# Police shoot 12 year old with bean bag round



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2009)

I came across this elsewhere.  Quick summary:  Disorderly kids on a Portland commuter train.  Portland PD officers respond, and try to take a 12 year girl into custody for trespass after being banned.  She bucks; some accounts say she struck one of the cops.  Cop on scene has a bean bag shotgun... and uses it at close or contact range, shooting her in the thigh.   She is not hospitalized.  Police chief backs the cop somewhat, wanting to put him on a desk job; commissioner overrules the chief and suspends the cop -- who was already under investigation or scrutiny for another excessive force complaint.

News accounts:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/portland_officer_suspend_after.html (has videos)
http://www.kptv.com/news/21713828/detail.html

I can't find a way to justify this one...  The bean bag round just seems a bit of overkill for the circumstances.  I'd be 100% behind the use of a Taser, and obviously some force was called for...


----------



## Omar B (Nov 26, 2009)

Really?  Had to shoot a 12 year old girl?  Couldn't restrain her?

Even after reading the story there's still a lot of detail left out.  Did he know how old she was, maybe she was big for her age.  Could he have used less brutal methods?  I'm quite sure a grown man should be able to restrain a 12 year old (and this goes back to how big she was I guess).  

It's a shame it happened and nobody's gonna look good coming out of this.  I'm just glad it was a bean bag and not a bullet.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 26, 2009)

You're OK with the taser but not the bean bag????
The taser can kill, as evidence by a man who was tasered and died here in Canada recently not to mention other occasions, especially on a 12 year old.
She was bean bagged in the leg and didn't have to go to the hospital.
She was banned from the train before, I say bag her!
Too many teens get away with crap today with nothing, she wasn't hurt so too bad, she had it coming. 
Maybe she'll think twice.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 26, 2009)

I just watched the video, 12 year old???
She looked like a full grown, (overgrown) woman who was behaving like an animal, definitely bag her!
She didn't look or act 12 to me.
The only drawback was that there were several cops and together could have subdued her more easily, but the shot to the leg did stop her cold so good!
Don't forget she wasn't hurt and didn't have to go to the hospital.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 26, 2009)

We've seen the security footage over and over again.  The girl resists quite a bit, does swing at one officer, but they had her on the ground (though she was still bucking and kicking and resisting) and he did shoot her in the thigh at *very* close range - had to be less than three feet away, he was standing over her, essentially.

Interestingly, this did end her struggling and the officers who held her down made her *stand up* ... and then ... *lie face down* to cuff her.

It was *weird.*

All that said, though, she was putting up as much of a fight as she could and this girl is almost as tall as the officers and is no skinny mini - she's grown for 12.  I'd tend to support what he did and am glad to see officers coming out and demonstrating to stand up for their need for force.

I'm uneducated about the force given the range here.  I'm not sure how far away you're supposed to be with the bean bags.  I can't remember if I've seen officers with those bruises after a training course or not.

Does anyone here know more about bean bag rounds and distance, etcetera?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> You're OK with the taser but not the bean bag????
> The taser can kill, as evidence by a man who was tasered and died here in Canada recently not to mention other occasions, especially on a 12 year old.
> She was bean bagged in the leg and didn't have to go to the hospital.
> She was banned from the train before, I say bag her!
> ...


While Taser has recently suggested avoiding shots to the chest for the very small chance of a cardiac event -- the Taser is very unlikely to cause serious injury, and would have obtained compliance almost immediately.  The vast majority of the deaths (yes, I admit they have happened) that have occurred with the Taser's use have been paired with pre-existing conditions and/or drug abuse.

As to the extent of injuries inflicted by the bean bag round -- I don't know.  In my department, and those with which I am familiar, they're placed at the upper end of the less-lethal options.  In all honesty, given the range, I'm surprised that there weren't more serious injuries.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 27, 2009)

From the video, it appears that after she struck/struck at the officer, he initially put her on the ground face down.  At that point, she rolled to her back and began flailing around trying to strike him again.  It was at this point that the other officer bean-bagged her.

