stealthmode
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2004
- Messages
- 459
i wonder what happend to the next door neighbor?
FL Deputy Shows Up At Wrong Address, Uses Taser Gun On Marine
- Thread starter Vernal45
- Start date
- Status
I'm with Jeff White. Get the facts first. My state requires the responding officer to arrest the "principal Aggressor" on every DV call. I know it's hard to believe, but sometimes the bad guys lie to the cops and try to pretend nothing is going on. The situation may not be what a spouse abuser is trying to portray to the responding officer. We are required by law to aggressively pursue DV calls (many other states require this also). On the face of this thread without the actual facts it does seem outrageous but I always try to hold out for the whole story. I know that fact and truth often are irrelevant to popular opinion however.
Vernal45
member
Thats what the responding LEO did not do, GET THE FACTS before acting. That resulting in an innocent man getting tazed.
Sorry, but LEO's are not gods. This LEO messed up, and it is disturbing to see so many helping the thin blue line circle the wagons. I am sure this deputy will get a paid vacation, a la the tax payers, then put back to work. If you and I were asked to help in a DV situation, and got it wrong, man o man, assault, unlawful detainment, ...................
The point is, we don't have enough facts to determine exactly what happened. If this is "the thin blue line ciricling the wagons", then fine. Round up them conestogas.
I have gone to the wrong address (sometimes because I'm stupid and can't read, far more often because my caller is directionally challenged). Every time I've managed to get my bearings without tasing someone, but there have been times when the person answering the door was surly, uncooperative and hostile.
Now, before you say that this is no reason for Tasering someone, you're right. Read on. The following is hypothetical, btw.
Add in the fact that you're looking for a DV, you have some guy who is acting a fool, and possibly other indicators that you have the right address, and suddenly there is a much greater possibility that this juicing was justified.
Could this officer have screwed up utterly? Absolutely. Could this Marine have straight up talked and threatened his way into the 5-second ride of his life? Absolutely.
Read Jeff White's post again.
So, which was this? A trigger happy foolish cop, or a citizen who happened to have a series of unfortunate events occur and allowed his attitude and actions to preclude any possibility of sorting it out peacefully?
I have no clue. My experience tells me that the latter is far more likely than the former, but I also know that the former is by no means impossible. We don't have enough details to tell. And one should never, ever accept the statements offered in a newspaper as being accurate or reliable. Rememberm these are the same people who have shooters using .380 caliber rifles and assault rifle SKSes. What makes you think they're any more accurate about the confusing "minor" details of an altercation?
This, actually, is a major point of mine. Until a competent and complete investigation is conducted, no one can either exonerate the police or condemn the suspect. You simply lack the information to do so. This is why most of the time you'll hear me saying "can't tell, it depends" in refence to all of these threads. We continue to insist on amusing and angering ourselves with them, and I continue to point out that 99.9% of what we're doing is filling in the massive blanks with conjecture and, I suspect, wishful thinking.
Read back over this thread. Read back over every thread like it. What you'll find is that most of the time you have the cops going "Well, we really don't know...it could have happened like this, but could have happened like that" interspersed with a lot of fist shaking and "jack booted thug" namecalling. Not always, but that is the trend. That's not circling the wagons, that's wanting truth to come out, one way or the other.
Mike
I have gone to the wrong address (sometimes because I'm stupid and can't read, far more often because my caller is directionally challenged). Every time I've managed to get my bearings without tasing someone, but there have been times when the person answering the door was surly, uncooperative and hostile.
Now, before you say that this is no reason for Tasering someone, you're right. Read on. The following is hypothetical, btw.
Add in the fact that you're looking for a DV, you have some guy who is acting a fool, and possibly other indicators that you have the right address, and suddenly there is a much greater possibility that this juicing was justified.
Could this officer have screwed up utterly? Absolutely. Could this Marine have straight up talked and threatened his way into the 5-second ride of his life? Absolutely.
Read Jeff White's post again.
So, which was this? A trigger happy foolish cop, or a citizen who happened to have a series of unfortunate events occur and allowed his attitude and actions to preclude any possibility of sorting it out peacefully?
I have no clue. My experience tells me that the latter is far more likely than the former, but I also know that the former is by no means impossible. We don't have enough details to tell. And one should never, ever accept the statements offered in a newspaper as being accurate or reliable. Rememberm these are the same people who have shooters using .380 caliber rifles and assault rifle SKSes. What makes you think they're any more accurate about the confusing "minor" details of an altercation?
