Man tasered 19 times, dies.


PDA






ziadel
October 14, 2005, 11:00 PM
Title says it all.
http://www.wsmv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3977161

apparently the chief has some common sense becuase he took the departments tasers away.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051001/NEWS03/510010353/1017/NEWS




I would say this is hysterical if it did'nt cost that guy his life. But this is pretty much equal to them saying theres no evidence that us dropping the nuke on hiroshima killed anyone.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man tasered 19 times, dies." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbs357
October 14, 2005, 11:16 PM
The problem with tasers is people think "It's non-lethal!" and go nuts with them.
Usage of handguns forces people to use restraint.

Shipwreck
October 14, 2005, 11:49 PM
Discussion about this here:

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=445630

VARifleman
October 14, 2005, 11:52 PM
With a voltage of 50k to 900k, what the hell did they think was going to happen? Of course, the drugs certainly didn't help him there. He may have lived if he hadn't been baked.

solareclipse
October 15, 2005, 12:19 AM
I would rather be shot than tasered. At least if they shoot you, chances are there is no other option.

pcf
October 15, 2005, 12:21 AM
Grumble grumble grumble

Should go back to the good old days when he would have been beat to death with a baton or strangled with a choke hold, because it's the means that matter, not the results. Right?

Sindawe
October 15, 2005, 12:24 AM
From the linked article: Blood testing at the hospital revealed the presence of both marijuana and LSD in Lee's system. If you're gonna do illicit chemicals, don't do so much of 'em that you have no clue whats going on about you.

Joejojoba111
October 15, 2005, 12:49 AM
""The combined effects of multiple applications of the Taser, pepper spray and physical force on someone in excited delirium are unclear and require additional research."

There you go, after a moderate sample of 2000 or so dead suburban kids you will have completed testing, and there will be evidence to support what the effects are.

Anyone want to guess that death might be one effect?


And pcf, might point out that some of us consider lethal force to be much over-used, and someone resisting a beating is not really resisting arrest, though the 2 terms are legally interchangeable.

meef
October 15, 2005, 01:15 AM
If they taser you 19 times - you ain't paying close enough attention...

MechAg94
October 15, 2005, 01:55 AM
Update:
Coroners report

Patrick Lee died two days after he was hit 19 times with Tasers by Metro Police offices outside a Nashville club, but the state medical examiner has ruled that the Tasers were not the cause of his death.

State medical examiner Dr. Bruce Levy has found that Lee died as a result of "Excited Delirium," a rare, drug-induced condition that causes a person to act incoherent and out of control. Dr. Levy's report said LSD and marijuana were detected in Lee's blood system.

Dr. Levy said, " Well, one thing that was very clear from my investigation was that the Taser had absolutely no direct cause in his death."

He, however, won't dismiss Tasers as a contributing factor, "I can't say that being shocked multiple times by a Taser, being peppered sprayed in the face multiple times, being involved in a physical struggle, being high on LSD and Excited Delirium don't all play together in a way I don't understand and at this point I don't think anybody understands."


This was posted on that Glock site.
The guy died Two Days later. In this case, I doubt the tazer was the primary cause of death.

walking arsenal
October 15, 2005, 02:19 AM
I'm going into law enforcement, maybe, it's stuff like this that makes me want to finish school and then run for cover.

If it isn't department mandatory i wont carry mace or a tazer, why should i?

If i cant talk my way out of everyone going nuts, then the next step is to start making my springer bark.

short and sweet, there is a point, like with us ccw guys that goes from "i dont need squat" to " i need my gun now, please, thank you, BANG!"

Tazers and mace just encourage the lack of common sense and self restraint in officers. Plus we got guys now that just like to hurt people and be the big man. "you arent going to do what i say" TAZERFRRRRRRYYYYYY "how bout now"? "no"? TAZERFRYYYYYYYYYY.

Sad, real sad, Andy Griffith didn't even carry a gun, tv show, granted, but.............

Joejojoba111
October 15, 2005, 04:53 AM
WA I have to disagree on technical, but important terms.

It is irresponsible to blame tools for their mis-use. Can't blame guns, can't blame knives, can't blame mace or tazers.

It is obviously logical to blame a tool for the effects of it's use, though.

So if you say, "Tazers encourage police to abuse people." I disagree. If you say, "Tazers seem to have a pattern of death resulting soon after their use in large quantities." I have to agree.

My guess is taht one big thing is TV is to blame for growing police abuses. TV shows hire police officers to make sure they are 'realistic', and to be really 'realistic' they go a little over-board instituting not only the technical merits espoused, but the philosophical ones. And the public sees this, and accepts it as dogma. So Law and Order doesn't just try to illustrate how to put on handcuffs more realistically, but they convey that it's OK to request DNA samples from entire neighbourhoods and label those that refuse as 'prime suspects', and then go harass the sleazeballs who refuse to give samples because 'if they have nothing to hide they would give the sample'.

[end rant]

You might have guessed that fascist crap like that has turned me off pretty much every police show, except Monk, but they cancelled it :(


So anyway, yea through increased influence in all areas of society and power police have managed to rapidly expand their boundaries of behavior. What used to be done covertly is being integrated into the collective conscious as 'standard procedure'.

I still love the word 'compliance strikes'. Lol older brothers around the world shoulda learn that one, "But mom I was just giving jimmy a couple compliance strikes until he handed over the remote control." "Oh, well Billy when you put it like that it sounds so clinical, that I have to think it's acceptable behaviour."

Taurus 66
October 15, 2005, 05:33 AM
With a voltage of 50k to 900k, what the hell did they think was going to happen? Of course, the drugs certainly didn't help him there. He may have lived if he hadn't been baked.

What baking? It's not the voltage that kills, it's the current. What do you suppose is the ampere rating on a stun gun? 0.01? 1? 10? High voltage could quite possibly interfere with a pace maker. Did he have one?

The 21-year-old died Sept. 24 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center after being shocked up to 19 times two days earlier by police.

This says "only" that he died after the tasing, not that he died because of it.

"Mr. Lee's death is a tragedy we should all learn from," Levy said. "Mr. Lee's death is also a sober reminder of the dangers of the abuse of illegal controlled drugs."

There's the real culprit! Illegal substance abuse may have led to his death.

Powderman
October 15, 2005, 07:03 AM
I'm going into law enforcement, maybe, it's stuff like this that makes me want to finish school and then run for cover.

If it isn't department mandatory i wont carry mace or a tazer, why should i?

If i cant talk my way out of everyone going nuts, then the next step is to start making my springer bark.

short and sweet, there is a point, like with us ccw guys that goes from "i dont need squat" to " i need my gun now, please, thank you, BANG!"

Tazers and mace just encourage the lack of common sense and self restraint in officers. Plus we got guys now that just like to hurt people and be the big man. "you arent going to do what i say" TAZERFRRRRRRYYYYYY "how bout now"? "no"? TAZERFRYYYYYYYYYY.

Sad, real sad, Andy Griffith didn't even carry a gun, tv show, granted, but.............

Friend, if you are going into law enforcement, I will guarantee you that the first time you try to arrest someone who does not want to be arrested, or the first time you have to go hands on with someone by yourself, you will want that Taser.

It has been proven many, many times--the Taser is NOT lethal.

On the use of force continuum, you start with verbal judo. Then, hands-on compliance (escort holds). Now, the person decides to get squirrely on you.

You can use OC. OK, so the person might submit. Then again, they might not. In the Academy, you are taught to fight through OC; this is so if someone gets your OC and uses it on you, you can protect yourself.

Use a baton? That's a can of worms. Use the baton properly, and you can permanently handicap someone. And, there are those people who can take a lickin', and keep on tickin'.

The Taser puts them down IMMEDIATELY. And, once it shuts off there are no after effects. The amount of times you get zapped depends solely on you--if you don't want to get zapped, then comply with the officer's instructions.

