Insane. Imagine what'll happen if they DO manage to get the Pentagon's Pain Ray tech licensed for domestic use.
The last time I brought this up, on a story about a cop tasering a crippled boy 20 times, I got in a fairly heated debate with someone who thought it was completely appropriate. I can't imagine anyone can try to defend this one, though.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I can't imagine anyone can try to defend this one, though.
Sorry, this is one case where the video backs up the cop.
I remember the crippled boy tasering, and I thought that was extremely excessive. But in this situation I'd have to agree with Shmuel. He warned her many many times, she was combative, non-compliant, and putting them both in danger by repeatedly attempting to get back in her truck.
Just because she was an older woman(calling her a great grandmother is simply for sympathy reasons) doesn't give her the right to act the way she did. And I think he was completely in the right to push her the way he did. You don't gently hold someone back in that situation, you push them back so you can keep your distance and keep both arms free to act.
I don't love the idea of tasing, I think cops can become too dependent on it when it isn't necessary, but I can't really find fault with how the office handled himself in this situation.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
On another note, when you are documenting the citation with a video camera, insisting on getting a signature on the ticket is stupid. I know, it's probably the law, probably not at the officer's discretion, but it's stupid.
Wouldn't it have been nice if the woman refusing to sign didn't escalate the situation?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Pushing her like that was out of line. He could have asked her to step back.
But really, he was the one near the road. The only reason for him to be standing to the left like that would be to showcase himself for the camera. She wasn't the one in the road --- he was. He should have just stepped out of the road, regardless of whether he was blocking the camera.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't even need to watch the video to know what's going on here. I know it will be like 90% of all 'omg evil cop tases poor defenseless X' videos. It will be propogated wildly by people who use it as an example of terrible police brutality and totally cruel unnecessary use of a taser, then when you actually watch an unabridged edition, it will involve a person who is already under arrest, who resists and/or acts like an ass, is warned multiple times by the cop, probably resists having handcuffs put on despite being told they are under arrest, has the taser pointed at them, is warned again with the taser pointed at them, still resists, gets tased.
Big freaking suprise.
Don't resist arrest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, I just watched it. Cop did nothing wrong. This includes grabbing her and pushing her back, which police officers are supposed to do if a non-cooperative moves towards traffic or their driver's door while being told to hold put by the officer. Not something you mitigate with words.
Then she resists arrest and physically resists having cuffs put on, gets yet more warnings, then dares the cop to tase her before starting to try to leave again.
Outcome not terribly surprising.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:HURRICANE, Washington County — A man died Tuesday after Hurricane police used a Taser on him.
Officers and medical personnel responded to a call for assistance with an agitated subject on state Route 59 Tuesday afternoon, according to a press release from the Washington County Sheriff's Office. Police have not yet released the name of the man, but KSL-TV has identified the man as Brian Cardall, 32, the son of KSL editorial director Duane Cardall.
During the incident, a Hurricane police officer deployed a Taser and Cardall lost consciousness. Cardall was treated within moments by paramedics but was pronounced dead after being transported to a local hospital, according to the release.
According to KSL, Cardall and his wife, who is six months pregnant, had been visiting his family in Salt Lake City. As they were driving, his wife said, Cardall, who has a recent history of mental illness, was having an episode and that prompted them to pull over in order to medicate him.
At some point, Cardall got out of the vehicle and began to run down the road, according to KSL. That's when his wife called 911. She later learned he had been hit with a Taser and was unresponsive. . . .
The Hurricane Police Department declined to comment on the incident Tuesday evening, but Salt Lake City attorney Peter Stirba, who is representing Hurricane city and the police department, issued a statement.
"Obviously, the events of today are unfortunate and indeed tragic," Stirba said. "The Washington County attorney has the incident under investigation and review pursuant to the appropriate protocol. Beyond that, the city and the police department is not in a position to comment."
The officer has been placed on administrative leave, pending the investigation's results.
It is the police officer's job to stand between the person he is arresting and the traffic. He is more visible, and if the person decides to run they are less likely to run out into the street and be hit.
It is also his job to keep a safe distance from someone threatening or behaving in a threatening way. It is for his safety since the woman could have pulled a knife and stabbed him. Saying that she wouldn't because she was an elderly woman is a good way to be killed in the line of duty .
Don't forget that just yesterday an 88 year old grandfatherly man walked into a public place and started shooting, with the intent of killing everyone. He succeeded in killing a security guard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, okay. For starters, the commentary writer states:
quote:The man was sick, he was running away, and now he’s dead. There’s no way that that can be rationally explained.
