Shouting teen shot with stun gun, dies next day

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
You approach an officer holding any sort of weapon (gun, knife, needle,....) - you are dead - simple as that - rightfully so too.

Gun, knife, needle... bible?

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
You approach an officer holding any sort of weapon (gun, knife, needle,....) - you are dead - simple as that - rightfully so too.

Gun, knife, needle... bible?

Is an HIV positive 130lbs martial arts expert who is a pride fighting champion a danger to 6 police officers? How about one who is holding a bible?

The bible is irrelevant. His weight is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that he was uncooperative and combative. The police had no way to know if he was totally harmless or the above. He posed a potential threat to the police officers that was easily dealt with using a stung gun. So they used one after warning the boy that is was coming.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
You approach an officer holding any sort of weapon (gun, knife, needle,....) - you are dead - simple as that - rightfully so too.

Gun, knife, needle... bible?

Is an HIV positive 130lbs martial arts expert who is a pride fighting champion a danger to 6 police officers? How about one who is holding a bible?

The bible is irrelevant. His weight is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that he was uncooperative and combative. The police had no way to know if he was totally harmless or the above. He posed a potential threat to the police officers that was easily dealt with using a stung gun. So they used one after warning the boy that is was coming.

Oh no, please don't be uncooperative and combative. Let's see a full police statement describing exactly how this boy was combative. If he took a swing at them, why hasn't that been said? When someone pulls a knife or a gun, or attacks an officer, that's what you see in the news. Reports will say that the officer was attacked. The only word I've seen used to describe this particular situation was that he was "combative". That's the kind of word one uses when they're trying to play up a situation beyond what it really was, and they don't want to see their ass in a sling for using inappropriate force.

Ooooh, I'm being uncooperative and combative right now by disagreeing with the bloodthirsty mob. Are you gonna zap me?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: elkinm
I don't know the whole story, but a taser is a weapon and should be treated as such.

Lest say I were to question the offices about what they would have done if they did not have a taser. If their answer had been to draw their guns and shoot the individual then the taser use may be justified. They would shoot him they just used a less lethal shot.

Otherwise it is still unnecessary use of a weapon.

If a person has a handgun, then the officer may use his gun. But if the individual has a knife, or some other short-range weapon and cannot be subdued, then the officers should use the taser just before they would have to use their gun and they can still use their guns if the taser is not successful.

But officers should be held completely responsible for their actions. They would be if they shot someone, hit them with their night stick or even beet them up to subdue them. They should be at least as responsible for SHOOTING them with a taser.

I stopped reading after you advocated using a taser on a perp with a knife. You really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm surprised you got that far. I stopped when he said "less lethal shot" when discussing the use of the officer's service weapon.

- M4H

 

[Evilhomer99]

Originally posted by: j00fek
another good showing from our pigs we call cops

Ya, I say we get rid of all the pigs. Who needs em anyway............I would cut thos guys some slack. Would you chase crackheads for 30,000 a year? I guess you have never needed the assistance of the police?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: alkemyst
#1 your latter point is like saying it's the gun's fault in a homicide.

Screw it though, let's just enact a police state and martial law.

Guns and stun guns are very different. Death is far less likely to occur with a stun gun than with a regular gun. The police used the gun with the intention of subduing the boy not killing him.

Stop putting words in my mouth - I am not suggesting martial law or a police state. I am simply putting responsibility where it should be.

You still don't understand though.

Stun guns can kill just like 'real' guns can.

They got voted in because most think they can't.

The officer knew the risks and chose to exercise them.

 

[gwarbot]

Just a bad day for the cop and the kid, look at both sides they both were doing what they feel is right.
If some crazed maniac comes screaming at me "I need Jesus" I would have tased his ass too.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: gwarbot
Just a bad day for the cop and the kid, look at both sides they both were doing what they feel is right.
If some crazed maniac comes screaming at me "I need Jesus" I would have tased his ass too.

A good reason not all people should be able to own guns.

Learn to protect yourself first.

This kid was the one approached, he was not being physical with anyone.

 

[Project86]

As someone who works in law enforcement, I'll add what little I can to this already long thread.

It has already been mentioned that officers always stay +1 compared to the person they are dealing with. Those advocating hand to hand combat have most likely never been in a fight, nor have any knowledge of what damage can be done by blows to the head, chest, etc. Using a baton or just a punch or kick, skulls/ribs/etc can be fractured or broken. That goes for both the officers and the suspect. A taser offers the option of subdoing a subject with a lot less risk of permanent damage... and before you trot out an amnesty intl. study about the deaths supposedly caused by taser deployment, show me a study that documents death or serious injury due to blunt object trauma (like a baton). While we are at it, let's compare the statistics for death due to excited delirium, which can occur when a subject is physically restrained. Once we have all those numbers, we can compare and see which option looks the most dangerous.

