Safety of tasers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Want to see "police abuse" end completely?
Simple:
Officer "A" has been proven to violate someone's Constitutional Rights.
Do nothing to Officer "A". No loss of job, no suspension, no fine , nothing.
What you do is pick 5 officers at random within the department and put them in general population at a maximum security prison for 5 years{with no chance of parole} for the violation of oath by officer "A".
The Departments around the country will clean themselves up in a matter of days.
But we all know this will never happen.
 
Manedwolf said;
I see it used too often for compliance, not due to any threat.
Click to expand...

Virtually all police use of force is to gain compliance. Perhaps in your world the police send out written invitations to criminals asking them to stop by the station at their convenience to have a chat about whatever crime is involved? :rolleyes:

In real life we have to go out and find the criminals and ask them in person. Often, for reasons I'll never understand, they decline to come along. In that case we work our way up the force continuum ladder until we find the thing that makes them comply.

Many people think that peace officers can only use force in response to an attack. That is not true. The law permits them to use force to effect an arrest. It would be great if everyone just complied. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Most use of force is done to gain compliance.

Jeff
 
"Virtually all police use of force is to gain compliance."
"The law permits them to use force to effect an arrest."
"Most use of force is done to gain compliance."

At some point in there you jump from not complying to an arrestable offence, which I don't understand.

Jeff, could you outline for me differences in compliance (when people have to), arrest, and detention? When is it okay not to comply with the police? Can a person be detained or arrested only for non-compliance? Can a person be detained forcefully, or is resisting detention a crime by itself worthy of arrest (and use of force)? If so, can a cop make a criminal out of someone by demanding something of them that they (sometimes rightfully) refuse? In this instance can the cop use force?
I ask because these questions seem important when it comes to proper taser use. I also understand that cops need to be allowed to do their job properly, which may make some of the answers to those questions unpalatable to many (myself included, though only because all power gets abused eventually- though I don't hold that against cops in particular).

I do think there are times to rightfully refuse an officer's demand, if only because the officer is sometimes ignorant of the situation he finds himself in, and there isn't time to explain.
 
PotatoJudge said;
At some point in there you jump from not complying to an arrestable offence, which I don't understand.

Jeff, could you outline for me differences in compliance (when people have to), arrest, and detention?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the law. The law empowers peace officers to make arrests and it gives them the legal right to use force to effect the arrest:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)
Click to expand...

However this power isn't limited to the police. Laws vary from state to state, but in Illinios, a private citizen has the same authority to use force to effect an arrest:

(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
Click to expand...

In most places it's against the law to resist arrest:

(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest.
A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)
Click to expand...

Someone will chime in here any time now and post that in Texas you can resist arrest under some circumstances. But no one has ever posted a case where the use of that provision of Texas law actually exonerated someone from a resisting arrest charge. The laws have to be this way otherwise it would be almost impossible for the police to do their jobs.

If so, can a cop make a criminal out of someone by demanding something of them that they (sometimes rightfully) refuse?
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes. It's against the law to resist or obstuct a peace officer in the performance of his/her duties just about everywhere.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=60500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
(720 ILCS 5/Art. 31 heading)
ARTICLE 31. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC OFFICERS

(720 ILCS 5/31‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)
Sec. 31‑1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(a‑5) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of resisting or obstructing a peace officer to be sentenced to a minimum of 48 consecutive hours of imprisonment or ordered to perform community service for not less than 100 hours as may be determined by the court. The person shall not be eligible for probation in order to reduce the sentence of imprisonment or community service.
(a‑7) A person convicted for a violation of this Section whose violation was the proximate cause of an injury to a peace officer is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(b) For purposes of this Section, "correctional institution employee" means any person employed to supervise and control inmates incarcerated in a penitentiary, State farm, reformatory, prison, jail, house of correction, police detention area, half‑way house, or other institution or place for the incarceration or custody of persons under sentence for offenses or awaiting trial or sentence for offenses, under arrest for an offense, a violation of probation, a violation of parole, or a violation of mandatory supervised release, or awaiting a bail setting hearing or preliminary hearing, or who are sexually dangerous persons or who are sexually violent persons.
(Source: P.A. 92‑841, eff. 8‑22‑02.)
Click to expand...

Basically, if a person doesn't comply with instrcutions he/she is guilty of obstruction. In virtually all instances where the non-compliance results in the use of force, the person will be charged with the crime of obstruction or resisting depending on how the law is worded in that state.

The law intends for disagreements to be argued in court, not on the street and it has empowered the police to use the force necessary to do their jobs. There are many ways the public can seek redress against a use of excessive force. Police departments have administrative procedures for filing and investigating complaints and there are criminal sanctions and lawsuits.