Of course it can. You have a man experiencing a mental breakdown, freaking out, and doing things which can easily prompt a disasterous restraining situation, whether tasers are used are not.
And, notably, restraint with tasers usually protects people from greater harm in these situations. In this situation, we don't even know yet if it was the taser that killed him, and it's actually pretty unlikely if other factors were involved (a grapple, or the suspect being pinned; the weight of an officer on top of someone is far more lethal than a taser).
The commentary piece is essentially "We don't know exactly what happened yet. But I want you to be disturbed about the use of a taser in this incident, regardless."
And the commentary in the Deseret News article is fraught with ignorance and kneejerk reactions to the Evil Taser, something I've more or less come to expect from these events.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's refreshing when I entirely agree with Samp about something.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
The taser applies about 0.8 amps of current to its intended victim. According to the United States Navy's electronic engineering program (which I attended), cardiac arrest can be induced by as little as 0.1 amp of current.
Proponents of tasers state that the current is "far below the amount that would cause cardiac arrest in a healthy human heart". The problem, is that police officers are not qualified to assess the health of suspects.
The taser is an irresponsible alternative to a firearm. Someone in a poor state of health is less likely to die from a gunshot in the foot.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The taser is an irresponsible alternative to a firearm. Someone in a poor state of health is less likely to die from a gunshot in the foot.
Even assuming that the shot does go to the foot and doesn't miss, what about the rest of us?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Ehh, shoot old ladies with a paintball gun loaded with jawbreakers then. It's still more responsible than pumping them with what the military considers a possibly lethal amount of electricity.
Crap, what if she had a pacemaker.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Herblay: except that the police don't shoot someone in the foot who they only intend to subdue, and quite rightly. Police fire only when definitely necessary (someone is in danger of extreme bodily harm or death due to the person being shot at), not for warning, and aim for the torso.
Even if you truly believe shooting someone in the foot is somehow a safe alternative, giving officers the defense that "I was only trying to shoot him in the foot to subdue him" when a person is shot is an invitation to abuse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The taser is an irresponsible alternative to a firearm. Someone in a poor state of health is less likely to die from a gunshot in the foot.
This is ridiculous. An officer's firearm is not used as a nonlethal takedown device.
Tasers expand a police officer's options for nonlethal takedown in a way that keeps both officers and suspects much safer overall. You do not use both tools in the same fashion. there is no circumstance where an officer shooting someone in the foot with their firearm, when they could have used their taser, is justified. There are no circumstances where officers attempt to use guns for trope-esque "just a flesh wound" nonlethal takedown. It's pure fantasy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He should have just stepped out of the road, regardless of whether he was blocking the camera.
Yeah, see, I'm in big favor of the cops not getting in the way of the cameras-for their sake and for everyone else's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Ehh, shoot old ladies with a paintball gun loaded with jawbreakers then. It's still more responsible than pumping them with what the military considers a possibly lethal amount of electricity
herblay, honestly. Imagine we go ahead and set up a parallel where officers used the "more responsible" method of pelting people with jawbreakers at 300fps where they would otherwise use a taser. yes, imagine how pleasant that video would have been. What a reasonable policy.
And, on top of that, your "more responsible" method would result in more deaths. Everything a police officer does, physically, during the restraint of a noncompliant, is a "possibly lethal" amount of something, be it force or electricity. Tasers were phased in as a replacement for billy clubs and more forceful takedown methods (if you couldn't get them in cuffs, you would usually just have to start beating them with a stick).
And, guess what! this occasionally resulted in people dying. more often than with tasers.
Tasers are useful primarily because they halt a subject's motor control by overriding muscular signals. This allows officers to cuff greatly resistant people with far less incidences of death due to asphyxiation or trauma, less broken bones, less wounded officers AND suspects. The macro-level analysis is damning to people who point to the taser being an electrical device as though that makes it categorically worse than using, say, a beatstick.
Or, hell, a Herblay Jawbreaker Gun.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The taser is an irresponsible alternative to a firearm. Someone in a poor state of health is less likely to die from a gunshot in the foot.
Herblay, this just illustrates how uninformed you are about this situation. With the very rare and very conditional exceptions of snake-eating special ops guys*, no one I've ever heard of on Earth who is professionally trained in the use of firearms is trained to use them as weapon to subdue someone.
Has anyone heard of any police or military organization that trains its members to use firearms to subdue people? Serious question there. I've never heard of one, but I could be wrong.