DING DING DING DING DING.
This, actually, is a major point of mine. Until a competent and complete investigation is conducted, no one can either exonerate the police or condemn the suspect. You simply lack the information to do so. This is why most of the time you'll hear me saying "can't tell, it depends" in refence to all of these threads. We continue to insist on amusing and angering ourselves with them, and I continue to point out that 99.9% of what we're doing is filling in the massive blanks with conjecture and, I suspect, wishful thinking.
Read back over this thread. Read back over every thread like it. What you'll find is that most of the time you have the cops going "Well, we really don't know...it could have happened like this, but could have happened like that" interspersed with a lot of fist shaking and "jack booted thug" namecalling. Not always, but that is the trend. That's not circling the wagons, that's wanting truth to come out, one way or the other.
Mike
rock jock
Member
On this forum, I agree with that statement. On other forums (read "Cop Talk" on GlockTalk, there is the tendency to take the cop's side in every hypothetical.
Depending on how they do things and the particulars of the situation, the presence or absence of this information on the immediately-available public document is meaningless. There would certainly be some documentation of the reason for using the taser, but that would not necessarily be on the "incident report." We, for instance, would put it on our use of force paperwork. Such things are available to the prosecution and defense, and to the media with a FOIA inquiry, but not given to reporters at simple request as a matter of course, as it contains personal information about the suspect.
Mike
LiquidTension
Member
Marine: *waves hand slowly* "This isn't the apartment you're looking for."
Cop: "Uhh...this isn't the apartment I'm looking for."
Marine: "Move along."
Cop: "Move along."
Cop: "Uhh...this isn't the apartment I'm looking for."
Marine: "Move along."
Cop: "Move along."
Taser training goes over and over AND OVER it is NOT A TOOL TO GAIN COMPLIANCE!!! it is a tool for DEFENSIVE USAGE!!
I'm very pro-cop but frankly if they can't figure that out guess it's time take them away. It's a shame because if used as directed as a tactic just below deadly force, it could save lives on both sides.
I'm very pro-cop but frankly if they can't figure that out guess it's time take them away. It's a shame because if used as directed as a tactic just below deadly force, it could save lives on both sides.
Vernal45
member
The following article, a follow up to this, explains why most think the Police State is here, and why most Cops get a bad rap.
Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2005
Click here to find out more!
Follow directions first; make explanations later
Re: "Shock, but no awe, for Marine" (news article, April 3).
The secondary headline stating "Deputy uses Taser on wrong man" was incorrect. The deputy did go to the wrong apartment, but that had nothing to do with the use of his Taser. Mr. Jackson was shot with the Taser because he refused to follow simple commands given by the deputy, commands that the deputy believed were in the legal scope of his duties.
Nobody is accusing Mr. Jackson of being a criminal or a bad person. He sounds like he is just the opposite, and I respect him and am grateful to him for being a Marine. But it doesn't matter if you are a homeless person, a cook at McDonald's, a Marine, or a senator. If a deputy says to you "Until I can figure out what is going on, you need to turn around now, or you're going to get Tasered," then you need to comply.
When the situation is controlled, then you can explain what you want to explain.
Mr. Jackson says he "wants some answers." The answer is obvious. When a law enforcement officer points a weapon at you and gives you simple commands, you need to follow them. When the situation is under control, (weapons holstered, etc.) then you can ask questions, speak to supervisors, file complaints, whatever. Until then, you simply obey commands.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/11327346.htm
Posted on Thu, Apr. 07, 2005
Click here to find out more!
Follow directions first; make explanations later
Re: "Shock, but no awe, for Marine" (news article, April 3).
The secondary headline stating "Deputy uses Taser on wrong man" was incorrect. The deputy did go to the wrong apartment, but that had nothing to do with the use of his Taser. Mr. Jackson was shot with the Taser because he refused to follow simple commands given by the deputy, commands that the deputy believed were in the legal scope of his duties.
Nobody is accusing Mr. Jackson of being a criminal or a bad person. He sounds like he is just the opposite, and I respect him and am grateful to him for being a Marine. But it doesn't matter if you are a homeless person, a cook at McDonald's, a Marine, or a senator. If a deputy says to you "Until I can figure out what is going on, you need to turn around now, or you're going to get Tasered," then you need to comply.
When the situation is controlled, then you can explain what you want to explain.
