Quote:
Originally Posted by woot
Perhaps some of you lawyers know about this:
Wasn't the taser only legalized because it is preferred in situations when a gun is the alternative? Isn't it then only supposed to be used when a gun would have otherwise been used? I'm constantly reading stories about people being tasered for trivial things. If a cop needs a taser in order to subdue someone, that cop needs to go back to the academy. If a cop uses a taser on an already subdued or compliant person, the cop needs to be fired immediately.
|
In this case I don't it was justified at all, in fact I jumped a bit when it went off -- never expected it to be used so quick. And this was a routine traffic stop for speeding, unless the guy starts getting physical with the officer there is no reason for this situation escalating to that extent. I have little sympathy for the driver, though, c'mon how hard is it to follow a few simple instructions?
That said, there are cases where a subject can be passive aggressive, which is not punching or attacking the officer, but at the same time applying force to prevent the officer from doing what he is trying to do (like apply handcuffs -- if the subject is holding his arm and resisting the cop pulling it back behind his back). This is the kind of scene that makes for the teevee news footage that looks like police brutality because the guy may already be on the ground and is not punching or anything like that, yet the officer(s) have to really be forceful in order to get the subject to comply. The job is not done until he is cuffed -- he could pop up and run off at any time.