"A Time To Fire The Taser?"
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
Do tell another one, you make for a quite entertaining forum visit tonight.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
About as lethal as being punched to punch-drunk. Really it is "less-than-lethal".
Say someone punched you and you fell to the ground and went into a coma? Was the punch a lethal weapon? Do we register hands?
I'd say it was an accident involving a taser. Whether or not the use of the taser was warranted was a separate issue.
As a very generalized statement, criminals tend to be stupid. Part of what we should expect from our police force is for them to act in a way that reduces the chance of stupid people doing stupid things.
So yes, don't flee the police is very true. However, I expect the police to take precautions to prevent stupid people from attempting to flee the police in the first place.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
IIIRC the overall conclusion of statistics/studies has been that tasers are safer that batons, fists, and tackling.
And falls were the big source of injury even before tasers. I suspect that's why tasing is generally safer than tackling.
OTOH, the fall-factor is why it probably would have been better if the officer waited until she was well clear of the sidewalk/curb. As she stepped off she had some extra downward-and-forward motion. A tackle on that spot could easily have been just as bad. If the officer had waited a second longer I doubt she would have been seriously hurt. But I don't believe that's the sort of calculation officers can be expected to make: "ASAP" is almost always best.
Though a grab does look like a good bet. Yet officers are trained to use "decisive" force. Generally speaking you don't want to give the suspect the chance to get further riled-up by an attempt at force that fails to subdue. It makes injury (for both officer and suspect) significantly more likely.
I'd say the woman was a victim of terrible luck. The officer could have acted better (especially in not allowing that situation to come about) but it does look like he was following Flordia's rules and his training. And both rules and training were designed around playing the odds - what usually works best. If the officer had transcended his training, realizing, for example, the danger posed by the sidewalk-to-pavement transition, he might have tried the grab and got her safely. And, of course, gotten zero praise or recognition for his good split-second call. OTOH, he might have been in big trouble for tackling the women, or letting her play in traffic. (Which seems unlikely... but I wasn't there.)
I guess my point is that there are plenty of situations where I think the police need to be second-guessed, but I don't think this particular incident is one of them. Or, if there is second guessing, it's about what led to her running out of the station, not the tasing.
I noted from the article that Florida doesn't allow tasers against passive resistance. Many departments used to, and some still do. I think a lot of the worst cases of taser-abuse involved situations where the taser introduced 100% of the potential harm. U.S. usage is slowly getting in tune with the idea that tasers aren't magically safe. (I think there was a case where, during a training exercise, and officer suffered spinal damage due to the contractions after being hit with a taser. I imagine that sort of thing gets even police attention.)
To answer a direct question..
Yeah. Possibly with further punishment for someone in custody getting injured due to the screw-up.
And it's too bad the legal system is so hard on anybody admitting fault. It's hard to say "I did make a mistake." or "I could have done better." without it very swiftly leading to "You admit total liability."
And falls were the big source of injury even before tasers. I suspect that's why tasing is generally safer than tackling.
OTOH, the fall-factor is why it probably would have been better if the officer waited until she was well clear of the sidewalk/curb. As she stepped off she had some extra downward-and-forward motion. A tackle on that spot could easily have been just as bad. If the officer had waited a second longer I doubt she would have been seriously hurt. But I don't believe that's the sort of calculation officers can be expected to make: "ASAP" is almost always best.
Though a grab does look like a good bet. Yet officers are trained to use "decisive" force. Generally speaking you don't want to give the suspect the chance to get further riled-up by an attempt at force that fails to subdue. It makes injury (for both officer and suspect) significantly more likely.
I'd say the woman was a victim of terrible luck. The officer could have acted better (especially in not allowing that situation to come about) but it does look like he was following Flordia's rules and his training. And both rules and training were designed around playing the odds - what usually works best. If the officer had transcended his training, realizing, for example, the danger posed by the sidewalk-to-pavement transition, he might have tried the grab and got her safely. And, of course, gotten zero praise or recognition for his good split-second call. OTOH, he might have been in big trouble for tackling the women, or letting her play in traffic. (Which seems unlikely... but I wasn't there.)
I guess my point is that there are plenty of situations where I think the police need to be second-guessed, but I don't think this particular incident is one of them. Or, if there is second guessing, it's about what led to her running out of the station, not the tasing.
I noted from the article that Florida doesn't allow tasers against passive resistance. Many departments used to, and some still do. I think a lot of the worst cases of taser-abuse involved situations where the taser introduced 100% of the potential harm. U.S. usage is slowly getting in tune with the idea that tasers aren't magically safe. (I think there was a case where, during a training exercise, and officer suffered spinal damage due to the contractions after being hit with a taser. I imagine that sort of thing gets even police attention.)
To answer a direct question..
Yeah. Possibly with further punishment for someone in custody getting injured due to the screw-up.
And it's too bad the legal system is so hard on anybody admitting fault. It's hard to say "I did make a mistake." or "I could have done better." without it very swiftly leading to "You admit total liability."
A taser is a weapon, it's meant to hurt and is capable of killing, policemen supposedly use a powered-down version but that's the same as shooting with rubber bullets or saying that you're aiming for the arms/legs.
Wouldn't it be better to just not let stupid people into the police, and also to prevent them from becoming stupid after they join it?
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Are you suggesting a 200 pound guy tackling her on the pavement would have been any safer? Because if he runs after her and she isnt stopping that will be the end result so at the end of the day she is going down hard on the pavement one way or the other, which is what caused the injury in the first place.
However, I think most agree the cop screwed up when he let her get loose in the first place and flee, however once she was fleeing a taser was probably the safest way to stop and subdue her.
Well, the cop was probably fat. Unless he was over 6'4" or so, it's incredibly difficult to be in good shape while weighing 267 pounds.
Electrify, not electrocute.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
That's what I said. Cops are constantly getting browbeaten for their actions--no matter what those actions actually are.
So what should reasonable people do when cops' actions are unreasonable?
Start by proving that it was unreasonable
How is this done?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Not really. Tasers have killed before.. they are pretty dangerous and should really be used as a last resort.
Compare it to alternative policies and show by means of some evidence that better results can be achieved with one of those alternatives. Then reasonable people will support the idea of changing the method.
Takhisis said:
I have! Getting hit on the head 20 times by police batons made me the man I am today.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
So say police are randomly gunning down people in the streets - I should compare this to alternatives, and show by means of some evidence that better results can be achieved with an alternative to random shootings?
Then I can expect that reasonable people will support the idea of ceasing random shootings?
And unreasonable people will refuse to change their opinion that some people will always criticize police for something, and criticisms aren't valid?
Sub-concussive head trauma causes permanent brain damage, yo.
You have failed to show that the tazer method is unreasonable. Please try again.
Try what again?
I at no point implied or tried to show that the tazer method is unreasonable - I'm just verifying that I correctly understand your method of dealing with unreasonable methods. (I'm pretty sure we can both agree that randomly gunning down civilians is unreasonable.)
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Tazer yes, but the effects don't last long. To keep the individual down and before she can move one must follow the electrification immediately and hose her off with pepper spray for lasting effect. 
