Don’t Taze Me, Bro!™ Part 2
Yikes. Why do people that are handcuffed try to kick out the window of the cop cruiser? That seems to really piss off the cops.
Am I wrong in thinking this policeman could use a Dale Carnegie course? Ditto for the drunk suspect.
So was this policeman a little trigger happy with the tazer? Or should police have the right to taze suspects multiple times if they do not comply with instructions?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
On the flip side of the previous tasing, I think that this guy was a little too trigger happy with the taser, especially after the suspect was cuffed.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am
IMO, tasers should be outlawed completely. Period. Policemen got along without them for centuries, I’m sure they can manage without them again.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
JDI, they got along without guns too. Should we actually put them back in armor and then give them an actual shield and a sword too?
The problem is that tasers are “less lethal” devices (a friend of mine lost her husband to a taser incident so sometimes they are lethal. And unfortunately for her, the cop was 100% in the right). I think the term “less lethal” makes it prone to misuse.
I’d prefer to see rules put in place that force a police officer to document ever pull of the trigger and the reasons why. The acceptable reasons should be documented and clear and if those reasons are not adequately met, the cop should be punished accordingly.
I can’t say we should remove the options from cops. A trigger happy cop with a taser is better than a trigger happy cop with only a Glock 26.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
I don’t think tasers are justified at all for noncompliance. I welcome them as an alternative to lethal force. I despise them for any other purpose.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:55 am
I don’t think they should have the right — while in service to a state or federal entity, they may very well be prohibited from carrying or using tasers, and I’d have little problem with it from a ‘rights’ viewpoint — but I think it’s good policy to allow the use of such weapons.
If someone’s resisting arrest, there are a lot of options available to the police, but none of them are truly non-lethal. Wrestling people can break bones and crush lungs; chemical weapon spray kills those with breathing problems and leaves folk in pain for hours. Tasers look pretty painful, but they’re not that bad compared to OC spray to the eyeball.
There are clear abuses of tasers. They’re not designed to be used for bursts over five seconds, and zapping people repeatedly and excessively for the officer’s yucks is rather obviously problematic.
That’s the case for everything from nightsticks to fists to firearms to the weight of the law, though.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Perhaps I’m just too idealistic…
Police officers are granted extraordinary powers over the citizenry. A sense of honor should be requisite for wearing the badge, not just a grasp of the english language & a high school diploma. I saw a longer version of the tape on the news where he can be seen kicking her in the butt while she’s on the ground on all-fours. It all seemed very excessive. I don’t believe this officer was acting honorably.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I am waiting for someone from the police to explain how when you have volts of electricity running through your body, your supposed to forget the pain and roll over an put your hands behind your back.
Now I have never been tasered, but I would think that even if you wanted to comply with their request after being blasted, it would take a minute or so to gain your wits again.
To them if you don’t comply immediately, they blast you again and again and again. It just isn’t right.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
100% agree with Robb and Phelps.
I would add that tasers should have a recording mechanism that records time, duration and location (GPS) of _every_ activation. Every activation should require documentation that the use was justified — similar to having to justify discharging a firearm. All records should be public information (some redaction may be acceptable for privacy reasons — NOT the cops privacy: he doesn’t have any while on the job).
September 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The Police are destroying their credibility as fast as they can.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
You’re not supposed to. It’s supposed to prevent you from using your own strength to hold that position.
When Mr Gorilla decides to stay on the ground, it’s remarkably hard to fight against all that muscle. Even if you have the cops, you still risk getting people hurt, and it’s seldom clear someone is completely sans risky weapons. A jolt means they can’t obey the commands, but they also can’t get their limbs to obey themselves, either.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
A Taser, like any tool, can be misused. That said, it is a hell of a lot safer for both the officer and the perp than a good old fashioned night-stick shampoo.
And yes, idiots love to kick out patrol car windows.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
I keep reading emotional calls to end the use of tasers, but I haven’t heard a logical argument for not using them. Anybody know where there’s a rational (which some folks need to have pointed out to them excludes the emotional) discussion on prohibiting the use of tasers?
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Bob_r, most tasers already record the time and duration of its use. It is just that the police rarely release that data. In the Ft. Worth taser killing of the man who was suspected of stealing electricity (really) I recall that data showing that the police used more than twice the maximum amount of tasering, both number of charges and duration (with discharges exceeding 10 seconds) on the victim.
And there is a very logical reason. There is very little feedback to the officer using a taser, so it becomes difficult for him to maintain control over the amount of force used, unlike a baton or grapple, which gives immediate and precise feedback. In addition, tasers seem to offer a psychological armor to the officer, allowing himself to more easily distance himself from the torture he is administering to the victim. It also affords him the rationalization that it has “no lasting effects” and doesn’t cause permanent wounds, making them more prone to abusing the use of the device and a more rapid escalation of this abuse.