I personally see no problem with the use of force in this situation.  It had the effect of allowing them to immediately subdue her without further injury to her or to themselves...something that would not have been guaranteed if they had subdued her without the use of the bean-bag.  As it is now, she's gonna have a bruise for a while and that's it.  

I think what has people's panties in a knot is that she was 12.  I guess my take on that is that, regardless of your age, if you want to play by "big boy rules," you're going to have to deal with the consequences of your actions.  The lesson here is that if you assault a police officer, your day is not going to end well.  Frankly, if I didn't know her age from the article, I wouldn't have guessed she was that young.  She certainly didn't look, or fight, like your average 12-year-old.

I guess the main question is going to be whether the officer's actions were according to policy.  My initial reaction based purely on what the video shows is that they're hanging him out to dry.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 27, 2009)

It's not for me to comment on the actions of the officers, but kids that age can be deceptively large. I worked in a middle school for three years, and there certainly were kids that I would have taken for older.


----------



## KELLYG (Nov 27, 2009)

I am sorry but if you are stupid enough strike a police officer there is going to be consequences. A bean bag to the leg, seriously it could have been much worse than that.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> From the video, it appears that after she struck/struck at the officer, he initially put her on the ground face down.  At that point, she rolled to her back and began flailing around trying to strike him again.  It was at this point that the other officer bean-bagged her.
> 
> I personally see no problem with the use of force in this situation.  It had the effect of allowing them to immediately subdue her without further injury to her or to themselves...something that would not have been guaranteed if they had subdued her without the use of the bean-bag.  As it is now, she's gonna have a bruise for a while and that's it.
> 
> ...


It's not the use of force in general that I'm personally uncomfortable with; it's the use of the bean bag round in particular.  Given the nature of the call they were on (disorderly crowd), I have no problem with having the bean bag gun present.  The girl was resisting; some accounts say she was punching the officers -- the video is unclear.  Even if just pulling away, she was resisting.  *Force* was justified.  

But was the force used reasonable and appropriate to the resistance being encountered?  Was a bean bag round really an appropriate choice for one of three officers present to employ against an unarmed person, no matter how old or how big?  I'm just not so sure about that...  I can tell you that I've arrested plenty of resisting people of all sizes and ages and never needed them shot with a bean bag.


----------



## Ray B (Nov 27, 2009)

I work at a pre K thru 8th grade school. I have two 12 year olds that are over 6 foot tall. One is about 200 lbs and the other 225. When confronted on the street, you size-up a threat by it's appearence, not age. A pissed off tween with a weapon is still dangerous. I know this one was weaponless, but still a threat. As stated earlier, there was no damage so I see no problem.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2009)

I agree...I think the thing that concerns alot of people is the fact that the beanbag had to be used.  as its been said, just because the kid is 12, doesnt mean that she can easily be controlled.  In addition, while it may seem 'excessive' until we know that departments use of force procedures, we can't safely judge whether or not too much was used or if it was well within their guidelines.  

There have been a few incidents with the dept. that I dispatch for, in which the beadbag gun was used. However, those were large crowd cases.  For the majority of 1 on 1 incidents, its usually been OC, a taser or K9.

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## grydth (Nov 27, 2009)

These are always a case to case call, and are subjective.

My daughter told me about kids like this in her old school, who'd fight like animals even when police and security came. They would have to literally pull them apart, and some of the injuries were frightening (As a side note, why doesn't "zero tolerance" ever seem to rid the school halls of _these_ types?)

I don't agree with cops using force on those who aren't dangerous, as in the mom tasered in from of her kids near Syracuse NY last Winter.... but when faced with humans behaving like rabid animals, I find it hard to second guess police using nonlethal responses. 

