your stupidity and ignorance because they are professional and don't sink to your level. To think it's their job to be abused is just plain stupid. Sorry, can't think of a nicer way to say it. It is no ones job to be abused by another. That type of behavior no matter who it is directed at is unacceptable.

jefnvk
June 10, 2005, 03:50 PM
So, to those of youwho don't think the taser was appropriate, how do you propose that they arrest her?

Teufelhunden
June 10, 2005, 04:34 PM
Again, I ask, what did we do before OC spray and tazers

Beat them into handcuffs, beat them some more, and charge them with resisting arrest.

OC and the TASER have been introduced as means of adding levels between officer prescence and lethal force on the force continuum. A tasing and multiple blows with an ASP to get submission are far from one another. The TASER has no lasting effects other than some people scar where the probes hit (I'm one of them). Gaining compliance through use of blunt trauma (ASP) will result in multiple lasting injuries possibly requiring hospital services.

Let the lady vent, cite her for her violations, and have a bench warrant issued for her arrest.

I don't know about FL, but here in GA, driving on a suspended license is an arrestable offense. The only change I would have made to this interaction would be to inform her she was under arrest, then you'd have grounds for an obstruction charge once she refused. On the other hand, he might have very well been trying to get her out from behind the wheel before he informed her that she was under arrest.

I really wish more of the general citizenry could spend time interacting with the less desirable elements of our society to really understand why some measures are necessary when dealing with them. 95% of the population doesn't deal with these scum on a routine basis, so it is easier for them to cry foul when the appropriate measures are employed to arrest them.

-Teuf

RTFM
June 10, 2005, 04:46 PM
Just to throw a different link in to the mix, here is the video again, from the dash cam, and below you can click and hear the training offices report and critique of the officers action.

I feel this is a MUCH BETTER link than the first two provided, because they are for entertainment, where as this link has LOE discussions included.

(no offense guys, I just wanted to let everyone see the other parts of the story)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video3a.html

The officers training officer decided that taser was THE BEST choice for this situation.

RTFM

Bad Words
June 10, 2005, 05:27 PM
So, to those of youwho don't think the taser was appropriate, how do you propose that they arrest her?
Wait it out. I'd consider waiting a few hours to be a better option than tazing somebody. Until she calms down, or until she has an attorney on site to tell her what a moron she's being. He should have told her why he was arresting her, too, instead of just saying it was for speeding. The change in his reason for tazing her makes me suspect it was against policy, as well, which is certainly what I'd hope was the case. It also seemed that they could have forced her out of the car without tazing her or inflicting a great deal of pain. I don't know if this is an option or is considered too risky to the police, but it's obvious the police didn't consider her a threat at any point. I don't think police should not be allowed to taze someone unless it's in defense of themselves or someone else. Force may be necessary to make an arrest, but tazing someone for their attitude is far excessive in my opinion.

Buck Snort
June 10, 2005, 06:08 PM
Somebody far wiser than I once remarked, "Life is tough, its tougher when yer STUPID!!!" :neener:

Matthew748
June 10, 2005, 07:54 PM
I watched the video and was thinking that just yanking her out of the car might have been a better solution until I read Coronach's post about the dangers of wrestling with someone still behind the wheel. I think what the officer did was justified, but its pretty darn close to the line in the sand.

dzimmerm
June 10, 2005, 08:11 PM
I heard some brief discussion about volts verses amps and what kills you.

It is power that kills you. If your heart does not stop beating due to the electrical signal then it is your flesh being cooked by power that does the damage.

Power is expressed in wattage. Wattage brings into play the fact that it takes a certain voltage to drive a certain amount of current(amps) through a given substance. If you have a electrical source that is not limited in it's current output the deciding factor is the resistance or conductivity of the substance.

If you take a bar of silver which has very low resistance it takes almost no voltage to drive very large amounts of current through it.

If you are dealing with air, which normally has a very high resistance, it takes a much higher voltage to drive a simular amount of current. It also depends on factors like humidity and gas composition of the air. It also depends on whether the air had already been ionized.

The human body varies quite a bit in it's resistance. If you sweat your skin resistance goes down. There are many other factors that could vary a human bodies resistance.

From an engineering perspective the tazer is designed to have enough voltage to overcome any normal body resistance. The circuitry in the taser should limit the current so no heating of tissue happens. Thus the only affect of the tazer will be the affect on the nervous system and the muscles attached to it.

If you have a pacemaker you should probably avoid being tazed.

I am guessing the tazer probes being shot into your skin is also not pleasent. I am also guessing the high voltage signal makes it not an issue until after the fact when you have to remove them.

The lady might have been crying due to the probes piercing her skin but I would imagine it was her pride that was making most of the wails. It sounded to me just like a small child who does not get their way at a grocery store and chooses to make a scene in hopes they will get what they want anyway.

dzimmerm

40cal
June 10, 2005, 08:19 PM
The officers made the correct choice.

Officers can and will use force to gain compliance. This includes compliance with a passive resister, or an active resistive and active assaultive, all of which describe the suspect in the video.

DonNikmare
June 10, 2005, 08:27 PM
Maybe she was depressed and that's why she was acting that way.