You really ought to inform yourself better (or in this case, at all) before you start making such claims, Herblay.
*And even then, I've never actually heard of any who use guns that way. It's just I imagine with such folks, it might be possible.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The LONE Ranger....
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I don't agree with the use of tasers in many cases. But, when they are used within guidelines, I don't think it's the cop's fault if something goes wrong-- it's the system's fault for giving him a taser and telling him to use it in that situation, or the designer and manufacturer of the weapon's for making it too lethal. I agree that it would be better if more effective non-lethal options were developed so that tasers were relegated to less frequent or non-use, but it's not the cop's fault that someone died from appropriate use of what is supposed to be a "non-lethal" weapon-- it's the makers of the weapon, or maybe it's just a fluke. They do happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, and to note:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Crap, what if she had a pacemaker.
the answer is 'probably nothing worse'
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It's true. The common person really doesn't understand irony.
Of course I'm not advocating shooting someone in the foot or with a jawbreaker. That's plain silly. I was only exagerrating my point.
The point is, a taser isn't a non-lethal form of enforcement. Medically speaking, it CAN generate enough electrical current to kill SOME people. That is a fact. And to treat it as an abolute non-deadly deterrent is rediculous. It's when officers become complacent that people will die.
It's like playing Russian roulette. Whether you only have one bullet in the chamber or not, there's the possibility to kill someone every time. Perhaps in this case the gun has 10,000 chambers --- that doesn't make it any less lethal when the bullet goes off.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
kq touched on this, but it's important in this conversation to note the difference between moral arguments for or against the use of tasers by police officers, and given the use of tasers by law enforcement whether particular officers are acting justifiably when they use them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The point is, a taser isn't a non-lethal form of enforcement. Medically speaking, it CAN generate enough electrical current to kill SOME people. That is a fact. And to treat it as an abolute non-deadly deterrent is rediculous. It's when officers become complacent that people will die.
It's like playing Russian roulette. Whether you only have one bullet in the chamber or not, there's the possibility to kill someone every time. Perhaps in this case the gun has 10,000 chambers --- that doesn't make it any less lethal when the bullet goes off.
This is an absolutely moronic argument against tasers. You don't think nightsticks are capable of killing some people? There is no measure of non-lethal force that doesn't have a chance of killing someone.
Hell, someone could have an allergic reaction to pepper spray and die. I guess that makes pepper spray DEADLY.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Humans are tough. We're large mammals who hunt in packs. It takes quite a bit of damage to make us stop fighting. If you're going to have law enforcement, then occasionally they will have to inflict such damage. A taser is a lot less lethal than the main alternative, which is to have a big damn stick and beat people until their muscles are too bruised to move, and/or they are too dazed to fight. If you object to having law enforcement at all, that's one thing; but objecting to tasers is a bit like supporting a military but not wanting them to have rifles.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: It's true. The common person really doesn't understand irony.
Of course I'm not advocating shooting someone in the foot or with a jawbreaker. That's plain silly. I was only exagerrating my point.
It's not 'irony,' herblay, it's 'facetiousness' or 'sarcasm.' And it was recognized. Yet in the face of that you were still saying things which were stupid, like the idea that a jawbreaker gun was, despite being one of your facetious alternatives, still "more responsible" because a taser uses electricity (gasp!)
Look, the appropriate response to arguments like these is to treat them as ridiculously as they are presented. Want to have your arguments taken more seriously? Don't rely on purposefully ridiculous premises. I'll tackle them at face value.
quote:The point is, a taser isn't a non-lethal form of enforcement. Medically speaking, it CAN generate enough electrical current to kill SOME people. That is a fact. And to treat it as an abolute non-deadly deterrent is rediculous.
Name a single police department that does not specifically teach officers that tasers can be lethal. Name a single police department that honestly approaches nonlethal takedown methods as though they did not engender even a remote possibility of fatal risk and were 100% non-lethal in all circumstances. They don't. They don't even treat pepper spray as unable to cause potentially fatal harm and have been stressing this for decades.
'non-lethal takedown methods' are named as such because this represents their intent: to subdue an individual while minimizing risk of bodily harm. They are as often called "less-lethal."
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
A lot of people are deathly allergic to peanuts. And cops would catch a lot of crap if peanut spray pacified people, but they used it anyway.
What's moronic is to believe that using tasers nonchalantly is okay because "it's not very likely to kill you". That's like saying that it's okay to drive 100 miles an hour because you probably won't wreck.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
The point is, the taser should only be used as an alternative to force. Force was certainly not required in this case. So, neither was the risk of a taser.
