Court sets new rules for taser use

[PrinceofWands]

And how the hell do you expect to get arrested if you arent following orders? At the very least your going to get your face put into the ground fairly forcibly, followed by a knee and the full weight of the officer on your back..

Sounds like you havent thought this through very well.

At that point I'll pursue legal action to my fullest extent, and dedicate my life to getting them removed from public trust. There is NO excuse for that. Force can only be used to counter force, not to coerce compliance. Of course, I wouldn't be in that situation either because I would have just laid down and put my hands behind my back already.

In fact, that would be the BEST the officer could hope for. ANYONE (officer or not) uses more force than basic hands on when I'm not being a threat and I'll consider it an unlawful attack on my person, which I will respond to with escalating violence as necessary to protect myself. Since I'm every bit as armed, and every bit as well trained, as any law enforcement officer, that could have some dire consequences.

 

[SirStev0]

If you choose not to comply you need to do so understanding that the officer has no way to discern whether or not you pose a threat to him and others around you, and he is right to react as though you are dangerous.

That's bullshit and you know it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

If you choose not to comply you need to do so understanding that the officer has no way to discern whether or not you pose a threat to him and others around you, and he is right to react as though you are dangerous.

He is right to react with caution, and discern my level of threat. When I am on the ground, hands behind my back, making no threat whatsoever, his right to use force is non-existent.

 

[sourceninja]

I have no problems with taser uses. After watching hundreds of episodes of cops, everyone single one of those bastards deserved it!

I personally think tasers save more lives and protect more people then they harm. I have police friends who have told me stories that let me know they are sometimes used without reason, but overall the stories I hear seem to make sense.

 

[dlx22]

At that point I'll pursue legal action to my fullest extent, and dedicate my life to getting them removed from public trust. There is NO excuse for that. Force can only be used to counter force, not to coerce compliance. Of course, I wouldn't be in that situation either because I would have just laid down and put my hands behind my back already.

In fact, that would be the BEST the officer could hope for. ANYONE (officer or not) uses more force than basic hands on when I'm not being a threat and I'll consider it an unlawful attack on my person, which I will respond to with escalating violence as necessary to protect myself. Since I'm every bit as armed, and every bit as well trained, as any law enforcement officer, that could have some dire consequences.

so if force should only be used to counter force then should i wait for some asshole to shoot at me before i respond with my force? what if the passive protestor decides to put a knife in your chest just as you put hands on him? Good luck dragging him to the car with a knife in your chest.

 

[jonks]

If you choose not to comply you need to do so understanding that the officer has no way to discern whether or not you pose a threat to him and others around you, and he is right to react as though you are dangerous.

And then the officer must assess what amount of force, if any, is necessary to the situtation. He must be reasonable in this determination. If I'm 20 feet away from him, standing stock still, not moving, not talking, not doing anything at all except refusing to lay on the ground, then the cop can't tase me for not obeying. Not in this country. Sorry. He can call for backup, they can slowly approach me, they can train the taser on me if I should show resistance or make a threatening move. They don't get to eliminate all possible risks to themselves by rendering me immobile when no threat is apparent. That's part of their job.

Note, the totality of the circumstances is taken into account in determining what use of force is reasonable. The reason for the detainment is obviously central to this determination. If I match the description of a rapist/murderer lurking in an area, then a cop apprehending me would have more reason to reasonably suspect a threat from my actions or refusal to cooperate. But if it's a traffic stop for blowing a stop sign or a broken tail light, then they don't get to taze me at their preference for not complying with their orders, barring some reasonable threat.

 

[PrinceofWands]

so if force should only be used to counter force then should i wait for some asshole to shoot at me before i respond with my force? what if the passive protestor decides to put a knife in your chest just as you put hands on him? Good luck dragging him to the car with a knife in your chest.

Why didn't you have your gun drawn, safety off, in ready position? If you can't bring your weapon inline with the target when he suddenly reaches for something then you have no business being an officer.

A man lying on his stomach, with his hands behind his back, managed to draw a knife, turn over, and stab you? Where was your backup? Why didn't you approach in better position? Why didn't you retreat and draw when he flinched? Again, you're an idiot who doesn't deserve to wear a uniform.

