So are you actually of the opinion that you can find evidence that taser deployments are more dangerous than a cop forcefully restraining a resisting individual?

If so, I'd love to see it. Otherwise you're just trolling the thread IMO.

.

I thought the selling point of lasers was as an alternative to lethal force.

It appears that they are sometimes used in the place of negotiating do that cooler heads may prevail. Would you say that appearance is inaccurate?

They can be used in some lethal force situations, mostly situations involving knives, baseball bats etc, however I'm not about to attempt to tase someone shooting at me or someone else and you shouldn't either.

They are much more often used as an alternative to impact weapons, chemical agents and hard hand force tactics.

The taser is much safer than the use of impact weapons and hard hand tactics, and the pain of taser usage doesn't last near as long as the deployment of chemical agents such as tear gas and more commonly, OC spray.

Full video here.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/RAW-VIDEO-T...z/-/index.html

LOL cops here.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...135571738.html

It's understandable he got those facts wrong.

.

But they're also frequently used as alternatives to talking in situations where macing or clubbing somebody wouldn't be appropriate.

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).

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.

Quote:
According to the lawsuit, the police report claims Ammary aimed his weapon lower because Wilson was using her backpack to block the Taser. The video shows Wilson’s upper body exposed however. The suit also says the police report claims hundreds of students were blocking traffic at the time of the incident. The video only shows a small number of students on the street however.

It's understandable he got those facts wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of crap that I expect cops to uniformly, across the board, come out publically and say "That type of behavior is unacceptable, that police officer deserves to be fired. We do not need police officers behaving like that, it ruins the publics feelings of trust in the police. People can not feel safe in society with police officers like that.

We don't need unions protecting cops like that. We don't need review boards making excuses for stuff like that. (FYI I didn't watch the video's, my position is based on assuming the position of the lawsuit is true and accurate).

wat? A lawsuit with merit? Thats a rather large assumption

The video in question is not that useful because it doesn't show the whole event, however it does show the officer trying to physically restrain the girl before stepping away and tazzing her, so at least in this situation it wasn't the first option.

Its hard to tell from the video but she may have been holding a backpack to block the tazer. Or the cop just has bad aim and didn't want to admit it.

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.


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".

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.

That makes sence Dbl, I can tell your not the type to get off on tasing people or to want to expend minimal effort at arrest time so lean heavily on your taser because you can. There are alot of cops out there who don't even follow the rules, let alone the spirit of them though

Link

Opinions? One quote I'd really like to hear opinions on is this:
from the opinion.

Seems ok to me.

I guess I don't think it should be illegal to have a glass pipe and marijuana but that's a different issue.

Yeah I have a hard time believing that'd be controversial.

Meh, at what point does something like open container come into play for driving? I'm not saying this should definitely apply here, but as an ardent legalizer of drugs it's hard for me to get too upset about that part of this case even.

I like the general statement about the 4th Amendment not being a game of Blind Mans bluff, and like the opinion in general, but I hate the case it originates from.

This bull**** "I didn't know what I had my hands on" drug enforcement is one of my pet peeves.

After 3 months on the job, I could correctly ID a bag of weed and/or a pipe 100% of the time through jeans etc. By 9 months, I could correctly ID a bag of weed and a pipe through a ski jacket while wearing winter gloves in the middle of a blizzard. Occasionally you do run into items that you really cannot ID, but this wasn't one of those cases.

The worst part is, this lie is sold all the time to enforce drug cases. It's a large part of the reason I went private sector.

You feel that many bags of weed and pipes?

Well, I had a skate park in my first zone, I used to get trespass calls from all the businesses near this skate park. I probably confiscated 1 lb of weed and probably 10 pipes A month off those delinquent skaters. I once arrested one for Interference with Govt property because he attempted to jump my car and dented the hood.

Idiots.

They started to respect me when they realized I wouldn't arrest them for the weed if they just GTFO when I, then eventually, the business owners, told them to. My ultimate goal was to push them all to the skate park, which seemed to work.

So yea, I've felt a lot of weed pipes in my day.

Maybe police should be liable for the damage they cause to others' private property... like every other person?

Or maybe they already are?

The department paying the damages =/= Officer Joe Schmoe paying the damages. The department is funded by the taxpayers.

And what logical justification do you have as to why police officers should be exempt from certain "umbrella" protections every other employee in most other professions are?

If I fall down and hurt myself at Wal-Mart because an employee didn't put up a wet floor sign, Wal-Mart should be exempt from corporate liability?