I wonder how many police departments actively train in any MA... After watching the Rodney King video, my thoughts were 'those officers sure weren't trained very well.'  How many of us have had instructors who, single handedly, could have gotten ole Rodney into a cruiser a lot more quickly and without all the violence? A good chin na would have brought many like this around quickly.

Of course, had the police been injured, it wouldn't have even been "news", would it?


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2009)

grydth said:


> These are always a case to case call, and are subjective.
> 
> My daughter told me about kids like this in her old school, who'd fight like animals even when police and security came. They would have to literally pull them apart, and some of the injuries were frightening (As a side note, why doesn't "zero tolerance" ever seem to rid the school halls of _these_ types?)
> 
> ...


 
Agreed.  I think, in lieu of everything else that needs to be crammed into academy training, empty hand SD, restraining methods, etc. are often not focused on as in depth as they should be.  

I remember when I worked in Corrections.  I used to cringe at the empty hand stuff.  I used to think to myself, "Holy ****!  I'm gonna get hurt or worse if I tried this stuff."  And it was then that I was thankful that I had my MA training to fall back on.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> But was the force used reasonable and appropriate to the resistance being encountered?  Was a bean bag round really an appropriate choice for one of three officers present to employ against an unarmed person, no matter how old or how big?  I'm just not so sure about that...  I can tell you that I've arrested plenty of resisting people of all sizes and ages and never needed them shot with a bean bag.



Why would it have been inappropriate against an unarmed person?  IMO, if the subject _had_ been armed, a less-lethal response would have been neither appropriate nor reasonable.

I guess my take on it is that I can see how the use of a bean-bag on a 12-year-old girl may provoke some visceral reactions from many people because it just doesn't "seem" right.  However, I have to wonder -based on the fact that she was fighting for all she was worth- (going by what the video shows), how badly might she or the officers have been injured if they had continued to attempt to restrain her with empty-hand methods alone.  Should they have just "dogpiled" her and smashed her into the ground?  Should they have used an ASP on her?  AFAIC, once she took a swing at the officer, he would have been perfectly justified in cold-cocking the **** out of her...would that have been a more palatable outcome?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Why would it have been inappropriate against an unarmed person?  IMO, if the subject _had_ been armed, a less-lethal response would have been neither appropriate nor reasonable.
> 
> I guess my take on it is that I can see how the use of a bean-bag on a 12-year-old girl may provoke some visceral reactions from many people because it just doesn't "seem" right.  However, I have to wonder -based on the fact that she was fighting for all she was worth- (going by what the video shows), how badly might she or the officers have been injured if they had continued to attempt to restrain her with empty-hand methods alone.  Should they have just "dogpiled" her and smashed her into the ground?  Should they have used an ASP on her?  AFAIC, once she took a swing at the officer, he would have been perfectly justified in cold-cocking the **** out of her...would that have been a more palatable outcome?


You can't simply say "she was resisting, so anything from a punch in the jaw to bean bags was OK."  I don't know the department's policies, nor do I know how he justified using the bean bag.  If he was within policy, or justified it -- he's fine, and I'll back him up in that.  As should his chief and commissioner.  

But they had a 3-on-1 situation.  They had already taken the girl to the ground.  Jumping to the upper end of the less-than-lethal force options is going to have to be justified.  And I have a hard time figuring out a justification based on what's been presented.  Were the girl to have been trying for one of the officers's guns, or turn out to have had a knife that became visible during the struggle, it'd be a different question.  But I think that those details would probably have come out by now.

On a gut level -- I want to back the cop.  But right now I'm just not comfortable saying that I can; I'm not condemning or damning him, either.  He and his agency have room to clear this up and I hope that an investigation does clear him.  I take the use-of-force scrutiny he may be under from other incidents with a grain of salt, because I know of one agency that assumes if you have three use of force incidents in a certain time frame -- even if all three were clearcut cases of assault on an officer by felons with a history of violence! -- you must have a problem.


----------



## Carol (Nov 27, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> You're OK with the taser but not the bean bag????
> The taser can kill, as evidence by a man who was tasered and died here in Canada recently not to mention other occasions, especially on a 12 year old.



Bean bag rounds can kill (and have killed) too.  Perhaps they are more socially acceptable to use because they have a have a warm fuzzy name that makes people think of a kids toy.

If less-lethal force was needed, given the choice between a device that delivers an EMP pulse at (I think) less than 1% of the output used in medical applications, and a device that fires 9mm shot pellets wrapped in cloth, I'd rather see the former being used.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 27, 2009)

To respond to a few posts.
First off they aren't 9mm pelets, its a bag filled with sand.
Hurts yes, but to the torso you have to be 10 feet away, to the extremeties (arms and legs), it's basically at the officers discretion. (It doesn't matter, point blank is fine especially against someone who's struggling and you don't want to miss or hit them accidentally somewhere more dangerous.
It's extremely rare that a bean bag to the arm or leg will cause a serious injury, scare the s**t out of someone and hurt, yes. 
But kill, to the arms and legs almost impossible.


----------



## Carol (Nov 27, 2009)

Ooops...sorry...I was remembering wrong.     Its not 9mm pellets, its #9 lead shot which is more like 2mm in size.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Bean bag rounds can kill (and have killed) too. Perhaps they are more socially acceptable to use because they have a have a warm fuzzy name that makes people think of a kids toy.
> 
> If less-lethal force was needed, given the choice between a device that delivers an EMP pulse at (I think) less than 1% of the output used in medical applications, and a device that fires 9mm shot pellets wrapped in cloth, I'd rather see the former being used.


 
Are there any cases and/or links that will show that people have died from a beanbag hit?  Not sure where the person was hit that would cause death, but a hit to the body should not cause death.


----------



## grydth (Nov 27, 2009)

I would suspect that research would show isolated fatalities from just about *every* means of apprehension.... the devil is in the details, however.

One also should consider the danger posed to police and public from this out of control person. Surveillance video shows a train in station - suppose her struggles has pushed somebody there?

For those who criticize the police here - what should they have done? (That being within the limits of the training and equipment these officers had)


----------



## Carol (Nov 27, 2009)

MJS said:


> Are there any cases and/or links that will show that people have died from a beanbag hit?  Not sure where the person was hit that would cause death, but a hit to the body should not cause death.



U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report.  Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired.  8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round.  Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round.  The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/206089.pdf

Iowa, June 2009 - a beanbag round was used in an attempt to apprehend a suicidal person (which from what I understand is the most common use for this type of round), the person died from the impact.

http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-standoff-death-060909,0,5218697.story

Georgia, April 2005 - target dies after getting shot in the spleen with a bean bag round

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...fter-Ga-Police-Shoot-Him-with-Bean-Bag-Round/

Massachusetts, October 1998 - A report in the New Bedford (MA) Standard-Times describes use by the Dartmouth PD, along with a notation that the round can kill when deployed at close range or when impacting the head or neck.  This does not cite specific instances.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/10-98/10-27-98/a01lo006.htm



The first PoliceOne article is sponsored by TASER so...I think its safe to say they are biased   They mention several bean bag round deaths but do not provide incident specifics.  The second is the counter called "In defense of the beanbag" and notes that a fatal injury in 1972, when a 14 year old New Mexico boy was fatally shot with the round, resulted in agencies shelving the tool for 18 years.

http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...role-it-plays-in-death-and-injury-prevention/

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...328-In-defense-of-the-12-gauge-bean-bag-round


Assuming the details in these articles are correct, a hit to the body most certainly can cause death -- however, it is not likely to cause death.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> You can't simply say "she was resisting, so anything from a punch in the jaw to bean bags was OK." I don't know the department's policies, nor do I know how he justified using the bean bag. If he was within policy, or justified it -- he's fine, and I'll back him up in that. As should his chief and commissioner.