All officers who are issued Tasers are trained in their use. It is also highly encouraged that the officer take a zap from the Taser to understand how it works, and to build faith in the tool itself.

I have been OC'd three times. Each time, it took more than two hours for the effects to calm down to bearable.

I also took the ride from a Taser; three seconds worth of pure hell. But, once the current shut off, I got up, dusted myself off, and was a believer.

Tazers and mace just encourage the lack of common sense and self restraint in officers.

Nope. Tasers and OC have one purpose--that is to make sure you get home alive and hopefully unhurt at the end of your shift. If you go into LE, you will learn this.

Joejojoba111
October 15, 2005, 07:29 AM
Powderman

"It has been proven many, many times--the Taser is NOT lethal."


Not nearly as many times as it has been proven that smoking does not cause cancer. And smoking effecting heart-disease? Lol pull the other one! I'm supposed to believe that I smoke one decade, and then the next decade I have a heart attack, and it's the smoking's fault?

What, am I supposed to believe in cause and effect or something? Riiiiight:rolleyes: Effects having causes, lol pull the other one.


"Nope. Tasers and OC have one purpose--that is to make sure you get home alive and hopefully unhurt at the end of your shift. If you go into LE, you will learn this."

We get it, we get it. Such a health-conscious bunch, wonder why so many are overweight, or use steroids, or drink or smoke? And none would ever drive without a seat-belt. What's that, you say vehicles and traffic cause more injuries and deaths than anything else? Well let's just ignore that, because it makes our 'concerns for our safety' look slightly hollow.


And I have one more point - if you put such a high priority on being alive and unhurt, you might possibly consider that other people do too.

I'm just suggesting it - don't bite my head off, but maybe officers are not the only people who like to be alive and unhurt.

And when other people threaten to hurt you if you don't do what they ask they usually end up... Well never mind.

Powderman
October 15, 2005, 08:46 AM
Well, I gotta answer this one. ;)

What it boils down to is one very simple fact: We, as human beings, are responsible for our actions. We, as a society, have laws that we all are charged to follow and to obey.

Are they all right, just laws? No. We do not live in a perfect world, and probably never will. We do have (at least here, thank heaven) the means and methods to change these laws peacefully and effectively. Whether we do so or not is best reserved for another thread.

However, we also have police officers for a reason--and that reason is that some people choose to break the laws that we, as a society, have enacted to keep us safe and well. When those laws are broken--in some cases--police officers are tasked with taking these people who break the laws into custody to answer for their actions.

If I, as a trained, prudent and observant law enforcement officer have developed probable cause that says that a person has broken the law--and the law deems that transgression to be an arrestible offense--that lawbreaker will be placed under arrest. Is this a hard and fast rule? Of course not. There have been plenty of times when I have use officer's discretion and simply talked to a person, confiscated their contraband, made sure they went home, etc.

But when I have probable cause, and when I inform a person that they are under arrest, make no mistake: They WILL come with me. Their choice in the matter is now gone; they WILL be delivered to a detention facility, or cited, whatever is most appropriate for the situation as dictated by law.

The arrestee now has two choices, and two choices only:

To submit peacefully to lawful arrest, or
To resist that lawful arrest.

If they choose to resist, I will use the minimum force necessary to ensure that a lawful arrest is completed.

And if they decide to make it personal--to fight ME--then I will fight back, and I will use the tool necessary to apply the minimum force necessary to get them to submit to lawful arrest.

If that tool is OC, they'll get juiced.
If it is a Taser, then they get the current. And, it just gets worse (for them) from there.

Bottom line--if someone who is being arrested does NOT want to get hurt, then obey the officer. Don't resist, and definitely don't fight.

If this is not acceptable to some folks, sorry. That's the way the game is played.

VARifleman
October 15, 2005, 08:54 AM
What baking? It's not the voltage that kills, it's the current. What do you suppose is the ampere rating on a stun gun? 0.01? 1? 10? High voltage could quite possibly interfere with a pace maker. Did he have one?
Baked, stoned, high as a kite, etc.

As for the amperage, you can figure that out with the distance between pronges, and the resistance that body will give. I'll see if I can figure it out later tonight.

brerrabbit
October 15, 2005, 10:18 AM
Wow, High on both maijuana and lsd, which caused his death. Not getting tasered nineteen times. Based on how much some of the LEO's on the board are defending the tasers, I would just agree with them that they are non lethal, and instead of getting tasered once as part of the cert to carry a taser, the requirements need to be upgraded to tasering the officer's children nineteen times at the same time,slightly staggered, for the maximum length of time the taser will light them up, while getting maced before hand.

But hey, If we lose a few children, They must have been on drugs, Right?
If you think this is inappropriate, don't you think tasering a guy nineteen times is?

Tasers do kill people. The company that makes them is almost constantly in lawsuits over deaths from tasers, along with many of the police forces. The problem with the tasers is that because they are less likely to kill, officers use them with little if any restraint, in situations that don't call for their use.

walking arsenal
October 15, 2005, 12:07 PM
"Tazers seem to have a pattern of death resulting soon after their use in large quantities."

Yeah, i'll go with that.

Still, i if i can avoid it, i'll leave the techno tazer back at the office. less junk to bang around on the bat belt.

tulsamal
October 15, 2005, 12:08 PM
Tasers do kill people. The company that makes them is almost constantly in lawsuits over deaths from tasers, along with many of the police forces.

The proof is that they get sued a lot? Man, how does that _prove_ anything?

The truth is that there has never even been ONE case where a coroner has ruled that the primary cause of death was a Taser. Not one.

If I was facing some crazed and psycho cop who wanted to kill me, I would rather he had a Taser in his hand than a .45!

Gregg

LAR-15
October 15, 2005, 12:13 PM
I'm just waiting for Congress to ban the non govt use of Tasers. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever heard of a civilian- IE non LEO or govt agent- killing somebody with a taser?

brerrabbit
October 15, 2005, 12:14 PM
Tulsamal

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/oct/08/517636982.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/mcherald/12301281.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp



http://www.bradenton.com/mld/charlotte/news/12729338.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/charlotte/news/12729338.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_death_ruled_homicide.htm

Actually quite a few cases where coroners have ruled tasers primary cause of death. Most of the cases that you see like the guy getting tasered nineteen times and the coroner blaming it on pot, are pretty obviously cases where the coroner is covering for the cops. If its so harmless, why dont we taser cops nineteen times at once as part of their taser cert. Coroner would probably say that any deaths that resulted would have been for other reasons.

If you taser a guy with a heart condition and he dies, odds are he would still be up and walking if he hadnt been tasered.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 12:24 PM
Im not sure of taser's lethality. But I can see how under the right circumstanses and flipping the light switch 19 times might provide closer to the right circumstance's then one jolt.

For those that have been tased....is it anything like plugging yourself into a 240 outlet? That was a shocking experience if I ever had one :evil:

But, I do think less then lethal alternative's to the gun tend to be over used. Just because I wont submit to the big bad officer's questioning or he doesn't like my "attitude" doesn't give him the right to taser or pepper spray me. For those that pretty much asked for it, spray and tase away by all mean's. But I do think that a cop who is jumpy is more likly to use less then lethal alternative's in situation's they don't have to.

Oh, and just for some light reading and an example of tasing a guy that didn't have to be...and plus it's just a fun story IMO

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4242058/detail.html

El Rojo
October 15, 2005, 12:25 PM
Well said Powderman. If you don't resist, it is awfully hard for a cop to justify beating you. Some how in my 28 years I have manged to avoid any negative incidents with law enforcement. Does that mean I am a gutless sheeple who just subjects myself to the tyranny of oppression? Or does that mean I just act rationally around law enforcement? :scrutiny:

Baba Louie
October 15, 2005, 12:34 PM
Something or someone caused his interaction w/ LEO. Like his decision to get high and go out, I highly doubt it was happenstance.

Weed and Acid huh? Out clubbing?

One toke over the line sweet jesus...(showing my age with that lyric)

A man's got to know his limitations.

You can blame the Cops, you can blame his pharmacopoeia supplier, and/or you can lay the blame on the youngster who decided to "experiment" and leave the house that evening.

He chose poorly.

Pretty sad really. He was about my kids age.

patrol120
October 15, 2005, 01:11 PM
The Taser is commonly placed before the baton in the use of force continum. In our PD, we go to Taser before Hands-On. Less risk for both the officer and the subject to be harmed. Personally, Ive been OC'd and Tasered, and Ill take the Taser every time.

Let me aks you, would you rather be Tasered or beat about the thighs and arms with a 26" piece of steel tube? I think I know my answer.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 02:29 PM
I'd prefer neither :neener:

hammer4nc
October 15, 2005, 02:38 PM
Let me aks you, would you rather be Tasered or beat about the thighs and arms with a 26" piece of steel tube?

I really enjoy these "rhetorical" questions, posed by officers...

Reminds me of the quote from "Training Day": "Ya wanna go to jail or ya wanna go home?"

Role model?

patrol120
October 15, 2005, 02:48 PM
I dont know if I fit the mold of other officers my age or not. Im only 25, and have close to two years on now.

I do not want to hurt anyone. I dont like to fight. As a amatter of fact, I would rather spend 20 minutes talking someone into a set of cuffs that 2 minutes fighting them into them. I enjoy talking to people, I like to take "cat in the tree" calls, and dont mind doing reports. I work in a town of around 5000, and love it. For me, if its a quiet night, that means Im doing my job, not that Im not working hard enough. I dont enjoy writing tickets, my warning to ticket ratio hovers around 10 to 1.

On the other hand, I have no issues laying my hands on someone if all other options have been exhausted. I love hooking DUIs and Domestic Abusers. Nothing gets me off more than a good, duly warranted felony stop.

Maybe Im strange, but I prefer the "Serve and Protect" Image much, much more than the newer, more prevalent "Law Enforcement" mantra. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that I grew up in the town I work in, and have a lot invested here. I want it to be safe, and friendly, but not due to the people fearing me, but hopefully they feel comfortable calling me to do things they need. If it ever comes to the point where the law is complied with because people are afraid of me, then Im done.

Ill go be a firefighter.:scrutiny:

Bigreno
October 15, 2005, 03:14 PM
I have seen a lot of people degrading the Tazer in this thread. What I want to know is without the tazer what do you think the odds are that he would have left that area in anything other than a body bag. You've gone hands on. You've OC'd him. You've gone to your ASP. Now what? The Tazer is "horrible and kills people" so you don't have that option...I can either shoot him center mass or hit him with my cruiser. I have no other alternatives. I work in LE and have seen MANY instances where a Tazer kept the subject from being seriously injured in an arrest. The Tazer is the only tool regularly carried that I know of that actually reduces the likelyhood of injury to both parties.

Also, if he had not been high and out of his mind he would never been in the situation to begin with. If you decide to go out, loose control and fight anyone then you need to know that despite the best efforts of those arond you, you can be killed. OC can suffocate. ASP's can shatter bones and permenantly cripple. Bullets...welll we all know how that turns out.

LEO's use the tools that they have and until something better comes along, that's all there is. If you don't want them used on you then don't go around acting like a jackass.

pioneer
October 15, 2005, 03:21 PM
the only thing i can say is that im glad that there is some good cops out there like you patrol 120,because we surely need them.you are the kind of person i wouldnt mind being around because your not power mad.you beleive in right and wrong and im very glad that your out there.you are a very rare cop indeed from what i seen sofar,keep up the good work. ;)

Hawkmoon
October 15, 2005, 04:42 PM
Nope. Tasers and OC have one purpose--that is to make sure you get home alive and hopefully unhurt at the end of your shift. If you go into LE, you will learn this.
Powderman, I haven't read enough of your posts to have decided whether you are the type of LEO I can respect, or the type of LEO who should not be an LEO. However, your statement above strongly suggests the latter, because it is 100% bass-ackwards. You can deploy your service firearm and be sure that you get home alive and unhurt at the end of the shift. That is NOT the purpose of less than lethal weapons. Their purpose is to enable the LEO to subdue recalcitrant suspects/perps without having to kill them. Their purpose is NOT to ensure that you make it home alive, it is to ensure that the suspect makes it to the lockup alive.

brerrabbit
October 15, 2005, 05:26 PM
BigReno

So what your saying is that all those people that have been tased. 9 year old little girls, little old ladies, drunks at bars, people being a bit loud, drunk brides etc, the only way the cops could have handled it was to shoot them? Get real.

Past twenty years I have noticed a lot more in the way of police men riding around by themselves. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that with the tasers, they can take down a person by themselves.

And if five to ten cops cant take down an unarmed person, They need to dismiss quite a few of them and get some younger,more in shape bodies .

Why are there more and more people disparaging tasers? Because dipsticks that shouldnt be in law enforcement in the first place are using them more and more for the most minute reasons.

And if you have any issues with someone not in law enforcement judging the work of law enforcement. Well, I'm an electrician, the primary people who judge my work are my customers, not other electricians. :)

Powderman
October 15, 2005, 06:30 PM
And if five to ten cops cant take down an unarmed person, They need to dismiss quite a few of them and get some younger,more in shape bodies .

Ever gone hands on with a guy with a few hits of meth in his system? No? How about PCP?

Perhaps you've had the joy of going into a DV call and getting PC to arrest the husband--who happens to resemble Arnold in his younger days. :eek:

Here's a small example:

Every now and then, we get to go through a trainer that has a sort of "theater" inside. This theater shows different scenarios, and you interact just the way you would on duty.

You have a gun set up to shoot IR beams, with compressed air to make it kick. You have a simulated can of OC--and you have a Taser.

The trainer also shoots BACK at you--with little rubber balls that hurt. I know this from experience. :uhoh:

One scenario involved an EDP in a restaurant who heard--and listened to--the voices in his head. He was supposed to be causing a ruckus, and I was supposed to do something about it. I "made contact" by talking to the screen from about 20 "feet" away.

The EDP responded by getting up and grabbing a knife.

I responded by using the Taser.

The instructor asked, after the scenario, "Why did you tase him? That was a deadly force scenario."

I replied with, "I was behind a table, so there was some space. I was trying to do my best NOT to kill the guy. No reason to, at that time--I still had an option."

Sure, there are some cases and some folks with knives that I will not hesitate to put at gunpoint immediately. You have to, however, take into account the WHOLE picture.

Is there a way to subdue this person without having to kill or maim them?

The Taser gives me that option.

Hawkmoon, if you're interested in finding out what kind of LEO I am, there are two ways to do it. One is to read some of my other responses, and to draw your own inferences.

The second way is to talk to me directly. If you're in or about Tacoma, WA, let me know. PM me for a coffee break. :)

Joejojoba111
October 15, 2005, 06:44 PM
Umm, don't want to nitpick, but wouldn't a tazer be more effective than a pistol on a knife-wielding meth-head? Or your buddy on pcp?

Anyway, people aren't disputing the effectiveness of the tazer. We should get that out of the way.

People are questioning the safety.

And people are questioning the attitutes of those who mock them for questioning the safety.


And situations like the restaurant you said, there;s other people involved so it's complicated. And I'm no genius, but I kind of suspect a lot of 'situations' could be solved by giving the suspect a piece of paper. 'Here's your citation.' Things like the hefty woman we saw who argued that she shouldn't get the speeding ticket, and then was ordered out of the car. And she argued she shouldn't have to get out. And she was zapped, and she didn't like it. Why not just give her the ticket and leave it at that. And if she rips it up she gets a ticket for littering.

