Cop tasers handcuffed 13 year old and gets 3 day suspension

[CletusFudd]

Emotionally disturbed

"Vaughan wanted police to help get medical help for her daughter, who had been hospitalized for observation in the past for emotional disorders, the newspaper said."

I worked in a state hospital for the "emotionally disturbed" when I got out of the Navy and had to restrain people on an almost daily basis. Many of them seemed to lose touch with reality and become violent at the drop of a hat. You CAN'T reason with them. My partner and I were both large men, I'm 6'4", 220 lbs, and would frequently get tossed around by teenagers who went momentarily insane. It was very hard to control them without harming them and I have seen them attack other residents even when given an injection of phenobarbitol. I've been cut, beaten, punched and bitten and if I been given access to a Taser I would have used it.

I'm no fan of bad cops but I can maybe see what happened in this case.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'd pay a dollar to anyone that can

So which one ya sendin' that dollar to?

*sigh*

 

[pcf]

What happened to the good old days when cops would beat non-compliant suspects into the hospital with impunity?

Maybe he should have hosed the handcuffed non-compliant girl with OC.

Maybe she just should have recieved good old baton to tricep compliance so that arm didn't feel like moving. Not really her fault, it's those dang arms.

Maybe they should have used hinged cuffs and "one arm over the top" so she couldn't wiggle free, not like it's ever hurt anyone.

Maybe they should have used zip cuffs around her elbows, what's a little ciruclation.

Maybe after they re-restrained her, they should have "forgotten" to open the cruiser door when they put her in the backseat head first.

A solid strike to the sternum from a baton or boot will make anyone behave in the back seat.

Maybe they should have let her smoked a joint and chill.

Duct tape?

What should he, the officer, have done?

 

[GhostRider66]

I want some of you folks who think the size mismatch alone was enough to protect the officer to try a little experiment: Next time you're out taking a walk and see a gopher hole (or prarie dog), go ahead and stick your hand in there just to see if the little critter is home or not. Now don't be scared. The little sucker can't weigh over eight pounds or so and he's probably not over a foot long. Of course, there are the big, pointy teeth (couldn't resist)....

Stun her, mace her, whack her around a bit as needed. I just don't see the big deal here. Sounds like reasonable use of force on a suspect who posed a threat.

 

[Coronach]

I will refrain from comment, It wont do any good. I will sit back, watch the LEO apologists defend this one.

Should be fun.

You're probably not going to find many "LEO apologists" on this one becuase this one, unlike many of the so-called "unjustified Taserings", is not only prima facia bad, it has also been investigated and ruled bad. Most of the so-called "LEO apologists" are not apologizing/whitewashing, but merely stating that there is not enough information upon which to make an informed judgment. This time, however, people with access to far more 411 than a simple newsblurb have decided that the Tasering was bad.

Mike

 

[joab]

So which one ya sendin' that dollar to

The first one that actually justifies repeatedly tasing a 13 YO girl already handcuffed and in custody and in the back of the car.

Remember the word was justify not rationalize

if someone OTHER than an officer did the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, I wonder what the legal consequences would be

They most likely would be facing charges, because they have no authority to detain. More apples to oranges comparisons

 

[pcf]

The first one that actually justifies repeatedly tasing a 13 YO girl already handcuffed and in custody and in the back of the car.

Remember the word was justify not rationalize

Should someone in the custody of the police be allowed to injure themselves or act in manner that could injure themselves?

 

[griz]

OK, good point about a cuffed person still posing a threat. I'll retract my statement about it "ought to be a crime". By the same token, an officer should be smart enough that he doesn't have to refer to a written policy to know when tazering would be frowned upon by 90 percent of the population.

What surprises me is each time this comes up there are people who defend the use of tazers as a compliance tool. I understand the force continuum, and know that a tazer is usually safer than physical force. But tazers are still force, and nowhere in the article did it state she was a threat to the officer or anyone but (possibly) herself. He had already cuffed her once, couldn’t he do it again? Maybe I’m assuming too much, but I thought force is only justified for defense and what would be required to arrest a non-cooperative person. Are you saying that force, including tazers, is justified to achieve compliance? More so than the detention in this case, I’m thinking of cases such as the one where a suspect was in restraints on bed, or the one where a marine was not showing enough respect to the officer and both were tazed.

