Court sets new rules for taser use

[jonks]

I'm sorry, a badge does not give you the right to fire on me preemptively unless I am a clear and obvious threat (eg: firing a gun, coming at you brandishing a deadly weapon, etc.). Tasers are simply too deadly to be used in the way most cops are currently using them.

Your first sentence is essentially what the court upheld. They said a taser cannot be used absent a reasonable threat. Note, reasonable does not equal "clear and obvious". By the time a "clear and obvious" threat emerges it may be too late. Rather, the reasonable appearance of a threat, i.e. stalking towards a police officer screaming and refusing to stop when he levels a taser at you. Maybe the suspect didn't plan on hitting the cop and was just really angry at something, but in that situation, the cop doesn't have to read the guy's mind and tasing would be justified.

Your second sentence is overreaching. Simply because a taser can be misused, and apparently has been in many cases, doesn't render it "too deadly" to exist. Someone brandishing a knife at an officer, a violent unarmed domestic dispute, or even sneaking up on an armed suspect from behind are all excellent situations where a taser provides a non-lethal alternative to using a firearm while also protecting the police and even the victim from serious harm.

Zebo goes way over the top in the other direction claiming that tasing isn't so bad that it shoudn't be used to force compliance when an officer meets even the least resistance. Police procedure employs a continuum of force dependent on the situation, and like the plaintiff in the OP, passive resistance cannot be met with governmental force resulting in smashing all your teeth out when alternatives exist. There are innumerable situations police may encounter and each will be unique. I don't want a one-size fits all reaction (noncompliance? Tazer!) and of course the vast majority of cops I've run across do a very good job in responding proportionately.

 

[ScottyB]

Thugs in uniforms deserve no respect. There are brown coats wearing blue coats here in America. That said, many police officers are good at there jobs and don't engage in excessive force.

 

[Double Trouble]

Even though I'm a "law and order" kind of guy, and in general I side with the police officers in most incidents, I think this is a good ruling that should be upheld (one of very few good 9th circuit rulings, that court is generally composed of idiots, but that's another thread).

Tasers are a great "in between" solution. In a situation where previously deadly force like a firearm might have been used and someone might have needlessly lost their life, there is now an alternative that's better for all involved.

However, tasers, though not usually lethal, do carry some risks. Unfortunately, a lot of officers now regard the taser as a substitute for doing their job correctly, an easy way to force compliance without taking any risks. Well, guess what, being a police officer requires taking some risks. Just because an officer wants to avoid all risks does not mean they have the right to use whatever means they want to in order to avoid risk to themselves. They use tasers way too frequently, in situations where there are many reasonable alternatives. That type of use needs to be reigned in, or innocent people will continue to get injured when they don't need to be.

The taser should be viewed as one step down from using a firearm. You don't shoot someone unless they pose an immediate danger to someone, and neither should you tase someone if they don't pose a clear threat to someone.

 

[jlee]

That's all I ask for. There's absolutely no reason for you to be approaching me with your hand wrapped around a weapon. If the case dictates it, then yes. But when someone is passively resisting, you have no right to abuse them.

Keep in mind that while you know who you are and that you have no intention of hurting me, I don't have that same assurance. I'd be more than happy to post a video of one of my stops so you could see how I handle it (particularly the ones where the driver tries to get out of the car), but I highly doubt admin would permit that.

The taser should be viewed as one step down from using a firearm. You don't shoot someone unless they pose an immediate danger to someone, and neither should you tase someone if they don't pose a clear threat to someone.

Are you saying that a less-lethal shotgun (i.e. beanbag) is a lesser level of force than a Taser? I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

 

[69Mach1]

OK, let me say right up front that I have a problem with authority. But, whenever confronted by a cop, be polite, keep your voice normal, keep your hands conspicuously in view, don't make sudden movements, and do what he says. I've met several asshole cops, and in no case would confronting them forcefully have ever helped. But, by being reasonable, I was later able to speak with their supervisor and have my problems with their behavior taken care of without violence. If you have a bad temper(I do), you better learn to get a grip on it, or something bad will happen. A lot of confrontations are recorded now, and it is much better to look like a reasonable person when it gets reviewed than being part of the problem. While mentioning the several bad cops I've encountered, I would also like to say that there are at least 10 good ones for every power mad asshole. Put yourself in their place, before starting anything.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

To the self-righteous and criminally cowardly supporters of a POLICE STATE (a state which gives police obscene powers over ordinary citizens), a giant you fuck you to each and every one of you. You will never have a clue what it means to be a free man. Keep ceding your astounding powers to the lowest common denominator of society. Congratulations! Your consciousnesses and brains are clean.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Is it fair for the public to assume the same about you and your coworkers?