I'll have you know that despite of the decline of it's use & popularity, electro shock therapy is still the most effective form of treatment for people with chronic depression who do not or have ceased to respond to pharmacotherapy/meds or in this here case... who do not or have ceased to respond to lawful police officer commands.

Thanks to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" who vilified it is looked down on and not advertised but nevertheless still used.

Anyway, Taze on my brother...taze on! She worked very hard to earn it.

Nik

ExtremeDooty
June 10, 2005, 11:55 PM
I think many of the "law and order" or "she deserved it" folks on THR may have never found themselves on the wrong side (whether deserving or not) of the law. It will change your perspective.

You are correct. I have been pulled over for speeding before. I said "yes, sir and no, sir" and didn't give the cop a load of crap. I got my ticket, and I was on my way in a few minutes without getting tazed or beaten. But then, I wasn't committing multiple crimes like driving on a suspended license as well as speeding and not wearing a seat belt.

If nothing else, "she deserved it" because of her own stupidity. If you're going to drive on a suspended license, you should at least be smart enough not to draw attention to yourself by breaking other traffic laws. She obviously has no respect for the law and suffered the consequences.

That last speeding ticket, almost 30 years ago, did change my perspective. I stopped speeding and I haven't been pulled over since. Funny how that works. I guess that makes me part of the "law and order" crowd. No apology implied.

meef
June 11, 2005, 01:38 AM
I've got to say, that was one of the funniest videos I've seen in a while.

She didn't like the outcome? Too freakin' bad. She had multiple opportunities to avoid what happened.

You don't have to agree with what's going down, but if you've even half a brain - you will comply and contest it in court at a later date.

Teufelhunden
June 11, 2005, 01:08 PM
I am guessing the tazer probes being shot into your skin is also not pleasent. I am also guessing the high voltage signal makes it not an issue until after the fact when you have to remove them.

I do not recall any pain when the probes were pulled from my back. The first few seconds after the TASER quits zapping you are euphoric because the pain is gone. I'm not kidding when I say that the first few seconds after getting shot with the TASER are right up there with sex. I've got minor scars from the probes (which are essentially straightened fishhooks), but nothing damaging in any practical sense.

Oh, and IIRC, the TASER is 50,000 Volts/23 Watts/4 Amps of pure behavior modification bliss--not that I want to ride THAT lightning again... ;)

-Teuf

lysander
June 11, 2005, 04:54 PM
MikeIsaj,

First, seeing as how you are quoting and responding to my post directly, you might want to avoid using a posessive pronoun like your followed by colorful adjectives like stupidity, plain stupid and ignorance. One might read your post and get the idea that you are attempting to attribute those traits to me, rather than to the female suspect in the video.

Second, the words guff and abuse are not synonyms. Guff is generally defined as baloney, nonsense or backtalk. Abuse has a much harsher denotation, usually involving force, harm or injury. So yes, a policeman's job does require dealing with a certain amount of baloney from the citizenry, it comes with the territory. The same territory that a retail salesperson works in, where that salesperson might expect being required to deal with a certain amount of baloney from the customers.

Third, I'm not sure that I like the idea of the police dishing out lessons in
acceptable public behavior

Finally, if you will follow the remainder of my commentary you will see that I don't take issue with determining whether or not this particular woman broke the law. I already conceded that fact, she broke the law and she should have behaved in a more decent manner. However, I take issue with the idea of the police having the leeway to apply pain via taser at will. This particular event degenerated because the woman had the gall to challenge the officer's authority and as a result he brought the hammer down (insofar as he was "departmentally approved" to do so) It is my opinion that the police should make an effort to de-escalate volatile situations, instead of just upping the ante. I will say again...a citizen should not be expected to kowtow simply because they are faced with the blue uniform of the police. Serve and protect my friend...serve and protect.

toivo
June 11, 2005, 06:20 PM
The woman is a total A-hole--no argument there. But my feeling is that the officer let him get to her and let the situation get out of hand. Granted he's only human, and I can understand him reacting that way. But her hissy fit would have run out of steam very quickly once it dawned on her that she was going to jail and that she could go "the easy way or the hard way."

You can see that the harder the officer pushed the more she pushed back. It's like child psychology: you don't get into the "yes-no" shouting match with them; you just say, "You know this is going to come out my way, and the sooner you get with the program, the easier it will be on you." I don't see on the video where he does that. He just says "Put down the phone or I'll taze you." I'm not even sure she knows what that means.

My big issue with tazers as opposed to the "wrestle 'em down" scenario is that there's less incentive for the officer to try to talk his way through the confrontation. It's relatively easy and painless for the cop, as opposed to getting all sweaty and bothered wrestling with some moron. My feeling is that they're overused for that very reason. They're the magic "pain gun" that lets you subdue anybody, no muss, no fuss. Dangerously tempting.

On a related note, once back in the 60's a friend of mine tried to break free from a NY state trooper who was frisking him. (He was carrying a small quantity of a popular herbal substance.) The trooper wrestled him down, cuffed him, and said "So you like to fight? I'll take off my gun and your cuffs and we'll go a few rounds." My friend declined. Message? Cops are human, and they get cranky too.