I also think many of you are missing the big picture. There are only 2 possible ways that this kid was brought to the officers attention: 1) one or more neighbors/passing motorists/etc called 911 to report him acting suspicious, or 2) an officer saw it himself and decided to check on him. Either way, the officer has a responsibility to deal with the kid. If the kid won't relax and talk to the officer so it can be determined that he is OK, then the officer has to move forward with the next step. He can't just say "well, the kid won't talk to me, and he doesn't seem to be committing any real crime, so I'll just leave." Because then he is liable for anything that happens to the kid. Like it has been mentioned, maybe the kid was bipolar, or having some type of diabetic problem... if the officer just leaves him alone like many of you suggest, and the kid dies from a seizure/walking into traffic/etc or goes and kills someone, then you would all be blaming the officer for letting him go!

Many of you are probably younger, and live in low crime areas. So I don't blame you for being a bit ignorant of how things work. For example: last night we had a stabbing in my city. The victim might die. Suspect is a kid who just turned 15 years old. He has been a gang member for several years already. He stabbed this 16 year old kid about 12 times while his other teenage gangster friends pounded his body with baseball bats. The suspect is 15 years old and no larger than the kid described in the OP. I know this is an extreme example but there would be no way of knowing if you were dealing with this kid or Wally Cleaver.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Project86
As someone who works in law enforcement, I'll add what little I can to this already long thread.

It has already been mentioned that officers always stay +1 compared to the person they are dealing with. Those advocating hand to hand combat have most likely never been in a fight, nor have any knowledge of what damage can be done by blows to the head, chest, etc. Using a baton or just a punch or kick, skulls/ribs/etc can be fractured or broken. That goes for both the officers and the suspect. A taser offers the option of subdoing a subject with a lot less risk of permanent damage... and before you trot out an amnesty intl. study about the deaths supposedly caused by taser deployment, show me a study that documents death or serious injury due to blunt object trauma (like a baton). While we are at it, let's compare the statistics for death due to excited delirium, which can occur when a subject is physically restrained. Once we have all those numbers, we can compare and see which option looks the most dangerous.

I also think many of you are missing the big picture. There are only 2 possible ways that this kid was brought to the officers attention: 1) one or more neighbors/passing motorists/etc called 911 to report him acting suspicious, or 2) an officer saw it himself and decided to check on him. Either way, the officer has a responsibility to deal with the kid. If the kid won't relax and talk to the officer so it can be determined that he is OK, then the officer has to move forward with the next step. He can't just say "well, the kid won't talk to me, and he doesn't seem to be committing any real crime, so I'll just leave." Because then he is liable for anything that happens to the kid. Like it has been mentioned, maybe the kid was bipolar, or having some type of diabetic problem... if the officer just leaves him alone like many of you suggest, and the kid dies from a seizure/walking into traffic/etc or goes and kills someone, then you would all be blaming the officer for letting him go!

Many of you are probably younger, and live in low crime areas. So I don't blame you for being a bit ignorant of how things work. For example: last night we had a stabbing in my city. The victim might die. Suspect is a kid who just turned 15 years old. He has been a gang member for several years already. He stabbed this 16 year old kid about 12 times while his other teenage gangster friends pounded his body with baseball bats. The suspect is 15 years old and no larger than the kid described in the OP. I know this is an extreme example but there would be no way of knowing if you were dealing with this kid or Wally Cleaver.

I say two cops vs one non-combative at the time kid should have gone to restraining him without weapons. However; it's sad to see the shape that most LEO's are in.

You can break bones just by stumbling on pavement. You do not need to use a baton always. There are studies though on tasers and batons...almost all weapons that make it to law enforcement use have been 'studied'. You as a LEO should have the easiest job at finding them. If you don't understand your own weaponry then that's pretty sad.

You #1) post was probably what got the law on the scene, but that doesn't mean their is a real problem...hell people call the police sometimes when their steak is not right and the restaurant will not do anything about it.

What happens with the lawsuits should not be on the officer (even though in some places that is not the case). You come out, you evaluate the situation...is he hurting anyone, is he causing a disturbance outside normal freedom of expression, is he a danger to himself? I think in this case all where passed fine. I was not there. I have witnessed other times though when it was so stupid for someone to be arrested and usually roughed up once they got ziptied.

