• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Taser use correct? What do you think?

I'm on the other side of the fence. The idea that it is ok to taze someone for not following orders is exactly like saying it is ok to torture someone for not following orders. The tazer should be used to avoid life threatening situations, not to punish some defective because he does not obey orders. Waving a knife? Hell yes, tase him. Sitting on the ground crying? No, it's not ok. The rationale of dangerous situation is just that. Of course it's dangerous, that part of the job description. By this rationale it's perfectly ok for a prison guard to tase a prisoner for lying on his bed and crying, rather than getting up when ordered. It's torture meted out by an individual, I hope the guy gets fired.
 
When the taser came out, I celebrated it as a wonderful way of reducing shootings and saving lives. I still think it is. However when it is used like this, it's just an advertisement for the anti taser folks who want them banned. This particular example was a horror. The constitution is pretty strict about "cruel and unusual" and this example is a perfect example. Yes I know that that clause applies to punishment for a crime, and that is the rationale here.
 
masameet said:
Hmmm ... LEOs + tasering handcuffed suspects = LEO torture.

So are we going to start discussing Oscar Grant now too?

:thumbdown
Click to expand...

Uhh, there is a big difference between what happened to Oscar and what was done to this man. Oscar was not handcuffed for one. The poor schlub in the video was sitting down on the ground crying. Hand cuffed behind his back. The idea that he constitutes a threat and needed to be tased several times is ludicrous. That's like beating a child for not finishing its meal.
 
afm199 said:
I'm on the other side of the fence. The idea that it is ok to taze someone for not following orders is exactly like saying it is ok to torture someone for not following orders. The tazer should be used to avoid life threatening situations, not to punish some defective because he does not obey orders. Waving a knife? Hell yes, tase him. Sitting on the ground crying? No, it's not ok. The rationale of dangerous situation is just that. Of course it's dangerous, that part of the job description. By this rationale it's perfectly ok for a prison guard to tase a prisoner for lying on his bed and crying, rather than getting up when ordered. It's torture meted out by an individual, I hope the guy gets fired.
Click to expand...

Interesting, reasoned opinion.

SurfAwave69 said:
Uhhhh, I think this is called torture, no? :dunno
Click to expand...

Content-free.

Both posts come to the same conclusion. However, one of them was posted by a professional newscaster, the other by a mere blue-collar electrician.

I haven't watched the clip and don't really care that much, but I thought the juxtaposition of the two posts was interesting.
 
One thing I've learned in reading of LEO fatalities is their assuming that a suspect was not a threat, either because of poor training or perception, or whatever, led to their ultimate undoing.

I read elsewhere that you knew Oscar Grant, Ernie. I'm sorry that his death has grieved you.

And my FF won't open the link so I haven't viewed the video.
 
Not torture

A taser is not torture. In the crying inmate scenario, hell ya, use a taser rather than be sucked into physically removing an inmate from a bunk. He's crying, not moving from his bunk. I smell bait....like baiting a guard into getting close enough for a personal attack......TASE HIM.

This scenario is different than a non compliant inmate. I have been in knock-down, drag out fights with handcuffed prisoners. One almost broke my nose with his head. In our use of force policy, a taser is equal to physical force, so if it is okay for me to grab him and pick him up....technically....it is okay for me to tase him.

Use of force in a continuum. So you start off with officer presence...not working. Verbal commands...not working. Physical force...grabbing him and trying to lift him up...the prisoner actively resists this by forcible sitting back down by allowing his weight to fall instead of getting up with the officers help. Next...taser...this doesn't work either apparently. So the officer waits for back up and two officers lift him a put him in a car.

Looks fine to me....the next level on the force continuum would be impact weapons. Liberals would really get worked up over that!

I say quit crying like a bitch and get up and get in the car.

I bet he signs the ticket next time.
 
If I may be so bold as to quote myself...

USARMworker said:
He said, "Tase me." :dunno
Click to expand...

Screw him. Everyone laughed when the guy who said "DON'T TASE ME BRO!" got tasered, but this guy said, "I don't care anymore. Tase me." and he got tased. Over a traffic violation for which he refused to sign the citation. Then he refused to comply with the officer's requests and sat there crying like a little bitch. If this guy's so emotionally fragile that he can't handle getting a speeding ticket, maybe he shouldn't be driving at all.

:x
 
Hmmm...I finally watched the video.

I think the courts are correct. This use of force meets the requirements of "reasonable". The officer should not be facing criminal charges for his use of force.