Kevlarman
June 11, 2005, 08:49 PM
Seeing as how the word TASER itself is an acronym (for Thomas A. Swift's Electronic Rifle), I find it funny how people use the word "tase" as a verb. Generification of copyrighted names, perhaps (think Xerox).

dzimmerm
June 12, 2005, 10:27 PM
Teufelhunden,

If the taser was 4 amps at 50,000 volts you would need a small thermonuclear reactor on your back, :). (thinking of ghostbusters there)

23 watts I can agree with.

23 divided by 50,000 = 0.00046 amps

Now if you wanted to bring down Godzilla 50,000 volts at 4 amps might do the trick!

dzimmerm

answerguy
June 12, 2005, 10:44 PM
If I had been the LEO I would have been tempted to say:
"Quit moaning or I'm going to Taze you again"

More seriously do you think that the LEO should have explained what a Tazer is before using it?

walking arsenal
June 13, 2005, 02:09 AM
"Don't cross the streams"

"why?"

"It would be bad" :D

dzimmerm
June 13, 2005, 04:28 AM
Walking_Arsenal,

My co-worker just asked what I was laughing at.

Good memory!

dzimmerm

Sergeant Sabre
June 14, 2005, 05:05 PM
So, we have the following situation:

An uncooperative suspect that has not been searched for weapons is sitting behind the wheel of an SUV. She is talking on the phone to unknown persons and broadcasting her location to them. (Is "help" on the way???). She has committed an offense which requires arrest and you need to arrest here.

Options:

1: Grab her and throw her to the asphalt. Could cause joint damage to suspect, or abrasions from grinding on the asphalt. Also, suspect has not been searched for weapons, making a physical engagement an uncertain venture.

2: Whip her with your nightstick, 1960's style. Possible severe bruising or broken bones may result. Also, suspect has not been searched for weapons.

3: OC spray. Severe and very enduring pain will result. Overspray may affect both you and your partner. Also, suspect has not been searched for weapons.

4: Taser. Immediate compliance, no lasting affects. Despite "people dying after being tased" claims, I am unaware of any medical report that cites a taser as an immediate cause of death. Any documentation I have ever read regarding alleged taser deaths has shown that the suspect's death occurred because of other complications, like cocaine overdose. Also, despite thousands of LEOs accross the nation being tased in training, some multiple times, I am unaware of a single death. With option #4 we have immediate compliance with no physical contact. Neither officers nor suspect are injured, and the arrest is made.

5: Let her go to "cool off". This entails not doing your job. It would require allowing an individual with a suspended driving license to drive away. Do we want LEOs to not enforce the law?

I HAVE been on the wrong side of the law, by the way. I also had a .45 caliber pistol in my posession at the time. I was not tased, I was not struck, I was not injured. Quick story:

I was waiting for somebody to come home at thier house. I was sitting near my Jeep in thier driveway. Somebody didn't think I belonged there and thought I may be up to no good so the police were called and one officer responded. I informed him that I was legally armed. He instructed me to turn around and put my hands up. I did and he disarmed me. Then we proceeded to clear things up, my pistol was returned to me, and I went on my way.
I didn't challenge him, I didn't resist, I didn't get upset. I just accepted the situation that I, in part, had brought on myself and there was no taser use, no drawing of weapons, no injury whatsoever.

What's so hard about that???

roo_ster
June 14, 2005, 05:55 PM
Observation 1: That gal deserved every volt she got. She worked hard for it & she finally got it. She can't say she never earned anything.

Observation 2: Officer McZappy doesn't like it when people don't respect his authority
("You will respect mah author-itteh!")

Observation 3: Officer McZappy has no problem with not respecting others, or at least others who are acting up.
("Hey, if I pulled them over, they're a turd.")

Observation 4: The Taser is a useful tool...that seems to have become a substitute for interpersonal skills for some users.
("Get out of the car...You don't want to?" Zap.)
("Get out of the apartment...You don't want to?" Zap.)

Observation 5: Sometimes an azz-whoopin' or a Tasing is all some folks are going to understand.

TechBrute
June 14, 2005, 05:59 PM
Observation 1: That gal deserved every volt she got. She worked hard for it & she finally got it. She can't say she never earned anything.

Observation 2: Officer McZappy doesn't like it when people don't respect his authority
("You will respect mah author-itteh!")

Observation 3: Officer McZappy has no problem with not respecting others, or at least others who are acting up.
("Hey, if I pulled them over, they're a turd.")

Observation 4: The Taser is a useful tool...that seems to have become a substitute for interpersonal skills for some users.
("Get out of the car...You don't want to?" Zap.)
("Get out of the apartment...You don't want to?" Zap.)

Observation 5: Sometimes an azz-whoopin' or a Tasing is all some folks are going to understand.

+1

Spreadfire Arms
June 14, 2005, 07:58 PM
speaking of Tasers (but not to hijack the thread):

Austin PD had an officer involved shooting a few days ago where a female officer, who feared the BG had control of her taser (it was not on her belt and had been removed or had fallen off during a struggle when a guy w/ a felony warrant tackled her) and she feared the BG was going to use it against her partner (Sgt) or herself. the BG was in the proceess of assaulting the Sergeant.

the officer fired one round and killed the BG. story is below taken from the Austin American Statesman:

New details emerge in shooting of teen suspect
Officer feared she and sergeant were about to be shot with stun gun before fatal shooting, sources say


By Tony Plohetski, Claire Osborn

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

An Austin police officer told internal affairs investigators that she fatally shot a teenager during a scuffle because she feared that he had taken her Taser stun gun and was about to use it against her or her sergeant, a source close to the investigation said Monday.