Amnesty International's report on tasers stated that 334 people were killed in the US due to taser use between 2001 and 2008.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Amnesty International's report on tasers stated that 334 people were killed in the US due to taser use between 2001 and 2008.
And? How many people were tazed? What were the alternatives to tazing and what are the fatality rates for the alternatives? A single number like that tells us nothing unless it's compared to a control.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The point is, the taser should only be used as an alternative to force. Force was certainly not required in this case.
You're completely wrong, herblay. She resisted arrest. She was physically noncompliant when the officer began cuffing her after informing her that she was under arrest.
You are not allowed to resist arrest. There is no recourse in this event. If you are under arrest, you are under arrest. There is no defensible position for noncompliance and to physically resist creates the appropriate necessity of physical response. this necessitates force on the part of the arresting officer(s). A person who resists arrest and then gets wrestled to the ground or tased cannot use "but I was not a physical threat to the officer!" as an excuse, or a reason why the response was unjustified.
Do you understand that?
The officer could just as easily have been in the right had he wrestled her to the ground and forcefully bent her arms behind her back, because she was physically resisting arrest. And yet while it would not have sparked near as much outrage, she would have been in greater physical peril.
Tasers will continue to be popular among municipal law enforcement until the liability cost is demonstrably greater than that of other methods. This is not likely to happen, because despite the sound and fury of people who have a vehement and emotional response to tasers because oh my god, they're electrical! that could kill someone! they're actually far safer and absolutely should be incorporated into the process of managing noncompliants.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Once again, I'm glad I didn't go into the Navy.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Once again, I'm glad I didn't go into the Navy.
Why? Does the Navy use tasers indiscriminately?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The point is, the taser should only be used as an alternative to force. Force was certainly not required in this case. So, neither was the risk of a taser.
Amnesty International's report on tasers stated that 334 people were killed in the US due to taser use between 2001 and 2008.
Bullshit.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Once again, I'm glad I didn't go into the Navy.
Why? Does the Navy use tasers indiscriminately?
No, but they have obviously failed to educate Herblay properly. About tasers, electricity, validity of sociological studies and sample sizes, impartiality of sources, and the definition of resisting arrest.
Not to mention the definitions of the words "can" and "will" and risk assessment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
While usually I am a big less-than-three lover of amnesty international, their case against tasers is downright sloppy.
They point to 334 people 'killed by tasers' in eight years and they do not control this figure to account for the fact that the vast vast vastvastvast majority of these cases (as I recall) actually are only 334 people who died in circumstances where tasers were involved but likely were in no way the principal cause of death.
in effect, if you have a guy hopped up on methamphetamines and he struggles violently with cops, gets pepper sprayed, has the weight of seven cops on him as they struggle to restrain him, and then he gets tased to help the cops get the cuffs and leg binders on, and he goes off to the hospital and dies on-route, Amnesty International (or its data-mining associates) will count this as A Taser Death!
There are a few cases where death probably would not have occurred had tasers not additionally complicated the issue of a meth-pumped, overdosing, overtaxed system getting asphyxiated on a slab of concrete due to being pinned by cops, but we can't say because the AI figure does not control for it. It simply defaults to saying they were killed 'due to taser use.'
And let's say that somehow miraculously this study was not sloppy (it is) and these were all deaths caused by—not associated with—tasers. That puts us at about, what, 40 deaths yearly by tasers?
You will have a significantly larger number of people dying to other routine non-taser restraining methods used by cops the world over.
Although to be fair to amnesty international, even if they are fudging that statistic somewhat, they still may only be using it as a counterclaim to the idea that tasers are 100% non-lethal, wherever that claim may originate from.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
maybe tranq guns? would that work?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: maybe tranq guns? would that work?
Absolutely not. The out-like-a-light tranq gun idea is also a product of media fantasy. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Blayne, I'm sure that tranquilizers, when used indiscriminately by untrained non-medical personnel, have equal opportunities for being lethal.
EDIT: That is, as Samprimary says, they worked at all.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I like Lalo's original suggestion... Bring on the Active Denial System!
Even if his suggestion was meant in the most sarcastic way possible. Oh, and sign me up for being tased before being shot or beaten with a nightstick...
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Herb, what is the alternative?
The pickup truck our sweet littler grandmother was driving is also extremely lethal. She was driving dangerously, going 60mph in a 45mph work zone--endangering the lives of the workers, other drivers, and herself.
