Video of a taser being used in a traffic stop
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
mbs357
Member
Someone's always going to complain about excessive force.
What they fail to factor in is that LEOs risk their life every day. Every traffic stop could end in them getting killed, and every dispatch could lead them into a firefight or something similar. If I were them I'd be using such force too.
What they fail to factor in is that LEOs risk their life every day. Every traffic stop could end in them getting killed, and every dispatch could lead them into a firefight or something similar. If I were them I'd be using such force too.
An X26 TASER uses a lithium battery that is good for 250 to 300 five second bursts, with no loss of power. That officer was using an M26 which uses eight, AA batteries, usually rechargeables. They are probably good for 100 to 150 five seconds bursts but they "wear down" as you use them, fewer pulses per second. Fully charged, the M26 is around 19 pulses per second, as is the X26. The M26 is 50,000 volts, 26 watts while the X26 is 50,000 volts, about 7 watts. Both are extremely effective and great tools. I personally own an M26 and an X26 and have a bunch of use videos, they are all good!
thefitzvh
Member
Ya know, I'm involved in a case right now involving an overzealous officer.... and I gotta say...
That was frickin hilarious.
Just goes to show you: if you break the law, and the police tell you to do something.... frickin do it. If you don't, expect to have a bad day.
I would say good shoot, but he didn't shoot... Good jolt, maybe?
That was frickin hilarious.
Just goes to show you: if you break the law, and the police tell you to do something.... frickin do it. If you don't, expect to have a bad day.
I would say good shoot, but he didn't shoot... Good jolt, maybe?
LiquidTension
Member
*zap*
"Get on your stomach!"
"NO!"
*zap*
Priceless
"Get on your stomach!"
"NO!"
*zap*
Priceless
Not violent? Did you and I watch the same video? He fought the officer when the officer attempted to restrain him. Luckily this worked out OK, but just last week I watched a video of an officer in a similar situation, except this time the drunk had his kids with him as an audience. In that incident, after the officer called for back up, the drunk attempted to leave the scene. When the officer attempted to hook him up the drunk also fought, but in that case the drunk got the cop on the ground and had beaten him so bad the cop was drifting in and out of consciousness. All the while the kids were yelling at their father to stop. The only reason the officer survived, or wasn't more severely injured, was a passing motorist slowed, and beat the drunk with a flashlight. After the third strike to the back and head the drunk finally stopped beating the officer.
In the situation in this video things turn out well for the cop, but if you haven't seen how quickly these things can go very bad, it is hard to understand how dangerous this situation was for the officer, as soon as that drunk started actively resisting the TASER, baton, OC, etc were justified. Also, that situation could have become a deadly force situation very quickly. Thankfully he was able to hold his own when the drunk decided to resist, and then get to point where he could use the TASER.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
That was OUTSTANDING!
I am sure Tasers will be determined to be more damaging than we currently perceive, but this shows a great case where it was used effectively. The officer tried traditional restraint methods and the guy resisted. Given that officers are occasionally shot with their own guns that are procured by bad guys during empty-hand struggles (until the bad guy gets the officer's gun), why does the officer need to remain in the proximity of a combative suspect and run the risk? So when the officer was unable to subdue the suspect in the traditional manner, he backed off, offered countless commands that were not responded to properly, and then the officer efficiently used the taser.
That is just outstanding. The best part is that neither person ends up seriously injured and the suspect isn't allowed to rack up any more or more serious charges. It really a win-win situation in this case.
I am sure Tasers will be determined to be more damaging than we currently perceive, but this shows a great case where it was used effectively. The officer tried traditional restraint methods and the guy resisted. Given that officers are occasionally shot with their own guns that are procured by bad guys during empty-hand struggles (until the bad guy gets the officer's gun), why does the officer need to remain in the proximity of a combative suspect and run the risk? So when the officer was unable to subdue the suspect in the traditional manner, he backed off, offered countless commands that were not responded to properly, and then the officer efficiently used the taser.
That is just outstanding. The best part is that neither person ends up seriously injured and the suspect isn't allowed to rack up any more or more serious charges. It really a win-win situation in this case.
Yeah, not violent. Violent would have been him taking a swing at the officer early in the confrontation. Here he was responding to the officer's physical intrusion. It could certainly have escalated into a violent confrontation and I think the officer did a magnificent job of keeping control over the guy while maintaining his own safety. The Taser showed its value to me in that situation. Of course if the guy then pulled a gun it might have ended differently.
artherd
member
Are you kidding? Did you miss the part where the perp attacked the cop with his fists?!
How much more voilent did you want it go get?
mikeb3185
Member
as i said in the "tazered man in wheelchair" thread, i have been tazed(for my job). being a sober person(at the time) you DO NOT want them to do it once let alone multiple times. for those who dont know it feels like every muscle in your body is contracting at the same time and all the air is forced out of your lungs. i feel it is a very effective tool before lethal force. i wish more departments could afford them, i belive each tazer cost $850-$900 and the cartridges cost about $50 each.