Officer Julie Schroeder said she had been trying to subdue Daniel Rocha, 18, seconds before he turned his back to her and began fighting with Sgt. Don Doyle, said the source, who asked not to be identified because of proximity to the case. Rocha was either crouching over Doyle or lying on top of him when Schroeder fired one shot into Rocha's back below his left shoulder blade, the source said.

"Her fear was that he was about to disable the sergeant and that since the two of them hadn't been able to control him, that she wasn't going to be able to do it alone," the source said. "At that point, she really believed that Don Doyle was about to be Tased and disabled and that a weapon either could be used on her or him or both."

Three other sources familiar with Schroeder's story independently confirmed the source's account of what the officer told investigators. Police have refused to provide specifics about what happened that night, citing their ongoing investigation.

The source's account provides the first insight into how Schroeder described the events that led to the fatal shooting late Thursday at the intersection of South Pleasant Valley Road and Quicksilver Boulevard.

The account, however, varies from those of two neighborhood residents who told the Austin American-Statesman on Friday that they did not see a struggle. At least one of those witnesses says she was interviewed by police.

Lawyer Bobby Taylor, who has been hired by the Rocha family, said he also has talked to witnesses who provided statements to investigators.

"Two witnesses said they saw police grab Daniel Rocha out of the car and throw him in the ground," Taylor said Monday. "One of the witnesses heard Rocha yelling, 'I don't have a weapon. I don't have a gun.' "

Taylor declined to name the witnesses. He said that Schroeder knew Rocha because she had arrested him in another case.

Schroeder's Taser was found on the ground after the shooting along with several other items, including the officer's badge. An autopsy report obtained Monday said police also found a baggy with a leafy green substance on the ground by the passenger door of the vehicle.

Austin lawyer Tom Stribling, who is representing Schroeder in the internal affairs investigation, said Monday that "she is confident she did the right thing. I think that is what will get her through this."

According to the source close to the investigation, here's how Schroeder described the incident:

Officers in unmarked patrol cars had been watching a known drug house and saw a Chevrolet Suburban in which Rocha was a passenger leaving the scene. Doyle followed the SUV.

The driver of the Suburban stopped — apparently after either spotting Doyle or after Doyle turned on his flashing police lights. Schroeder and another officer pulled up to the SUV in a separate vehicle; the front of their patrol car was at a 45-degree angle to the Suburban's front left side.

One of the officers shined a light into the Suburban and recognized Rocha, who had an outstanding warrant on a felony theft charge.

The officer working with Schroeder walked to the driver's door and began questioning a man. A passenger in the back seat had opened the right passenger's side door and fled.

Schroeder, who had run over to the opened passenger door, tried to get Rocha to stay inside the Suburban.

Schroeder told investigators that she yelled commands such as "stay where you are" and "don't run." Instead, he lunged at her, knocking her to her knees.

The two continued their struggle when Doyle joined the fight.

Schroeder reached for her Taser to try to subdue Rocha and realized that it was missing. Her badge and a knife she carried on her belt also were gone.

Schroeder reached for her gun and fired once.

Two people who said they witnessed the shooting told the American-Statesman that they did not see a struggle.

"All of a sudden she just grabbed him, put him down there and threw him on the floor," Sonya Lopez said. "I thought they were going to try to put handcuffs on him . . . and all of a sudden, the shot just went off."

Tamara Thomason said, "There was not a struggle. I did not see a struggle."

Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association, said he believes that only a few witnesses saw the shooting. He said he is concerned that unreliable witnesses may have come forward.

"In reality, they can't give the same statement twice," Sheffield said.

Travis County Medical Examiner Roberto Bayardo said Monday that there were a few scrapes and a bruise he didn't notice on Rocha's body Friday that were noted on the autopsy report by Deputy Medical Examiner Suzanna Dana.

None of the scrapes or the bruises looked like self-defense wounds, Bayardo said.

"These are very minor abrasions, as if he was on the ground or crawling on the ground or falling on the ground," Bayardo said.

Rocha had a scrape on the side of his left arm that looked as if it were caused by gravel, the medical examiner said. He said the teenager also had a bruise on the back of his right arm, a scrape on his forehead, a scrape on his chest and another scrape on his chin.

Rocha could have been lying on the ground or lying on top of someone else when he was shot, Bayardo said.

New information about the shooting came on a day that family members and friends struggled for answers.

About 100 people, led by the Hispanic community group People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, gathered outside the Police Department to protest the fatal shooting. Protesters lay on the sidewalk and sketched outlines of their bodies on the ground. They held signs saying, "APD: Another police-related death."

Earlier in the day, Rocha's family members attended a Mass at Cristo Rey Catholic Church on Second Street in East Austin to remember Rocha, who had been described by neighbors, family and friends as attempting to turn his life around. According to court records, he was on probation for burglarizing a house in 2004 and had been charged with marijuana possession.

Several distraught family members declined to comment after the service. However, Rocha's brother, Geraldo Rocha, warned people to avoid confrontations with police.