Mr. Jackson says he "wants some answers." The answer is obvious. When a law enforcement officer points a weapon at you and gives you simple commands, you need to follow them. When the situation is under control, (weapons holstered, etc.) then you can ask questions, speak to supervisors, file complaints, whatever. Until then, you simply obey commands.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/11327346.htm
I get the idea that Cop Talk is more like "Cops Behaving Badly." I've never been over there, nor do I intend to go. I think its natural for any group (cop, gun-owner, etc) to assume the best of the actions of their comrades when in conversation with them and amongst "your own kind." Of course, I'm sure there are a fair number of the (statistically rare, at least in my RL experience) JBT types there, too. They thrive in the echo chambers. That goes for the fist-shaking cop haters, too.
Its a far more challenging environment outside of the locker room, interacting with people who don't necessarily agree with you all of the time.
Mike
Vernal45-
Sir, that's not an article. That is, at best, an editorial. Even more likely, it sounds like a letter to the editor. So, the fact that someone holds that opinion and has access to email makes you think that the police state has arrived?
I'm confused.
Mike
Sir, that's not an article. That is, at best, an editorial. Even more likely, it sounds like a letter to the editor. So, the fact that someone holds that opinion and has access to email makes you think that the police state has arrived?
I'm confused.
Mike
Vernal45
member
Dont be confuesd Mike, the fact that I think the police state has arrive is the original story. Cop shows up, wrong address, Marine is tazed. This marine was in his house, with his family, doing nothing wrong. Yet, he get this kid of treatment, and folks, LEO's and others, think he should have complied with the officer, who was in the wrong. When LEO's, can come and go as they please, even when they are in the wrong, and not get into trouble, then yes, you have an LEO dominated society. This sort of behavior pi$$es me off. If Good LEO's, like yourself, would police the bad LEO's instead of circling the wagons, this kind of behavior would not happen. Come on, this could have happened to any of us. Sitting at home, eating dinner with the wife and kids, knock on the door, "sir, we have had a call of DV, need you to turn around". ***, I dont think so, that is an intrusion, a bad intrusion of civil rights. I used to be a cop, and I know DV situations, and procedures of Cops that go to handle them. WITH ALL THE INFO WE HAVE AT THIS POINT, THE COP SCREWED UP.................
LEO's do not have powers that trump everything, no way.
LEO's do not have powers that trump everything, no way.
Warren
Member
What would have happened if the dude just CLOSED the door?
Or refused to answer it in the first place?
Could the cop break it down?
Anyone got an echo chamber? 'Cause I want to shake my fist in it. Sounds like fun.
Or refused to answer it in the first place?
Could the cop break it down?
Anyone got an echo chamber? 'Cause I want to shake my fist in it. Sounds like fun.
bradvanhorn
Member
I'd love to meet the clown that offered the above... I sincerely hope he's not a sworn officer.
Said Officer approaches man who is minding his own business while waiting for oil change at Jiffy Lube.
Officer: "Sir, hand over your keys and your wallet."
Man: "Excuse me? Why should I give you my keys and my wallet?"
Officer pulls Taser and points at man...
Officer: "Sir, hand over your keys and your wallet... NOW."
Man: "What the heck are you talking about?! I haven't done anything, and I'm not giving you anything!"
ZZZZZZZZTT (hello Mr. Taser)
Officer: "Are you going to cooperate now?"
Silence...
Officer: "Hmmm, guess I better call for an ambulance..."
Sorry folks; I just couldn't contain the sarcasm...
Vernal45
member
Double tap bradvanhorn. Sarcasm aside, thats exactly what is happening.
Uh.
I don't think that's quite right.
Like the other gentleman said, A TASER IS FOR DEFENSIVE USE. IT IS NOT A COMPLIANCE TOOL.
I am fully for completely ruining any LEO's career for idiotic misuses of defensive weaponry. Fire them, cut their pension, humiliate them in the papers. This stuff has t be stopped.
Where are you Molon Labe, Vote from the Rooftops, yada yada people when crap like this happens and a stand needs to be made? Oh, right, you're taking violent decisive action with heroic forum posts.
DeputyVaughn
Member
I've read the comments on this article here and on the Gunsnet General Discussion board. The article as given on the Gunsnet board is much longer and though still incomplete has a few more details. My comments on that board were met with the usual anti-cop attitudes and I decided to break off as no one was gonna change their minds on this incident. I suspect that will also be the case here. Some of my thoughts follow (some copied from Gunsnet):
As for the deputy being at the wrong address: It sounds like the apartments were all in one building. I've answered numerous calls where upon arrival I still had to sort out which apartment was which. I don't know about this case but often times the apartments aren't marked very well and you simply start with the loudest or most obvious one or go to where people are congregating to start with and sort it out from there.