 
When did I say that _any_ form of "resisting" justified getting punched in the jaw or bean-bagged. I said that based on what I see in the video, it appeared that she was being _combative--_actively fighting--not just engaging in passive resistance or trying to get away. "I'm going to kick your ***," vs. "I don't want to cooperate."



jks9199 said:


> But they had a 3-on-1 situation. They had already taken the girl to the ground. Jumping to the upper end of the less-than-lethal force options is going to have to be justified. And I have a hard time figuring out a justification based on what's been presented. Were the girl to have been trying for one of the officers's guns, or turn out to have had a knife that became visible during the struggle, it'd be a different question. But I think that those details would probably have come out by now.


 
Well I guess until further details come out, we could go in circles on this forever. My position remains that based on what I saw in the video, officers dealing with a combative subject, their use of a less-lethal tool was justified.

While a bean-bag may be on the "upper end" of the less-lethal force continuum, in this case it was used in a manner that had virtually no chance of causing serious injury. A baton is a less-lethal tool that can also be used in a deadly manner. Would you have a problem if they had whacked her across the leg with an asp? 

As far as the gun-grab thing...if she had tried to grab one of their guns, AFAIC they would have been justified in using deadly force.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 27, 2009)

i would give the cop a medal, then promote him, and put him in charge of training


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I came across this elsewhere. Quick summary: Disorderly kids on a Portland commuter train. Portland PD officers respond, and try to take a 12 year girl into custody for trespass after being banned. She bucks; some accounts say she struck one of the cops. Cop on scene has a bean bag shotgun... and uses it at close or contact range, shooting her in the thigh. She is not hospitalized. Police chief backs the cop somewhat, wanting to put him on a desk job; commissioner overrules the chief and suspends the cop -- who was already under investigation or scrutiny for another excessive force complaint.
> 
> News accounts:
> http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/portland_officer_suspend_after.html (has videos)
> ...


 

JKS,

I grew a lot when I was 12. The Hospital where I got my Tonsils out thought I was an adult. Many people thought I was 18 or older as I was 6'1" and still growing and was adult size. 

If you were wrestling with me at that time would you consider the use of the bean bag weapon (* being your only option at the time *)?

I am not trying to trap you, and I understand what I described is different then most 12 girls. 

Just curious, as I could see if they were wrestling and she grabbed for it because he had it in his hand and it went off during the conflict. Still not was described, but like I said curious.


----------



## MJS (Nov 28, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report. Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired. 8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round. Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round. The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.
> 
> http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/206089.pdf
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the links.   I think that much like the Taser, which also gets a bad rep, that isolated incidents will happen.  From what I've heard, in many cases with the Taser, a pre-existing condition was usually the cause of the fatality, ie: heart condition, under the influence of drugs, etc.  

What I find interesting is considering how much contact, we as martial artists get during training, especially guys who fight in the cage, yet the number of deaths have been rare.  

So, is it possible to get a broken rib?  Apparently so, from the article.


----------



## Ray B (Nov 28, 2009)

Take gender and age out of the equation and what do you have?
120-130 lb person forcebly resisting an officer. If this was a 25 year old, male prison inmate, we wouldn't be here discussing the matter.


----------



## MJS (Nov 28, 2009)

Ray B said:


> Take gender and age out of the equation and what do you have?
> 120-130 lb person forcebly resisting an officer. If this was a 25 year old, male prison inmate, we wouldn't be here discussing the matter.


 
Great point!  Then again, I'd be willing to bet that if force other than empty hand compliance was used, some members of the bleeding hearts club, would probably still have something to say.  Oh well....this is why I always say...the LEOs of the world are damned if they do, damned if they dont.


----------



## Carol (Nov 28, 2009)

What about a 5' 7", 165 pound adult?   I saw that as the description of the girl when I was surfing around looking for links.