"I'm begging of you for my brother and my family, don't do anything stupid," Geraldo Rocha said. "I don't want to have anybody else's family go through this."

keep in mind the minority community in East Austin is extremely anti-police and see the guy with the felony warrant as the victim of police violence. APD has had a few officer involved shootings in the last 1-2 years in Austin, some of who were 100% justified but not according to the black community (officer shot a suspect chasing a victim wielding a knife, officer dragged by a suspect in a stolen vehicle shot the suspect - both bad guys were black males, both cops were white males).
:confused:

Brasso
June 14, 2005, 08:53 PM
Some of you guys are funny!

One of you wants to talk about it for a few hours on roadside until her attorney shows up. That one really had me rolling. Thanks. :scrutiny:

One of you thinks it would have been better to drag her out of the car and wrestle her to the pavement. Some of you even think it would have been better to beat her senseless with a baton. Yeah, that's a lot better than the taser. :rolleyes:

It's not your fault though. You have obviously never been in a situation where you had to arrest a person with that kind of attitude while you didn't know if they had a weapon or were worried about larger crimes hanging over their heads. Personally, I think the officer was spot on. He would have been negligent if he did anything else. It's nice to have 20/20, but who do you think would have been responsible if she decided to take off down the road and start a car chase where someone was injured or killed?

TechBrute
June 14, 2005, 09:28 PM
It's not your fault though. You have obviously never been in a situation where you had to arrest a person with that kind of attitude while you didn't know if they had a weapon or were worried about larger crimes hanging over their heads. Personally, I think the officer was spot on. He would have been negligent if he did anything else. It's nice to have 20/20, but who do you think would have been responsible if she decided to take off down the road and start a car chase where someone was injured or killed? Great... another cop with a "you've never been there so you wouldn't understand" attitude. Coincidentally, this usually seems to be the type that thinks pretty much anything is justified and that we shouldn't second guess the cops because "you've never had to blah blah blah." I guess we should just let the cops do anything they want because we just wouldn't understand. :rolleyes:

Strangely enough, I'm willing to bet that when a cop is trying to return something at Walmart and doesn't get his way, he probably feels qualified to knock the person behind the counter, even though he's never had to try to please impossible people.

Brasso
June 14, 2005, 10:43 PM
AlllllRighteeThen.

TechBrute
June 14, 2005, 10:54 PM
Yes, I routinely hit people at the customer service counter at Walmart because you think you know what it's like to be a cop even though you're not. I see. Who said anything about hitting people? I never said I know what it's like to be a cop. What are you talking about? :banghead:

walking arsenal
June 14, 2005, 11:00 PM
you dont hit the wlamart customer service people.............thats for the clerks at the DMV. :D

TechBrute
June 14, 2005, 11:03 PM
you dont hit the wlamart customer service people.............thats for the clerks at the DMV. By the time you get to the front of the line, you're too old to hit anyone...

Brasso
June 14, 2005, 11:09 PM
Well, in the spirit of civility, I deleted what I wrote right after I wrote it. Apparently you have a faster finger than me.

I guess I mistakenly assumed that when you wrote "knock" you meant physical violence based on some kind of superiority complex. Since I don't really know as much about being a cop and assessing tactical situations as you do, please enlighten me. How would you have handled the situation, bearing in mind you don't know if she has a weapon or has other "felonious deeds" in her closet to cloud her judgement, which seems to be on the edge of what would be considered rational behavior already?

KaceCoyote
June 14, 2005, 11:10 PM
Jesus, I'd a tazed her just for not shuttin up! Get over it!

ETCss Phil McCrackin
June 14, 2005, 11:19 PM
One of my "tenets of leadership/professionalism" has always been, "It's useless to say somethings wrong.. instead say, somethings wrong, and here's what should be done to fix it."

In short, it's easy to "sunday morning quarterback" that cop, but when analyzed from an objective POV, and keeping in mind the officers duty to enforce the law, what else could have been done? Perhaps the officer could have done something different, but for anyone tuning in late, SGT Sabre summed up the options very nicley.

Basicly, if any of you "the cop was wrong" guys have any other reasonable suggestions, I'm sure his and most other Depts training officers would love to hear them.

Matt G
June 15, 2005, 08:59 AM
Observation 4: The Taser is a useful tool...that seems to have become a substitute for interpersonal skills for some users.
("Get out of the car...You don't want to?" Zap.)
("Get out of the apartment...You don't want to?" Zap.)
Great point.

This was a Good Tazing. I'll stand behind the officer on that. I've been in his position several times and wished I had the option of a Taser. But I didn't have one, and have somehow managed to effect arrests without it. How? Interpersonal skills come into play. And as much as I believe that the officer did the right thing there, I also believe that he did NOTHING to diffuse the situation, and helped it boil over with his attitude from the start.

Have I been that guy? God I hope not, but I'm sure I have. :(

Folks, it's incredibly aggravating to be told that you're a liar when you pull someone over for a valid infraction. Clearly, he got a little aggravated. It's aggravating and insulting to be talking to the cell phone when the officer is talking to you about the stop. Clearly the officer was annoyed about that, too. It's a failure to comply with a valid command if you fail to put down an object and get out of the car when the officer tells you to. At this point, we've moved into clear legal grounds for the officer to use force to get you to comply (both to effect an arrest and to assure his safety), and when there's a offensive interaction between the two of you, do you really expect the officer to now back off and use his discretion not to use force? Many would argue (and I might be one of them) that the officer has NO discretion to not act, once you've refused to get out of the car. When the driver then makes a waving motion ("took a swing at") the other officer, it was Game On.
Tasers are far more reliable at getting a suspect to comply than the use of empty hands on a violent, smaller person, as the likes of Corronach have said. It looks cruel, but it's actually a safer method than wrestling with her.
Good tazing. But maybe a better command presense from the officer could have avoided his upping the force continuum.

molonlabe
June 15, 2005, 10:48 AM
Showed the video to my wife and she said she would have zapped her again just to get her to shut her yap. :D

TechBrute
June 15, 2005, 11:03 AM
I guess I mistakenly assumed that when you wrote "knock" you meant physical violence based on some kind of superiority complex. Since I don't really know as much about being a cop and assessing tactical situations as you do, please enlighten me. How would you have handled the situation, bearing in mind you don't know if she has a weapon or has other "felonious deeds" in her closet to cloud her judgement, which seems to be on the edge of what would be considered rational behavior already? I though since you had a shield, you knew it all already. :D :evil:

I never said I know more than you about anything. What I did say is that your attitude communicates that cops shouldn't have to be accountable to anyone outside of other cops because non-cops don't know what it's like. I'll stick by that, and all the other assertions I've made in this thread. (On a side note, you sure as hell had better know more about that then me, don't you think?)

Bottom line is that cops need to be accountable, and they don't want to be. When someone posts here about what a cop potentially did wrong, all the cops form a circle as if they're being attacked and take the "cops can do no wrong" stance, while being attacked by people that think that "cops can do no right."

AFAIK, the first line of accountability for a cop is IA. Interestingly, it seems they are known as Infernal Affairs, or "The Rat Squad" in the department. It really speaks volumes that cops view their "cops" the same way that a lot of the citizenry seems to see them, and they don't see the problem with it. You'll hear the excuses that IA is "just out to get them," etc, which seems to mirror the complaints you hear about cops themselves.

centac
June 15, 2005, 11:34 AM
"What I did say is that your attitude communicates that cops shouldn't have to be accountable to anyone outside of other cops because non-cops don't know what it's like. I'll stick by that, and all the other assertions I've made in this thread. (On a side note, you sure as hell had better know more about that then me, don't you think?)"

Being a cop requires skills and knowledge that non-cops by definition do not have or know. So how could a non-cop possibly form an objective, qualified evaluation about what cops do? Y'all simply dont have the tools. It is literally Monday morning quarterbacking, cause you were'nt on the field and didnt attend any practices. It is unfair to the profession, and no different than a non-doctor attempting to evaluate what a doctor has done. You can form an opinion, but of what quality can that opinion be, being based on what you dont know and have no experiences in? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but how much weight should be placed on it?

I dont know what you do for a living, but how would you like your performance critiqued by someone who has never done the job, received any of the training, or aquired any of your specialized knowledge?

TechBrute
June 15, 2005, 11:45 AM
I dont know what you do for a living, but how would you like your performance critiqued by someone who has never done the job, received any of the training, or aquired any of your specialized knowledge? I wouldn't, for the same reason you guys whine about it, but what's the alternative? No accountablility? In my job, I'm hired by a client who doesn't know how to do my job functions. And yet, I'm accountable to them, regardless of how well they know (or don't know) my job. Sounds like what you are talking about.

Being a cop requires skills and knowledge that non-cops by definition do not have or know. So how could a non-cop possibly form an objective, qualified evaluation about what cops do? Y'all simply dont have the tools. It is literally Monday morning quarterbacking, cause you were'nt on the field and didnt attend any practices. It is unfair to the profession, and no different than a non-doctor attempting to evaluate what a doctor has done. You can form an opinion, but of what quality can that opinion be, being based on what you dont know and have no experiences in? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but how much weight should be placed on it? All this smells of the arguement that citizens should have no say in public servant's jobs. Maybe I'm reading something into it.

I don't need to know everything about you or your job to be able to see the outcome. It also doesn't take any special ninja training to see when a cop has lost perspective on who he is and what his job is.

Personally, I think it may be perfectly valid to have someone who knows nothing of you and your job to judge you. It happens all the time. It's called the legal system. The judge and jury knows nothing, and both sides try to educate and persuade them, "from scratch." So what's good for the entire country isn't good for cops?

centac
June 15, 2005, 05:59 PM
Not exactly - the legal systems evaluates evidence and witnesses in light of a specific incident, and involves much education of jurors and judges.

There is already civilian oversight of law enforcement. Sheriffs are elected. Chiefs of police answer to a civilian mayor, county executive, council or commissioner. I cannot speak for all LEOs, but my main issue is with non-qualified micro-management. What qualifies anyone on this board to critique this particular use of force. Once again, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to automatic credibility. That comes with knowledge and experience.

scottgun
June 15, 2005, 06:30 PM
This woman is proof that stupidity can be painful.

She's not crying because of the pain from the taser, but because she is being forced to do something that she doesn't want to, like a small child having a temper tantrum.