Sindawe
Member
Rule 1: Don't drink and drive.
Rule 2: When the cops catch you drinking and driving, be an adult and accept the responsibility for your mistake.
This case strikes me as an example of appropriate use of a TASER and restraint by the officer. With out the TASER, I suspect the guy would have ended up being shot.
I've never been TASER'd, but I have had a few shocks due to flacky electrically powered equipment. Not something I want to repeat.
Rule 2: When the cops catch you drinking and driving, be an adult and accept the responsibility for your mistake.
This case strikes me as an example of appropriate use of a TASER and restraint by the officer. With out the TASER, I suspect the guy would have ended up being shot.
I've never been TASER'd, but I have had a few shocks due to flacky electrically powered equipment. Not something I want to repeat.
it doesn't matter when the violence occurs, early on or once the officer is attempting to affect the arrest, it's still violence.
Not wanting to be arrested is not an excuse to fight the officer, so the "responding to the officer's physical intrusion," claim is bogus. The guy actively resisted a lawful arrest, and it was a VIOLENT confrontation. Could it have been more violent? Sure, and thankfully it wasn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the actions of the suspect were violent, and caused the officer to respond in the way that he did.
Also, the officer doesn't have to wait to get hit, if the suspect is showing signs of preparing for an assault, the officer may use force to prevent an attack. Just like an officer doesn't have to wait to get shot, before using force to prevent a shooting, they do not have to wait to get hit before using the necessary force to control someone who is preparing to attack.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Outstanding!! Kudos to the trooper.
litman252
Member
At the end the drunk claims to be unable to put his hands behind his back, but he is able to talk to the officer
As for the not very violent part, give me a break
Give it to 'm again, and again, and again.................
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Tony
As for the not very violent part, give me a break
Give it to 'm again, and again, and again.................
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Tony
Riverrat66
Member
I'd be willing to bet that this wasn't this guy's first DUI! He's just a nasty drunk who got just what he deserved! I wondering if he even remembered anything in the morning. I think the DUI charge would be the least of his problems. Maybe he can attend AA meeting while he's in jail!
Main Entry: vi·o·lent
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength -- more at VIM
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : [/b]notably furious or vehement[/b] <a violent denunciation> b : EXTREME, INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <a mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
Sure seems to fit the accepted definition of violent. He was notably furious/vehement about resisting the arrest, and was emotionally agitated to the point that he lost control. There sure was some sudden activity, and the activity was caused by force from the suspect, and demonstrated that he was prone to committing acts of violence. But as you said no need to belabor the point, so I'll be shocked if there is further rebuttal.
Pronunciation: -l&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength -- more at VIM
1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
2 a : [/b]notably furious or vehement[/b] <a violent denunciation> b : EXTREME, INTENSE <violent pain> <violent colors>
3 : caused by force : not natural <a violent death>
4 a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control <a mental patient becoming violent> b : prone to commit acts of violence <violent prison inmates>
Sure seems to fit the accepted definition of violent. He was notably furious/vehement about resisting the arrest, and was emotionally agitated to the point that he lost control. There sure was some sudden activity, and the activity was caused by force from the suspect, and demonstrated that he was prone to committing acts of violence. But as you said no need to belabor the point, so I'll be shocked if there is further rebuttal.
Violent?
If you thought the guy was violent, try this
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2003/local/12/01/whitecastle.html
It is a credit to Cinci police they didnt shoot this guy. If they had I wouldnt have had a problem with it.
If you thought the guy was violent, try this
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2003/local/12/01/whitecastle.html
It is a credit to Cinci police they didnt shoot this guy. If they had I wouldnt have had a problem with it.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Without getting caught up on semantics pertaining to what is or is not violent, the fact remains that he physically attempted to resist arrent and put his hands on the officer so as to preclude being cuffed. Any time a person puts their hands on an officer during a scuffle, the situation becomes critical very quickly.
The officer used a level of force appropriate. Maybe the bad guy was not violent in the sense of trying to overtly hurt the officer. After all, had he done this, the officer would have clubbed down or shot him.
The officer used a level of force appropriate. Maybe the bad guy was not violent in the sense of trying to overtly hurt the officer. After all, had he done this, the officer would have clubbed down or shot him.
Depends on your definition. MADD has been trying to get DUI/DWI classified as a crime of violence for some time now, and they make a point. What other common crime kills and maims as many people?
Then, after endangering unknown numbers by driving a 2 ton vehicle on a public highway while scarey-drunk, he resists arrest, fighting the guy with the gun.
Honestly, I think I'd have to call him violent.