----------



## MJS (Nov 28, 2009)

IMO, anyone thats resisting the police is at risk of having force used against them.  Every PD out there has a use of force policy, so as long as its followed, then IMO, it shouldn't matter if its a 15yo kid, a 30yo adult or an 80yo man....if they're resisting, and empty hand controlling methods are not working, then OC, taser, baton, pepperball, beanbag, K9, should be used accordingly.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 28, 2009)

MJS said:


> IMO, anyone thats resisting the police is at risk of having force used against them.  Every PD out there has a use of force policy, so as long as its followed, then IMO, it shouldn't matter if its a 15yo kid, a 30yo adult or an 80yo man....if they're resisting, and empty hand controlling methods are not working, then OC, taser, baton, pepperball, beanbag, K9, should be used accordingly.


Absolutely.  But, as I've said, the force must be reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered.  My sole question here is simply that; was the use of the bean bag round reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered?

I think there's some room for debate.  There were three officers on the scene, trying to arrest one unarmed person.  She was actively resisting and assaulting the officers -- but did the level of resistance justify the force used?  If it did, if it was within the policy of the agency and the officer's training in the weapon used, they're fine, and I support them.  If it didn't -- I support the officer, but not the choice.

One use of force chart that I like for how it relates the balance of control with resistance, including the recognition of too much control and too much chance of injury, is found HERE.  (A detailed explanation can be found here.)  It's probably a couple of years old, and it's not perfect.  Nor should it be viewed as some sort of stairstep or rigid hierarchy.  And, unless the force used is significantly out of proportion -- the error should go to the officer, in my opinion.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, examined, and reviewed.


----------



## Carol (Nov 28, 2009)

MJS said:


> Thanks for the links.   I think that much like the Taser, which also gets a bad rep, that isolated incidents will happen.  From what I've heard, in many cases with the Taser, a pre-existing condition was usually the cause of the fatality, ie: heart condition, under the influence of drugs, etc.
> 
> What I find interesting is considering how much contact, we as martial artists get during training, especially guys who fight in the cage, yet the number of deaths have been rare.
> 
> So, is it possible to get a broken rib?  Apparently so, from the article.



Excellent point as well.  Especially with the cage fighters, I think that speaks volumes about their overall conditioning, as well as the safety rules that are put in place (no bare knuckles, no hand sword chops to the throat, referee can stop the fight, etc.)  

Also something to keep in mind is the speed of impact.   I could take a lead bullet and try to press it to a person's chest and likely not create anything more than a bruise.   However, when propelled from a firearm at 800 - 1100 fps, that same bullet becomes a lethal projectile.

The BBC reported that boxer Ricky Hatton's fastest punch was 32 MPH, with an average speed of 25 MPH.   

By contrast, the beanbag round is propelled at 300 fps, or ~205 MPH.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 28, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> U.S. Department of Justice, October 2004 - There are plenty of details in the report.  Essentially, in a survey from 106 agencies, 373 impact munitions were fired.  8 deaths occurred from impact munitions, 2 deaths occurred when the officers intended to fire a less lethal round but instead fired a lethal round.  Of the 8 deaths, at least 5 were from a bean bag round.  The report lists one case of the target getting hit in the throat with a bean bag round, another case is listed as the target dying of a punctured lung, which was caused when the bean bag round hit their ribs.
> 
> a hit to the body most certainly can cause death -- however, it is not likely to cause death.



These were ALL from shots to the torso, and not the limbs.
A shot to the limbs is ALMOST impossible to be lethal.


----------



## MJS (Nov 29, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Absolutely. But, as I've said, the force must be reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered. My sole question here is simply that; was the use of the bean bag round reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered?
> 
> I think there's some room for debate. There were three officers on the scene, trying to arrest one unarmed person. She was actively resisting and assaulting the officers -- but did the level of resistance justify the force used? If it did, if it was within the policy of the agency and the officer's training in the weapon used, they're fine, and I support them. If it didn't -- I support the officer, but not the choice.
> 
> One use of force chart that I like for how it relates the balance of control with resistance, including the recognition of too much control and too much chance of injury, is found HERE. (A detailed explanation can be found here.) It's probably a couple of years old, and it's not perfect. Nor should it be viewed as some sort of stairstep or rigid hierarchy. And, unless the force used is significantly out of proportion -- the error should go to the officer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, examined, and reviewed.