Police exist to protect the rights of citizens. We mostly think of this as the right to be free from crime (or at least have crimes against them investigated), but it extends to the rights every citizen has to protest and so on. If you would, for any reason, deny a lawful citizen ANY protection under state or federal constitution then you have no business being an officer.

You aren't special...you just have more responsibilities.

 

[SirStev0]

so if force should only be used to counter force then should i wait for some asshole to shoot at me before i respond with my force? what if the passive protestor decides to put a knife in your chest just as you put hands on him? Good luck dragging him to the car with a knife in your chest.

So, this same situation could apply to someone asking for directions. Are you saying we should start tasing anyone who walks up to a cop to ask a question?


Not to mention, I severely doubt some college kid participating in a peaceful protest or sit in is really planning on stabbing a cop to make his point.

 

[QueBert]

That's bullshit and you know it.

I have to agree, police have pretty extensive training at reading situations, and if they still can't, then they shouldn't be police. I worked at a liquor store in a pretty bad area. My boss gave me a 2 minute training course on safety. And I was able to figure out who to watch out for and who to not worry about after a few days on the job. If a clerk like myself is better at it than a cop, theres a serious problem. We had a lot of people who seemed shady if you didn't pay attention. I'm sure cops would have tased many of them without giving it a 2nd thought. I only had to pull the 38 revolver we had once in the 2 years I worked then. And there were plenty of situations where I was being yelled and cursed at with a person walking towards me. I can defuse a situation but a cop can't? Wow just wow.

And for all who say cops put their lives on the line every day. I was robbed at gun point with a Glock to my head. So being a clerk at a liquor store is a very dangerous job depending on the area. Mind you clerks don't get trained on pistols and doubtfully have a taser to protect themselves. I would have been MUCH safer as a police, with access to equipment to keep me safe.

 

[dlx22]

Why didn't you have your gun drawn, safety off, in ready position? If you can't bring your weapon inline with the target when he suddenly reaches for something then you have no business being an officer.

A man lying on his stomach, with his hands behind his back, managed to draw a knife, turn over, and stab you? Where was your backup? Why didn't you approach in better position? Why didn't you retreat and draw when he flinched? Again, you're an idiot who doesn't deserve to wear a uniform.

Police exist to protect the rights of citizens. We mostly think of this as the right to be free from crime (or at least have crimes against them investigated), but it extends to the rights every citizen has to protest and so on. If you would, for any reason, deny a lawful citizen ANY protection under state or federal constitution then you have no business being an officer.

who said the man is laying on his stomach with his hands behind his back? DO you honestly think there is no one out there who is faster, stronger, can outsmart you? That kind of thinking will get yourself killed someday. Good officer safety can eliminate the need to use force most of the time like you advocate. At which point an individual officer feels threatened will vary from officer to officer and situation to situation and with years of experience. sometimes the wrong decision will be made like in the case that is under discussion here. its kinda amazing how fast you resort to personal attacks. Maybe you should be the one not wearing a uniform.

 

[SirStev0]

who said the man is laying on his stomach with his hands behind his back? DO you honestly think there is no one out there who is faster, stronger, can outsmart you? That kind of thinking will get yourself killed someday. Good officer safety can eliminate the need to use force most of the time like you advocate. At which point an individual officer feels threatened will vary from officer to officer and situation to situation and with years of experience. sometimes the wrong decision will be made like in the case that is under discussion here. its kinda amazing how fast you resort to personal attacks. Maybe you should be the one not wearing a uniform.

Jesus are you that dense. His point is that a real police would have assessed the situation regardless and been able to approach and if need be retreat from such a situation. A hot head with penal inadequacies would whip out a taser and make a person compliment.
Jackass.

 

[dlx22]

So, this same situation could apply to someone asking for directions. Are you saying we should start tasing anyone who walks up to a cop to ask a question?


Not to mention, I severely doubt some college kid participating in a peaceful protest or sit in is really planning on stabbing a cop to make his point.

a person asking for directions is doing nothing wrong. a person illegally protesting is doing something wrong. I personally wouldn't just walk up to a person peacefully protesting and spray him in the face with pepper spray just to jack him up. I was just saying there are tools generally designed for each level of force in case they are needed.