Why get physical soooo often in sooo many mundane situations? It's putting yourself and others at un-necessary risk, then demanding new tools and powers because you feel unsafe.

For the sake of officer safety, give more people pieces of paper! Once you go through all this hassle you get them to jail and then let them loose a few hours later anyway - WITH A PIECE OF PAPER!

It's for officer safety, ok, so you have to do it. I said officer safety, magic word, now you have to do it.

Powderman
October 15, 2005, 07:18 PM
Umm, don't want to nitpick, but wouldn't a tazer be more effective than a pistol on a knife-wielding meth-head? Or your buddy on pcp?

Anyway, people aren't disputing the effectiveness of the tazer. We should get that out of the way.

People are questioning the safety.

And people are questioning the attitutes of those who mock them for questioning the safety.


And situations like the restaurant you said, there;s other people involved so it's complicated. And I'm no genius, but I kind of suspect a lot of 'situations' could be solved by giving the suspect a piece of paper. 'Here's your citation.' Things like the hefty woman we saw who argued that she shouldn't get the speeding ticket, and then was ordered out of the car. And she argued she shouldn't have to get out. And she was zapped, and she didn't like it. Why not just give her the ticket and leave it at that. And if she rips it up she gets a ticket for littering.

Why get physical soooo often in sooo many mundane situations? It's putting yourself and others at un-necessary risk, then demanding new tools and powers because you feel unsafe.

For the sake of officer safety, give more people pieces of paper! Once you go through all this hassle you get them to jail and then let them loose a few hours later anyway - WITH A PIECE OF PAPER!

It's for officer safety, ok, so you have to do it. I said officer safety, magic word, now you have to do it.

Your first sentence is EXACTLY the point.

Gunfire will put a person down, no contest. But they can still function. Also, gunfire is the final solution. There's no such thing as a "minor" wound.

The Taser is the ONLY thing that I have seen that will take down the meth head, the PCP user, the EDP--RIGHT NOW. And, once they hit the dirt, the cuffs are applied, and they go where they need to--UNHURT.

As for the "fat lady" you mention, there are two things I'd like to point out.

If it is the same scenario I'm thinking about (Florida), if she was just sitting in the car chirping, oh well. We will talk about it until you're blue in the face, but I'll eventually--hopefully--get them out of the car.

But, the woman actually hit the officer. Guess what? At that instant, she stepped it up from a simple NOI to a Felony (in WA State, Assault 3rd). Now, you WILL go to jail.

The woman would not get out of the car. In that situation, I am NOT going into the car after her. Painful things happen to officers who do that, like getting dragged by vehicles.

Out comes the Taser, and after one more chance, it's time to do the kickin' chicken.

Final note--observe that after the Taser deployment, she WALKED TO THE PATROL CAR UNDER HER OWN POWER. Try doing that after some stick time, or a good application of OC.

Blackhawk 6
October 15, 2005, 07:27 PM
I really do not have a dog in this fight. The extent of my knowledge about law enforcement comes from a couple of family members who are in the profession and my interaction with law enforcement personnel in training.

Having followed this discussion, and others, it seems as though some are condemning a tool because a few people have used it irresponsibly.

Strikes me as being hypocritical.

Hawkmoon
October 15, 2005, 07:41 PM
Having followed this discussion, and others, it seems as though some are condemning a tool because a few people have used it irresponsibly.
I don't recall seeing any comments condemning the taser. Perhaps a few condemning abuse of the taser.

I don't think it's condemnation to question the safety, however. The company keeps claiming nobody has ever died from being tasered, yet at least monthly, if not weekly, we see reports of people like this, who died after having been tased. Yeah, maybe they were high on extra-legal substances, but if it was the combination of drugs and taser that caused the death, then say so dammit.

Saying it wasn't the taser it was the drugs can be a valid statement ONLY if it is 100% certain that the person would have died from the drugs even if not subjected to the taser. That has not been proven (and, of course, cannot be proven), thus it is an invalid conclusion to state that the taser played no role in the death. Using the same logic, it would be equally valid to rule that the drugs played no part and the death was a direct result of the taser.

Pietro Beretta
October 15, 2005, 07:51 PM
The Taser is the ONLY thing that I have seen that will take down the meth head, the PCP user, the EDP--RIGHT NOW. And, once they hit the dirt, the cuffs are applied, and they go where they need to--UNHURT.

Does it take 19 times for a guy to hit the dirt? VERY Doubtful.

pax
October 15, 2005, 07:56 PM
People are questioning the safety.

And people are questioning the attitutes of those who mock them for questioning the safety.
Joe ~

In the real world, there are a limited number of things an officer can do with a non-compliant subject who has committed an arrestable offense:

1) They can ignore the lawbreaking and let the person go. Bad idea if you like civilization, and a bad idea for the cop who wants to keep his job.

2) They can talk until they're as blue in the face as they are in the uniform. And they often do -- but talking doesn't always work. If the arrestee remains non-compliant (a fancy word for "wants to fight"), the officer is going to have to choose one of the options below.

3) They can go hands-on. That sounds so tidy, doesn't it? In real life, that means twisting the arrestee's arm or wrist to the point where it will break if the arrestee doesn't comply. Or yanking the guy off-balance, shoving him face-first to the sidewalk, and placing a firm knee in between his shoulder blades so that he cannot even lift his head -- while holding his arm in such a fashion that his shoulder is likely to be dislocated if he keeps fighting. He's at risk for suffocating in that position too, btw, which is one reason why some arrestees die while being arrested. That's if everything goes well. Oh, and don't think getting driven face-first into the pavement doesn't result in injuries or even sometimes in death. You could look it up.

4) They can use the baton. Essentially the same thing as bare hands above, only add in that the arrestee is getting beaten, twisted, or choked with a big stick. Dangers to the arrestee include broken bones, crippling injuries, or death. Oh, both 3) and 4) also include the risk of death from heart attacks and/or stroke as the overwrought arrestee fights back.

5) They can use OC (pepper spray) or some other form of chemical persuasion. A certain percentage of the population is all but immune to these, so OC may not be efficacious -- especially since a lot of criminals have often learned to fight through OC exposure (if the police can learn to do it in Academy, the thugs can learn to do it in the hood). Is OC dangerous? Not according to its promoters -- but a certain percentage of the population is deathly allergic to its primary component and could die from anaphylactic shock. The OC itself is billed as "non-injurious," but its use can nevertheless result in injury or death. For instance, the blinded but not yet restrained subject could wander out into traffic and get killed. And it is very, very unpleasant for the arrestee, especially given that it will be at least two hours before he will be able to decontaminate. If he's even remotely claustrophobic, that's going to be a very terrifying two hours.

6) Or they can use a taser. Is taser use "safe"? Particularly, is it "safe" for the arrestee? Compared to all other methods the officer may use to gain compliance from an arrestee who is determined to fight, yes it is. Any force at all is more dangerous than simply talking, but once you're past the talking stage, the taser is just about the safest tool in the box. The reason folks keep "mocking" those who ask the question is because no one is listening to the answers! The answer is simply, "Yes. Taser use is safer than allowing a disturbed and possibly violent person to go free. It is safer than slamming that person into the pavement by nearly breaking his arm. It is safer than beating on him with a stick. And (statistically and experimentally) it is both safer and more pleasant for the subject than using OC."

pax
not an officer, just hates shoddy thinking.

Lupinus
October 15, 2005, 07:56 PM
I personaly have no problem what so ever with a taser. It is relativly safe and if anything is likly to hurt you durring your fall then anything else.