Things like OC and Tasers are used because they are safer then other methods to gain compliance such as hard open hand techniques, night sticks and batons, pain compliance techniques such a pressure point control techniques and joint manipulation. OC and tasers are better ways of getting compliance then any of the older methods. Are they perfect? No. But the injury rate to both suspects and officers has dropped since we started using them. Suspects and officers were injured and killed greater numbers using the older methods then they have been since the use of tasers and OC has become more common.

Jeff
 
+1, Jeff. The bottom line is that if you fail to comply with an officer's orders and resist, you have just committed an arrestable offense and the use of force in effecting that arrest is justified. If you don't like what the officer is asking you to do, like "Come with me, sir," then the place to make your case is in court in front of the judge, not on the street with the officer. Obviously, if I tell you to do something that's illegal or will result in injury to yourself you should refuse, but instances of that kind of abuse are few and veerrry far between.

If I have a warrant in hand or am told by a reliable source (dispatcher, another peace officer) that there is a warrant for you, I have no choice, I *must* effect an arrest. The wording on the warrants in our jurisdiction and I assume most others is basically a judge ordering any peace officer to arrest the person on the warrant and compel him to appear before the judge. If I'm not willing to do that, I shouldn't be a cop. The guy in the video on the link that was posted earlier in this thread may have had a warrant, we don't know. If he so much as had a ticket for not wearing a seat belt and failed to appear or pay his fine, he would have had a warrant out for him and would have gone to jail. Does a ticket for not wearing a seat belt justify force, including deadly force? It all depends on the person being arrested. That's the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that some of those involved in this discussion don't want to acknowledge.
 
The bottom line is that if you fail to comply with an officer's orders and resist, you have just committed an arrestable offense and the use of force in effecting that arrest is justified.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is whether or not a LEO's orders are even lawful to
start with. America is entering another dark period in its history where the
individual must comply for the good of the collective. LEOs and the general
public have been conditioned well to accept the new rules of their Socialist
state that is anathema to the Constitution.

Sometime back in 1775, a LEO on horseback approaches a man on a wagon:

LEO: "Sir, I need to see your papers."

Citizen: "Papers? I don't have any papers. In fact, I can't even read."

L: "You need to produce something that tells me who you are."

C: "My name is Joe Citizen and I'm travelling from Princeton to Englishtown
to deliver this load of meat before it goes rancid."

L: "That's not good enough. I need papers for you and this load of meat."

C: "Well, it'll have to be. Now I need to be on my way or I lose my entire
load and my family doesn't eat for a week."

L: "Get off your wagon --NOW."

C: "By whose authority do you have the right to do this?"

L: "See this badge and my papers, I have the authority of his Royal Majesty
to do this."

C: "Like I said, I can't read. Quite frankly, you're acting like a common
highwayman (thief) and I think you're here to steal my load. Otherwise,
get out of my way and let me continue on my business and the King can
get his due tax at market."

L: "That's enough out of you."

[Produces staff and knocks C off the wagon. C attempts to grab staff at
which point another man appears on horseback and both beat C about the
head and shoulders until C collapses].

L: "That'll teach you who's in charge."

L2: "What was going on here?"

L: "Resisting arrest."

L2: "Ummm, arrest for what?"

L: "He had an attitude about producing his papers."

[C moans].

L2: "Disrespect to King's officers is the same as disrespect to the King."

:barf:
 
For the record and taught to every EMT/First responder

One person on each limb.
Click to expand...


hahahahaaa, for the record ..!!! First responders restraining someone......?? I spit coffee all over my keyboard..More like "Dispatch, respond (deputy/police) 10-18".....:neener:
 
TBL,
Laws against obstruction go back a long time. They have been enforced for a long time. If it's a socialist plot, it was hatched a couple hundred years ago....

Delta608,

I saw an EMT try to restrain someone once. The guy at the accident scene was refusing treatment but the new EMT was having none of it. I stopped him when he pulled a nylon strap out of his pocket and started to tie the patients hands. Had to explain to him that there was a law against unlawful restraint and that it didn't matter how badly he thought the guy might have been hurt, if he refused treatment, he couldn't be compelled to be treated.

Molon Labe,
Where am I supposed to get six officers from? On a good night there might be 9 or 10 working in the entire county. For that matter where do first responders get at least 4 EMTs to show up at a call? The plain and simple fact is that OC and tasers have lowered the number of injuries to both officers and suspects. Isn't that a good thing?

Jeff
 
TBL:

L: "That's not good enough. I need papers for you and this load of meat."

C: "Well, it'll have to be. Now I need to be on my way or I lose my entire
load and my family doesn't eat for a week."

L: "Get off your wagon --NOW."
Click to expand...

In case you weren't aware, that function in my jurisdiction is delegated to the Arkansas Highway Police, who are certified to enforce Federal ICC regulations. If the nice Highway Police trooper tells you to park your big rig so he can do a safety inspection, you should probably do so or your company will lose its DOT privileges. Note that, generally, the *driver* can leave if he chooses to. It's the *vehicle* that falls under Federal regulation.