The marine wasn't accused of anything. He was told (according to the article) that he should comply until the deputy had a hold on the situation. Sounds like the deputy was pretty clear of his intent and instructions. I get the impression the marine was trying to save face by standing up to the deputy when a prudent man might have complied and waited out the results of the investigation. This may have been from his training, maybe for a moment it was like being a POW and he reacted as such.
In the other article it said that the marine threw his identification down at the deputies feet as one does in the military when being questioned. I would have interprited the throwing down of an I.D. as a sign of disrespect or an attempt to trick me into a vulnerable position for attack. Sound to me like a misunderstanding caused by backgrounds and training conflicts. The marine was in the deputies world.
This whole incident sounds regretable for both parties. The deputy was responding to a domestic call and it is normal to detain everybody near the scene until things are sorted out. It's not unusal for the offending party to be trying to leave the scene as the law arrives. The deputy did not know yet if he had victims or injuries at the scene. He was still trying to gain control of the scene. The marine was preventing him from doing his investigation by not cooperating. The deputy here may have been a little quick on the trigger but I don't think he acted out of policy (Policy as stated in the article). He tried verbally to get the man to submit to his orders. He warned him what was about to occur. If the marine had simply complied and let the deputy do his job he wouldn't have been tased.
As for me, when I'm called to a disturbance, the first order of business is to establish control of the scene. "But it's my house", "Yes, but while I'm here I'm in control....period. Someone called me here and I have a right to be here until I determine that no crime is being committed and no one is being hurt or abused."
I have not been issued a taser yet and don't really care to have one. I do pretty good verbally and if necessary can escalate to another level. Every situation is fluid and must be handled by fast wits and by an officer being quick to be the one in control. The deputy in this story was trying to do that and the marine was interfering by non compliance, how was the deputy to know he wasn't from the disturbance he was called to.
I let my wife read this thread and her thought was that what happened was two men who were used to being in control of their enviroment ran into each other. Not really a bad synopsis of the situation, but like I said before, the marine was in the deputies world, not the other way around. Without more facts I would stand behind the actions of the deputy. I guess that makes me one of those evil jack booted thugs we all read about.
Scott
As for the deputy being at the wrong address: It sounds like the apartments were all in one building. I've answered numerous calls where upon arrival I still had to sort out which apartment was which. I don't know about this case but often times the apartments aren't marked very well and you simply start with the loudest or most obvious one or go to where people are congregating to start with and sort it out from there.
The marine wasn't accused of anything. He was told (according to the article) that he should comply until the deputy had a hold on the situation. Sounds like the deputy was pretty clear of his intent and instructions. I get the impression the marine was trying to save face by standing up to the deputy when a prudent man might have complied and waited out the results of the investigation. This may have been from his training, maybe for a moment it was like being a POW and he reacted as such.
In the other article it said that the marine threw his identification down at the deputies feet as one does in the military when being questioned. I would have interprited the throwing down of an I.D. as a sign of disrespect or an attempt to trick me into a vulnerable position for attack. Sound to me like a misunderstanding caused by backgrounds and training conflicts. The marine was in the deputies world.
This whole incident sounds regretable for both parties. The deputy was responding to a domestic call and it is normal to detain everybody near the scene until things are sorted out. It's not unusal for the offending party to be trying to leave the scene as the law arrives. The deputy did not know yet if he had victims or injuries at the scene. He was still trying to gain control of the scene. The marine was preventing him from doing his investigation by not cooperating. The deputy here may have been a little quick on the trigger but I don't think he acted out of policy (Policy as stated in the article). He tried verbally to get the man to submit to his orders. He warned him what was about to occur. If the marine had simply complied and let the deputy do his job he wouldn't have been tased.
As for me, when I'm called to a disturbance, the first order of business is to establish control of the scene. "But it's my house", "Yes, but while I'm here I'm in control....period. Someone called me here and I have a right to be here until I determine that no crime is being committed and no one is being hurt or abused."
I have not been issued a taser yet and don't really care to have one. I do pretty good verbally and if necessary can escalate to another level. Every situation is fluid and must be handled by fast wits and by an officer being quick to be the one in control. The deputy in this story was trying to do that and the marine was interfering by non compliance, how was the deputy to know he wasn't from the disturbance he was called to.
