• 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?

All good points. And there is not really an answer. Just a policy. In this case my primary problem with the technique was not the USE of the taser, it was the repeated use. Taser pain is not extreme, but the infliction of that much discomfort is pretty much the definition of torture, if done over and over.

If policy says that inflicting pain is allowable to gain control, then the issue becomes the definition of control. Another slippery sidewalk. For one person, control means there is no threat of violence. For another control means the prisoner must do exactly as ordered when ordered. For person one, no need to tase or implement pain control. For person two, every need. Those are two extremes.

So how do you get the guy in the car and to jail? Pick him up and carry him? That's how people incur permanent injuries, carrying a heavy person. It is a problem. Infliction of pain is a technique of persusasion. Using it in excess is a technique of torture. If it does not work when tried, you may have to pick him up and carry him. And charge him accordingly.

What are social obligations to a passive prisoner? Wait a half hour and then force? Implement force immediately? No answers there. Unfortunately the LEO plays the role of janitor of human debris.

As far as whether fist strikes, tasing or pepper spraying a passive prisoner are legitimate means of control, the answer is pretty much going to be a matter of degree. And that is going to be determined in the courts and public opinion, with the LEO leading the battle as the test case.

I don't have any answers. I do have huge problems with an LEO who thinks his office allows him to tase a passive prisoner over and over and over. And that's the way it is supposed to be. If people who think my way "win", then that LEO will lose his job. If people who think that level of pain is appropriate and correct "win", then he will keep it.

As with anything, it's not the practice itself, it is the degree of implementation. One beer is fun. One case is trouble.
 
^^^^ Exactly why the "reasonable" standard is such a great overall rule to stand by.

It will come down to whether or not like-trained people who are familiar with the total circumstance would deem multiple exposures of tasers "reasonable" in this situation.

Part of finding it reasonable is determing whether or not it would have reasonably worked to resolve the situation. This is a case very close to the fence on either side, in my opinion.
 
In my opinion based on the video, one taser shot was justified. Then, the officer was apparently out of options other than to wait for backup. The subsequent application may have been due to frustration or hope that another application may do the trick, but after the first one, it was apparent that the tasing wouldn't work. I don't know what the mindset is when faced with no more options to get compliance (other than waiting for backup). I don't know the importance of being able to be self-sufficient in dealing with traffic infractions and the related issues that arise.

The sobbing and crying to me is irrelevant, as the conditions would be the same if the individual just refused to go silently. He selected the option of going to jail, but then refused to go.
 
Tasers are lethal. The number of stories I'm seeing of people dying from the use of tasers on them is increasing. 6 deaths in 3.5 years in San Jose PD alone. That's at least 5 deaths too many IMO.

The use of tasers should not be authorized for this reason.
 
mnb said:
Tasers are lethal. The number of stories I'm seeing of people dying from the use of tasers on them is increasing. 6 deaths in 3.5 years in San Jose PD alone. That's at least 5 deaths too many IMO.

The use of tasers should not be authorized for this reason.
Click to expand...

TASERS have not been proven to be lethal. Cases you are citing are due to a condition called excited delerium. There have been instances where the TASER was listed as a contributing factor on a death certificate. But the overall condition of excited delerium remained. Excited delerium is a combination of being under the influence of drugs, underlying health conditions, over-excertion due to fighting with others and then the police, and possibly in conjunction with use of force by police. This condition is not unique to the TASER. It has been blamed on use of hobbling (leg restraints) and the doctor who said that "positional asphyxia" was caused by the hobble later had to recant that finding. It has also been blamed on pepper spray when that was new. There has been no conclusive evidence that TASERs are any more harmful than other force options, and in fact, TASERs have been shown to prevent injuries to both officers and suspects and reduce the number of officer involved shootings. :nerd



USARMworker said:
I think any citizen who, verbally or in writing, requests to be tasered deserves to be tasered.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you've brought this fact up a few times. I will agree that it is a small contributing factor to the entire incident, but not justification in itself for an officer to use force.

Do you know how many times people tell officers "just shoot me then" or something along those lines. People have also asked me to arrest them when there was no crime to arrest them for. Just because someone asks for it, does not always mean the police can deliver. :teeth
 
Last edited:
Do you research more thoroughly.

I'm aware of the Canadian department stating they believe it causes deaths, but in every case in America -- time and time again, after all of the evidence is in, Taser has been cleared of causing the death every single time.

These aren't cases being investigated by police departments. I'm specifically referring to criminal and civil cases against Taser International and specific police departments. Cases where multiple medical doctors come in and multiple experts come in and all sorts of evidence is presented.

I'll say it again, from all the stuff you hear, all the law suits that have happened and every use that has been documented -- not one Taser use in America has been shown to have caused the death of a human being. Tasers do not kill people. Drugs do, though.
 
Tasers don't have enough amperage to shock anyone to death. A very sick or drugged up individual might succumb as the tazer amplified their existing problems. I consider them a safe and effective tool for law enforcement, and suspect they have saved thousands of lives.
 
like I said they have their place but they can be lethal to someone. There are cases where healthy people that are under stress it will kill them. Is it a better then shooting them YES.

:)
 
i think this could go both ways.

But what is the definition or the line between passive resistance and active resistance? i would say not signing the ticket is passive, but by physically preventing and evading the officers attempts to transport him consider him actively resisting?

What i see is a suspect actively resisting an officer in his line of duty and the officer used reasonable means to allow compliance.

The way i look at it: Morally; No, very bad decision for a resolution on the officers part. Legality; yes, he was completely right and able to be justified using force to complete an arrest.


He made a bad decision on how to control the outcome in the situation, how about letting the officer have a chance to learn from this and better himself not hang him out to dry for his job :thumbdown


----------------------------

Now another what-if question. lets assume as some view the unstable mental state of this person to warrant physical force for compliance wrong, then here's a what if.

What if an officer is confronted to a mentally disabled person who, lets say is trespassing. He does not physically assault the officer but actively refuses compliance to arrest and coming with the officer. would a taser or other reasonable use of force (or example lets say 2 officers perform a take down) would this be wrong because he is mentally fragile? would this be considered excessive? if so then where are the officers rights to perform his duties?
 
Sivad87 said:
i t

What if an officer is confronted to a mentally disabled person who, lets say is trespassing. He does not physically assault the officer but actively refuses compliance to arrest and coming with the officer. would a taser or other reasonable use of force (or example lets say 2 officers perform a take down) would this be wrong because he is mentally fragile? would this be considered excessive? if so then where are the officers rights to perform his duties?
Click to expand...

Time to think about what you said. Officers don't have "rights to perform duties" any more than an accountant has the "rights to perform duties". If it's raining so hard that no one can leave the building, what rights do they have?

Officers have a legal obligation to perform their duties in a manner that conforms with the law, said law to include both the citizen's rights (society) and the citizen's rights (suspect.) The officer does not have any rights to perform duties. He has rights to protect himself from injury. That is the big one.....

As far as the mental patient, again this is being defined in court right now. A few years ago an disturbed lady waved a "vegetable peeler" at a cop and got shot. Now the vegetable peeler looked a lot like an 8" knife to me. And I might have done it differently were I in his shoes, but he had every right to prevent injury to himself.

In a perfect world a mentally disturbed person would be treated with respect, understanding, and gentleness. However that would also require doubling the budget and ain't gonna happen. So we live in an imperfect world where someone who waves a knife is branded dangerous and may be shot. Well if they show up at my house waving a knife, they may be shot also....

In other words, we as a society, don't have the resources or will to really appropriately treat offenders. So as far as tasing vs takedown, who knows? In Piedmont I can guarantee you the cops will figure the disturbed person is probably the relative of a Piedmont resident with money and treat them accordingly. In Oakland they will figure it's the ninth crazy of the day and how do we deal with this in the quickest and least messy fashion.
 
afm199 said:
Tasers don't have enough amperage to shock anyone to death. A very sick or drugged up individual might succumb as the tazer amplified their existing problems. I consider them a safe and effective tool for law enforcement, and suspect they have saved thousands of lives.
Click to expand...
Your last 2 sentences cannot be reconciled with each other.
If amplifying existing problems causes death, then you must at least consider it to be a contributing factor to some of the deaths that have resulted after tazing.
All of the lives that you speak of being saved, are you saying the only other option would have been to use lethal force?:wow
I don't understand coming to the defense of all the LEOs in other jurisdictions when every LEO here on BARF seems to agree that they don't see tazing
a passive resistant as appropriate.
Just because it isn't against their department's policy does not mean it is
appropriate or humane.
Kudos to all the LEOs here that say they would not use it in the instance brought forward by the OP.
 
MellowYellow said:
like I said they have their place but they can be lethal to someone. There are cases where healthy people that are under stress it will kill them. Is it a better then shooting them YES.

:)
Click to expand...

Is it better than shooting them if they still end up dead?
Are there really that many thousands fewer deaths since LE began using tazers? If that proof is out there, please bring it forward and end this debate!
 
mookiera said:
Is it better than shooting them if they still end up dead?
Are there really that many thousands fewer deaths since LE began using tazers? If that proof is out there, please bring it forward and end this debate!
Click to expand...

???

I dont think you understand my position on tasers. There is a time and place for them- I dont think they should be just used because a person does not comply.

I cant say when or where because I am not walking the walk everyday. But there has to be an element of humanity. And the possibility of killing someone has to be weighed into the use. That is my issue. How ever small of a chance - is it worth pulling out the taser: that is the age old question and one I cannot answer. All I can say is cant we all get along.... :)
 
bojangle said:
835a P.C. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

So force IS justified by police to overcome resistance, at least in CA. The only real question is IF that use of force by TASER would be considered objectively reasonable by another officer, under the similar circunmstances, similar size and weight, and similar training and experience as the officer in the video.

My opinion, based only on the small portion of video, is that use of TASER as
pain compliance to overcome the passive resistance IS objectively reasonable. QUOTE]

I'm having visions of where we might be as a society if passive resistance was routinely tazed. The question is, would the revolutions/evolutions have come quicker or been delayed if passive resisters like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. would have just had their asses tazed before they got their movements going?
Click to expand...
 
mookiera said:
bojangle said:
835a P.C. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

So force IS justified by police to overcome resistance, at least in CA. The only real question is IF that use of force by TASER would be considered objectively reasonable by another officer, under the similar circunmstances, similar size and weight, and similar training and experience as the officer in the video.

My opinion, based only on the small portion of video, is that use of TASER as
pain compliance to overcome the passive resistance IS objectively reasonable. QUOTE]

I'm having visions of where we might be as a society if passive resistance was routinely tazed. The question is, would the revolutions/evolutions have come quicker or been delayed if passive resisters like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. would have just had their asses tazed before they got their movements going?
Click to expand...


no those people were beaten and water cannoned and worse. :(
Click to expand...
 
mookiera said:
All of the lives that you speak of being saved, are you saying the only other option would have been to use lethal force?:wow
I don't understand coming to the defense of all the LEOs in other jurisdictions when every LEO here on BARF seems to agree that they don't see tazing
a passive resistant as appropriate.
.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not been reading this thread or you would not have said that. :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top