I'm not a big fan of the police, but it's laughable that everyone has an idea of how the police can do their jobs better or "the right way". The funiest remark I saw related to this video was on another board where someone said they should just use a wheel lock on the vehicle. :banghead:

thorn726
June 15, 2005, 08:01 PM
There is already civilian oversight of law enforcement. Sheriffs are elected. Chiefs of police answer to a civilian mayor, county executive, council or commissioner.

barely. it works better in some places than others, often the police really dont answer to anyone.
our lovely loophole- UC police. UC Berkeley campus police are exactly as powerful as regular police here (witihin certain distance from campus, which is spread out all over the city, mainly in the middle of business area)

they have an internal review board. that's all.

anyway, more relevant is police here do not answer to taser use the same as they would gun use. which sounds logical- until someone gets hit 3 or 4 times while in cuffs.

there should be some tighter oversight i think, at least here, i dont know how well regulated their use is elsewhere. but at the very least, once in cuffs, what the heck are cops still shocking someone for?

it's a tough one. i like the idea of a taser, seems very humane and effective as long as it is used properly. better than a club or a gun for the person that is just an out of control idiot- most people deserve the chance to go to jail, think about whether it is worth stirring up trouble again.

thorn726
June 15, 2005, 08:07 PM
now of course i am hlafway thru the video- this is exactly the kind of person tasers are good for.

right off the bat, keeping her door open i would see a potential threat.

also got to love trying to argue justice with the enforcement.
"you cant radar while driving" she says.

might as well bame the cop for the speed law's existence too

but this also shows how poorly the LE is trained. the woman is on the ground, stunned, and he is yelling over and over put your hands behind yer back.

moron. the person is stunned, cuff em and be done with it.
did they not realize they had TASED the woman?

really makes me laugh. ok i am going to stun you so i can get ahold of you.

then i will demand you move around!

errrrrrr.

i bet this is the problem all over. dumb cops that cant figure out the nature of their weapon..


after a shootout do these guys go up to dead BG and say
"GET up! GET UP!!! "

Spreadfire Arms
June 15, 2005, 08:41 PM
In today's news:

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/TX_Taser_Death.html


Waco man dies after confrontation with police

WACO, Texas — A Waco man has died after being shot several times with a Taser by police during a domestic disturbance call.

Robert Earl Williams, 62, was shot about four times with a Taser on Tuesday, and five officers were needed to handcuff him after a confrontation at his sister's home, police said. Williams was later pronounced dead at a Waco hospital.

According to Waco police spokesman Steve Anderson, two police officers were called to the home of Williams' sister after receiving a report of a domestic disturbance between Williams and his sister.

After officers arrived, a records check showed Williams was wanted because his bond on a previous resisting arrest charge had been revoked. As officers went to arrest Williams, he picked up a piece of ribbed steel bar, police said.

Anderson said officers then shot him once with a Taser, a pistol-shaped device that shoots two electrified barbs and usually renders targets powerless.

The officers called for backup, and three other officers arrived and struggled with Williams.

He was shot with Tasers about four times, none of which had any effect, according to Waco police spokesman Ryan Holt.

"There was no sign that he was slowing down," he said. "He just kept fighting officers and kept fighting officers."

The five officers managed to handcuff Williams and subdue him, Holt said. Eventually, there were 17 officers on the scene.

Williams' size — about 6-foot and 350 pounds — may have played a role in the struggle because Tasers often are ineffective on large people, Anderson said. Officers used two sets of handcuffs linked together on Williams because of his size, Anderson said.

Holt said Williams complained he was having trouble breathing after sitting down. Officers immediately called for an ambulance. By the time the ambulance arrived, Williams was not breathing, and officers were performing CPR on him, Holt said.

Anderson said the five officers who arrested Williams have been placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation.

Williams' cause of death was unknown, and his body has been sent to Dallas for an autopsy.

pezo
June 15, 2005, 08:42 PM
That ladies got chills, their multiplying and she's losing control ,cause the power their supplying its ELECTIFYING. :)

71Commander
June 15, 2005, 09:21 PM
I'm a terrible human being. I'm ashamed of myself. I laughed at her misfortune of getting zapped and thought, "What an idiot". :evil: :neener:

Matt G
June 15, 2005, 09:36 PM
thorn726 said: also got to love trying to argue justice with the enforcement.
"you cant radar while driving" she says.
I've always thought that one was odd. Moving radar was recognized by the courts as valid in the early '70's. Not exactly new technology. I think what has people confused is that LIDAR (laser) doesn't work while moving. They've heard one, and assume the other. 95% of all your speed stops are going to be radar rather than LIDAR.

but this also shows how poorly the LE is trained. the woman is on the ground, stunned, and he is yelling over and over put your hands behind yer back.

moron. the person is stunned, cuff em and be done with it.
did they not realize they had TASED the woman? Most folks curl up with their hands underneath them when tased. This is an opportunity to grab a weapon at the waistband. After the the tasing is stopped, she can certainly put her hands behind her back. As that's the safest way to do it, that's what she'll be told to do. What, you want them to wrestle her hands around behind her back now, after having deployed the taser to avoid having to do that?!? Better just to use the immediate pain compliance technique of the taser.

Sergeant Sabre
June 16, 2005, 11:52 AM
Williams' cause of death was unknown, and his body has been sent to Dallas for an autopsy.