I let my wife read this thread and her thought was that what happened was two men who were used to being in control of their enviroment ran into each other. Not really a bad synopsis of the situation, but like I said before, the marine was in the deputies world, not the other way around. Without more facts I would stand behind the actions of the deputy. I guess that makes me one of those evil jack booted thugs we all read about.
Scott
DeputyVaughn
Member
This is the longer article as posted on the Gunsnet Board:
Posted on Sun, Apr. 03, 2005
Shock, but no awe, for Marine
Deputy uses Taser on wrong man
By Todd Wright
Democrat STAFF WRITER
As he stood in the line of a Leon County deputy's Taser, Demar Jackson made a final attempt to explain: The deputy had the wrong guy.
The domestic disturbance the deputy was responding to involved Apartment B. Jackson lived in A.
For the third time, the deputy ordered Jackson to turn around.
Jackson's wife and their 3-year-old son ran outside to see what was happening. At that moment, the deputy shot his Taser. It pierced Jackson's bare chest and abdomen and sent 50,000 watts of electricity into him. The 30-year-old Marine reservist fell to his knees.
The deputy and two others who arrived at the Tallahassee apartment complex soon realized he'd been telling the truth and checked on Apartment B but made no arrests.
Jackson, however, just four days after returning from a tour of duty in Africa, found himself handcuffed in the back of a patrol car, headed to jail on charges of resisting arrest without violence.
What turned out to be a big misunderstanding could morph into a legal battle. Jackson, who has no criminal record, is fighting the charges and filed a complaint Friday.
Sgt. Chris Chase, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office, said the March 7 incident is under internal investigation but declined to comment on whether the charges would be dropped. Of the 107 times deputies have used a Taser since January 2004, this is the third complaint.
A good Marine
It was a far cry from the welcome Jackson expected when he returned from Africa after more than six months there as a member of Company C, 8th Tank Battalion, U.S. Marine Reserves.
"At first, I couldn't believe what was happening. I thought I was staring down the barrel of a .45 or something," said Jackson, recalling his surprise when Deputy John Daly pulled the weapon on him. "I was thinking to myself, 'I just got back from overseas and now I have to deal with this?"'
He pleaded not guilty Tuesday. Trial is set for April 19.
Jackson admits that he questioned Daly's orders to turn around. When he was in the patrol car later, Jackson said, the deputy's only explanation for taking him to jail was that he'd had to use his weapon.
"I asked him about their rules of engagement. I know we have some in the military when we are questioning a subject," Jackson said. "I had no clue what I had done. He wouldn't answer me."
Jackson has been in the Marine reserves for about five years and is still on active duty.
It would be "out of character for Jackson to resist or cause a problem for an officer," said Capt. Jeffrey Houston, the inspector instructor at the local Naval and Marine Corps Training Center.
"He is a very calm and collected individual," he said. "I consider him one of the better Marines in the reserve company."
Rules for Taser use
Daly has been a full-time deputy since October. He joined the department in July 2003 as a reserve deputy.
His report of the incident indicates his commands to Jackson but doesn't mention any signs of physical resistance or aggressive behavior.
The Sheriff's Office guidelines for use of force say a Taser can be used once there is a "slight potential for physical harm," defined as a "subject physically refusing to comply or respond to a deputy's command." The definition goes on to say use is allowed even if the suspect "does not make any attempt to physically defeat the actions of the deputy."
Capt. Gene Revell, who supervises training for the Sheriff's Office, said a Taser basically can be used if the deputy thinks he might have to physically make contact with a suspect. If a deputy's command is not met, he said, then the Taser can be applied.
Jackson said he never moved toward the deputy. He said he had his hands above his head during most of the encounter, bringing them down only to reach into his pocket and toss his military ID at Daly's feet - a procedure used in the military when soldiers question a subject.
The deputy's report states that just before he shot Jackson he said, "Until I can figure out what is going on, you need to turn around now, or you're going to get Tased."
Jackson says he was about to obey the order when he was shot.
Different standard for cops
Tasers transmit electricity into a suspect in five-second bursts through two prongs that attach to the clothing or skin.
Since the Police Department began using Tasers two years ago, they've fired them about 16 times a month. Officers are authorized to use them when a suspect is offering active resistance - by fleeing, aggressive posturing or physically attacking the officer.
"Words alone won't do it," said Capt. Chris Connell, co-author of the department's rules on necessary force. "But words with body language and other things could possibly get you Tased. You really have to be there and be the one making that decision. If an officer feels threatened, then I think the use of a Taser is warranted."
