Court sets new rules for taser use

[jonks]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...s-to-immediate-threats/1?loc=interstitialskip

About time. That whole "not obeying orders" being grounds for tasing was always complete bullshit. If a person is not obeying an officer's instructions then he's simply not obeying orders. Noncompliance does not equate with a threat requiring such a significant use of force. If the disobeying of orders is coupled with behavior that presents a threat justifying use of force, then tasers may be appropriate.

In this case a guy was standing 20 feet from an officer, in boxers and tennis shoes, and was clearly unarmed. He apparently didn't follow the officer's instructions to stay in his car, which he claims he hadn't heard. He didn't move in any direction, didn't present any threat, was not verbally threatening or making excited gestures, he simply refused to follow orders. So without even a verbal warning, the cop tased him, he fell face first into the ground and smashed out his teeth. The cop testified that the victim took a step towards him before he tased him, but the court found the evidence demonstrated the victim was actually facing away from the cop. It might be the cop lied under oath to bolster his story.

Amnesty International claims 350 people have been killed by taser use since 2001. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I do think that 5000 people suffering bruises or broken bones being taken into custody would be preferable to over 300 deaths.

Here is the decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf

 

[SirStev0]

Is this just a state or county thing? I doubt it is nation wide. Don't worry there will be plenty of Napoleon complex cops out there who need to show how much of a man they are by tasing kids and grandmothers. And plenty of courts and communities and DA's who only care about looking like they are tough on crime.

It is sad that the penis envy of a few has destroyed the reputation of the American Police force.

 

[Zebo]

lol 9th Circuit Court nuff said this will be overruled like all their shit is.

 

[tboo]

lol 9th Circuit Court nuff said this will be overruled like all their shit is.

This

 

[jlee]

About time. That whole "not obeying orders" being grounds for tasing was always complete bullshit. If a person is not obeying an officer's instructions then he's simply not obeying orders. That doesn't translate into being a threat requiring such a use of force. If the disobeying of orders is coupled with behavior that presents a threat justifying use of force, then tasers may be appropriate.

I don't carry a Taser, and I will refrain from expressing an opinion on this ruling. However, I do want to clarify that disobeying an order can indeed justify the use of force, even if there is no "threat." Verbal commands are very low on the force continuum, but if someone does not comply, that will be escalated (most likely to soft hand control, assuming nothing else is going on). I'm not saying to go straight to a Taser, but that statement was not correct.

Also, last I knew Amnesty International was spouting numbers of people who had died after being Tased -- not those whose cause of death was the Taser itself.

 

[boomhower]

I don't carry a Taser either but I have taken the ride, damn things a bitch. At any rate if you get out of your car and start walking towards me when I have told you to stay in the car, your going to have a bad day. By statute we can order you to remain in the vehicle, if you don't I take it as a threat and will handle you accordingly. In this day in age you can't afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt, you have to assume the worse. I am going home at the end of my shift, period. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

 

[jlee]

I don't carry a Taser either but I have taken the ride, damn things a bitch. At any rate if you get out of your car and start walking towards me when I have told you to stay in the car, your going to have a bad day. By statute we can order you to remain in the vehicle, if you don't I take it as a threat and will handle you accordingly. In this day in age you can't afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt, you have to assume the worse. I am going home at the end of my shift, period. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Longest 5 seconds of my life. I'd still take that over spray again, though.

 

[boomhower]

Longest 5 seconds of my life. I'd still take that over spray again, though.

Not me, I would rather be sprayed again. That damn thing was the worst pain I have every felt.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I don't carry a Taser either but I have taken the ride, damn things a bitch. At any rate if you get out of your car and start walking towards me when I have told you to stay in the car, your going to have a bad day. By statute we can order you to remain in the vehicle, if you don't I take it as a threat and will handle you accordingly. In this day in age you can't afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt, you have to assume the worse. I am going home at the end of my shift, period. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Ugh. What a horribly stereotypical attitude you have.

 

[jlee]

Ugh. What a horribly stereotypical attitude you have.

Have you seen the video of South Carolina Trooper Coates getting murdered? If not, look it up. I will caution you that it's one of the more disturbing videos I have seen.

 

[MotF Bane]

Ugh. What a horribly stereotypical attitude you have.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Have you seen the video of South Carolina Trooper Coates getting murdered? If not, look it up. I will caution you that it's one of the more disturbing videos I have seen.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be ready and prepared, but if you can't read that guys power tripping through his post then... I dunno what to say.


I've read your posts, I like you - and I am not at all a 'cop hater'... But just because some kid at his first traffic stop opens up a door SHOULD not give a cop the 'right to use force'...

I feel strongly like he's the type that's just waiting for the opportunity to be mr. badass and pull the taser/gun on someone. I was in a traffic stop where a gun was leveled at me and am pretty fscking sensitive to it.