Good tase.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
MADD can make that stupid argument all they want. DUI is not a violent crime just like being drunk isn't a violent crime, just like shooting a gun isn't a violent crime. They don't turn violent until they become destructive in some manner against persons or property and even then, they may not be a crime (except being destructive against other persons in non-self defense situations).
Yes, driving DUI is dangerous, but until somebody gets harmed or property damaged, a violent act hasn't occurred. No doubt DUI on the streets might encompass reckless endangerment, but that isn't the same as being a violent crime.
Yes, DUIs result in a lot of injuries, but it isn't the number of injuries that determine whether DUI is violent or not. That is MADD making an illogical argument. So the numbers are large. Does that mean that at some lessor number of injuries or death that DUI isn't violent? No, of course not. Numbers don't determine whether DUI is violent or not. Whether or not people or property are damaged does.
Yes, driving DUI is dangerous, but until somebody gets harmed or property damaged, a violent act hasn't occurred. No doubt DUI on the streets might encompass reckless endangerment, but that isn't the same as being a violent crime.
Yes, DUIs result in a lot of injuries, but it isn't the number of injuries that determine whether DUI is violent or not. That is MADD making an illogical argument. So the numbers are large. Does that mean that at some lessor number of injuries or death that DUI isn't violent? No, of course not. Numbers don't determine whether DUI is violent or not. Whether or not people or property are damaged does.
I agree with Doublenought. A person would have to be dumb as a turkey or emotionally invested in the issue to see it that way.
A lot of fatalities are not caused by alcohol. Does that mean driving itself is an act of violence (in Philadelphia my experience is yes)?
A large number of people die from medical malpractice every year. Does that mean that attending to someone as a doctor is a form of violence?
It's not the driving that kills people. It's the sudden stops.
A lot of fatalities are not caused by alcohol. Does that mean driving itself is an act of violence (in Philadelphia my experience is yes)?
A large number of people die from medical malpractice every year. Does that mean that attending to someone as a doctor is a form of violence?
It's not the driving that kills people. It's the sudden stops.
DWI is a crime of violence in that, 1)It is a crime, and 2)the effects of DWI tend to involve the use of force against another, or the reasonable expectation of force.
To illustrate: If Joe Critter decides that he doesn't like you, waits for you to step out of your house, and then accelerates to a speed of fifty mile an hour before striking you with the car, he has commited Aggravated Assault - you have suffered Death or Serious Bodily Injury by being struck with his car - ie., a crime of violence.
Now, if Joe Critter tries the above, but you jump out of the way, he has still committed a violent crime - you were in danger of suffering Death or Serious Bodily Injury.
See? The results of the crime include bodily injury and/or death, so the crime is a violent one.
Now, suppose Joe Critter drives to the top of a 50% slope and gets out of his pick-up, without setting the parking brake. The pick-up rolls down the grade and strikes a bus-load of nuns and the Vienna Boys Choir.
Is this a crime? Yes. Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that the vehicle was probably going to roll down the slope, unless reasonable precautions were taken and that stopping a multi-ton vehicle with your body ain't gonna be pretty.
Is it a violent crime? Yes. Death or bodily injury resulted, or could have resulted.
So. DWI. Crime? Yes.
Violent crime? Doesn't matter if the vehicle is purposely driven into a victim, or if the vehicle negligently hits the victim, or the drunk driver allows the vehicle to strike the victim, the end result is the same: death or bodily injury.
Reasonable expectation of death or bodily injury = Violent crime.
LawDog
To illustrate: If Joe Critter decides that he doesn't like you, waits for you to step out of your house, and then accelerates to a speed of fifty mile an hour before striking you with the car, he has commited Aggravated Assault - you have suffered Death or Serious Bodily Injury by being struck with his car - ie., a crime of violence.
Now, if Joe Critter tries the above, but you jump out of the way, he has still committed a violent crime - you were in danger of suffering Death or Serious Bodily Injury.
See? The results of the crime include bodily injury and/or death, so the crime is a violent one.
Now, suppose Joe Critter drives to the top of a 50% slope and gets out of his pick-up, without setting the parking brake. The pick-up rolls down the grade and strikes a bus-load of nuns and the Vienna Boys Choir.
Is this a crime? Yes. Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that the vehicle was probably going to roll down the slope, unless reasonable precautions were taken and that stopping a multi-ton vehicle with your body ain't gonna be pretty.
Is it a violent crime? Yes. Death or bodily injury resulted, or could have resulted.
So. DWI. Crime? Yes.
Violent crime? Doesn't matter if the vehicle is purposely driven into a victim, or if the vehicle negligently hits the victim, or the drunk driver allows the vehicle to strike the victim, the end result is the same: death or bodily injury.
Reasonable expectation of death or bodily injury = Violent crime.
LawDog
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