She refused to except the ticket, and had the appearance that she refused to accept that she was doing anything wrong or dangerous--hence she would soon be going back to driving as badly.
So Mr. Police man has limited number of options.
1) He can threaten to shoot her, and then do so.
2) He can do nothing, allowing this one to get away with her crime, and continue to believe that all she has to do is scream at the policemen and raise enough stink, and she can continue to commit other crimes, drive her vehicle just as dangerously.
3) Use Pepper Spray which can be accidentally lethal
4) Use force, which can be accidentally lethal.
5) Use the taser, which can be lethal.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: maybe tranq guns? would that work?
Samp, I once told Puffy that every time he linked tvtropes, he owed me fifty bucks for lost time. I think I'm going to have to start charging you too.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Police do not use tasers indiscriminately. All cops I know hesitate to use them, in fact, and hate to use them. They generate all kinds of paperwork - because, rightly so, there is accountability built into the system. Anytime a cop tases someone, he/she has to answer for why the taser was used, what efforts were made to subdue before the taser was considered, and then they have to call medical help for the suspect and remain on scene until paramedics check them out.
The only time they should be used is in a case which, before tasers, would have called for a nightstick. Would people be more or less outraged had the great-grandmother been beaten by a nightstick?
I would submit that tasers are less lethal than nightsticks and much less likely to cause permanent harm.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't have anything much meaningful to say about the subject, but I am curious if the Oscar Grant case took a turn on hatrack. Of course if it was, I'll be embarrassed if I find that I posted in the thread.
The claim that the officer thought he was going for his taser appears concocted after the fact, and was not believed by the judge in the case (and I don't believe it either).
What do you guys think, was charging the officer with murder the right thing to do?
The video is probably easy to find online, and is rather creepy to watch. The guy is face first on the ground, and does not appear threatening in any way. The officer stands up, takes out his pistol, and appears to calmly shoot him in the back.
[ June 12, 2009, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Herblay: except that the police don't shoot someone in the foot who they only intend to subdue, and quite rightly. Police fire only when definitely necessary (someone is in danger of extreme bodily harm or death due to the person being shot at), not for warning, and aim for the torso.
Even if you truly believe shooting someone in the foot is somehow a safe alternative, giving officers the defense that "I was only trying to shoot him in the foot to subdue him" when a person is shot is an invitation to abuse.
I think you're misunderstanding Herblay. The taser is supposedly intended as a nonlethal replacement for a firearm. If this officer hadn't been armed with a taser, does anyone here seriously think he would be justified shooting her? Or using a nightstick on her?
If not, all these comparisons insisting tasering is better than shooting or beating her are hopelessly stupid. There are ways to restrain great-grandmothers that don't involve weapons.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There are ways to restrain great-grandmothers that don't involve weapons.
Are they less harmful and more efficient, though?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are ways to restrain great-grandmothers that don't involve weapons.
Are they less harmful and more efficient, though?
That's the 3 million dollar question, indeed. A given option may be a regrettable one, but it's still the best one if all the other options are more regrettable.
From what I have read, tasers (used properly by trained people) still have a lower rate of lonr-term damage than other comparable tools in the appropriate settings. And if the total number of problems would be worse with other standard solutions, then it is what it is.
---
And, of course, QFT to underscore:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: kq touched on this, but it's important in this conversation to note the difference between moral arguments for or against the use of tasers by police officers, and given the use of tasers by law enforcement whether particular officers are acting justifiably when they use them.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Police do not use tasers indiscriminately. All cops I know hesitate to use them, in fact, and hate to use them.
Unfortunately, even if only a tiny fraction of cops use them badly, like 5% or 2%, that still leads to a lot of incidents.
quote:The only time they should be used is in a case which, before tasers, would have called for a nightstick.
Cops in Texas tasered a man having a diabetic seizure. The department determined that the use of tasers was appropriate. Do you really agree?
quote:Would people be more or less outraged had the great-grandmother been beaten by a nightstick?
I think most people would say that the threat invovled in an elderly women swearing and struggling against a guy twice as strong as is not high enough to warrant either. If the situation isn't dire enough to warrent a broken arm, then it's not serious enough to warrant risking someone's life.
quote:I would submit that tasers are less lethal than nightsticks and much less likely to cause permanent harm.
This is a false dicotomy.
Google "taser diabetic". Multiple incidents come up of cops tasering people who were in diabetic comas or seizure, or on the cusp of being in one. In most of the cases, the cops' departmetns cleared the cops of wrongdoing, or gave them light administrative punishment.