 

[dlx22]

Jesus are you that dense. His point is that a real police would have assessed the situation regardless and been able to approach and if need be retreat from such a situation. A hot head with penal inadequacies would whip out a taser and make a person compliment.
Jackass.

and the only point i have been trying to make is that waiting for force to be used against you before you use force exposes yourself to an element of risk. that is all. Its a personal decision that each officer makes on there own how to proceed with the situation. No two people assess risk exactly the same.

 

[jonks]

and the only point i have been trying to make is that waiting for force to be used against you before you use force exposes yourself to an element of risk. that is all. Its a personal decision that each officer makes on there own how to proceed with the situation. No two people assess risk exactly the same.

Which is why the standard of review is that there must have been an objectively reasonable threat. It doesn't matter how two officer's assess a risk, merely whether both do so in a reasonable manner. If a protester disobeys police orders but otherwise presents no threat and is passive, he can't be tased simply because of the mere possibility, however unlikely, that he has a knife on him and he might decide to attack even though there is zero indication of such an event. That'd be the South Park defense used to get around hunting rules. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/ {"Democrats say we can't shoot any animals unless they pose an imminent threat. So we shout "My god! It's coming right for us!"}

I would guess the appropriate use of force in confronting a passive, nonthreatening but disobediant protestor would probably be multiple officers carefully approaching and each seizing an arm, and then cuffing. If the protestor escalates, the officers can escalate. The police don't get to escalate first just because the risk exists that a protestor might suddenly break into violence. Policing is a risky job.

 

[SirStev0]

a person asking for directions is doing nothing wrong. a person illegally protesting is doing something wrong. I personally wouldn't just walk up to a person peacefully protesting and spray him in the face with pepper spray just to jack him up. I was just saying there are tools generally designed for each level of force in case they are needed.

Wand's specific example was about him removing people from a peaceful sit in. Cops break up protests all the time because of trespassing or things along that lines. Many times protestors fully expect to be arrested as civil disobedience. But that isn't the point.

His point and my point is that noncompliance in and of itself is not a threat. It is not a use of force.

The trend is that tasers are no longer being used dismantle dangerous situations but are being used as a force into compliance. It is tase first; assess the situation second. You end up with situations like this when a guy posing no threat ends up electrocuted and falling face first, destroying his face and teeth. Completely uncalled for.

 

[Train]

At that point I'll pursue legal action to my fullest extent, and dedicate my life to getting them removed from public trust. There is NO excuse for that. Force can only be used to counter force, not to coerce compliance. Of course, I wouldn't be in that situation either because I would have just laid down and put my hands behind my back already.

In fact, that would be the BEST the officer could hope for. ANYONE (officer or not) uses more force than basic hands on when I'm not being a threat and I'll consider it an unlawful attack on my person, which I will respond to with escalating violence as necessary to protect myself. Since I'm every bit as armed, and every bit as well trained, as any law enforcement officer, that could have some dire consequences.

Wow you sound like a complete retard. You're willing to disobey a police order, then think you have the right to not be harmed/treated roughly if they have to arrest you? You do realize you basically give up rights once you refuse to obey a lawful order?

Then, to take the sheer stupidity to another level, you say you'll defend yourself with escalating force when the arresting officer is not meeting your arbitrarily defined levels of approrpiate force? This reeks of some sort of self centered righteousness with borderline sociopathy.

And you also think you can get away with this while being "every bit as armed" as the cop? Lol ya, go find me a cop that would arrest a dude carrying a gun by gently trying to put his hands behind his back with cuffs, lol. This is seriously la la land material.

You kinda sound like a recipe for disaster. These "dire consenquences" you speak of will likely end up with you in jail for a long time.

 

[AreaCode707]

That's bullshit and you know it.

No, not at all.

You start at a neutral point. The officer has pulled you over and is treating you with usual caution.

The officer gives you direction. You refuse to comply.

You have now placed yourself into "unknown" status. He has no idea if you are not complying on a matter of principle or because you have something to hide or because you have malicious intent.

Most normal people would simply obey the order; a minority of people he encounters disobey his orders, and a majority of THOSE disobedient people have ill intent.