Connell said it's always a good idea for officers to tell people why they want them to do something, to help de-escalate potential confrontations or avoid confusion.
"It certainly doesn't hurt," he said. "The more you can explain to people in a certain situation, the easier it becomes to establish control."
For now, what Jackson most remembers about his first week home is what caused the two burn marks on his torso: the Taser's intense heat.
"It was scary when it happened, but I am trying to move forward," he said. "I want some answers."
Contact reporter Todd Wright at (850) 599-2206 or [email protected].
Posted on Sun, Apr. 03, 2005
Shock, but no awe, for Marine
Deputy uses Taser on wrong man
By Todd Wright
Democrat STAFF WRITER
As he stood in the line of a Leon County deputy's Taser, Demar Jackson made a final attempt to explain: The deputy had the wrong guy.
The domestic disturbance the deputy was responding to involved Apartment B. Jackson lived in A.
For the third time, the deputy ordered Jackson to turn around.
Jackson's wife and their 3-year-old son ran outside to see what was happening. At that moment, the deputy shot his Taser. It pierced Jackson's bare chest and abdomen and sent 50,000 watts of electricity into him. The 30-year-old Marine reservist fell to his knees.
The deputy and two others who arrived at the Tallahassee apartment complex soon realized he'd been telling the truth and checked on Apartment B but made no arrests.
Jackson, however, just four days after returning from a tour of duty in Africa, found himself handcuffed in the back of a patrol car, headed to jail on charges of resisting arrest without violence.
What turned out to be a big misunderstanding could morph into a legal battle. Jackson, who has no criminal record, is fighting the charges and filed a complaint Friday.
Sgt. Chris Chase, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office, said the March 7 incident is under internal investigation but declined to comment on whether the charges would be dropped. Of the 107 times deputies have used a Taser since January 2004, this is the third complaint.
A good Marine
It was a far cry from the welcome Jackson expected when he returned from Africa after more than six months there as a member of Company C, 8th Tank Battalion, U.S. Marine Reserves.
"At first, I couldn't believe what was happening. I thought I was staring down the barrel of a .45 or something," said Jackson, recalling his surprise when Deputy John Daly pulled the weapon on him. "I was thinking to myself, 'I just got back from overseas and now I have to deal with this?"'
He pleaded not guilty Tuesday. Trial is set for April 19.
Jackson admits that he questioned Daly's orders to turn around. When he was in the patrol car later, Jackson said, the deputy's only explanation for taking him to jail was that he'd had to use his weapon.
"I asked him about their rules of engagement. I know we have some in the military when we are questioning a subject," Jackson said. "I had no clue what I had done. He wouldn't answer me."
Jackson has been in the Marine reserves for about five years and is still on active duty.
It would be "out of character for Jackson to resist or cause a problem for an officer," said Capt. Jeffrey Houston, the inspector instructor at the local Naval and Marine Corps Training Center.
"He is a very calm and collected individual," he said. "I consider him one of the better Marines in the reserve company."
Rules for Taser use
Daly has been a full-time deputy since October. He joined the department in July 2003 as a reserve deputy.
His report of the incident indicates his commands to Jackson but doesn't mention any signs of physical resistance or aggressive behavior.
The Sheriff's Office guidelines for use of force say a Taser can be used once there is a "slight potential for physical harm," defined as a "subject physically refusing to comply or respond to a deputy's command." The definition goes on to say use is allowed even if the suspect "does not make any attempt to physically defeat the actions of the deputy."
Capt. Gene Revell, who supervises training for the Sheriff's Office, said a Taser basically can be used if the deputy thinks he might have to physically make contact with a suspect. If a deputy's command is not met, he said, then the Taser can be applied.
Jackson said he never moved toward the deputy. He said he had his hands above his head during most of the encounter, bringing them down only to reach into his pocket and toss his military ID at Daly's feet - a procedure used in the military when soldiers question a subject.
The deputy's report states that just before he shot Jackson he said, "Until I can figure out what is going on, you need to turn around now, or you're going to get Tased."
Jackson says he was about to obey the order when he was shot.
Different standard for cops
Tasers transmit electricity into a suspect in five-second bursts through two prongs that attach to the clothing or skin.
Since the Police Department began using Tasers two years ago, they've fired them about 16 times a month. Officers are authorized to use them when a suspect is offering active resistance - by fleeing, aggressive posturing or physically attacking the officer.
"Words alone won't do it," said Capt. Chris Connell, co-author of the department's rules on necessary force. "But words with body language and other things could possibly get you Tased. You really have to be there and be the one making that decision. If an officer feels threatened, then I think the use of a Taser is warranted."
Connell said it's always a good idea for officers to tell people why they want them to do something, to help de-escalate potential confrontations or avoid confusion.
"It certainly doesn't hurt," he said. "The more you can explain to people in a certain situation, the easier it becomes to establish control."
For now, what Jackson most remembers about his first week home is what caused the two burn marks on his torso: the Taser's intense heat.
"It was scary when it happened, but I am trying to move forward," he said. "I want some answers."
Contact reporter Todd Wright at (850) 599-2206 or [email protected].
EasternShore
Member
Once again...Wrong!
If you are at the wrong address then you are not in control, you have no reason in my house if you can not figure out where the @#$% you are. What happened to the presumption of innocence, what the @#%@ do you have a radio for? use it. I have friends that are LEOs, they are great guys, most are somewhat cynical but they even police their own forces (advantage of living in a small town). My point is that every officer around here knows someone who knwos someone, you don't use you head your gonna get in trouble. You have a dispatcher and a radio and a brain from a reason, tasing someone to get compliance or because the slightest threat is precieved is not the answer. When you swore your oath of office you inherited the risks of physical harm and possibly death. Accept your risk or get another job, most LEOs are not under contract. Tired of hearing this I am the athority crap...
Your not lawyers your not justices of the peace, most don't even know all the laws on the books. That why you are tought to investigate. Tasing and arresting is not investigating! there is a huge @#$# difference. accept it.
If you are at the wrong address then you are not in control, you have no reason in my house if you can not figure out where the @#$% you are. What happened to the presumption of innocence, what the @#%@ do you have a radio for? use it. I have friends that are LEOs, they are great guys, most are somewhat cynical but they even police their own forces (advantage of living in a small town). My point is that every officer around here knows someone who knwos someone, you don't use you head your gonna get in trouble. You have a dispatcher and a radio and a brain from a reason, tasing someone to get compliance or because the slightest threat is precieved is not the answer. When you swore your oath of office you inherited the risks of physical harm and possibly death. Accept your risk or get another job, most LEOs are not under contract. Tired of hearing this I am the athority crap...
Your not lawyers your not justices of the peace, most don't even know all the laws on the books. That why you are tought to investigate. Tasing and arresting is not investigating! there is a huge @#$# difference. accept it.
Vernal45
member
In this case, NO ONE called the Deputy to the Marines residence. There was not a call.
Deputy Vaughn,
I hope for your safety, that you mellow, lose the Alexander Haig Syndrome you have, and realize what Law Enforcement is all about. You may just have one of your "I am here, and until I find out what is going on, I am in charge" incidents, and the person decides he is going to clean your clock. I also read in your post, about the dropping the Id on the ground being disrespectful. Where, and in What Penal code does it state that ANYONE has to be respectful to an LEO. You dont ge imbued with respect just becasue you are wearing a badge. LEO's are sworn to protect the public, and uphold Laws, it is the PUBLIC that should be RESPECTED.
Vernal45
member
KLR
Member
As an LE instructor at an agency that doesn't issue a Taser, I find this a little disturbing. What level on the use of force continuum does the Taser fall under? I would guess it would be an "intermediate weapon" putting it in the general ballpark of baton strikes and (depending upon the agency) OC spray. OC is sometimes put just below intermediate weapons on a par with punches, kicks, etc. directed at nerve bundles.
Anyway, it seems inappropriate (given my limited understanding) to use that level of force for someone who was (according to the article) verbally non-compliant. It doesn't appear that the marine ever engaged in passive resistance, active resistance, or active aggression.
Assuming the Taser is considered an intermediate weapon (again, I don't know where it falls), would the deputy have struck the marine with his baton in the absence of a Taser? Would he have used OC?
Given the dept. policy involving "slight potential for physical harm", it sounds like dept. policy might need a review.
Anyway, it seems inappropriate (given my limited understanding) to use that level of force for someone who was (according to the article) verbally non-compliant. It doesn't appear that the marine ever engaged in passive resistance, active resistance, or active aggression.
Assuming the Taser is considered an intermediate weapon (again, I don't know where it falls), would the deputy have struck the marine with his baton in the absence of a Taser? Would he have used OC?
Given the dept. policy involving "slight potential for physical harm", it sounds like dept. policy might need a review.