How many cops do you think break the bones of people in diabetic crisis with their nightsticks?
Look up the Milgrim experiment, and observe how many more peole were willing to inflict pain when all it took was a flip of a switch, as opposed to manually pushing the subject's hand on the shock plate. It's human nature that tasers will be used more often than nightsticks.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Cops in Texas tasered a man having a diabetic seizure. The department determined that the use of tasers was appropriate. Do you really agree?
I don't know anything about the case, but why should you assume that I would agree? I did not say in my post that all usage of tasers is appropriate or that no cops ever abuse the use of tasers or any other kind of force.
All I said was that cops don't use them indiscriminately and that there are procedures in place to review their usage and make certain cops understand when they use a taser, they must answer as to why and how it was used. Does that mean they are never used inappropriately? Of course not...last I checked cops were human and had to rely on their judgment and no one has perfect judgment all of the time.
Given that these people that must rely on their judgment are armed with several things that can harm the public - particularly firearms - I would actually prefer it if they reached first for a taser when they think they need to subdue someone rather than a gun or even a nightstick. Doesn't mean I want them reaching for them indiscriminately or that they should use them in all cases, I just think they are preferable to other alternatives.
As for diabetic crisis...I don't know the details and certainly cops should be trained as first responders and be able to recognize a medical emergency. If they do not, that sounds like a fault of their training that should be corrected.
Again, let me reiterate - I do not submit that tasers are always appropriate or that cops never make mistakes. I do submit, however, that tasers are a better alternative to nightsticks and firearms.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
People having diabetic events like insulin shock or low blood sugar can look and act just like drunk/ high/ psychotic people. It sucks, but there's just no way to know the difference just by looking.
And in terms of compliance, cops learn hard lessons all the time. A great grandma can flail around and blind you with a fingernail; a toddler can grab at the sidearm; and it doesn't matter how frail and weak someone in a vehicle is, they are in effect armed with that vehicle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Herblay,
quote:It's true. The common person really doesn't understand irony.
While I'm sure that's flattering to your ego, here's an alternative explanation that doesn't assume a patronizing aspect towards the people you're discussing this with: you communicated poorly.
quote: The point is, a taser isn't a non-lethal form of enforcement. Medically speaking, it CAN generate enough electrical current to kill SOME people. That is a fact. And to treat it as an abolute non-deadly deterrent is rediculous. It's when officers become complacent that people will die.
Oh, so something must be absolutely non-lethal in order to be considered a non-lethal weapon? Who's being silly now? A fistfight can be lethal, yet we generally don't consider an unadorned fist a lethal weapon. Your argument is absurd, which isn't surprising given how poorly you're informed about these matters.
quote:It's like playing Russian roulette. Whether you only have one bullet in the chamber or not, there's the possibility to kill someone every time. Perhaps in this case the gun has 10,000 chambers --- that doesn't make it any less lethal when the bullet goes off.
Yes, but what you're agitating for is this: the gun is equally lethal if it's got one round in 10,000 chambers or one in two.
quote:What's moronic is to believe that using tasers nonchalantly is okay because "it's not very likely to kill you". That's like saying that it's okay to drive 100 miles an hour because you probably won't wreck.
What's especially moronic is to suggest that this use of a taser was 'nonchalant'. You're Monday morning quarterbacking here, and you don't even realize it.
quote:The point is, the taser should only be used as an alternative to force. Force was certainly not required in this case. So, neither was the risk of a taser.
Oh, certainly? How on Earth do you know that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If not, all these comparisons insisting tasering is better than shooting or beating her are hopelessly stupid. There are ways to restrain great-grandmothers that don't involve weapons.
How many ways are there to restrain a great-grandmother who is physically resisting without using some form of physical force? If the cop laid hands on her, and - though no ill intent and negligence of his own - she fell down and broke her hip, dying on the way to the hospital, I very, very much doubt you'd say, "Well, he didn't mean for it to happen."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I wish I could be a great-grandmother, so that I could be immune to the laws of the land.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: All I said was that cops don't use them indiscriminately and that there are procedures in place to review their usage
Yes, and those procedures determined that it was fine to tase a man seizing on the floor in Texas. In the UK, they used a taser on a guy who'd passed out from a diabetic coma in the back of a bus. That was deemed appropriate too.
Is your assertion mean to make people feel safer? Because it doesn't.
Just google. Stick to diabetics subdued by tasers. Read how much punishment cops get for submitting sick people to potentially life-threatening shocks.
quote:Does that mean they are never used inappropriately? Of course not...last I checked cops were human and had to rely on their judgment and no one has perfect judgment all of the time.