(short story - was on a sportbike, cop ran tag with WRONG NUMBERS and came back stolen or a runner.. It took 10-15 minutes before they figured out THEY screwed up, and they literally were just like oh - wrong guy, got in their cruisers and left. No apology, no nothing)

 

[SpatiallyAware]

........................I am going home at the end of my shift, period. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six............................

This is what I have a problem with. It is your job and duty to protect citizens and to make decisions on the side of caution, not potentially shooting an innocent person (and BRAGGING about being 'tried by 12'). People with this type of mentality should not be cops, but I suppose until they pay a decent rate we're going to be stuck with power hungry formerly bullied high school kids.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Don't tase me bro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SunnyD]

Tasers should be considered deadly force, and used only in accordance with deadly force rules. Everywhere I go, I always see even a typical traffic stop involving 2 or more patrol cars responding, so unless someone starts spraying AK fire out of their back window, there's absolutely no need for this shit. Police don't have the right to be preemptive in their actions.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be ready and prepared, but if you can't read that guys power tripping through his post then... I dunno what to say.


I've read your posts, I like you - and I am not at all a 'cop hater'... But just because some kid at his first traffic stop opens up a door SHOULD not give a cop the 'right to use force'...

I feel strongly like he's the type that's just waiting for the opportunity to be mr. badass and pull the taser/gun on someone. I was in a traffic stop where a gun was leveled at me and am pretty fscking sensitive to it.

(short story - was on a sportbike, cop ran tag with WRONG NUMBERS and came back stolen or a runner.. It took 10-15 minutes before they figured out THEY screwed up, and they literally were just like oh - wrong guy, got in their cruisers and left. No apology, no nothing)

Yes, yes you are.

 

[jonks]

Is this just a state or county thing?

The Ninth Circuit encompasses CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, AZ, NV.

lol 9th Circuit Court nuff said this will be overruled like all their shit is.

Well this was actually a ruling denying the cop's motion for summary judgment, not the final dispensation of the case. Now the case will be remanded for trial. An intermediate appeal to SCOTUS is unlikely to be heard seeing as how SCOTUS only reviews about 150 cases a year out of 7000 petitions, so the odds of this being selected for review are slim to begin with. However, should it be granted cert, assuming there is an appeal, statistically speaking it would be likely to be overturned at least in part. SCOTUS reverses the overwhelming majority of cases it selects from every circuit (>75&#37, but the Ninth even more than most. However, this ruling doesn't reek of liberal bias, it's well reasoned, and reasonable, and there were no dissents.

I do want to clarify that disobeying an order can indeed justify the use of force, even if there is no "threat."....I'm not saying to go straight to a Taser, but that statement was not correct.

I did not mean to state or imply that absolutely no force was justified in dealing with non-compliance or passive resistance. But the court was pretty clear that in the absence of an immediate threat taser usage is not justifiable.

Here is the decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf

The court found that a taser constitutes “intermediate or medium, though not insignificant, quantum of force.” (perfectly clear, no?!) While the court applies a "totality of the circumstances" approach to necessity for using the level of force constituted by a taser, they were quite clear in finding that a suspects' behavior which is mere passive resistance such as non-compliance, and which does not present an immediate threat, is not sufficient justification for use of a taser. They distinguished this case from another case involving a taser where the suspect was acting beligerantly, disobeying multiple orders by the officer, and kept pacing angrily toward the officer. There, sufficient threat was established.

 

[jlee]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be ready and prepared, but if you can't read that guys power tripping through his post then... I dunno what to say.


I've read your posts, I like you - and I am not at all a 'cop hater'... But just because some kid at his first traffic stop opens up a door SHOULD not give a cop the 'right to use force'...

I feel strongly like he's the type that's just waiting for the opportunity to be mr. badass and pull the taser/gun on someone. I was in a traffic stop where a gun was leveled at me and am pretty fscking sensitive to it.

(short story - was on a sportbike, cop ran tag with WRONG NUMBERS and came back stolen or a runner.. It took 10-15 minutes before they figured out THEY screwed up, and they literally were just like oh - wrong guy, got in their cruisers and left. No apology, no nothing)

Where did I ever say someone opening the door gives me "the right to use force"? Since you were so kind to put little quotey marks around that, perhaps you can point out just where exactly it was where I said such a thing.

People open the door on me quite often. Sometimes they jump out, sometimes they're opening it because the window doesn't work..but a sharp "Sir, get back in the car" typically does the trick. If it doesn't, we're going to have a problem.

This is what I have a problem with. It is your job and duty to protect citizens and to make decisions on the side of caution, not potentially shooting an innocent person (and BRAGGING about being 'tried by 12'). People with this type of mentality should not be cops, but I suppose until they pay a decent rate we're going to be stuck with power hungry formerly bullied high school kids.

I do make decisions on the side of caution. Not letting someone out of their vehicle on a traffic stop is a decision based on caution - both for my safety and for theirs.