If the stop has been made by local law enforcement or the State Police, the
"20 minute" guideline (laid out in Arkansas case law) generally applies and unless the officer can develop PC to hold the individual any longer, the stop must be terminated.
 
Hey before I get flamed too bad....I am JOKING about the EMT's..They are top notch in my book, along with EMS...You guys surely deserve all the respect you get and more....:eek: :eek:
 
Tasers are safe unless you have a heart condition or are on drugs.

I Can imagine the following exchange under our litigous society:

"SIR! STOP BEATING UP THAT WOMAN OR I'LL TAZE YOU"
*beat beat beat*
"SIR! DO YOU HAVE A HEART CONDITION OR ARE YOU ON ANY DRUGS?"
*beat beat beat*
"SIR ANSWER MY QUESTION OR I CANNOT TAZE YOU!"
...
 
Just one point.

You mean to tell me six cops couldnt handle one 17 y/o boy
Click to expand...

When I was 17 I was 6'5", weighed 270 pounds, and could do multiple reps on the bench press of 315. At 17 years old, I cracked somebody's skull open with a single blow, knocked him out, gave him a severe concussion, and he required a huge number of stitches. I wasn't insane or on drugs either, it was actually a perfectly legal act of self defense.

Just because somebody is 17, doesn't make them any less dangerous.
 
i had a 15 year old foster son was 6'2 185. and whenwe sparred i did everything i knew nonlethal except biting and gouging eyes. just to keep him from killing me. and he was just sparring
 
sacp81170a

Just watched the video and I see no problem. The student was resisting, had a point to prove, and a sympathetic audience to play to.
Click to expand...


No problem? The guy is handcuffed, lying on the ground, passively resisting by lying there and not cooperating by walking himself out, and they apply the Taser while repeatedly yelling at him to "Stand up!" until, at the end, they have to drag him out anyway because he appears unable to walk at all at that point.

I have no problem using a Taser on a suspect when necessary for officer safety. Now that I have made that statement - It has no application to what I saw in that video!

Applying a Taser repeatedly to a guy in handcuffs just because the officers are irritated at the inconvenience of having to drag him is just wrong.

Is there anybody here who thinks it would be ok to beat on a handcuffed suspect with batons because he is lying down and making the officers drag him? Even if he had a "point to prove" and a "sympathetic audience" to which he was playing?

If not, then why would you support Tasering him?

Do not even get me started on the cops that Tasered a six year old boy in handcuffs . . .
 
TBL,
Laws against obstruction go back a long time. They have been enforced for a long time. If it's a socialist plot, it was hatched a couple hundred years ago....
Click to expand...

The socialist plot comes in with how the last couple of generations have been
conditioned to turn over their papers, without question, to the man in the
uniform simply because they are requested for no other reason than on the
whim of the man himself. A hasty checkpoint along a road or a sweep
through a college library would have horrified the founding fathers. Today, if
you question it, you must be a terrorist....:rolleyes: ...ah, yes, the conditioning
program has been working quite well. Excellent.

Jeff, I have seen the court system change drastically over the last 20 years.
I have seen "probable cause" turned into a joke. The attitude is now "guilty
until proven innocent." This is completely against the spirit of the Consitution
and the true Rule of Law as intended by our Founding Fathers. That you
would defend this change shows A) either your youthful age or B) your level
of conditioned acceptance.

In case you weren't aware, that function in my jurisdiction is delegated to the Arkansas Highway Police, who are certified to enforce Federal ICC regulations. If the nice Highway Police trooper tells you to park your big rig so he can do a safety inspection, you should probably do so or your company will lose its DOT privileges.
Click to expand...

Provided by the new Crown residing within the DC beltway. Yep, this is
exactly the kind of paperwork, regulation, and free commerce the Founding
Fathers had in mind. Go ahead and keep defending it, sacp. The central
planners will no doubt reward you. Just kiss their be-jeweled hand and
they'll throw you a scrap from their table.
 
Provided by the new Crown residing within the DC beltway. Yep, this is exactly the kind of paperwork, regulation, and free commerce the Founding
Fathers had in mind. Go ahead and keep defending it, sacp. The central
planners will no doubt reward you. Just kiss their be-jeweled hand and
they'll throw you a scrap from their table.
Click to expand...

I guess we should just let big rigs run down the road at 70 mph with no safety inspections ever. Yeah, that'll show the tyrants with the bejeweled hands. Who cares if a few thousand extra people die every year in accidents caused by unsafe equipment... :neener:
 
I'm a little biased on this one because I've got a long family of heart problems. At the age of 22 I cut caffiene consumption way back because my heart would actually skip beats if I had too much. I'm not the least bit overweight, either.