 

[Train]

To the self-righteous and criminally cowardly supporters of a POLICE STATE (a state which gives police obscene powers over ordinary citizens), a giant you fuck you to each and every one of you. You will never have a clue what it means to be a free man. Keep ceding your astounding powers to the lowest common denominator of society. Congratulations! Your consciousnesses and brains are clean.

Blow me asshole. I know what it means to be free. And If you think the US is a police state you haven't a clue what a police state is.

 

[AMCRambler]

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.

Cops enforce the law. They don't get to dole out the punishment for not obeying the law. This mentality is exactly where these cases for police brutality come from. If you don't obey an officers commands, then yes they've got the right to detain you and charge you. Unless you're threatening them in some way or resisting arrest, they do not have the right to tase, pepper spray or beat the crap out of you. This whole "he didn't listen to me so now I will bring the swift justice of my taser" bullshit should be stopped.

A cop should not have any problem putting a pencil necked geek like me on the ground and into hand cuffs. They're trained to do it. Seems like nowadays they're using any excuse to use a taser and take the easy way out. I could see if it's a big guy and they don't think they can take them but what the hell happened to telling them to get on the ground , but some wimp in a pair of boxers and sneakers?

 

[PrinceofWands]

You think so? Have you tried? Not me. I'd much rather get hit with taser given a choice, it's over in seconds vs. hours of pain.

I've been hit on purpose by OC a number of times (part of certification many places), and taser once. I've had to wrestle with people doused in spray (and even tear gas) more times than I can count. Fortunately I've always had an enormous resistance to chemical agents for some reason, so it's really not a big deal to me. Only time I ever got sick from it was boot camp, and only really had serious pain or debilitation 3 or 4 other times. Taser was WAY worse. I suppose if I was more affected by it chemicals would suck more.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You're the best case scenario for any cop who likes to use excessive force. You know why? I'll tell you why. When you start escalating violence you'll get shot. You only think you're well armed. You only think you're well trained. None of your training will matter when you're facing two cops. Because they will be operating in pairs. You will escalate against one, the other will see your weapon, he'll draw down on you, you'll do something stupid and end up dead. Thats what will happen to you PrinceofWands. You'll get shot dead, and the cops will get away with it. All because of your foolish attitude. People like you always end up beaten down or dead because you can't keep your mouth shut. I can tell already that you talk a lot of shit. One of these days you're gonna meet someone like me, who wont stand for it. You're gonna get hurt. Bad. Everyone knows this.

The bolded sentence is absolutely true.

The underlined sentence is absolutely false. Very few place in America ride partners. In nearly EVERY instance you face a single officer alone, at least until backup arrives.

Regardless, I will not accept unnecessary force to be used against me. I will contentedly kill or die if necessary to attempt to prevent it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

While i agree that there are many times that officers fall to the tazer to fast (the 10 yr old girl, the guy trying to commit sucide on the ledge etc) but this is just silly.

you are a idiot. you escalate something with the cops you are going to get shot and the cop is going to go home.

just comply and get in the damn car. there is plenty of time after to sue and fight back.

That is the sickest, most disgusting, reprehensible, abhorrent attitude I can imagine. A person must never, EVER stand for even the LEAST injustice. If it's over $.05, fight to the death. Burn the Earth to a cinder if you have to, but NEVER accept what is wrong or false. As soon as you accept the least injustice, all justice is dead and gone.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

police dogs are "less than deadly force" as well. id rather get smacked by a night stick or tazed than get chewed on by a pissed off German Sheppard.

with that, i think tazers should have the same rules of deployment as police dogs.

"As applied to police dogs, the reasonable necessity standard means a dog bite is justifiable and lawful force if and only if the threat to officers or the public is serious - the need for force must be sufficient to justify the injury of a dog bite. A dog bite is not different from a laceration inflicted by a lawful baton stroke. The need for force, not the injury inflicted, makes force lawful or unlawful."

"Use of Police Service Dogs is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v Connor. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, a three part test should be used to satisfy and justify a canine deployment:

1. The severity of the crime at issue;
2. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or others;
3. And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

http://www.uspcak9.com/caselaw/patrol.cfm

 

[69Mach1]

That is the sickest, most disgusting, reprehensible, abhorrent attitude I can imagine. A person must never, EVER stand for even the LEAST injustice. If it's over $.05, fight to the death. Burn the Earth to a cinder if you have to, but NEVER accept what is wrong or false. As soon as you accept the least injustice, all justice is dead and gone.

Just because you didn't cause a physical confrontation right then does not mean you've let the matter pass. In every case that I went over the officers head later, I was able to get satisfaction. In at least one case mine and my fathers compliant, added with several others, was sufficient to get the officer fired. Don't resort to violence until all other avenues have been tried. Being right doesn't matter if you're dead, and that's exactly what you're playing with. If you comply with what they said, even if they're being unreasonable, they have no justification for escalating to violence. When it gets reviewed later, you want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

[mugs]

Regardless, I will not accept unnecessary force to be used against me. I will contentedly kill or die if necessary to attempt to prevent it.

Oh hey Internet tough guy.

So in a situation where an officer uses what you perceive to be unreasonable force against you you have two options:

1. Attempt to kill him, possibly succeed, possibly die in the process, and at best spend many years in prison
2. Comply, don't resist, and after the fact you can press charges and/or sue so justice is served.

And you think the best option is #1? You have claimed many times in the past to have extraordinarily high intelligence. I have never believed you, because you've never shown any evidence of it. In this post and many others you have shown us evidence of below average intelligence. And your willingness to kill in retaliation for offenses that do not deserve capital punishment is sickening.

That is the sickest, most disgusting, reprehensible, abhorrent attitude I can imagine. A person must never, EVER stand for even the LEAST injustice. If it's over $.05, fight to the death. Burn the Earth to a cinder if you have to, but NEVER accept what is wrong or false. As soon as you accept the least injustice, all justice is dead and gone.

He didn't say he would accept injustice. Read the entire bolded sentence!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Just because you didn't cause a physical confrontation right then does not mean you've let the matter pass. In every case that I went over the officers head later, I was able to get satisfaction. In at least one case mine and my fathers compliant, added with several others, was sufficient to get the officer fired. Don't resort to violence until all other avenues have been tried. Being right doesn't matter if you're dead, and that's exactly what you're playing with. If you comply with what they said, even if they're being unreasonable, they have no justification for escalating to violence. When it gets reviewed later, you want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Not acceptable if in the interim you suffer injury or injustice. If it's something else, like a ticket, obviously there's no need to get riled over it. It causes you no inconvenience to take it and fight it later. If it's about having your rights significantly violated, or suffering pain/injury, that's another matter. In those cases you stop it from happening, even if you have to kill someone or die yourself. Getting revenge for it later is not an answer.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Oh hey Internet tough guy.

So in a situation where an officer uses what you perceive to be unreasonable force against you you have two options:

1. Attempt to kill him, possibly succeed, possibly die in the process, and at best spend many years in prison
2. Comply, don't resist, and after the fact you can press charges and/or sue so justice is served.

And you think the best option is #1? You have claimed many times in the past to have extraordinarily high intelligence. I have never believed you, because you've never shown any evidence of it. In this post and many others you have shown us evidence of below average intelligence. And your willingness to kill in retaliation for offenses that do not deserve capital punishment is sickening.

You understand my statements correctly (with the exception that I never said go straight to lethal force, only to escalate as necessary to avoid harm). If someone is using unjustified force against you, you have the innate human right to resist using whatever means are necessary. The fact that he wears a uniform is moot, since it empowers him ONLY while carrying out just duties. The minute he transgresses against someone, he loses any status granted by his job.

To me it is never acceptable to suffer needlessly. If someone is going to harm you, stop them. If they insist, dissuade them...with death if necessary. You can't stop the ramifications of your actions later, but you can stop the injustice as its committed. To do it the other way around removes justice from existence AND is nothing more than revenge, which has a shaky moral basis. Either stop it when it happens, or just roll over and take it. You can do whichever you'd prefer, but so can I.

Intelligence is only remotely related to ethics/morality/ideology (in so far as it's necessary to have some rudimentary intelligence to be able to understand cause and effect, etc). Holding a belief, when it is purely opinion and not fact based, or when there is a reasonable argument for it, has nothing to do with intelligence beyond that. IE agreeing with others isn't smart, and having a different value structure isn't stupid. The value is subjective, and the intellectual validity exists outside of the opinion portion.

 

[jlee]

"Escalating as necessary to avoid harm" will get you killed, because we don't meet force with the same level. If someone pulls a baseball bat on me, I'm not deploying a baton.

What happens when you feel that you're being unjustly detained and you start resisting? What if something is going on that you have no idea about - maybe you meet the description of an armed robber. You're temporarily detained, possibly handcuffed while they figure out who you are. You're a high-and-mighty dude who thinks everything should go how you see fit, so you resist and escalate as you believe necessary to avoid the detention that you believe is unlawful.

