I think we could actually have a very legit debate about tasers in US law enforcement if we could start with four baseline assumptions and move forward from those.

Those would be:

1) The police have legitimate authority to chase those fleeing from them
2) Tasers are not deadly weapons, at least in the sense a gun is.
3) Tasers are not torture devices
4) Tasering a running suspect is not deadly force.

#1 is wildly difficult for the majority of you, I'm aware.
#2-4, just try to work with me. I've heard from Will that it is his belief that Tasers should go directly under lethal weapons in a use of force continuum.

As I've stated, Tasers are presently in between Verbal commands and soft hand tactics at the department, and are on the same force level as OC spray.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this, as well as Will's response.

Lol using voltage! Imma rub a balloon on your head and drop 10k on your bitch ass

Btw it really needs to be repeated the woman is brain dead from falling to the ground, not the taser. That type of **** happens during physical confrontations and isn't unique to a taser

So you don't think there should be a limit to the amount of force used to catch an escaped jaywalker? We should just ignore the cost associated with the police enforcing the law? What is wrong with a system where the police weighs the cost of their actions against the benefit of their action?

Well, I've never seen an arrested jaywalker, but I'll bite anyway.

Yes, that level of force should be somewhere in the area of soft hands, use of less lethal compliance tools and restraint mechanisms. Obviously deadly force should not be used in that situation.

The general issue you have RR is that you tend to believe in situations like these that the crime the police have caught them involved in is the max, or near the max of their criminal capabilities. History and experience disagree.

I'm fine with all 4 assumptions, but you already knew that.

In training my brother has been both OCed (academy, required) and tased (dumb ass volunteered). He's gone on record saying that he'd take the tasing over the OC any day, no contest.

My admittedly uninformed opinion is that the likelihood of unintentional health complications is higher for tasers tho, so I'd put them above OC. And I'd put both below soft hand for the exact same reason.

This sounds a lot like you are saying you should assume the worst about everyone and use minor criminal behavior as a way around Constitutional rights. I think a lot of these issues go away if the police focus on apprehending dangerous criminals.

I agree with your brother, for the simple reason that when they turn the taser off, the pain goes away.

OC stays with you ALL DAY LONG, then reactivates when you shower at night.

I'm all for OC typically, but I WON'T use it in certain situations (enclosed buildings, inside vehicles etc).

I can kind of see where you're coming from putting it a step above.

OC's main use for me is to get rid of pesky dogs. It works just as good as shooting them with none of the bad press. If I can get one message out to the LE world it would be that.

No, what I'm saying is use less lethal actions on a non violent, but fleeing, criminal.

You're using jaywalking as a big "It's not a big deal if this man escapes" thing.

I'm stating reasonable people know people don't bolt on the police for a jaywalking cite.

As an aside, IDK if that's even enforced anywhere anymore. I know I never once wrote or saw anyone write a cite for jaywalking.

What about a shoplifter fleeing Target? Should he or she be tased?


Assume medium build carrying a few bags of unknown weight.

By "should" I mean, would it be a reasonable exercise of police power.

If they've ignored a verbal command, yes imo.

Not enough information.

Assuming you've ID'd yourself as an officer, and assuming you've got probable cause, I'd tase if he refused to stop, falling back on US v Dotson, which states:

Now, I believe a taser is "reasonable" here, since he's fleeing, it's not lethal, he's not obeying my commands to stop, and a fist fight probably wouldn't end well for either.

In a parking lot, assuming the absence of a huge crowd who may experience wind contamination, OC would be a viable option as well.

btw, reading this thread while watching Southland is pretty entertaining.

I have seen people attested for jay walking, but it was in a college town where the students took over turn street on a certain night of the year and the police were set on holding the street.

I approach everything as an economist, look at the costs versus the benefits. It is hard to accurately measure the cost of chasing because you have very bad outcomes that happen a very small percentage of the time.

Helpful hints to further the discussion on police brutality:

Yeah, nobody is talking about "taking the ability to stop a fleeing person" away. Just certain methods used.

"if we could just assume that I'm right then this would be a lot more productive kthnx"

gmafb

On a serious note, I cannot quite grasp your mentality.

Are you under the impression I'm unaware you disagree with #1, or do you and those like you just enjoy repeating yourselves?

Of the 4 "rules" I listed, you may have some oddball reason of believing 3, but you're not stupid enough to believe 2 and 4.. So it's got to be #1.

It's not my fault you didnt read the post I was replying to.

well you didn't quote a post but none of the posts in this thread have suggested that. I guess it's possible that you read a post on some other intarweb BBS somewhere but decided to respond here.

No, falling kills people. A tackle would carry the same risk.

as someone who suffered a nasty head injury while handcuffed when i fell and landed forehead first on the pavement imo its total bull**** to tase someone while they're handcuffed and unable to control their fall. i was probably lucky to come out of it with only a huge gash (still have a bump below my hairline 6 years later) and a concussion, the combo of hangover + falling on my face led to the worst headache of my life the next day though.

DblBarrel,

Just how far philosophically, do you take your oath to serve and protect the public, and I mean truly serve and protect? Would you be willing to agree to this: