Tasers again (from Occupy DC this time)

[Yeekim]

While in this case it seems the officer was a bit premature, she could have waited a bit longer to determine if the tazer was really gonna be necessary. I don't find her actions wrong but merely mistaken. And they could have handled the situation a lot better from the beginning in a peaceful manner.

However, I don't think the use of a tazer is "excessive" force in any resisting arrest scenario (of course there are very rare instances where it's unnecessary). I don't know why people have the idea that cops should be going toe to toe with everybody who resists, they shouldn't go toe to toe with anybody as far as I'm concerned. When it comes down to it they need to overpower your force, not try to match it.

Best comment in the thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, good arguments - I think those are sufficient grounds to question the police action and gain an explanation from them. However, I do also think that police officers work their tactics by briefing officers beforehand so that they go in with a prepared line of action in response to certain situations. Thus it is somewhat an a priori tactical justification rather than a judgement call on the spot, if that makes any sense. ie they were going to do it the moment anyone kicked off, no matter how pajama-clad.

That just shifts criticism to a higher level, though, it doesn't actually negate it.

Except in the theological sense, I don't know what kind of accountability you could be referring to. People within society are held to account by the law.

"Accountable" was probably the wrong word. I just meant that a general morality permits no exceptions.

So I do agree that there is an objective morality. But I know that not everyone agrees on what it is, and that the best compromise we can reach is the law. In the reality of our complex society, we have an obligation to sometimes reign in our sense of righteousness in order not to tread on our fellow man.

Fair enough, but that suggests that the law is a code of compromises, which makes it hard to understand how it could supersede a general morality. That would only follow if you argue that adherence to that code is the highest moral obligation we possess, which does not seem self-evident.

For the most part, the law supersedes morality and has to do so. The defence "I was just following orders" is a form of defence that does possess some legitimacy. It does not justify all actions, but nor can one dismiss it completely. The individual has limited perspective and judgement, and a claim to the superiority of morality can quickly become a claim to omniscience and infallibility.

So would you say that the [edit: succession supersession (bloody spellcheck)] of morality by the law is absolute, or contextual?

 

[Ayn Rand]

That just shifts criticism to a higher level, though, it doesn't actually negate it.

Partly - however it also reinforces the fact that an individual officer does not operate as a moral philosopher but is reliant on a wider system of information for his decision-making. Therefore he cannot be expected to exercise individual moral judgement all the time, and this to some extent relieves him of moral responsibility for some of his actions.

"Accountable" was probably the wrong word. I just meant that a general morality permits no exceptions.

I agree with that, but only in a purely theoretical sense.

Fair enough, but that suggests that the law is a code of compromises, which makes it hard to understand how it could supersede a general morality. That would only follow if you argue that adherence to that code is the highest moral obligation we possess, which does not seem self-evident.

It's not absolutely one or the other. Because we have limited knowledge and a complex reality, we have to constantly perform a balancing act which is always imperfect.

So would you say that the succession of morality by the law is absolute, or contextual?

It's absolute because we will never have perfect information.

 

[Crezth]

different training.

Well, yeah, I'm just not sure what necessitates the different approach re: walking up and tasing someone as opposed to talking someone down calmly.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well, yeah, I'm just not sure what necessitates the different approach re: walking up and tasing someone as opposed to talking someone down calmly.

400 million handguns = 400 million arguments in favour of tazing

 

[Traitorfish]

Partly - however it also reinforces the fact that an individual officer does not operate as a moral philosopher but is reliant on a wider system of information for his decision-making. Therefore he cannot be expected to exercise individual moral judgement all the time, and this to some extent relieves him of moral responsibility for some of his actions.

But he retains at least some ability to critically evaluate his orders, at least in cases such as this, so why is he to be relieved of it? I would say that, by obeying orders that he is in a position to criticise and thus potentially reject, he becomes complicit in them. He would only be relieved of responsibility if he genuinely lacked the ability (for whatever reason) to make that critical evaluation, and so cannot be said to have made a choice in the matter.

It's not absolutely one or the other. Because we have limited knowledge and a complex reality, we have to constantly perform a balancing act which is always imperfect.

That seems to suggest that the law is to understood as a guide to moral behaviour, though, rather than something that actually supersedes it. If that was so, then it wouldn't matter if we had perfect knowledge or not, the law would take automatic priority.

It's absolute because we will never have perfect information.

Wouldn't that imply, to take an extreme example, the Waffen SS guard who worked at the Nazi death camps were morally justified in doing what they did, because it was dictated by the law?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My question to you is what do the police do at this point?