Newsflash: You're wrong, and you will lose. Maybe you'll kill one of us, but your life is headed downhill real fast after that. Smarten up and learn to choose your battles.

 

[PrinceofWands]

"Escalating as necessary to avoid harm" will get you killed, because we don't meet force with the same level. If someone pulls a baseball bat on me, I'm not deploying a baton.

What happens when you feel that you're being unjustly detained and you start resisting? What if something is going on that you have no idea about - maybe you meet the description of an armed robber. You're temporarily detained, possibly handcuffed while they figure out who you are. You're a high-and-mighty dude who thinks everything should go how you see fit, so you resist and escalate as you believe necessary to avoid the detention that you believe is unlawful.

Newsflash: You're wrong, and you will lose. Maybe you'll kill one of us, but your life is headed downhill real fast after that. Smarten up and learn to choose your battles.

You more or less have covered the situation. That's why you need to think long and hard about your career choice, and about how you behave on the job. Because there ARE people out there like me and we WILL kill or die if necessary. And we'll feel perfectly fine about it right up to the point we die. You should have that in mind every second of the day you're on the job, to make sure you're acting correctly.

Your right to be safe because of a job choice does NOT circumvent my basic human or constitutional rights and protections.

 

[jlee]

If you have a problem with how a situation is handled, you can address it later in a method which might be effective. If you get shot and bleed out on the street, your cause will die with you. If you learn to address the matter through the proper avenues after the immediate incident, the root of the problem can be addressed.

 

[AreaCode707]

You more or less have covered the situation. That's why you need to think long and hard about your career choice, and about how you behave on the job. Because there ARE people out there like me and we WILL kill or die if necessary. And we'll feel perfectly fine about it right up to the point we die. You should have that in mind every second of the day you're on the job, to make sure you're acting correctly.

Your right to be safe because of a job choice does NOT circumvent my basic human or constitutional rights and protections.

You are a moron.

The method of handling someone as jlee described is WELL within the constitutional rights of the subject and you ARE protected. There are methods of disciplining police who do not handle things like jlee described.

You call upon the constitution but you apparently fail to have even the least idea what the purpose of government is. One of the purposes is to maintain law and order, and police are bestowed with certain powers to enforce that. I think that the rights granted to them are reasonable. Sometimes abused and there should be punishment when that happens.

However, you seem to argue with the fact that a police officer HAS the lawful right to detain you, to give you orders to remain where you are, to put your hands in sight, etc and to use appropriate force if you pose an apparent threat through your non-compliance. On what grounds do you debate that?

 

[iGas]

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.

Why do you have the need to order a person to remain in there car or any other order that you want, when a person didn't do anything wrong & show that they are not threatening you?

Try to be a human for once and ask people politely to stay in their car for their safety or any other reason?

What happens to protect and serve?

 

[OutHouse]

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.

wow, so every cop should approach every person they contact with weapon drawn now. god you are a idiot. From all your post you make it very clear you have no idea what you are talking about. you also make it clear that you would sue the cop for excessive force if he followed your stupid way of thinking. cops DO NOT exist to protect citizens rights they exist to enforce laws period.

your post are so idiotic i dont know why i am even responding to you.

 

[jlee]

Why do you have the need to order a person to remain in there car or any other order that you want, when a person didn't do anything wrong & show that they are not threatening you?

Try to be a human for once and ask people politely to stay in their car for their safety or any other reason?

What happens to protect and serve?

I am protecting you by keeping you in the car. Do you want to get run over?

If I make a traffic stop and the driver's door immediately opens and someone starts to get out, I am not going to say "Excuse me sir, for your safety I would prefer that you remain in your car. If you wouldn't mind doing that, that would be great." I'm going to say something like "Stay in the car." It's fast, to the point, and easy to understand. What's your problem with that?

 

[OutHouse]

That is the sickest, most disgusting, reprehensible, abhorrent attitude I can imagine. A person must never, EVER stand for even the LEAST injustice. If it's over $.05, fight to the death. Burn the Earth to a cinder if you have to, but NEVER accept what is wrong or false. As soon as you accept the least injustice, all justice is dead and gone.

actually your attitude is absolutely sick and twisted. fight to the death for 5 cents? lol you are a freak dude. If i "fought to the death" for every injustice that has been put upon me i would be dead many many many times over. i dont know what the fascination you have with death and killing for stupid shit but you really are sick in the head and you need to be committed before you hurt somebody.

you are a dangerous person and you should go in for a psych eval.