No, not unless the doors have ballistic protection, which they typically do not.

This is done more so to allow the cop to re-enter the vehicle quickly, because its far more likely the guys gonna suddenly floor it than come out firing.

If they actually need cover, ideally they put the engine between them and the aggressor.

It hasn't been in my experience.

Ill tell you more when I'm not on a phone, but some of the best involve a string of arrests involving a registered sex offender, who had retained a high priced law talkin' guy to represent him as he attempted to have Sex Offender registration ruled as unconstitutional and a violation of the 8th Amendment.

His attorney ended up with my cell phone number after he'd initially called me to arrange in having his client turn himself in before the client changed his mind.

We tracked him down, raided the house, kids toys scattered throughout the living room, detain him as we attempt to track down probation or get a search warrant, when his lawyer calls me yelling and tellingly to get out of his clients house.

I explained the situation, he shouts "Well, my client is ******ed!" I said "can you prove that in court?" And he says "*******" and hangs up.

that's both hilarious and disturbing

Every time I get pulled over I always find a safe place to stop. If its on the road, I pull onto a small street or parking lot. If its on a freeway, I exit. I just find it putting us both in a unsafe situation unnecessarily.

What are your thoughts on this? Does a police officer even care or find it strange if i keep driving? If he told me to pull over immediately, I would but i don't like being on the side of the freeway esp when its small and I would think he doesn't want to walk out in that situation.

Different cops feel differently.

I personally hate traffic stops on the interstate.

Just turn your flashers on would be my recommendation.

I always thought cops appreciate that but my buddy said the cop chewed him a little bit one time for not stopping right away...I still think it's the right thing to do and then tell the cop immediately when walks that's what you intended to do for his safety

Well, I should add it depends on the distance to the exit. If you're gonna be more than like 1/2 a mile or so I'd recommend calling 911 and telling them what you're doing.

You don't wanna cross that line between "This guy is being nice and concerned for my safety" into "This guy is being a tool and refusing to stop and trying to hide **** in his car before he pulls over".

I was with a cop for many many years. Our relationship fell apart when he became an undercover narc officer. I think he started using some of the confiscated perscription pills. I think this because he already had an alcohol problem and he had taken my narcs I had been prescribed post op. I basically just suffered and took tylenol after that because I wasn't gonna ask for a whole new prescription 2 days after surgery.

Anyway my question is, do you think undercovers becoming addicts is common in your experience? Has it ruined other relationships that you know of?

I don't think it's too common for UC's to get addicted to the **** they're confiscating, though I'm sure it happens.

It's really common for cops in general to battle with alcoholism, for many reasons. I don't know if UC's are affected at a higher level than other types of cops or not though.

When tasers first came out, many people were against them in the belief they'd be used as an invasive and arguably torturing compliance tool. The police, politicians, etc fell over themselves assuring people that that wouldn't be the case - that they'd only be used as a last resort as an alternative to lethal force.

Clearly, that has not happened, and the naysayer's fears have turned out be correct. What are your thoughts on this? I know they make your job far easier and less risky and painful (for you), but do you think it's appropriate that they're used in place of what you're paid to do, which is defuse verbal situations, and, failing that, to detain suspects physically using the least invasive force possible?

We've seen pregnant women and non violent college students and hundreds of others tased for nothing more than civil disobedience or asserting their legal rights. Does this bother you?

Tasers are the least invasive, as I said, people watch too much TV and often don't understand much about hand to hand combat.

Tasers are not just safer for me, they're safer for the suspect. Now instead of a broken arm, the suspect has two tiny punctures in the skin.

As for the civil disobedience, I guess the level of disobedience matters. If they're resisting arrest I'm fine with it. Of course it bothers me to see people tased for asserting their legal rights.

Video of a woman being tased while hogtied in the back of a police car

This video is a little long but I think you'll find it interesting if you haven't seen it. Do you think the officers were justified to tase the woman the first time? What about while she was hogtied in the back of the car?

Looks ok to me...

there was a cop here locally (and one that I knew well bc I had worked at a convenience store that he frequented. pretty good guy I thought) that responded to a woman I guess trying to prostitute outside a local bar. she was being obnoxious and he eventually cuffed her and put her in the back of the squad car.

he then proceeded to tase her, while handcuffed in the back of the car, 5 times over the next few minutes, saying things like, 'if you keep talking you're gonna get it again!' and 'well see that, the first two didn't work so here's another one' while she was literally begging him to stop while sobbing.

pretty sure he got a 2-week paid vacation.

obviously that doesnt happen all the time, but people were sharing their anecdotes. lol

ACLU guy is (mostly) right.

First tasing I'm probably ok with from a pure force perspective, but it may be wrong depending on whether he had probable cause to detain her.

After that, no. You never tase someone without telling them what you want them to do or stop doing, unless its a violent situation.

The first time he tases her it looks like he has 1 of her arms behind her back and in handcuffs + there are 2 officers there. It seems like an officer should surely be able to handcuff a woman from that point without using a taser to subdue her?

I'm not sure whether your position on him tasing her after she's hogtied is that it's wrong because he didn't tell her to stop kicking before tasing her? Or that you should never need to tase someone who is handcuffed and hogtied?

From what I've seen, it never really looks like using a taser is safer for anyone. If you're actually a threat to police you're going to get shot not tased. If you piss the cops off at all, and they can't get away with shooting you, they're going to tase you to make you pay.

let me guess, all you look at are stories titled "OMG POLICE NEARLY KILL WOMAN WITH TASER"

Obviously. They're the only ones worth watching.

Sure, and likely injure her elbow, arm and shoulder.

I'm not gonna say never. If she was subdued and compliant, tasing is inappropriate.

There are varying degrees of "threat". Nowadays, you're gonna get tased in situations where 30 years ago you would've gotten your ass beat. That's the difference.

Two other points that need to be made: firstly, I'm speaking in generalities here, this specific situation looks awful, several of the uses of the taser are inappropriate.

Secondly, it is worth noting he's not actually "tasing" her, he's using the drive-stun function, which isn't nearly as painful.

"Not gonna say never" obviously implies that it would only rarely be appropriate to tase someone who was hogtied.

I am having trouble imagining any situation in which I think that it would be appropriate to tase someone who was restrained. The only possible situation I can imagine would be if the fully restrained person was trying to incite an unrestrained colleague to assault you or another officer. I can't imagine any other situation. What is the hypothetical rare situation that you are imagining?

I was more thinking about the restrained individual attacking the cop.

If the unrestrained one wants to fight I'll tase his ass too.

What's the purpose of this? I would think if a person needed to be subdued you'd want to go for maximum effect. When you say he was using a lower setting it just makes it sound even more like it's just being done to inflict some unnecessary pain.

How could a person in handcuffs & hogtied ever attack someone?

I think they could thrash around and smash their head into stuff to hurt themselves, not allow themselves to be loaded/closed in the car, etc.

Are you aware of any instance in which a hogtied suspect successfully attacked a cop? Again, I'm having trouble envisioning what that would look like. If I was fighting while hogtied, and my opponent had a gun, a taser, and a baton, I would feel like I was at a real disadvantage. Perhaps those who are better at grappling would feel differently.

This is possible, I suppose. This would fall under the category of "I'm tasing you for your own good. You'll thank me later."