The issue is, at that point it's already too late.

What I would like the police to do is train their personal in methods to restrain people like that. You can safely restrain a struggling person with 3 policemen,women ... police persons. (before anyone butts in, yes I do know that this is true seeing that one of my mates in a policeman and in the Netherlands they do get that kind of training. In fact they are trained to do what these 3 policepersons were doing, in pairs.) But if you train them to tazer on the first sign of struggle, that's what they'll do. The policepersons here are not to blame, those who train and instruct them are.

 

[Ayn Rand]

But he retains at least some ability to critically evaluate his orders, at least in cases such as this, so why is he to be relieved of it? I would say that, by obeying orders that he is in a position to criticise and thus potentially reject, he becomes complicit in them. He would only be relieved of responsibility if he genuinely lacked the ability (for whatever reason) to make that critical evaluation, and so cannot be said to have made a choice in the matter.

Yes, he is not relieved of all of his moral responsibility but he is definitely relieved of a large part of it.

And you are only thinking of one part of the equation - he has an equal but opposite responsibility to "mindlessly obey" an instruction to, say, kick a door down because his officer tells him an old lady is hurt on the other side. If he kicks the door down and the old lady turns out not to be sick, he is not morally guilty for damaging her property, is he?

That seems to suggest that the law is to understood as a guide to moral behaviour, though, rather than something that actually supersedes it. If that was so, then it wouldn't matter if we had perfect knowledge or not, the law would take automatic priority.

The law should take automatic priority, with dissent for individual conscience being the exception rather than the norm.

Wouldn't that imply, to take an extreme example, the Waffen SS guard who worked at the Nazi death camps were morally justified in doing what they did, because it was dictated by the law?

It implies that they have a partial defence but not a complete defence on those grounds, yes.

 

[Yeekim]

The issue is, at that point it's already too late.

What I would like the police to do is train their personal in methods to restrain people like that. You can safely restrain a struggling person with 3 policemen,women ... police persons.

No. You can't "safely" restrain anyone. Any use of physical force has a risk factor, just like taser has. Maybe 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10 000, but it is there.

(before anyone butts in, yes I do know that this is true seeing that one of my mates in a policeman and in the Netherlands they do get that kind of training. In fact they are trained to do what these 3 policepersons were doing, in pairs.)

And I have seen a martial arts sensei "shrug off" 6 adept fighters trying to "restrain" him. So?

But if you train them to tazer on the first sign of struggle, that's what they'll do. The policepersons here are not to blame, those who train and instruct them are.

If people knew they could count on getting tased on the first sight of struggle, maybe they struggled less?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, he is not relieved of all of his moral responsibility but he is definitely relieved of a large part of it.

Are you saying that the average police over lacks the ability to take a significantly critical look at their orders, or simply that they are relived from the responsibility of doing so?

And you are only thinking of one part of the equation - he has an equal but opposite responsibility to "mindlessly obey" an instruction to, say, kick a door down because his officer tells him an old lady is hurt on the other side. If he kicks the door down and the old lady turns out not to be sick, he is not morally guilty for damaging her property, is he?

But responsibility for what? If the police officer was in the sincere belief that the old lady was hurt and had no reasons to doubt that this was the case,and kicking down the door was the only viable way to reach her, then kicking down the door would be a responsible and benevolent act which turned out to be misguided, so itwould be unreasonable to blame him for it. But what's being suggested here is that the cops, firstly, had insufficient reason to believe that this guy presented a threat, and, secondly, that the level of force used was excessive even for the threat they percieved, which is a totally different situation; it is both irresponsible and malicious, and therefore that it should be condemned.

The law should take automatic priority, with dissent for individual conscience being the exception rather than the norm.

Do you just mean in contemporary Western society, or in all societies?

It implies that they have a partial defence but not a complete defence on those grounds, yes.

Well, to continue with this example, where is the line drawn? What of their actions are they culpable for, and what is attributed exclusively to the Nazi state? And does this vary depending on rank, e.g. that a camp commandant would hold more responsibility than a guard?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. You can't "safely" restrain anyone.

Yes, you can.

And I have seen a martial arts sensei "shrug off" 6 adept fighters trying to "restrain" him. So?

Christ on a bike.

If people knew they could count on getting tased on the first sight of struggle, maybe they struggled less?

Yeah, maybe. If they knew they'd get beaten up by a martial arts sensei maybe they'd even struggle less. Look ma! I can be derisive too!