I've also been reading bits over at the LawDog's place on the tasering indicent and I concurr with him. Both parties were at fault.

That said, if I had my druthers, I'd much prefer a good 'ole Texas style whoopin' to a Taser if I were the critter getting unruly. Doc, if needed, can patch up some busted bits and pieces but they're not so good on that whole heart fixing thing just yet. I can deal with a shoulder out of joint -- can't much continue on without a ticker.

Of course, I'm coming at this from the point of a guy that'll comply with an officer's request. Been there, done that. Got good marks on it too. I'll do my level best to keep away from the Taser critter, and if that means rolling away from the prongs just to get away long enough to surrender at the PD I'll do it.
 
I was under the impression that pre-existing heart conditions weren't a factor in taser safety. I seem to remember this also applied to people with ICDs and Pacemakers.

Jeff, thanks for your answers. I'll have to bookmark that page so you won't have to do my legwork in the future.
 
Another thing I never hear about with tasers..who keeps the prongs that stab into you safe? Are they discarded after use or are they somehow recycled with a new charge? I can just see shooting them into an HIV positive subject one day, giving them a good ol wiping off and putting a new charge in to launch them into someone else the next day. Or how about older prongs...getting a lil rusty? Are suspects then treated to tetanus shots?


How unsafe they are to people also depends on how many times they are shocked and for how long. The tests subjects also don't usualy get shocked multiple times. Suspects are even hit with more than one at a time.
 
Yeah, that'll show the tyrants with the bejeweled hands. Who cares if a few thousand extra people die every year in accidents caused by unsafe equipment...
Click to expand...

With that logic, you must be in favor of arsenal licenses, ammunition restrictions,
and a new AWB --after all it's for the good of the community and especially
for the children....;) BTW, when do all those Mexican trucks get to start
flooding the US under NAFTA? Isn't it interesting how we'll enforce "paperwork"
when it comes to American citizens and their small businesses, but not when it
comes to cheap labor for big (socialist) business? There's gotta be some truckers
on THR who could chime in on that note.

In any case, this addresses the coercive authority of government quite well:

Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary
government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law.
Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and
announced beforehand--rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority
will use its coercive power in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of
this knowledge. Though this ideal can never be perfectly achieved, since legislators as well as those to
whom the administration of the law is intrusted are fallible men, the essential point, that the discretion
left to the executive organs wielding coercive power should be reduced as much as possible, is clear
enough. While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the means which
people may use in the pursuit of their aims, under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from
stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is
free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used
deliberately to frustrate his efforts.

--Hayek
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better. ;)
 
Red Herrings

Has anybody here posted that Tasers should never be allowed under any circumstances?

Has anybody here posted that Tasers should never be allowed when a suspect is fighting or threatening physical harm to officers?


No?


:fire:


Then quit with the red herrings and somebody who is defending what was in the video defend:

using Tasers against somebody passively resisting, lying face down on the ground in handcuffs surrounded by multiple officers.

Defend the use of it under any circumstances on a six year old boy in handcuffs!

I really want to hear this. :scrutiny:
 
Last edited:
Malum,

No one here who believes that the state is absolute is going to do that.
Acknowledging that individual situations vary and that not every square
peg has a square hole runs counter to the almost fully engrained socialist
thinking. Such a world requires painting everything with a broad flat brush
made for speed and not the fine filbert brush of a focused artist.

To explain how this once great nation has come to this, I suggest reading
F. A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" in its entirety (not the Readers Digest
version). Milton Friedman thought so highly of the book that he wrote the
introduction for the 1971 German edition and the last US edition. Although
this book is applicable to the political section of bookstores, you are more
likely to find it in economics. It is a very good read.

If you are interested in the individual, we have the authority and comformity
experiments from experimental psychology to show that individuals will
conform to the crowd even when they know the majority is wrong (the
Solomon Asch experiments) and in other cases abuse the power given to
them (as in the Stanley Milgram experiments). There are other experiments
from this time period which would NOT receive IRB approval in today's
universities such as the prison guard abuse experiment.

These researchers show how individuals behave and you can extrapolate why a
LEO might choose to shock someone over and over again. Hayek would back
them up on the larger socio-economic level. You could think of a LEO officer
as the subject (S) in the Milgram Experiment. As long as they have the
authority given to them by the government (E), then anything is possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milgram_experiment.png

This has the Milgram experiment as well as some other interesting things:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3268461451231957070&q=stanley+milgram

This may do more to answer your question than the people here who
apparently have no problem with tasering someone and repeatedly pushing
the shock button while chanting "stand up or else." It will not explain the
adrenaline rush that the individual operating the taser will get. That is
based on the psychological make up of the individual and would
require a professional assessment --which I am qualified to do ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top