What I am agianst is some police officer's who figure it is less then lethal and will you it without a second thought in situation's it does not need to be used for. Someone who is a bit uncopertive doesn't not need to be tazed. A 6'5 350 pound wannabe gangsta on PCP is the guy that need's to be tased, not the guy at chuck e cheese with his kid's that tell's the cop his story and when they persist tell them to shove off and stop busting his chop's.

I am all for less then lethal method's. And many officer's use them correctly. But many other's use them without the slightist hesitation for the smallist reason where it doesn't need to be done. They are there to subdue people that otherwise would have had to been shot. If it isn't a situatio nwhere you normally would have likly had to shoot them, or more accuratly in some situations the step ust before that, it is not time to use the taser. For instence, the same guy on PCP that if he charged you would have had to shoot taser before he charge's after it's clear he isn't going to coperate and the situation will only escalate. For instence, the guy that just isn't coperating completly and is running his mouth a bit is not the guy you should be tasing.

c_yeager
October 15, 2005, 09:50 PM
This says "only" that he died after the tasing, not that he died because of it.

Thankyou for pointing this out. It would be just as truthfull to say that he died after eating a sandwich, or that he died after childbirth (his), or that he died after taking LSD. One needs to establish a causal relationship between two events before one can be blamed for the other.

Joejojoba111
October 15, 2005, 11:50 PM
Powder

"As for the "fat lady" you mention, there are two things I'd like to point out."

Different case, then. The situation I was referring to had the lady pulled over by a hot yellow sports car, which was a police car, and she argued that they couldn't accurately tell her speed while both cars were moving. The police disagreed. In response to her (impolite) argument she was ordered out of the car, and she argued this as well. A weapon was drawn and pointed at her, and she was told she would be stunned if she didn't get out. She argued, but didn't finish the sentence. Zapped, dragged out of the car, zapped again, and maybe one more time. For speeding.

Actually not for speeding, for arguing. Elecriticty > words.
Sword > pen.


Pax

"1) They can ignore the lawbreaking and let the person go. Bad idea if you like civilization, and a bad idea for the cop who wants to keep his job."

They can go through all your recommended rigamorole, and transport the person to the jail for processing, and then to court, and then they will likely be 'let go' anyway. As such, I don't see any grounds in your argument.


"If the arrestee remains non-compliant (a fancy word for "wants to fight"), the officer is going to have to choose one of the options below."

I do not agree. I sort of feel that non-compliant means what it says. And 'wants to fight' means what it says. And I think the reason we have the different words is because they mean different things. I'm not closed-minded, if you can show me scholastic examples of how they really are synonyms I can learn and expand my knowledge, but until then I have to believe that blue is blue, and red is red. And if you tell me red is blue, I'm not going to believe you. I'm going to think you are, well, lieing. Sort of makes you a liar. But I'm open to new ideas, just need some evidence that you can show which proves a dictionary wrong.

Like those hippies who staged sit-ins. They are asking for a beating and tazering and OC and metal batons and broken bones, because they weren't compliant. That means they want to fight. If they want to fight they are obviously violent criminals.

As you can see, hippies staging sit-ins are not peaceful, as I previously though, they are in fact violent police-attacking criminals, they 'want to fight'.

Sorry if that seems like a long way to express myself, but calling everyone who is not a docile sheep 'wants to fight' = 'violent criminal', that's another sign-post on a road I keep hoping we'll stop heading down.

tulsamal
October 16, 2005, 12:32 AM
Brerrabbit,

I only know what I read. I didn't make it up. The Shotgun News, Oct 3, 2005. Page 46. The title of the rather long article with lots of color photos is "Taser." The author is Massad Ayoob.

The bottom line is this: I am unaware of a single autopsy in which a credentialed pathologist who actually examined the body has ruled cause of death to be a Taser. Several of the post-mortem examinations have listed cocaine poisoning as the cause of death.

And then at the end of that sub-section:

I am aware of a very few autopsies - perhaps eight - in which the official finding was that the Taser "could not be ruled out" as a "potential contributing cause of death," or words to that effect. Well, in theory, anything from cigareete smoking to bad attitude is "potentially" a "contributing" cause when someone dies like this. Blaming it on the Taser is simply too much of a stretch.

I know this will only lead to people saying we can't believe anything Mas says but still I wanted to let people know I didn't make it up!

Joejojoba111
October 16, 2005, 02:41 AM
He's flat wrong. We have hundreds of very expensive very professional papers CLEARLY explaining that cigarette smoking is NOT detrimental to one's health. END OF STORY. Pffft. Pfffft. Zip it. Zip. Story over. Story ended. There are studies, they are right, he is wrong, period. Smoking is healthy, and gives you a better voice.

Pietro Beretta
October 16, 2005, 03:06 AM
Pax said:the thugs can learn to do it in the hood

So is that your mentaility. I lost about this much respect for you from that line.



Maybe im reading too much into it......................................it is late.................

pax
October 16, 2005, 03:08 AM
*genuine puzzlement*

What is my mentality? I missed something.

pax

Pietro Beretta
October 16, 2005, 03:11 AM
Why does it have to be thugs in the hood, and not criminals on the street.

pax
October 16, 2005, 03:20 AM
Pietro ~

I still don't see what you're driving at. Please explain.

pax

Pietro Beretta
October 16, 2005, 03:31 AM
"thugs in the hood"

Is sounding very stereotypical.

This sounds like all "thugs" are criminals and all criminals live in the "hood"

c_yeager
October 16, 2005, 03:40 AM
"thugs in the hood"

Is sounding very stereotypical.

This sounds like all "thugs" are criminals and all criminals live in the "hood"

Maybe i missed some linguistic drift here, but last time i checked the very definition of the word "thug" was a criminal. In fact, according to every dictionary I have access to, this is the actual definition. And frankly, im pretty sure that all criminals who are not in prison do live somewhere that could be defined as a neighborhood. SO yeah, all thugs are criminals, and all criminals live in "the hood".

pax
October 16, 2005, 03:52 AM
Pietro ~

Apparently you're using a definition of "thug" that I have never heard.

pax

Pietro Beretta
October 16, 2005, 03:53 AM
From Dictionary.com

Thug
n.
1: A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.

2:also Thug One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her.

Yes, thug in its "original" term is a criminal.

hood or 'hood
n. Slang
A neighborhood, usually in the inner city.


hood·lum
n. Slang
A gangster; a thug. <-----
A tough, often aggressive or violent youth.

There is also something called "Thug Life" Wich refers to "inner city gangsters way of life"
See where confusion can set in..........



I guess they could be refering to the "Bugsy malone" type of gangster....

pax
October 16, 2005, 04:09 AM
*Wheeeee....* (That's the sound of comprehension whistling past someone's ears!)

Pietro, I am still missing your point. "Thug," "hoodlum," and "gangster" are all solid synonyms for criminal: someone who breaks the law, often by assaulting other people, and who may or may not have yet been arrested for it.

A "tough, aggressive, violent youth" surely sounds criminal to me. I just cruised through a half dozen dictionary sites and it seems to me that no matter how you slice the word "thug," it certainly does not have overtones of law-abiding.

As for "an inner-city gangster's way of life," are you trying to tell me that a gangster's lifestyle isn't generally criminal? Your own comments were pretty terse and I can't tell from them whether that is what you meant or not.

I'm still failing to see what was so upsetting about what I said. Please forgive me for being dense; you're going to have to spell it out a little more plainly.

pax

c_yeager
October 16, 2005, 04:17 AM
"inner city gangsters way of life"



look up what "gangster" means.

Seriously, we need to get our kids off of the television and into schools.