Any time you feel like a discussion, let me know.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Are you saying that the average police over lacks the ability to take a significantly critical look at their orders, or simply that they are relived from the responsibility of doing so?

Both - he is relieved because he doesn't have the ability. He lacks the time to consider all decisions properly as he must spend his time on the streets, and he is often told what to do by officers rather than acting as an autonomous individual.

Those higher-ranking officers, having more information and training, have to be trusted by the policemen on the streets. Blind trust is necessary in an organisation like the police, which is one reason why an policeman is not fully responsible for all of his actions.

But responsibility for what? If the police officer was in the sincere belief that the old lady was hurt and had no reasons to doubt that this was the case,and kicking down the door was the only viable way to reach her, then kicking down the door would be a responsible and benevolent act which turned out to be misguided, so itwould be unreasonable to blame him for it. But what's being suggested here is that the cops, firstly, had insufficient reason to believe that this guy presented a threat, and, secondly, that the level of force used was excessive even for the threat they percieved, which is a totally different situation; it is both irresponsible and malicious, and therefore that it should be condemned.

Here your own subjective morality comes into play - you value free speech and therefore you think the destruction of a door is trivial.

We could imagine a person with opposite beliefs to yours, who might be very offended by the police breaking a door down.

How you perceive the police actions, and what you criticise them for, is a reflection of your own beliefs and morality. But each person has different moral priorities and the police cannot please everyone. Preventing a riot might be very important to some people - and therefore they might think that this arrest was well-intentioned but badly carried out.

Do you just mean in contemporary Western society, or in all societies?

I certainly can't say "all societies" because that could mean any concept of law or morality. So I will restrict myself to "law as it is understood on the Western model".

Well, to continue with this example, where is the line drawn? What of their actions are they culpable for, and what is attributed exclusively to the Nazi state? And does this vary depending on rank, e.g. that a camp commandant would hold more responsibility than a guard?

There is no clear "line" that can be determined a priori. That's why justice must be carried out on a case-by-case basis, hearing as much of the facts and context as possible, before a judgement is carried out. The questions you have asked would tax many legal theorists and have no simple answer.

 

[aelf]

If people knew they could count on getting tased on the first sight of struggle, maybe they struggled less?

Same thing could be said about getting shot.

Looks like the Soviets had the right idea when it comes to dealing with civil disorder in the satellite states.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, you can.

No, you can't. You´ll end up with someone who has brittle bones syndrome or who´ll just fly into rage and get a stroke. No method is 100% safe.

Yeah, maybe. If they knew they'd get beaten up by a martial arts sensei maybe they'd even struggle less. Look ma! I can be derisive too!

Sorry. I guess I came off as derisive - and undeservedly so, because the last point you made - about training - was actually right on money.

I simply doubt whether the strategy of police in Netherlands is the right one. Why should police be expected to engage in a wrestling match? Why shouldn't people, instead, expect to get tasered if they attempt to kick or struggle. Kicking and screaming is not the way to go about convincing a policeman that you should be left alone.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Why should police be expected to engage in a wrestling match?

Because it's kind of their job - it's like saying why should nurses look after sick people.

I can see the logic in USA where anyone can conceal a firearm. But in Britain or Holland, de-escalation and consensual policing is the correct strategy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No method is 100% safe.

I'm not claiming that, I am claiming you can.

If the decision is between two methods, which for argument's sake we'll appoint the same level of risk to (no idea whether that's true or not) I chose the one which is the least violent.

I simply doubt whether the strategy of police in Netherlands is the right one. Why should police be expected to engage in a wrestling match? Why shouldn't people, instead, expect to get tasered if they attempt to kick or struggle. Kicking and screaming is not the way to go about convincing a policeman that you should be left alone.

Well I am specifically referring to the situation in the OP. The person is merely struggling and doesn't pose any danger to the policemen (argh! persons!) involved. When the element of excessive danger is introduced, like for instance someone resisting arrest by kicking, swinging punches then we've got a different situation.

The police do need to have their own safety (heh) in mind, so they should not be expected to take risks they didn't agree to when they signed up to become police.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you go off and try to fight off 3 cops when they are trying to arrest you I dont have much pity when you get tazed. From what I can see right before getting tazed he pushed the one female cop off him. Pushing police is never a wise idea.

I think you'll find she releases him because she doesn't want to be shocked when she sees the tazer (irony ). Look at the policeman on the right. He holds on a little too long