 
Of course.  Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.   IMO, I think alot of times, when people see 3-4 cops piled on someone, trying to cuff them, they assume its overkill, when in reality, just because you're down, doesnt mean that you still can't resist.  So in their eyes, pulling out OC, which should be perfectly well within the use of force, is overkill, when its not, nor would be a taser.  

A quick example: We have a few homes in the city where I work, that house people with some mental issues.  Guy calls 911 and starts rambling about crazy stuff, then hangs up.  Of course a cop is sent to verify everything is ok.  Less than a min. later, a staff member calls, stating that the guy is out of control, throwing things and then runs out of the house.  

A few more officers are sent.  One of them comes across the guy walking down the street, carrying and emptying a fire extinguisher.  Cop hangs back a bit until the others arrive.  One of the responding officers has a K9.  The Supervisor that was also going, made it clear that if more force was needed, to use the Taser first, before the dog.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 29, 2009)

I applaud the officers for using the bag instead of fighting with this kid and possibly hurting her or themselves.  Put him back on the street and let's press, dang kids now a days are running rampant and it's just getting worse.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> These were ALL from shots to the torso, and not the limbs.
> A shot to the limbs is ALMOST impossible to be lethal.



The round to the torso which killed by rupturing the spleen was taken at approximately 25 feet.  

The round fired to the girl's thigh was within 3 feet.  While the femur is quite difficult to break, it does happen and it also happens to often be a life-threatening situation when either the femoral artery or vein rupture from either the broken bone or a seriously powerful blow to the area.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2009)

I want to be clear - something needed to done with this girl, I only question the proximity of the shot.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 30, 2009)

MJS said:


> Are there any cases and/or links that will show that people have died from a beanbag hit?  Not sure where the person was hit that would cause death, but a hit to the body should not cause death.



A beanbag to the chest could crack the sternum or mechanically shock the heart and cause it to stop (or so I was told). If you hit the liver or kidneys, I think internal bleeding is a possibility too if said organ ruptures.

If you hit the inner thigh I suppose an artery rupture is also a possibility if it gets squashed against the femur.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Nov 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> The round to the torso which killed by rupturing the spleen was taken at approximately 25 feet.
> 
> The round fired to the girl's thigh was within 3 feet.  While the femur is quite difficult to break, it does happen and it also happens to often be a life-threatening situation when either the femoral artery or vein rupture from either the broken bone or a seriously powerful blow to the area.



I'm just trying to keep it relevant to the case here.
I find that talking about torso shots can confuse the issue.
Let's keep in mind, she was not shot on the torso but on her leg.
She ONLY received a bruise and did not require to be brought to a hospital.

As you know if the police injure someone or are injured themselves, they have to go to the hospital.
If the person they arrest is injured, they have to take them to the hospital.

The FACT that no one is making a stink that she wasn't taken to hospital, and even the news claiming that she wasn't required to be brought to the hospital as she only had a bruise speaks volumes.
She wasn't injured.
Many lawful arrests involve more serious injuries and no one ever says a word.
Injuries like scrapes that could be infected and cuts, fractures, and other more serious injuries that never involve bean bags.
I'm not saying this weapon can't be abused, I'm just saying in this instance, it clearly wasn't.
As for the range, what would you rather, 3 feet and a clear shot to the leg or a further shot and possibly injuring a fellow officer or more seriously the girl.
He made sure he fired from where it would be very hard to miss and hit her on the thigh which would make it very difficult to fracture a bone considering that is the meatiest part of the leg.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 30, 2009)

I didn't know she wasn't taken to a hospital - is that a requirement in Washington state? I don't think so unless there is obvious injury.