How is this a "taser death"???

A Waco man has died after being shot several times with a Taser by police during a domestic disturbance call.

The press is doing the same thing here that they do with thier anti-gun spin. They state one truth (guy was tasered), then another (guy died later), leading simple minds to believe that the second true statement caused the first. In fact, that is not what they are saying, but that is how people are made to believe lies without the messenger actually telling a lie.
I bet that man took a shower sometime before he died to. "Waco man has died after taking a shower". Uh-uh, better not bathe yourself, could be deadly... :rolleyes:

Let's wait for the medical report, shall we?

Teufelhunden
June 17, 2005, 09:02 AM
After officers arrived, a records check showed Williams was wanted because his bond on a previous resisting arrest charge had been revoked. As officers went to arrest Williams, he picked up a piece of ribbed steel bar, police said.

The article doesn't mention dimentions on the steel bar, or how he acted with it after he picked it up. If it were a bar of any substantial length and he acted aggressively with it, this could have been a lethal force encounter.

As I've said before, if you come at me with a weapon and I deploy the TASER, I'm attempting to SAVE your life.Though the TASER might contribute in some roundabout way to your demise, I can virtually guarantee that two controlled pairs of JHP .45's center mass WILL kill you.

I'm not saying that the TASER isn't abused; ANY tool can be abused. As we are so fond of pointing out on this forum, it is the man who is evil, not the tool.

-Teuf

thorn726
June 17, 2005, 04:25 PM
Most folks curl up with their hands underneath them when tased. This is an opportunity to grab a weapon at the waistband

good point. ok so how about once on the ground, tase them again, and use that stun time to grab her arms.....

at least if person is screaming "i can't move"

at that point, the should be given a moment to try and move, recover, whatever.

bottom line, i laugh my head off at this particualr lady

aaronrobertseash
November 29, 2006, 04:21 AM
First off, I work as a road deputy up in Michigan. I carry a tazer and had to get zapped myself to carry it. This is required of any officer who carries, at least anywhere I know of. It's 5 seconds that feels like 50 seconds. It sucks really bad and basically feels like a bad charlie horse pulsing through your entire body really fast. You have very little movement and really can't fight. However, you can still breath and involentary muscles still work fine. Tazer International has done extensive testing on these and has documentation from this to show the safety of the device including tazing volenteers for several minutes at a time (sounds like college kids who need beer money really bad). When I got tazed, it sucked and I dropped a really loud "F Bomb" at the end. But, when it was over, it was over. I could move fine and was able to function fine. I was a bit tingly but was up and great right after. The actual voltage is very low, it's just the type of voltage waved that interrupt the nerve transmission to the muscles that does it. It doesn't even come close to the amount that pacemakers are required to be able to withstand. I have also been sprayed with different chemicals and I'd MUCH rather be tazed. It's safer to start with and when it's over, it's over.

So, with that being said, I think I can make the educated opinion that those officers were justified in doing what they did. Basically, she was stopped and could be arrested for driving while suspended. It was obvious she had no intention of cooperating. I don't quite get people like this because officers can't just say "oh well...guess she's arguing so we'll just back off and leave her alone." I fully agree with what was posted earlier about not wanting to reach into a vehicle that is on. I'll do it if the person is not being assaultive but as soon as they do anything to make me think they may be driving away with me hanging on the side, I'm gonna go to some other options if I have them. If she even so much as tried to push the officer away, that would give the officers the right under most policies to use the tazer. Swatting at on of them would definitely. Besides that, she had many warnings and did not comply. I don't know about any of you, but if I'm told by an officer that I'll be tazed if I don't do something, I'm gonna do what I'm told...especially when I'm doing something illegal (driving suspended). By them tazing her, they probably saved not only injury to themselved but to her also. Yanking someone out of a car, especially if it's moving, is not so safe.

She started by arguing to try any way to get out of what she was doing and ended up using every card she could think of before finally physically resisting an arrest. The reason why officers don't want her getting on her cell phone when they are about to arrest her is they don't need a huge group of friends coming and starting stuff to keep her from going to jail. It happens...suspects call backup too. Heck, he told her several times and gave her opportunity to comply. He told her exactly what he was going to do. She was stupid and didn't believe him. Ya, she screemed and whined a lot when and after being tazed. It hurts. He told her what to do and told her what would happen if she didn't put her hands behind her back. She said she can't. However, I could respond just fine and so could all the other suckers who got tazed when I did. She just didn't want to and probably figured saying she can't would get her sympathy. These cops have all been tazed. They know and don't fall for that crap. Some people are also just freaked out by being tazed and don't "get it" until it keeps coming. So...she goes on to scream and cry like she's been shot with a gun. I've felt it, lots of other cops have felt it. When it's over, it's over...no pain anymore. She was freaked because they did what they warned her they were going to do and she was now going to jail. These guys are not insensive terrible cops, they just know she's full of crap and deal with that same crap all the time.

Interestingly enough, once someone is tazed, they usually comply the next time it's taken out. My guess is she will take the "I'm a victim" attitude instead of taking the time for the crime.

aaronrobertseash@sbcglobal.net

Justin
November 29, 2006, 12:34 PM
Ancient history.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Tazer - Judge for yourself" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!