MordecaiJones
October 16, 2005, 04:31 AM
He was on MJ and LSD. An excellent chance he could not have complied with instructions or much less understood them. Tazering to get someone to comply with verbal orders assumes that they can hear, understand, and then act rationally on the orders. I have seen persons drunk, high, stoned etc. as an ER doc. These persons are so out of it that they are mentally unable to act rationally. Tazering an out of control person to subdue them shouldn't take 19 shots, but would certainly take several. If they are out of control and need to be subdued, there is a good chance they will get hurt.

Hawkmoon
October 16, 2005, 04:48 AM
Moving back from Mas Ayoob's self-serving article and back to the case at hand, we have here a young man who underwent two rather significant physical events: (1) He infused apparently rather high doses of some extra-legal substances; and (2) shortly thereafter, and while still under the influence of those substances, he was tasered ... 19 times.

Two days later he died.

Yes, he died AFTER he was tasered, not when he was tasered. But ... he also died AFTER he had taken the drugs, not while he was at the peak of his high. Ergo, if it is logical to discount the taser and rule that the kid died solely because of the drugs, it is equally logical to discount the drugs and rule that he died solely because of the taser strikes.

In reality, he (as well as a number of other taser subjects) more than likely died as a result of the combination of drugs and taser. What's wrong with acknowledging that?

Buck Snort
October 16, 2005, 05:07 AM
Question: Did he take the drugs of his own volition or were they forced onto him? It makes a big difference if I drink a fith of Jack Daniels and then go out into the night and smack some guy or gal in the snoot OR if somebody held me down and forced the JD down my throat using a funnel and a rubber hose. If the latter is the case I'm just flat not responsible but if the former is the case then I've pretty much stripped from myself any consideration from the first LEO on the scene who can plainly see that I'm drunk as hell and twice as obnoxious. If I'm too smashed to understand his commands and get my ass Tazered 19 times then when I sober up I'd better kick myself in the butt 'cuz I was the guy who got me into that jam. Hey folks, when you get yourself all jacked up on some chemical and then do something that brings on the law you are going to get wrestled, pepper sprayed, Tazered, or shot by an LEO. It ain't complicated. Its like the man said, life is tough, its tougher if your're stupid.

one45auto
October 16, 2005, 06:03 AM
If you don't resist, it is awfully hard for a cop to justify beating you. Some how in my 28 years I have manged to avoid any negative incidents with law enforcement. Does that mean I am a gutless sheeple who just subjects myself to the tyranny of oppression? Or does that mean I just act rationally around law enforcement? :scrutiny:


Sometimes there isn't much difference between the two.

NukemJim
October 16, 2005, 11:15 AM
Is taser use "safe"? Particularly, is it "safe" for the arrestee? Compared to all other methods the officer may use to gain compliance from an arrestee who is determined to fight, yes it is. Any force at all is more dangerous than simply talking, but once you're past the talking stage, the taser is just about the safest tool in the box. The reason folks keep "mocking" those who ask the question is because no one is listening to the answers! The answer is simply, "Yes. Taser use is safer than allowing a disturbed and possibly violent person to go free. It is safer than slamming that person into the pavement by nearly breaking his arm. It is safer than beating on him with a stick. And (statistically and experimentally) it is both safer and more pleasant for the subject than using OC."


+1

Aquestion please, how many of the posters who are objecting to the use of the taser on people who do not do what the police order you to do have first hand experience in enforcing compliance on an adult ? and the aftermath in the ER (frequently with the damage to both sides) ? Look up the death rates from people being killed by suffocation while being arrestted not from neck holds but from the weight of people piled on top of them to attempt to control them. This is NOT high shool roughhousing, there are no rules and some people will fight to the death.

I am not a LEO never have been. I do work in hospitals and have worked ER and Psych as well as having worked at a bouncer in a Chi. "New Wave" bar. Not bragging just stating my qualifications.

As for when to use it set dept guidelines, punish those who do not folow them, modify them if the community feels it needed by electing new officials. But until them what was the officer supposed to day ? do you want the officer to stand by talking for a full 8 hour shift and then to have his replacement sent to continue ? follow the person around until they decide to come to the police station with the officer?

At some point when people do not follow society's rules physical pain will result. No amount of arguing, debating, or rationalizing is going to change that.

So far from the evidence available to me ( http://www.cprc.org/tr/tr-2006-01.pdf I hope the link works ) TASERs are the best choice available ( or at least until the invent a phaser with a stun setting :p *) .

When people refuse to obey a LEO they very frequently get hurt. That is a fact of life.

Kevlar on ? Check.
Nomex on ? Check

Let the flames begin.

NukemJim

* In the Star Trek Universe too large of a "stun" setting on a phaser can kill. :evil:

12-34hom
October 16, 2005, 11:23 AM
Patrol120 - +1

Great post, welcome to THR.

12-34hom.

Geno
October 16, 2005, 11:56 AM
I've seen too many donut-dunkin', coffee-swillin' cowardice wanna-be cops who joined to be "the-big-man-barkin'-orders".

I continue to say we need to have the following for ALL wanna-be-cops:

1) Complete psychological AND neuropsychological work-up (about 50 clock hours testing).

2) Must pass both a "brain-scan polygraph" and "traditional polygraph" to detect lies and racial and other prejudices. ANY perceived deception--you are OUT! Period!

3) Required to have attained the minimal rank of 2nd degree Black Belt in at least two styles of martial arts: first one "hard-style" and second one "soft-style"...(TaeKwonDo & Judo) or other similar.

4) Minimum of a Bachelor's degree, attaining a minimum of 95% with PASS/FAIL on a set of specific exit examinations.

5) Must agree to have their "person" audio & video tape-recorded every minute they are on the job. On-board camera and audio inside looking at them. Allows for on-going psychological assessment. Better determine when cops' reactions on the way to the call are indicative of a cop-on-the edge. Time for paid vacation for a week.

I'd say the jokers would leave the force and let the real cops, who really respect the people they serve to do their duty. The money saved from less lawsuits would permit us to at least DOUBLE their wages and pay for better equipment which, as martial artists they would feel less need to abuse.

Doc2005

patrol120
October 16, 2005, 12:33 PM
Doc, that is perhaps the sinlge dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

Do you really want a mindless automaton as a police officer. Ever seen the movie "Soldier" with Kurt Russell? Sounds like the exact thing you want.

personally, Ive never been to college. I have some prejudices that Im not proud of, and a few that I dont mind having. I dont own a black belt, except for my Sam Browne, and dont plan on getting one. Dont have the time, with family and work, two things that actually are important.

I do have common sense, and the ability to defuse most situations. I also have the ability, whether it be with my hands, my baton, or my dreaded taser, to end most any situation.

I have worked with cops from all walks of life. I know guys with Master's Degress, and I know guys who have GEDs. Nine times out of ten, the guy with the GED is the guy I want backing me on a call. Its not that the guy with the masters isnt a good guy, nor a good cop, its that the guy with the GED has REAL WORLD experience.

Powderman
October 16, 2005, 12:44 PM
Doc, that is perhaps the sinlge dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

Do you really want a mindless automaton as a police officer. Ever seen the movie "Soldier" with Kurt Russell? Sounds like the exact thing you want.

personally, Ive never been to college. I have some prejudices that Im not proud of, and a few that I dont mind having. I dont own a black belt, except for my Sam Browne, and dont plan on getting one. Dont have the time, with family and work, two things that actually are important.

I do have common sense, and the ability to defuse most situations. I also have the ability, whether it be with my hands, my baton, or my dreaded taser, to end most any situation.

I have worked with cops from all walks of life. I know guys with Master's Degress, and I know guys who have GEDs. Nine times out of ten, the guy with the GED is the guy I want backing me on a call. Its not that the guy with the masters isnt a good guy, nor a good cop, its that the guy with the GED has REAL WORLD experience.