DeputyVaughn
Member
Vernal45,
I'm not going to get into any kind of pissing match here. I simply stated my opinion. You have every right to differ. I think you'd find me to be very "mellow" if I was ever to respond to a call to your residence as long as we could have a productive conversation about why I was there.
In the case of the marine, you said that the deputy wasn't called there. He was. He arrived at a scene and in the process of sorting out what happened he encountered the marine outside (from my reading). He had not yet found the right appartment but chose to ask the marine some questions. I can picture the scene in my mind. I would imagine that the least bit of cooperation on the marines part would have been appreciated and would have made things turn out different. We aren't told enough about the incident to know what that confrontation was really like. I'm sorry you believe I'm some sort of badge happy thug. I think your wrong.
KLR, I don't fully agree with what is printed about the use of force policy regarding the taser. It's a relatively new tool and I'm sure many departments are ironing out usage policies. I don't have one and don't have to consider that option. I can say I have to get pretty hard pressed to use my O.C. spray and can say that I can count on one hand the times it's been used in almost 6 years on the road.
My statements and opinions are based completely on what I've read and what I've experienced in similar situations myself. I believe that anyone who's read my post over the years on these and other forums would say I'm a fair and reasonable man in most matters. I'm not telling anyone what to think here but I think readers should put themselves in the deputy's position for a moment and give him a little more benefit of the doubt in this case. I'd wager that after it was all said and done he offered an apology to the marine for tasing him and the marine accepted and said something like I understand why you did it. The whole incident could have been handled differently, but hindsight is 20/20 ain't it?
Scott
I'm not going to get into any kind of pissing match here. I simply stated my opinion. You have every right to differ. I think you'd find me to be very "mellow" if I was ever to respond to a call to your residence as long as we could have a productive conversation about why I was there.
In the case of the marine, you said that the deputy wasn't called there. He was. He arrived at a scene and in the process of sorting out what happened he encountered the marine outside (from my reading). He had not yet found the right appartment but chose to ask the marine some questions. I can picture the scene in my mind. I would imagine that the least bit of cooperation on the marines part would have been appreciated and would have made things turn out different. We aren't told enough about the incident to know what that confrontation was really like. I'm sorry you believe I'm some sort of badge happy thug. I think your wrong.
KLR, I don't fully agree with what is printed about the use of force policy regarding the taser. It's a relatively new tool and I'm sure many departments are ironing out usage policies. I don't have one and don't have to consider that option. I can say I have to get pretty hard pressed to use my O.C. spray and can say that I can count on one hand the times it's been used in almost 6 years on the road.
My statements and opinions are based completely on what I've read and what I've experienced in similar situations myself. I believe that anyone who's read my post over the years on these and other forums would say I'm a fair and reasonable man in most matters. I'm not telling anyone what to think here but I think readers should put themselves in the deputy's position for a moment and give him a little more benefit of the doubt in this case. I'd wager that after it was all said and done he offered an apology to the marine for tasing him and the marine accepted and said something like I understand why you did it. The whole incident could have been handled differently, but hindsight is 20/20 ain't it?
Scott
BULLCRAP!!!!!!!! That does it!!!!! If a LEO ever comes to my door, sorry but I'm not opening it. We can talk through a window or they can make an appointment to meet me when I can have an atty present.
I don't care if they are just asking if I"ve seen the neighbors missing cat. I've lost faith in law enforcement. If they want to talk to me, their going to have to kick down the door to do so. And that will open up a new can of worms. I'm so sick and tired of hearing stories like this.
I hope this marine sues the crap out of this police dept. I hope he gets a settlement so big, the PD dept will have to sell cookies to raise money for bullets. No sympathy from me whatso ever.
the tasering cop didnt have his facts straight,assaulted mr. jackson with a taser gun then detained mr. jackson and charged him with resisting arrest..
like it or not, the tasering cop was in the wrong...I wouldnt be surprised if mr. jackson decides to file a civil suit against the tasering cop and his dept. He would certainly be justified in doing so. I wouldnt blame him at all.
A-C-C-O-U-N-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y!!!
like it or not, the tasering cop was in the wrong...I wouldnt be surprised if mr. jackson decides to file a civil suit against the tasering cop and his dept. He would certainly be justified in doing so. I wouldnt blame him at all.
A-C-C-O-U-N-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y!!!
He can and chances are favorable, he would win...cept the taxpayers would end up paying for it one way or another.
- Status