On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly call this use of the taser as "ideal". It was not the best tool for the job, and was unlikely to work (and didn't). The taser's use in this situation would be to coerce voluntary compliance with pain. The guy in question showed many signs that this would not be effective: the sobbing, the passive resistance, and even the invitation to tase him suggested that the taser would ineffective. Unable to move him on his own, backup was the only real option. I'd question this officer's judgment in this matter. From the department's point-of-view, it would call into question whether he was inside policy, and if not, what disciplinary action would be needed. If he was inside policy, the policy might need to be updated.

My two cents.
 
bluedragon said:
A taser is not torture. In the crying inmate scenario, hell ya, use a taser rather than be sucked into physically removing an inmate from a bunk. He's crying, not moving from his bunk. I smell bait....like baiting a guard into getting close enough for a personal attack......TASE HIM.

This scenario is different than a non compliant inmate. I have been in knock-down, drag out fights with handcuffed prisoners. One almost broke my nose with his head. In our use of force policy, a taser is equal to physical force, so if it is okay for me to grab him and pick him up....technically....it is okay for me to tase him.

Use of force in a continuum. So you start off with officer presence...not working. Verbal commands...not working. Physical force...grabbing him and trying to lift him up...the prisoner actively resists this by forcible sitting back down by allowing his weight to fall instead of getting up with the officers help. Next...taser...this doesn't work either apparently. So the officer waits for back up and two officers lift him a put him in a car.

Looks fine to me....the next level on the force continuum would be impact weapons. Liberals would really get worked up over that!

I say quit crying like a bitch and get up and get in the car.

I bet he signs the ticket next time.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly in agreement with you. I definitely agree about the inmate situation! And I don't believe that this officer should be facing criminal charges for this.

While use-of-force is a continuum, there is no requirement that you try every lower tool before raising the level. If you know a tool is likely to be ineffective, it's pointless at best and harmful at worst to try it. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I feel, as I posted a moment ago, that in this situation it should have been apparent to a trained professional that the taser was probably not going to work. After the first tasing didn't produce the intended reaction, it should have been really obvious.

I have a feeling this guy is emotionally unstable and that the reaction he was having was somewhat out of his control. That does NOT mean he should not be held responsible for his behavior! If you're so fucked up that you can't handle a ticket, don't drive in a way to get one. Or don't drive at all! This leads me to believe that a second ticket may well elicit the same response, as it isn't a case of just learning the consequences. The guy knew the consequences...they were spelled out for him. It didn't help.

And this is Monday morning quarterbacking, and I'm aware of it. There's always more to the story than we'll get from a news clip.
 
NorCalBusa said:
What tasing? I'm having trouble getting past the pajama-gram commercial.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA......that's funny!

Arnoha......I agree that force continuum does not mean you try all lesser options and move up. My point was that all lesser options did not work/would not work, so he moved to the next level (at least the next level in our policy, don't know about his).

After reading my post, I think I should elaborate on one thing. I feel his use of the taser was completely justified, but, I could see after the first application it wasn't working. I think after I got the guy onto the shoulder, where we both would be safe, I would have let him cry his eyes out while I waited for backup and then drag his cry-baby ass to my car.
 
masameet said:
I read elsewhere that you knew Oscar Grant, Ernie. I'm sorry that his death has grieved you.
.
Click to expand...

I knew him, I was not a friend. I believe J Mesehrle shot him by mistake when he was trying to tase him. He should not have ended up dead. It is a tragedy for everyone.
 
I've already posted my opinion on this, so take what I'm about to write as a legitimate "what if," not an attempt to antagonize or anything.

You have a solo officer, as in this video, with an emotional unstable, large uncooperative suspect. The suspect has been informed he's under arrest and is now uncooperative and passively resisting. You are alone for X amount of minutes while you wait for what you know will be the best way to resolve the situation, backup.

You continue to order him, you continue to try to physically move him, all of which only angers him more and makes him more unstable. What do you do?

Would the video have been better if the officer tased him once -- to attempt to gain compliance and as a side benefit, to set the probes in case the subject does become actively resistant? Would that be more "acceptable" or look "better" in the eyes of those who think it was overall a questionable tasing?
 
9M61 said:
I've already posted my opinion on this, so take what I'm about to write as a legitimate "what if," not an attempt to antagonize or anything.

You have a solo officer, as in this video, with an emotional unstable, large uncooperative suspect. The suspect has been informed he's under arrest and is now uncooperative and passively resisting. You are alone for X amount of minutes while you wait for what you know will be the best way to resolve the situation, backup.