You aren't talking about what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about flaws in judgment, I'm not talking about cases where the police deparment determines that the taser was use in appropriately. I'm talking about people using the taser in accordance with how police departments think it should be used. The seizing guy in Texas was deemed to have been an appropriate victim.
quote:I would actually prefer it if they reached first for a taser when they think they need to subdue someone rather than a gun or even a nightstick.
If you give people tasers rather than nightsticks, they will decide a lot quicker taht physical subduing is necessary. How many diabetics do you think were beaten in the last two years by cops?
quote:As for diabetic crisis...I don't know the details and certainly cops should be trained as first responders and be able to recognize a medical emergency. If they do not, that sounds like a fault of their training that should be corrected.
The cops in the Texas case were determined to be in the right by their department. If anything, the lesson is "When in doubt, tase. Even if the subject is sick and helpless, there will be little to no penalty." They aren't going to train people into not seeing that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Cops in Texas tasered a man having a diabetic seizure. The department determined that the use of tasers was appropriate. Do you really agree?
I'd reword that as "Cops in Texas tasered a man who claimed he was having a diabetic seizure."
Given what else the man himself was reported to have said he was doing at the time (see below), I'd say that claim was highly suspicious, which makes the use of a taser no longer as obviously beyond the pale.
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Yes, and those procedures determined that it was fine to tase a man seizing on the floor in Texas. ... Just google. Stick to diabetics subdued by tasers. Read how much punishment cops get for submitting sick people to potentially life-threatening shocks. ... The seizing guy in Texas was deemed to have been an appropriate victim. ... The cops in the Texas case were determined to be in the right by their department.
That's a pretty weird form of a hypoglycemic seizure. Generally, the person isn't up and moving around, much less forming complete sentences. It is more of a comatose thing -- [at bare minimum, unconsciousness] -- and the time needed for people who are actually having such a seizure to recover sufficiently to interact normally is on the order of hours, not mere minutes.
Methinks there is more to the story than there appears. I wonder about a history of prior spousal abuse allegations or domestic disturbances, given that it was the wife who called 911, the wife who said she needed medical assistance when the police arrived, and the husband (who was "seizing") that stuck his head out the door and told them they were not needed there. [And given that the police were responding to a 911 call for "medical assistance," being the first to arrive on the scene. That's certainly atypical for a call in to 911 for a "diabetic seizure" without additional context of some sort that makes police likely to be needed. It isn't conclusive, but it is very weird.]
There is a pending lawsuit, from what I can see, and I expect more details will come out. We'll see. It looks so suspicious a claim as to be untenable, given the information available at this point.
In reading about more of these stories you referenced online, methinks there is usually more than meets the eye there, as well. I haven't seen one that reads like an accurate example of the sort of case intended to be referenced as an outrageous abuse of justice. Rather, none of them seem to be consistent with medical truth.
---
Added: It's easy to make allegations that sounds like they might be tenable to untrained people. It's much harder to have such allegations stand up in court versus expert testimony of what is and isn't consistent with reality in the middle of a "diabetic seizure" (and the behavior reported by the above man himself falls into the latter category).
Mind you, there certainly may be cases where someone in the middle of a hypoglycemic seizure was incorrectly assessed and harmed by a taser. I just don't see any that hold together medically that have been referenced here.
[ June 12, 2009, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I decided I didn't know enough about the way diabetics can act when their in crisis, so I asked someone who knows. My husband is a paramedic - has been for 12 years, and has seen hundreds of these types of patients. Diabetic patients are one of their most frequent types of calls. He says he has had to call the cops to help subdue patients, numerous times. Patients in diabetic crisis can be combative, and can fight the very people that are trying to help them.
Even my husband, who IS trained to recognize people in medical emergencies says he often cannot tell the difference between someone in a diabetic crisis and a person on drugs. He's had to get orders for restraints and physically restrain people to the point where he can even check their sugar levels and try to determine what happened to them.
Given that, I can foresee a case where a police officer might use a taser to try and restrain someone and have it deemed appropriate after the fact. It's easy to look backwards with hindsight and say "oh, he was a diabetic and so he wasn't a drug addict or a mentally unstable person after all" When it's happening...not so easy. The first priority of every first responders is to their own physical safety, because they can be of no help to anyone if they become another casualty. So, if someone is combative and acting like they are a danger to themselves or others, then they need to be restrained.