Based on the statistical probabilities in his job, he is correct to assume you have ill intent and may be dangerous.

YOU moved yourself out of neutral territory, and the results are your issue. If you were civilly disobedient in the way that PrinceOfWands later suggested (lying down with your hands on your back) you're not likely to suffer any ill consequences. Most officers are reasonable, and while they might be pissed that you're being a dumbass, they're going to react appropriately to the level of threat you pose (which is still some, just not as much; maybe they walk up with gun drawn and cuff you or something).

 

[AreaCode707]

And then the officer must assess what amount of force, if any, is necessary to the situtation. He must be reasonable in this determination. If I'm 20 feet away from him, standing stock still, not moving, not talking, not doing anything at all except refusing to lay on the ground, then the cop can't tase me for not obeying. Not in this country. Sorry. He can call for backup, they can slowly approach me, they can train the taser on me if I should show resistance or make a threatening move. They don't get to eliminate all possible risks to themselves by rendering me immobile when no threat is apparent. That's part of their job.

Note, the totality of the circumstances is taken into account in determining what use of force is reasonable. The reason for the detainment is obviously central to this determination. If I match the description of a rapist/murderer lurking in an area, then a cop apprehending me would have more reason to reasonably suspect a threat from my actions or refusal to cooperate. But if it's a traffic stop for blowing a stop sign or a broken tail light, then they don't get to taze me at their preference for not complying with their orders, barring some reasonable threat.

Agreed entirely.

 

[TheVrolok]

His point and my point is that noncompliance in and of itself is not a threat. It is not a use of force.

The trend is that tasers are no longer being used dismantle dangerous situations but are being used as a force into compliance. It is tase first; assess the situation second. You end up with situations like this when a guy posing no threat ends up electrocuted and falling face first, destroying his face and teeth. Completely uncalled for.

That pretty much sums up my feelings.

 

[ShawnD1]

I want to see someone wear this to a charity event.

 

[AreaCode707]

Wand's specific example was about him removing people from a peaceful sit in. Cops break up protests all the time because of trespassing or things along that lines. Many times protestors fully expect to be arrested as civil disobedience. But that isn't the point.

His point and my point is that noncompliance in and of itself is not a threat. It is not a use of force.

The trend is that tasers are no longer being used dismantle dangerous situations but are being used as a force into compliance. It is tase first; assess the situation second. You end up with situations like this when a guy posing no threat ends up electrocuted and falling face first, destroying his face and teeth. Completely uncalled for.

Wand's point about laying on the ground with his hands behind his back wasn't in his original comments. I was debating with his much more open-ended declaration of non-compliance.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

AAAH! Jonks you know it is the fifth or sixth shock after they are down that
really kills 'em. The punishment phase.

 

[gypsyman]

"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. "

You are living in a dream world. Reality will bite you or someone you know someday and that may clear the fog you are in.

 

[Zebo]

If you don't obey an officers orders, you deserve to be tased immediately. This country is filled with liberal idiots who think they don't have to follow the law, well, they need to be taught a lesson. Everyone knows this.

Exactly!!!

When I grew up all cops looked liked linebackers, because they had no tool like taser they had to be large to restrain and gain compliance, and if you disobeyed them you'd end up in the hospital (been there) and charged with resisting arrest. I suspect punks here don't want to do back to those times.

No, Instead, taser is safe for suspect and more importantly officer who is not a scumbag. Taser allows women to serve who are good with rape, children and domestic violence victims. Taser allows wimpy men to serve like half you in this thread. Basically you enlarge pool of applicants who won't be overwhelmed. Taser is safest way on the planet to gain compliance and restraint..

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think it interesting that ATOT has so many gun enthusiasts and so many anti taser folks at the same time. I have no problem with any tool the police can use to do their job.

I do have a problem with bad cops who feel their job gives them license to exercise their egos at the expense of citizens. Specific incidents need to be reviewed but, attempting to pass legislation regarding use of tasers, guns, nightsticks and cuffs is futile and micromanagement.

The reason for such regulations is easy to understand however. There are too many mentally weak officers on the streets who lack the training, adaptability and intelligence to determine when such force is necessary.

The police unions need to step up and police their own and hold them to standards higher than the municipality.