You continue to order him, you continue to try to physically move him, all of which only angers him more and makes him more unstable. What do you do?

Would the video have been better if the officer tased him once -- to attempt to gain compliance and as a side benefit, to set the probes in case the subject does become actively resistant? Would that be more "acceptable" or look "better" in the eyes of those who think it was overall a questionable tasing?
Click to expand...

A single tasing would be more justifiable, sure. He didn't seem to be moving much...would just a wait-and-see attitude work? You're waiting for backup, so as long as he's basically staying put, just keep some distance and let him sob it out. Don't provoke him, don't do anything. Maybe a command now and again to just stay still, which is what he seems to want to do anyway. I'd see the largest danger there (assuming the officer is keeping a safe distance) of him running out into traffic or something like that. Now you've got a real problem...if you tase him in the lane, now he's dead man if a car comes by and you've got a real problem.

I'd be curious to see the first half of the video. We don't see the vid until he's handcuffed. How did he come to be handcuffed? Doesn't look like that took a struggle. That might shed a lot more light on this topic.
 
It amazes me that people with no experience or training in a particular topic, proffer "they shoulda...I woulda" advice. I am certain, but not privy to a copy, that law enforcement has spent thousands of man hours researching, testing, evaluating various data, consulted with experts with real degrees in applicable fields and formed their "best practices" procedures. This isn't "perfect practices", never will be. But until I've seen some giant of a man get up/keep coming to kill me with the fury of God's own thunder- after taking baton strikes, breaking free of a half dozen cops, mace, pepper, Tased, booted, choked out and even shot 10x numerous times (and still keeps a'coming)- I don't know shit about what's right and defer to those that do.
 
Last edited:
bluedragon said:
, I would have let him cry his eyes out while I waited for backup and then drag his cry-baby ass to my car.
Click to expand...

Why is it you have an attitude to this individual. Maybe his wife left him and he lost his job ect. At least he is not going postal or committing suicide. For all we know he might have been on his way to do just that. Would you be more accepting of him if he was postal and not like a cry-baby ass, or is it just because he is a man and he should just take it on the chin like you would.

I hope I never have a problem and I come across you.
 
Last edited:
NorCalBusa said:
It amazes me that people with no experience or training in a particular topic, proffer "they shoulda...I woulda" advice. I am certain, but not privy to a copy, that law enforcement has spent thousands of man hours researching, testing, evaluating various data, consulted with experts with real degrees in applicable fields and formed their "best practices" procedures. This isn't "perfect practices", never will be. But until I've seen some giant of a man get up/keep coming to kill me with the fury of God's own thunder- after taking baton strikes, breaking free of a half dozen cops, mace, pepper, Tased, booted, chicked out and even shot 10x numerous times (and still keeps a'coming)- I don't know shit about what's right and defer to those that do.
Click to expand...

And I believe you on that. There are some very crazy drugged individuals out there. I have heard stories of meth, LSD, and angel dust trips.
 
NorCalBusa said:
It amazes me that people with no experience or training in a particular topic, proffer "they shoulda...I woulda" advice. I am certain, but not privy to a copy, that law enforcement has spent thousands of man hours researching, testing, evaluating various data, consulted with experts with real degrees in applicable fields and formed their "best practices" procedures. This isn't "perfect practices", never will be. But until I've seen some giant of a man get up/keep coming to kill me with the fury of God's own thunder- after taking baton strikes, breaking free of a half dozen cops, mace, pepper, Tased, booted, chicked out and even shot 10x numerous times (and still keeps a'coming)- I don't know shit about what's right and defer to those that do.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement has people who are experts in this stuff come up with their procedures because people outside law enforcement force them to defend their practices. This isn't a bad thing, nor does it say that there's something wrong with anyone in law enforcement. This is true for all professions. It's just especially true for law enforcement because it is so public and so full of potential downsides. Yeah, this has downsides, too, in added bureaucracy and increased litigation. That part sucks, but in the end, law enforcement is better for having the pressure to be the best.

It really does apply to us all. It applies to me. I'm a software engineer. I write stuff the public sees and interacts with. I have to write stuff that works and works easily. You know who the judge is? Not me...it's the layman that uses what I write. And believe me...if the stuff I wrote didn't work, you'd know about tomorrow. In the news. Just like when cops make mistakes. This means that we all have a great incentive to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top