I personally think the reasons they're looking at this case closer are 1. the officer firing the round has been investigated for excessive force before and 2. the girl is "only twelve."  

I'm really happy to see officers speaking out to defend their own and their need for force in situations like this - the public needs to be more aware of what these men and women go through every day and why they need the weapons they carry.

This is a good example of a less-than-ideal situation.  

There are a few other things I see wrong in the video, but more to the officers' safety.  I think I'll just shut up now.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> You're OK with the taser but not the bean bag????
> The taser can kill, as evidence by a man who was tasered and died here in Canada recently not to mention other occasions, especially on a 12 year old.
> She was bean bagged in the leg and didn't have to go to the hospital.
> She was banned from the train before, I say bag her!
> ...



As for the Taser......correlation does not equal causation........dying after something happens does not mean that something was the cause of death.

The reality is that the use of Tasers and other less-lethal weapons are correlated with other life threatening events, such as hyper-stimulant usage, usage that on it's own, and in combination with violent exertion, can and quite often does cause death WITHOUT the use of Tasers or other less-lethal weapons.

The fact that Tasers are often employed in combination with subjects under crisis for hyper-stimulant overdose should come as no surprise, as one of the chief symptoms of those kinds of hyper-stimulant is violent bizarre behavior.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> While Taser has recently suggested avoiding shots to the chest for the very small chance of a cardiac event -- the Taser is very unlikely to cause serious injury, and would have obtained compliance almost immediately.  The vast majority of the deaths (yes, I admit they have happened) that have occurred with the Taser's use have been paired with pre-existing conditions and/or drug abuse.


 Exactly right, as for the deaths themselves, they occur at the exact rate they occurred when previous levels of force were predominent, i.e. pepper spray, neck restraints, swarms, etc were used.......meaning the type of force applied changes, but the death rates stay the same, meaning that the variable causing the deaths can't be the type of force used.



jks9199 said:


> As to the extent of injuries inflicted by the bean bag round -- I don't know.  In my department, and those with which I am familiar, they're placed at the upper end of the less-lethal options.  In all honesty, given the range, I'm surprised that there weren't more serious injuries.


 I agree completely.......it's a rather high-end use of force for us as well, and it wouldn't be justified on our force model.


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 16, 2009)

I will start this out by saying I am not less-lethal certified on bean-bag rounds, something you have to be at my agency in order to carry a L-L shotgun.

But I think that there is a minimum distance on the use of a bean bag round's employment.  But regardless I dont know how you can justify this one.  Yes I say enforce was/is justified in taking someone into custody regardless of age/ability to resist but it did look easier to simply sling the shotgun and get a control on the legs.

I dont know how anyone feels about use of the taser but I look at that as being another tool that could have better served the purpose (as a drive stun, not probes).  But I was not there and I dont know the full history about the girl or the officer(s) involved.

One thing that was pointed out to me, anyone cares to watch again, is that the officers at one point have the girl on the ground then lift her up and then take her to the ground again; why take her down again, they should have gotten her under control the first time.

This is armchair quarterbacking and I never like to see police do something they should not so I will just say that this bears watching to see what the final outcome is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2009)

I didn't say this, but i'm a certified Use of Force Instructor, Taser Instructor, Pepper Spray Instructor, Specialty Impact Munitions Instructor ('Bean bags'.....though they aren't bean bags anymore), 'Pepperball Instructor', etc, etc, etc.........I wouldn't recommend this use of force in this situation just based on what i've read........but as we all know there is usually far more involved than what is printed in news stories........but I would urge caution in the use of Specialty Impact Munitions, as they hit with the force of a 105 MPH fastball.......it's an excellent tool when properly applied, but I recommend muzzle to 10ft only if it can't be avoided.

The Taser is a far more appropriate tool for the situation I read.......as would be Pepper Spray.


----------