 

[jonks]

I don't carry a Taser either but I have taken the ride, damn things a bitch. At any rate if you get out of your car and start walking towards me when I have told you to stay in the car, your going to have a bad day. By statute we can order you to remain in the vehicle, if you don't I take it as a threat and will handle you accordingly. In this day in age you can't afford to give someone the benefit of the doubt, you have to assume the worse. I am going home at the end of my shift, period. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

In this case the suspect says he was standing still, 25 feet from the cop who had the taser leveled on him. If the guy was just standing there, that far away, in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes, and your backup is on the way, you'd still shoot with the taser instead of waiting for your backup to arrive?

 

[jlee]

Tasers should be considered deadly force, and used only in accordance with deadly force rules. Everywhere I go, I always see even a typical traffic stop involving 2 or more patrol cars responding, so unless someone starts spraying AK fire out of their back window, there's absolutely no need for this shit. Police don't have the right to be preemptive in their actions.

WRONG. If a situation requires deadly force, somebody needs to be stopped now. I'm not going to rely on a Taser for that. The only way a deadly force situation should ever be handled by a Taser is if there's actual deadly force backing it up. Just like you don't take a knife to a gunfight, you don't take a Taser to a gunfight either.

Unless someone starts spraying AK fire out of their back window, there's absolutely no need for what?

 

[jonks]

Tasers should be considered deadly force, and used only in accordance with deadly force rules. Everywhere I go, I always see even a typical traffic stop involving 2 or more patrol cars responding, so unless someone starts spraying AK fire out of their back window, there's absolutely no need for this shit. Police don't have the right to be preemptive in their actions.

Disagree. The overwhelming majority of use will not result in death. Hitting someone with a police baton in the head is more likely to kill them and baton strikes aren't even considered deadly force. The courts have all carefully considered and articulated the level of force a taser represents and I agree with where they place it in the spectrum.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Where did I ever say someone opening the door gives me "the right to use force"? Since you were so kind to put little quotey marks around that, perhaps you can point out just where exactly it was where I said such a thing.

People open the door on me quite often. Sometimes they jump out, sometimes they're opening it because the window doesn't work..but a sharp "Sir, get back in the car" typically does the trick. If it doesn't, we're going to have a problem.



I do make decisions on the side of caution. Not letting someone out of their vehicle on a traffic stop is a decision based on caution - both for my safety and for theirs.

I'm talking about the boomhower guy.. I won't be able to revisit this thread until later, but trust me - I get along fine with 75%+ of the cops I meet, and I interact with them often.

However, this mentality that it's ok to just do.. whatever... to not come home on a stretcher is imo a very dangerous way of thinking that will eventually put an innocent in harms way.

 

[CRXican]

Tasers should be considered deadly force, and used only in accordance with deadly force rules. Everywhere I go, I always see even a typical traffic stop involving 2 or more patrol cars responding, so unless someone starts spraying AK fire out of their back window, there's absolutely no need for this shit. Police don't have the right to be preemptive in their actions.

You clearly know nothing about police work and use of force.

 

[ElFenix]

An intermediate appeal to SCOTUS is unlikely to be heard seeing as how SCOTUS only reviews about 150 cases a year out of 7000 petitions

i'm fairly certain that for denial of a motion there is no appeal beyond the appellate court. the supreme court has very little appellate jurisdiction (maybe none). almost everything heard before the supreme court is certiorari, which is not an appeal (appeals are by right).

i think this is the whole list of what may now be appealed to the SCt:
"SEC. 238. A direct review by the Supreme Court of an interlocutory or final judgment or decree of a district court may be had where it is so provided in the following Acts or parts of Acts, and not otherwise:

"(1) Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, ‘to expedite the hearing and determination’ of certain suits brought by the United States under the antitrust or interstate commerce laws, and so forth.

"(2) The Act of March 2, 1907, ‘providing for writs of error in certain instances in criminal cases’ where the decision of the district court is adverse to the United States.

"(3) An Act restricting the issuance of interlocutory injunctions to suspend the enforcement of the statute of a State or of an order made by an administrative board or commission created by and acting under the statute of a State, approved March 4, 1913, which Act is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof, ‘The requirement respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final hearing in such suit in the district court; and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.’

"(4) So much of ‘An Act making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year 1913, and for other purposes,’ approved October 22, 1913, as relates to the review of interlocutory and final judgments and decrees in suits to enforce, suspend, or set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of money.

"(5) Section 316 of ‘An Act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in livestock, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, and eggs, and for other purposes’ approved August 15, 1921."

 

[hanoverphist]

Have you seen the video of South Carolina Trooper Coates getting murdered? If not, look it up. I will caution you that it's one of the more disturbing videos I have seen.

holy crap!

Corporal Coates was able to force the man off of him and return fire, striking the suspect five times in the chest with his .357 caliber revolver. As he retreated for cover and to radio for backup, the suspect fired another shot. The round struck Trooper Coates in the left armpit and traveled into his heart. The suspect survived the incident and was sentenced to life in prison.

5 357 to the chest and lived. thats fucked up the cop died from a 22 to the pit.