Amen, P120. Amen.

pax
October 16, 2005, 01:38 PM
2) Must pass both a "brain-scan polygraph" and "traditional polygraph" to detect lies and racial and other prejudices. ANY perceived deception--you are OUT! Period!
Polygraphs are not admissable as evidence in a court of law because they are not reliable. In the hands of a really skilled operator, the error rate is at least 10%.

pax

walking arsenal
October 16, 2005, 04:36 PM
WOW, Doc

"Bartender, I'll have what he's having"

secamp32
October 16, 2005, 04:46 PM
I'm guessing that he was tazered 19 times because he kept on resisting arrest. If he had stopped after 1 taz that would have been it. Its really simple. Everyone can do it. If you don't want to get hurt resisting arrest, DON"T! (resist) You're not going to win so why bother. I just don't understand. If the officer has decided it time for the cuffs, thats it, game over. Go downtown and explain it to the Judge. You may be right and the officer wrong but fighting is only going to make it worse.

Derby FALs
October 16, 2005, 05:10 PM
Aquestion please, how many of the posters who are objecting to the use of the taser on people who do not do what the police order you to do have first hand experience in enforcing compliance on an adult ? and the aftermath in the ER (frequently with the damage to both sides) ? Look up the death rates from people being killed by suffocation while being arrestted not from neck holds but from the weight of people piled on top of them to attempt to control them. This is NOT high shool roughhousing, there are no rules and some people will fight to the death.

Only the truly ignorant would think continued weakening of struggling is simply a sign of compliance when three large males are sitting on a persons torso.

Derby FALs
October 16, 2005, 05:14 PM
Two Ps in a pod feeling the heat?
:eek:

12-34hom
October 16, 2005, 05:42 PM
Doc, you forgot to ask them supply a cape with that uniform....:D

"Astro Man",- A hand came down from heaven pinned a badge on his chest said "Get out there man and do your best." Jimi Hendrix.

12-34hom.

Joejojoba111
October 16, 2005, 08:36 PM
Patrol;
Must apologize on behalf of all who offend you. You seem like a really reasonable guy, and because of that your job must be doubly hard. Please don't take it personally if you read someone say something angrily about your occupation. More than likely they over-state the merits of their case, and there is no relevance to you anyway. It's just that a perceived injustice by authority is an emotional sort of burden that takes a long time to go away, and people might see you as an easy outlet for built up frustration. Pls don't take it personal, you really sound like nice guy.


Doc

"I've seen too many donut-dunkin', coffee-swillin' cowardice wanna-be cops who joined to be "the-big-man-barkin'-orders"."

I can understand why you might have some latent hostility, anyone who sees a family member abused, by someone in a position of authority never looks at that authority the same way again. Maybe you've been in a similar situation.

But you will get only negative results slinging mud, I gotta warn. The only thing you can do is keep slinging truth, keep illustrating that the 'new way' is not old, it is new. If it is not good, don't let people tell you it is good. Resist the obvious lies, but don't tell them yourself, and don't sling mud. My suggestions. Ironically, your standards probably aren't far from the truth. Know of people who got scores like 94% instead of 95% and didnt' pass the test, and they PAID hundreds of dollars for the priviledge of taking the test!


secamp32

"I'm guessing that he was tazered 19 times because he kept on resisting arrest. If he had stopped after 1 taz that would have been it. Its really simple. Everyone can do it. If you don't want to get hurt resisting arrest, DON"T! (resist) You're not going to win so why bother."

You need to provide evidence to support this. As far as I'm concerned it's a fairy tale people tell. And I have ample real-life video evidence simply in vaious posts on this board alone. You really won't sleep well the first night if you see too much evidence that contradicts your statement.

You are suggesting #1)Your are being beaten because you are resisting.

Your logic makes sense - if you stop resisting you stop getting beaten! Funny, then that people would resist like that???

So consider, hakems razor, a simpler explanation. They are not beaten because they resist - they are resisting because they are beaten. Think about it. They are being beaten, and they are resisting. You have been convinced that A led to B. I'm suggesting you consider that B can lead to A. Just sometimes, just once in a while, but consider it.

So your #2 suggestion that if you stop resisting, you stop getting hurt, doesn't have too much merit. There may be a lot of cases, where an agressive suspect merits agressive response. But there's also a lot of cases where a docile subject merits equally agressive resonse. And yet other cases where victimized subject receives agressive treatment. In the latter 2 cases you will get hurt, no matter what you do. All you can hope is to survive the encounter until they tire of hurting you. Resisting may allow you to take more damage and survive, than not-resisting.



And another statement you will be repeatedly told, until you believe it - you are told that non-compliance is justification for violent reaction. When one puts it in writing it looks absurd, but it is an accepted fact in today's reality.

I'll write it again: non-compliance is justification for violenct reaction.

This nice lady on this board here, Pax, she writes useful and polite and informative posts and I read them all the time. She's an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, probably a good concerned citizen, all sort of nice things. But even she tells you that non-compliance is justification for violent response. Everyone will tell you this, but you have the god-given option not to believe them, to think indepentdently and see that it is wrong.

It's a tradition, it's a gray area, using violence to force people to comply. It's considered wrong, technically, but in practice it's accepted. But that doesn't make it right. Protesters staging a sit-in do not deserve to receive permanent debilitating injuries. People arguing speediing tickets do not deserve to be electrocuted, and tackled on the concrete in their own blood and saliva.

It's up to your own fundamental beliefs, your interpretation of the rights human beings have, and how much they can be waived for the sake of expediency. But I urge you to always lean towards preserving rights, and to hell with expediency, because it's usually just an excuse anyway.

Powderman
October 16, 2005, 10:13 PM
Joejojoba, it really IS that simple.

If a person is about to be arrested, there are a few facts that must be understood.

Fact #1: The handcuffs ARE going to go on. Whether you like it or not, whether it is your personal preference or not. The cuffs are going on.

Fact #2: The second you start to resist, we will also start to resist HARDER. We will meet your resistance one level higher than you are using.

Fact #3: We don't fight fair. If there is one of you, hopefully there will be at least two of us. Maybe more.

Fact #4: Whether you believe it or not, we DO use the minimum force necessary. Here's an example of minimum force vs. maximum force used:

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
(At this point, am I supposed to beg, plead or reason? Yeah, right.)
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I start to turn in an arm bar takedown; my partner steps in and trips you. You go to the pavement, and I put the cuffs on.

b. (Maximum Force)

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I perform an arm trap, and smash you in the face with an elbow. While you are temporarily stunned, I follow up with a backfist, and immediately step to your front. Grabbing your collar in both hands, I perform osoto-gari (a hip throw), slamming you flat on your back on the pavement. The handcuffs are then applied. (After this ending, I then transport you to the hospital, where my supervisor is waiting. I am then relieved of both badge and gun, and placed under arrest for Assault, and suspended pending investigation.)

There is a third scenario.

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I draw my Taser, and warn you to stop resisting. My partner attempts to place you in restraints. You jerk your arm away.

I deploy the Taser, and you collapse, stunned from the electrical charge. It is over in 5 seconds. My partner places you in restraints, and I warn you that if you fight or resist, I will use the Taser again. You get up and walk to the patrol car.

Which ending would you rather have?

By the way, Occam's razor does not apply here. Most people will submit when they learn they are about to be arrested.

Some won't.

WARNING: The link provided shows something that happened in real time, for real. This is what can happen.

It's graphic. It's not funny. And it is the side of society we face.

http://media.putfile.com/copkiller72220-5303

oh blanky
October 16, 2005, 10:29 PM
bzzt.

Joejojoba111
October 16, 2005, 11:06 PM
That really was disturbing, and I'd prefer not to discuss it. Only thing to say is that acting as that murderer represents civilians is equivalent to acting as police are represented by the officers beating Rodney King, and killing 'Negros' in Mississipi, and murdering the Black Panthers, and attacking fragile elderly ladies in New Orleans, and attacking civilians who witness them attacking other civilians in New Orleans, raping women in secluded traffic stops, and so-on.