So, does police policy really allow force to be used to secure cooperation from a person who is not a threat?

 

[Coronach]

Should someone in the custody of the police be allowed to injure themselves or act in manner that could injure themselves?

Most jurisdications would say that the use of a taser against a handcuffed individual is improper. However, most jurisdictions would allow the use of mace against a handcuffed individual under the same circumstances, assuming that the use of the mace was not punitive in nature, but rather to prevent them from continuing to engage in a certain behavior (spitting, kicking in a manner that could damage a vehicle or themselves, banging one's head against a cage or window). What must be examined before anything is declared reasonable or unreasonable is the total set of circumstances. We don't have that in a newspaper article. However, this officer's chain of command did, and they decided he had to do days for his action. Absent something piece of info to the contrary (which I haven't seen), that's good enough for me.

Could the use of a taser against a cuffed guy be justified? Sure. I can think of scenarios where it might. Was it, in this instance? Not according to people who do this crap for a living, with access to more pertinent facts than me.

Mike

 

[joab]

Should someone in the custody of the police be allowed to injure themselves or act in manner that could injure themselves?

Where does the article state that she was in anyway a threat to herself or anybody else. Seems that she simply refused to bow to the authority of the state.

What should he, the officer, have done?

According to his chain of command, used better judgement.

 

[Coronach]

Should someone in the custody of the police be allowed to injure themselves or act in manner that could injure themselves?

Where does the article state that she was in anyway a threat to herself or anybody else. Seems that she simply refused to bow to the authority of the state.

In the vast majority of in-custody macings (and I suppose, some taserings), the chemical agent was used to prevent self-injury, some manner of assault (kicking), or vandalism (kicking out a window). Cops know this, so when your average newspaper article mentions an in-cuffs use of force, everyone with actual experience strongly suspects that scenario, as opposed to an excessive force scenario. However, I firmly agree that in this instance it would not seem to apply. Not only is such a thing not mentioned in the newsblurb (which is completely meaningless), but a subsequent investigation held that the use of the taser was improper (which carries quite a bit of weight).

Also, "refused to bow to the authority of the state" has a nice JBT ring to it, but let's be clear here. She was in custody, and for a reason. It's not like she had orders barked at her while she was walking down the street and minding her own business. I firmly agree that if the tasering was ruled unjustified it was wrong, end of story, but let's keep this in perspective. The officer was fully empowered to issue her orders, he was just not justified in his manner of achieving compliance.

Mike

 

[Sindawe]

Hmmmm...random thought here. Maybe cuffs/restraints could be reworked to include a tazing/shocking mechanism, remotely triggerable by the officer on the scene. The triggering would initiate an alert to the officers superior, the local DA, the local public defender, the ACLU and the media? Oh, and have cameras that point INSIDE the police car as well as a dash cam.

 

[joab]

Also, "refused to bow to the authority of the state" has a nice JBT ring to it, but let's be clear here. She was in custody, and for a reason. It's not like she had orders barked at her while she was walking down the street and minding her own business. I firmly agree that if the tasering was ruled unjustified it was wrong, end of story, but let's keep this in perspective. The officer was fully empowered to issue her orders, he was just not justified in his manner of achieving compliance.

Poor choice of words on my part

 

[DMF]

Where does the article state that she was in anyway a threat to herself or anybody else.

. . . Kallead wormed the handcuffs from behind her back and would not do as directed.

I'm flexible enough to get cuffs up front after being cuffed in the back, but I can tell you it's not easy or comfortable no matter how flexible you are. The only reason to do that is to use the cuffs as a weapon and/or to escape.

 

[joab]

I'm flexible enough to get cuffs up front after being cuffed in the back, but I can tell you it's not easy or comfortable no matter how flexible you are.

My sister could do it with ease so can my son

The only reason to do that is to use the cuffs as a weapon and/or to escape.

Apparently you have never been in the back of a car with your hands cuffed behind your back, now that's damned uncomfortable.

As long as we're mind reading, what other reason could a defiant teenager have to disobey an officer's orders