Quote:
Originally Posted by bkholdem
We can be sure a cop won't be injured using a taser on a person. Also, I realize that there are times when it's in the best interests of everyone for a cop to tase someone rather than get physical and wrestle a 250lb drunk and aggressive suspect. But there are plenty of times when trigger happy cops whip out the taser because they CAN, not because it's necessary. There are plenty of times when there is someone who is upset and not following cops verbal commands but they are also small and weak and unlikely to get the cop injured if they grab him/her and cuff them up. Cops learn how to size people up like people in lots of different professions do. Nothing is 100%, but there are lots of times when a cop can basically predict that a person is unlikely to "fight" the cop even if they do technically resist, and the level of resistance they would be able to put up would be a joke. Kind of like them verbally arguing/resisting with a little bit of struggle added it. There is a huge range of 'resisting arrest' and I'm pretty sure that most suspects would prefer to be cuffed up hands on vs. tazed. When the suspect is 160lbs or less and not a tough guy, or a woman, the cops are probably able to get them cuffed up with very small chance of personal injury. Using a taser because such a person isn't following verbal commands is wrong IMO.
I wonder whether or not the cops who like to abuse people as a way to deal with their anger are more likely to use a taser or if they prefer to go hands on so they can personally take out their aggression on the guy they are dealing with, getting satisfaction ruffing them up personally (and I know your not the type to abuse people, any posts I make about cops who are abusive have nothing to do with you. I think that the police dept you work for is more of the exception when it comes to appropriate professional behavior than it is the rule).
In the minds of police administators, frail smaller individuals are the ones who they would rather see tased that 250lb drunks.
In the ever increasingly civil liability minded police world, the taser is a perfect tool to incapacitate the smaller, more fragile individual without
injuring them (notice I didn't say hurt). I can probably fight all day with our drunk fullback and he'll be no worse for wear. Now the intoxicated 98 lb female who refuses to exit her vehicle, were I to go hands on with her, I could create all kinds of fun, lawsuit inducing injuries, and in court I'm going to look like a much bigger ass for injuring a 98lb woman than a 250lb man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkholdem
If a cop is facing a suspect who is holding a knife or baseball bat and is not dropping the weapon while being commanded to do so and the person is advancing toward the cop at a regular walking type pace will the cop get into trouble for shooing the suspect with a gun? I'm talking about situations where the cop could easily back up without the suspect gaining additional ground on him.
I've seen a video of cops empting their clips into some dude with a knife walking toward them. More than one cop, no attempt to use a taser. No attempt to take steps backward even though they easily could have done so and remained completely safe. They just stood their with the guy in their sights. IMO it looked more like murder than self defense, at least from my perspective as someone who lives in a 'must retreat' state or whatever it's called. If I'm the person being slowly advanced upon by the guy with the knife instead of the cop I'm pretty darn sure I would have faced criminal charges if there were wittnesses because I could have easily just taken paces backwards and stayed well out of striking range from the person with the knife.
I've also seen a video of a guy with a knife walking around in an agitated and sort-of disassociative state where there were several cops on the scene and one or more of the cops just kept giving the guy commands to put down the knife. None of the cops sort-of 'dug their heels in', taking a position like "hell if I'm retreating, I'm dropping this guy if he takes any steps in my direction holding that knife". It went on for like 10 minutes it seemed. None of the cops shot him. Same type of situation, he didn't charge any of the cops, he didn't lunge at any of them. He wasn't within striking distance and it was quite easy for all of the cops to stay 15 feet away from him without really trying too hard. .... But very similar situation, a few different cops and apparently it was 'necessary' for them to use his chest for target practice.
With this it depends so much on policy, training, and perception that this question is almost impossible to answer. From my perspective, would I shoot an individual advancing on me at a walking pace with a knife? Eventually, yes. I'm not going to do it most likely on the first few steps, but if he takes enough steps and I realize that he's not going to stop unless I stop him, and he's moving on me in a menacing manner, I'd shoot. Then again, like I said, in these situations there are 1000 factors that could play into this. Maybe he's moving toward a school or a place of business, maybe he's backing me up toward a busy street, maybe I realize he's armed with a gun, maybe someone unaware of the situation I'm involved in is blindly moving toward him and I fear he may take a hostage if that person gets too close. There are just far to many factors to consider to just make a blanket statement of "yea I'd shoot there" or "no, I wouldn't".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTeeMe
But they're also frequently used as alternatives to talking in situations where macing or clubbing somebody wouldn't be appropriate
Oftentimes what you're referring to I would call following the letter of SOP but not the "spirit".
Most taser SOPs read something along the lines of "A Taser can be used in situations where verbal commands have been given without compliance and soft hands tactics have been unsuccessful (Soft Hands being a term used to mean the attempt to, with minimum force, bring the hands of a suspect behind their back to allow them to be restrained).
Now, move that policy into the real world, and encounter this situation: I'm out on a domestic violence call, elderly man has been drinking and punched his elderly wife in the face. He's sitting on the front steps of his property as I arrive, and is interviewed there. I then have him supervised on the front steps and interview the wife. After this, I decide to arrest the man. I walk out, explain to the man he's being arrested for violation of the Family Violence Act + Simple Battery. He mumbles something argumentative and I instruct him to stand. He refuses. When he refuses, I move to a position behind him, place my hand on his elbow and attempt to bring his hand behind his back. He pulls his arm away from me. At this point he has, in a completely technical sense, completed everything that must happen to allow me to deploy a taser. However that is certainly not within the spirit of the Taser SOP. However, were I to tase him in that situation, I cannot be formally reprimanded, since I can show, in court if necessary, that I followed the departmental SOP to the letter. This is why quite often these incidents occur where the general public is outraged about a particular tasing, but the reality of the situation is that the cop did, in fact, operate (just) inside of the scope of SOP. In the above situation, I most likely could have convinced the old guy to come along willingly, without the taser. I'm in no danger at the time, he's by no means a flight risk, so of course common sense, which should usually override SOP IMO, dictates I attempt to convince him to come peacefully. Now obviously, if it becomes apparent that this old drunk is not going to come without a fight, I'd personally rather tase him that fight him, for his safety and for civil liability reasons.