In other words, not fair. But nor is life fair. Thus you would be wise to expect the worst. And you can then understand, that while you fear for officer safety, citizens may fear for citizen safety. Unfortunately, citizen safety, which is illustratedly a legitimate concern, is taken away, to make room for officer safety. A woman in handcuffs locked in the back of a cruiser is in an even worse position to defend herself against unwanted sexual advances. She is less safe. The officer is more safe.

As you can understand, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel of both respective populations, and IMO not representative of the wholes. But they are realities nonetheless. And you will never find an example of a country which granted more rights to their police at the expense of the rights of their citizens, and those rights did not become abused. In fact those rights are gravitational, and increase in a predictable fashion, in all foreign cases (post perestroika ComBloc nations excluded).

Powderman
October 17, 2005, 12:45 AM
That really was disturbing, and I'd prefer not to discuss it. Only thing to say is that acting as that murderer represents civilians is equivalent to acting as police are represented by the officers beating Rodney King, and killing 'Negros' in Mississipi, and murdering the Black Panthers, and attacking fragile elderly ladies in New Orleans, and attacking civilians who witness them attacking other civilians in New Orleans, raping women in secluded traffic stops, and so-on.


Agreed--10,000%!!

But, here's my point...

If you, as an officer, KNEW that the next person you stopped on a traffic stop would be courteous, somewhat amiable (given the circumstances), and owned up to the reason you conducted the stop, you would be well prepared to contact the driver in a like fashion.

If you, as an officer, KNEW that the next person you stopped would try their best to KILL you, you would also be well prepared, and would meet the threat accordingly.

If I, as an officer, know that the next person I contact under suspicious circumstances would peacefully come along (if I had probable cause to arrest), I could leave my equipment belt in the car, and just take a pair of handcuffs.

Of course, if I know the person is going Adam Henry on me, I'm loaded for bear.

The point in all this? I DON'T know how the next person is going to be.
NO ONE DOES.

And we don't know if the person will submit or fight. Sometimes, for no reason, as you saw. The Deputy was being at least polite. And, in the end, it cost him dearly.

So, for all of you folks that think that the Taser, or OC, or contacting someone with your guard up (always) is just a bit too much, and that we should be Officer Friendly at all times, I encourage you to watch the video that I linked to, above. Imagine reading some of the comments that have been posted in this and other postings about cops; then strapping on that equipment belt and having to face something like THAT. Can you visualize or feel the terror, the anguish, the pain in that video? That's the stuff we have to face the possibility of--EVERY DAY.

The beast is out there, folks. And we fight that beast, so that you won't have to. Sometimes we have to pay the price to fight that beast, too. And, the tab is usually collected in blood.

-------------------

In memory of Deputy K. Dinkheller.

Joejojoba111
October 17, 2005, 01:58 AM
And here is the trade-off - I don't know the the next officer I see won't attack me, maybe intentionally or accidentally kill me. For every officer down, you will find dozens of civilians. You see, there are trade-offs in life. I have, against my will, lost precious survival possibilities, so that others may gain them. A minority, has gained power and safety, by taking it directly from the majority.

When you come across Aristotle's 'uncorruptable man', then I will agree you can make him an officer and give him all the power in the world. Until then I refuse to recognize officers as anything other than people, humans, with all the pros and cons entailed.

I cannot refuse to comply to certain modern peculiarities of detainment and such, but I have absolute freedom to dislike them and to express such, without retribution. And I exercise it. And if the opportunity arises to reverse the situation, and improve citizen safety by removing constraints, by altering the intrinsic nature of police forces and their subcultures, by increasing procedural, budgetary, legal and administrative constraints, I will vote in favor.

As I say, the world is plenty full of examples of police forces allowed to run amok. Even modern and civilized states as diverse as Ukraine, India, and Britain have plentiful obvious abuses. A constrained and behaved force is a sign of a healthy nation, perhaps the requirement for such. And the reverse is even more true.

NukemJim
October 17, 2005, 02:25 AM
Only the truly ignorant would think continued weakening of struggling is simply a sign of compliance when three large males are sitting on a persons torso.


Nice line I like the sound of it. Now then would you mind answereing the question I asked? And no it is not always easy in the middle of a fight to determine whether someone is suphocating or yielding or exhausted. Add in unkown medical problems and unkown mental state and unkown pharmaceutical ingestion.

Oh and by the way if someone really wants to fight you 3 people are rarely going to be enough if you are trying NOT to hurt the person a far more reasonable number is 5-7.

NukemJim

Derby FALs
October 17, 2005, 12:37 PM
Nice line I like the sound of it. Now then would you mind answereing the question I asked? And no it is not always easy in the middle of a fight to determine whether someone is suphocating or yielding or exhausted. Add in unkown medical problems and unkown mental state and unkown pharmaceutical ingestion.

Oh and by the way if someone really wants to fight you 3 people are rarely going to be enough if you are trying NOT to hurt the person a far more reasonable number is 5-7.

NukemJim

I don't think a TASER shot is going to kill someone. Over use may be a contributing factor. If you sit enough people on someone for long enough, they are going to die. Unless they are already unconscious they are going to struggle for a while before they suffocate.

Pietro Beretta
October 17, 2005, 04:26 PM
Pax, it was a late night.

Do a search on www.google.com on the Line "Thugs in the Hood"

See what comes up.

Then perhaps you will see where I was comming from.

Dan from MI
October 18, 2005, 01:55 AM
This quote may get me in trouble, but if I'm attacked with a taser, I'm assuming my life is in danger and I will take appropiate action to stop the threat beyond all certainty(and I have a high pain threshold). I don't care if the person with the taser has a badge or not.

I don't expect to ever get arrested, and if so, I'll cooperate unless my life is threatened where I will defend myself accordingly.

Most of the cops I know (outside of East Lansing) are good ones. I don't expect trouble, but just as there are good cops out there, they are a few bad apples as well.

Powderman
October 18, 2005, 02:48 AM
This quote may get me in trouble, but if I'm attacked with a taser, I'm assuming my life is in danger and I will take appropiate action to stop the threat beyond all certainty(and I have a high pain threshold). I don't care if the person with the taser has a badge or not.

I don't expect to ever get arrested, and if so, I'll cooperate unless my life is threatened where I will defend myself accordingly.

Most of the cops I know (outside of East Lansing) are good ones. I don't expect trouble, but just as there are good cops out there, they are a few bad apples as well.

And, here we go, once again. Veiled threat, perhaps?

Well, it was an interesting and lively thread. I predict that it will be closed within the next five posts.

Dan from MI
October 18, 2005, 03:10 AM
And, here we go, once again. Veiled threat, perhaps?

Well, it was an interesting and lively thread. I predict that it will be closed within the next five posts.

I wasn't making a threat. I take appropiate actions when necessary.

Assuming you are a "by the book" officer, If you arrested me for something, I would place my hands behind my back, keep my trap shut, and call my attorney and deal with the courts and prosecutors. That is the appropiate action on my part. My life isn't in danger in that situation, and I do not plan to place it in danger.

If my life is in danger, I take different actions. I view a tazer the same way as I do a .22. I'm also fairly certain they are illegal for the general public. I know stun guns are a felony, at least in my state.

Powderman
October 18, 2005, 03:34 AM
Well, OK. Just to make sure we're on the same page--if you were about to be arrested--AND you decided you weren't going to be arrested that day--AND you pulled away from the arresting officer and started walking away--AND the arresting officer pointed a Taser at you--what would you do?

Make yourself clear.

pax
October 18, 2005, 04:27 AM
Nope, guys, we're not going to go there.

Here it is again, down to Us vs. Them, plus threats.

Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Man tasered 19 times, dies." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!