You seem to be concerned that police are more likely to use tasers than they would a nightstick. I am not so certain, and don't accept that as a given. Maybe because I know too many cops who gripe and complain anytime they have to use one because of the paperwork it engenders and the trouble it causes. The cops I know would much rather deal with a situation without using any kind of force, including tasers. And that is as it should be, I think we can all agree.
Besides, being a diabetic doesn't mean you cannot also be a criminal, or a drug addict or have mental problems. Resisting police officers is going to be met with some type of forceful response - regardless of why the person is resisting. That is how cops are trained, and the purpose of that training is to protect the public.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'll distinguish here between a "hypoglycemic crisis" and a "diabetic seizure."
Hypoglycemia itself can result in irritability and combativeness, but a diagnosis of "diabetic (or hypoglycemic) seizure" is a more debilitating matter -- this kind of seizure is a generalized convulsion, a.k.a. a tonic-clonic or grand mal seizure.
An ongoing generalized convulsion is not consistent with walking around and talking in complete sentences, and it typically wouldn't be for several hours afterward.
There is dramatic impact to saying that the police were tasering a helpless diabetic while he was on the floor having a seizure. There is less drama to saying he was hypoglycemic and possibly combative, although of course that also makes the use of a taser less outrageous [as Belle notes above].
[ June 12, 2009, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I should add...(because my husband is making me - he wants to be clear) that MOST of the time, recognizing someone who is hypoglycemic is an easy process for him and his fellow paramedics. Many times it's relatively mild irritability and paramedics can quickly correct the situation.
So, please don't think there are tons of raging diabetics terrorizing the streets and that cops and paramedics often can't tell who or what they are.
He does remember a specific case, where he and his fellow medic were darn near certain the person was crazed on drugs, but checked his sugar and was shocked to find he was merely in hypoglycemic crisis instead.
He also wants to point out that many times the most combative diabetics are those that have also been drinking - certainly not recommended for diabetics but my hubby points out that just because you have a disease doesn't make you smart about your health. So, perhaps the alcohol is contributory factor to their behavior.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, you ladies appear to be missing the point here, which is, "OMG! Cops tazin' people!"
Kindly get back on topic, please!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: He also wants to point out that many times the most combative diabetics are those that have also been drinking - certainly not recommended for diabetics but my hubby points out that just because you have a disease doesn't make you smart about your health. So, perhaps the alcohol is contributory factor to their behavior.
Yep. And there is a typical blood sugar crash that comes after imbibing alcohol for diabetics, so you have (potentially) both the irritability and combativeness of hypoglycemia combined with whatever alcohol brings out in that person.
That's not to say abuses don't occur. I just suspect that in the majority of the allegations, the full story isn't being told, and it is the part of the story not being told (or not being told correctly) that explains the taser use in many cases.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
LOL, sorry about that Rakeesh.
"OMG, cops tazin' great grandmothers! What is the world coming to!"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Look, you ladies appear to be missing the point here, which is, "OMG! Cops tazin' people!"
Kindly get back on topic, please!
I first read this as "OMG! Cows tazin' people!" Which would be oddly apropos, a'la Deer Avenger.
---
On a separate note, swbarnes has given me pause with reference to Milgram. Despite the fact that the allegations I read don't seem to hold water, I am by no means concluding that abuses don't occur. Rather, I am sure they do. I do wonder about it being easier (psychologically) to use a taser than a [nightstick]***, given that one is at more of a remove from the subject, and (if) the amount of paperwork documentation is roughly equivalent.
I don't discount the effect of paperwork, as per Belle's comments. That can be a serious force for apathy and creativity in finding other solutions -- paperwork is the bane of most such jobs, and people will do a heckuva lot to avoid it. But if the paperwork is the same -- and as to that, I don't really know -- I can see a real concern here as raised by swbarnes.
This is exactly why I am particularly surly about allegations that don't hold together. It poisons the well of credibility for people who have legitimate grievances. Mind you, I know very little about the cases referenced here; it's just that what is referenced looks so fishy. But of course this would get delved into much more deeply at trial. I am glad the matter was taken to court, where it is more likely to get a fair and thorough hearing.
---
*** "nightclub" != "billy club" OR "nightstick," although it sure would be harder to use on somebody. You'd have to convince people to put down their drinks first, and what with the distraction of dancing and all, it's so hard to get people to do anything as a group these days.
[ June 12, 2009, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
On this topic I've said some things defending the policeman, all the while following a local story in my state....
If you feel so inclined, take a look at the "Please Mister Policeman...." thread.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)