I am a bit older and I live in a low crime area of a major crime city (West Palm Beach). When I leave my home I am in the bad parts. I work in the bad parts, going out to eat pretty much puts me in the center of it.

Most of the cops around here are not worthy of the badge their wear. We almost daily have some story of some cop 'doing' a chick in their squad car while on duty...roaming the beach and recording females on their cameras, hanging out in large groups at some eatery while seconds away a crime broke out...etc.

You have few great cops though so don't get me wrong that all cops are bad. I just think a lot in my area pick it for the power it gives them, not the ability to help it does.

Å

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Rudy Toody
Check out this link: Excited Delirium, especially item #7.

Sorry to drag this thread back up, but I was just getting around to reading some replies. Wanted to say nice find Rudy. Here is the interesting part right here:

A better choice may be Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). However, current research cautions about a possible link "between MULTIPLE such applications and death in persons with symptoms of ED. To mitigate this risk, a SINGLE Taser application should be made before the subject has been exhausted."
(The Taser should be used not in the hope of gaining compliance but to create a window of disablement during which officers can establish physical control of the subject.)

It almost reads like a text book failure on the police officers parts. I mean, reading that is almost... damning. They make specific note that multiple hits in this scenario is terrible they also link to the fact that the taser hit is NOT to gain control but to give a window of disablement. Now re-read what occured in this scenario, the boy was taken to the ground with 1 taser... aka disabled.. but he was resisting and they did not have control so they fired the second. Now hes dead. Damn.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Rudy Toody
Check out this link: Excited Delirium, especially item #7.

Sorry to drag this thread back up, but I was just getting around to reading some replies. Wanted to say nice find Rudy. Here is the interesting part right here:

A better choice may be Conducted Energy Devices (Tasers). However, current research cautions about a possible link "between MULTIPLE such applications and death in persons with symptoms of ED. To mitigate this risk, a SINGLE Taser application should be made before the subject has been exhausted."
(The Taser should be used not in the hope of gaining compliance but to create a window of disablement during which officers can establish physical control of the subject.)

It almost reads like a text book failure on the police officers parts. I mean, reading that is almost... damning. They make specific note that multiple hits in this scenario is terrible they also link to the fact that the taser hit is NOT to gain control but to give a window of disablement. Now re-read what occured in this scenario, the boy was taken to the ground with 1 taser... aka disabled.. but he was resisting and they did not have control so they fired the second. Now hes dead. Damn.

It's all hind sight. With the kids symptoms, he could've been jacked up on PCP or any other of a number of drugs. And when you have ****** like that in your system, nothing works. Another thing to add is I'm sure that they experience exponentially more drug-related cases than ED cases.

Also, resisting != disabled.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: NFS4

A teenager carrying a Bible and shouting "I want Jesus"

Well, I guess he got his wish :laugh:

I thought the same thing.
We should be thumped.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: BigJ
It's all hind sight. With the kids symptoms, he could've been jacked up on PCP or any other of a number of drugs. And when you have ****** like that in your system, nothing works. Another thing to add is I'm sure that they experience exponentially more drug-related cases than ED cases.

Also, resisting != disabled.

It is hindsight and I do realize that and they could simply admit this was a mistake and that would be that. But for the sake of pinpointing fault, I think that webpage still has 1 important point which it makes abundantly clear is that the TASER is not for gaining compliance or control over the situation. It is for creating opportunity. By TASERing the kid they brought him to the ground, he may have still been resisting, rolling around trying to pull the probes out, but the opportunity was created for someone to go in and finish the job. But instead they went for compliance, they wanted to TASER him until they had control over the situation and that is what lead to death.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: BigJ
It's all hind sight. With the kids symptoms, he could've been jacked up on PCP or any other of a number of drugs. And when you have ****** like that in your system, nothing works. Another thing to add is I'm sure that they experience exponentially more drug-related cases than ED cases.

Also, resisting != disabled.

It is hindsight and I do realize that and they could simply admit this was a mistake and that would be that. But for the sake of pinpointing fault, I think that webpage still has 1 important point which it makes abundantly clear is that the TASER is not for gaining compliance or control over the situation. It is for creating opportunity. By TASERing the kid they brought him to the ground, he may have still been resisting, rolling around trying to pull the probes out, but the opportunity was created for someone to go in and finish the job. But instead they went for compliance, they wanted to TASER him until they had control over the situation and that is what lead to death.

Exactly...I can guarantee at the first tasering he was now subdued although he may still have been struggling (flailing?)...should have been enough at that point for two officers to move in and restrain him with cuffs.

Getting tasered is not going to make anyone a limp fish on the ground.