Someone here posted that pregnant moms and children are excluded from being tasered:
Seems they are incorrect.
I found this pregnant mom was tasered:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223578_taser10.html
and here is article of a 6 yr old that was tasered:
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/11/16/Ta...t_age__g.shtml
1. I gave you my PD's policy. This is not the same as every PD's policy.
2. Even my PD's policy will make an exception based upon circumstances. Each use of the Taser is evaluated case-by-case, and if I can articulate a really good reason for deviating from the SOP, I can still be ruled within policy.
3. In the pregnant woman episode, the police did not know she was pregnant. The propriety of your actions (citizen, police) are judged by what you knew at the time you performed your action, not what was learned later.
4. In the article about the children, it plainly states that local policy allows the circumstances to dictate how the Taser is applied, as opposed to allowing age alone to dictate when it can and cannot be applied. I'm not sure that one can rationally argue that allowing a 6 year old to slice his wrist with a piece of glass is morally superior to using a Taser to disable him without injury. The keys to that case would be the reasonableness of the belief that he was going to do it and the reasonableness of the belief that he could do it prior to being grabbed. Frankly, if I had anyone, at any age, threatening to slice his wrist with a shard of glass and I did not think I could close with him and prevent it, I would absolutely fire up the Taser. That sounds like a perfect use of the tool to me; everyone, even the suspect/victim, is unharmed.
From another poster:
Really, the abuse of the tool is just the symptom of the deeper problem of the state believing a lack of compliance is justification for force. It's the us vs. them mentality run amok
...So, what is the power to arrest, then? If nothing else, it is the authority to use force to take someone into custody, in order to bring them before a judge (the primary purpose) and to prevent harm to persons and property (secondary purposes). Unsurprisingly, many people are not compliant with the request to submit to arrest. This leaves the police with the option of not arresting them (dereliction of duty, or nonfeasance), or using force to compel.
Now, can one have a debate about whether or not a given level of force is appropriate to the situation at hand? Certainly.
Mike
PS OK, this is and has veered far enough into politics that I think we should do the following:
1. This thread will be closed.
2. Anyone is welcome to re-open one in this forum, discussing the TECHNICAL aspects of the Taser only.
3. Anyone is welcome to re-open one in the L&P forum, discussing the politics.