Utah HP tasers John Gardner

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Meh I responded to the wrong thing. Anyway: The guy orders him out of his car, and then turns his back on him. When the guy, thinking he was supposed to be looking at a street sign, starts walking toward him, the cop freaks out and decides that he's in danger. He wasn't, and the reason he thought so is because he turned his back on the guy. If the cop had decided to arrest him, then he should have arrested him quickly. If he hadn't decided to arrest him, then he shouldn't have ordered the guy out of his car.

All you are doing is changing your criticism. You also seem to be suggesting that if a cop screws up (assuming he did), then he can't validly use force after that. Why not? Say the cop screwed up. What then? Does that relieve the suspect from obeying direct commands? When the cop pulls out a taser and repeats the direct commands, would a normal person think the cop wasn't going to fire?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As I said, please describe how you arrest someone if they don't do what you ask them to do. Do you just keep asking? Or do you let them get back in the car (which would be very dangerous), or do you just let them go, or do you use force?

At that point, the cop should have realized how badly he screwed up, and feel grateful that he wasn't dead already. That cop was reeeeally stupid.

That brings up another issue, however. Even if the kid is non-compliant, why couldn't the cop put him in a restraint? The taser is a pretty dangerous way for fat and/or lazy cops to be able to subdue someone.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

All you are doing is changing your criticism. You also seem to be suggesting that if a cop screws up (assuming he did), then he can't validly use force after that. Why not? Say the cop screwed up. What then? Does that relieve the suspect from obeying direct commands? When the cop pulls out a taser and repeats the direct commands, would a normal person think the cop wasn't going to fire?

What should happen is what will happen.

The citizen gets arrested and fined.

The cop gets fired and/or reprimanded and the government gets sued and settles for an undisclosed amount.

Lawyers get paid, citizen asshole is punished and asshole cop is now a rent-a-cop at a shopping mall.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Come on, you sound like a Bush homer right now. It wasn't that dangerous and the situation escalated due to the dickheadness of the two participants.

I am not suggesting cops have carte blanche when someone doesn't obey. There clearly are limits (and cops frequently pass them by). This one seems pretty cut and dry to me, though. The instruction was simple, the reaction by the suspect could easily have been viewed as being dangerous, the cop made his intentions clear when he pointed the taser at the guy, and the guy continued to refuse to obey. If the cop had have continued to beat the guy when he was down, or had have shot him again with the taser, or any number of other things, he would have been way out of line. As it was, I don't see a huge problem here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

At that point, the cop should have realized how badly he screwed up, and feel grateful that he wasn't dead already. That cop was reeeeally stupid.

That brings up another issue, however. Even if the kid is non-compliant, why couldn't the cop put him in a restraint? The taser is a pretty dangerous way for fat and/or lazy cops to be able to subdue someone.

This is just getting amusing now.

Put the guy in a restraint? GREAT idea! If only there was a command that would lead to such a wonderful result, like "put your hands behind your back and turn around."

But wait- what happens if they don't listen? Do the restraints magically appear on the guys wrists?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

All you are doing is changing your criticism. You also seem to be suggesting that if a cop screws up (assuming he did), then he can't validly use force after that. Why not? Say the cop screwed up. What then? Does that relieve the suspect from obeying direct commands? When the cop pulls out a taser and repeats the direct commands, would a normal person think the cop wasn't going to fire?

See my last post. I think police departments nationwide need to reevaluate the protocols of taser deployment. It is not as non-lethal as they'd like to believe, and at the very least has gained quite a stigma. It has come to be seen as a first resort for any cop that perceives the slightest bit of disobedience. The citizen's job is not to obey any order or risk being assaulted, it is to choose to either obey lawful orders or to submit to arrest and fight it out through the legal system.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

See my last post. I think police departments nationwide need to reevaluate the protocols of taser deployment. It is not as non-lethal as they'd like to believe, and at the very least has gained quite a stigma. It has come to be seen as a first resort for any cop that perceives the slightest bit of disobedience. The citizen's job is not to obey any order or risk being assaulted, it is to choose to either obey lawful orders or to submit to arrest and fight it out through the legal system.

"Submit to arrest." GREAT idea! But what if they don't listen in some crazy situation, like... here?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This is just getting amusing now.

Put the guy in a restraint? GREAT idea! If only there was a command that would lead to such a wonderful result, like "put your hands behind your back and turn around."

But wait- what happens if they don't listen? Do the restraints magically appear on the guys wrists?

I'm not talking about handcuffs. I'm talking about any of a large array of non-injurious restraints or holds that law enforcement and security people use regularly to subdue people. My point is that tasers are an extremely lazy way to subdue someone.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Submit to arrest." GREAT idea! But what if they don't listen in some crazy situation, like... here?

Then you immediately shoot them full of electricity without a second thought, obviously.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I'm not talking about handcuffs. I'm talking about any of a large array of non-injurious restraints or holds that law enforcement and security people use regularly to subdue people. My point is that tasers are an extremely lazy way to subdue someone.

So you are mad that he didn't go UFC on the dude? That exposes the officer to MORE harm (particularly where, as here, the suspect is bigger than the cop), and could result in much more harm to the suspect as well.

I think you are under the impression that the Vulcan death grip is a viable possibility.

What happens if the guy fights back on the "non-injurious" restraint technique?