# O.K...deserved to be tazered or not?



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2005)

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html

I am saying totally deserved it. I was cheering at my computer.

Disagreements?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2005)

Until I heard that her license was suspended, I felt it was over the line. Knowing that, I find it defensible...but question whether it was necessary.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Until I heard that her license was suspended, I felt it was over the line. Knowing that, I find it defensible...but question whether it was necessary.




If she was refusing to exit the vehicle, she could have ran off, or run over the second officer by going in reverse. The options of what could happen in that type of case are limitless. All she had to do was get out of the car or at least move towards the getting out of the car. They said she swung at the second officer. That is not good, and could get you shot let alone Taz'd.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Until I heard that her license was suspended, I felt it was over the line. Knowing that, I find it defensible...but question whether it was necessary.



Well, she wasn't cooperating, and the officer was going to have to use force to get her out of the car.

It begs the question...which is safer, trying to muscle her out of the vehicle, or warning her, tazing her, and getting her to comply?

I thought that she was a totally uncooperative ***...so I felt she got what she deserved...


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 7, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> If she was refusing to exit the vehicle, she could have ran off, or run over the second officer by going in reverse. The options of what could happen in that type of case are limitless. All she had to do was get out of the car or at least move towards the getting out of the car. They said she swung at the second officer. That is not good, and could get you shot let alone Taz'd.



Amen to that too, bro.


----------



## dubljay (Jun 7, 2005)

I think tazing her was a better way. Imagine if the officer had forced her door open, and forced her out of the car... the injuries she could have sustained from a joint lock/pain compliance hold are worse than being tazed. the officer could have accidentally broken her arm trying to forcer her from the vehicle, where as the tazer the likelyhood of such injuries is lower.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2005)

I couldn't see the swing, though I did hear them mention it--tazeing (tazing?) a person who takes a swing at an LEO is OK by me.

 As to taking off, I assume the car was turned off, so it would have taken some effort to do that.

 Definitely, she was an ***. As to what's better for her--I armlock people all the time. Yes, things can go wrong, but I'm not convinced it was for _her_ good. As to the LEO protecting himself--as I say, I find that defensible.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 8, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I couldn't see the swing, though I did hear them mention it--tazeing (tazing?) a person who takes a swing at an LEO is OK by me.
> 
> As to taking off, I assume the car was turned off, so it would have taken some effort to do that.



As to starting the car, you are correct it takes effort.

But I offer from my experience, which may not be normal:

New vehicles have push button key FOB starters. Some Premium vehicles ahve push button starting, No Keys at all. 

Older vehicles had what is refered to as a bump start, where fuel is dumped into the cyclinders and then spark on the one ready. This causes emission problems, hence newer vehicles do not use this, but does give nice quick start. It takes little time to drop a vehicle in drive or reverse. One of the complaints form JD Power on vehicles, is the bump of entering into Drive or Reverse right after the start is initiated.  We do quick starts and bumps into gear to catch the "jerk" term for the shift. So, I guess I looked at it from my perspective and not the average person. I guess my personal biases got in the way.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2005)

Perfectly within policy IMO. She was requested, then ordered out of the vehicle which she refused. He opened the door and tried a "softhand" on her which she resisted . She said "theyre going to arrest me" to her phone. So she knew what was going on. He then ordered her out by taser which she refused. Alledgedly swung at an officer. When someone is obviously going to resist getting dragged out, knealt on and twisted into cuffs, its time for OC/Taser etc...


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 8, 2005)

We had this same discussion over on Warrior-Talk.  One of the things that I pointed out was that, if you listen closely to her phone conversation right before they zap her, she's giving directions to someone.  She says something like "it's the next street over..."  For all we know, she was trying to get someone up there to *keep* her from being arrested.  Who knows...

I do think the officers were justified in using force, and given the alternative (physical force with all the risks entailed) I think the tazer was a good choice.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 8, 2005)

I stand and salute all the people who can handle being an LEO!

 Personaly,I couldn't.
 I would taze first then ask questions!

 So this woman got off lucky and should quit complaining!

 BUT,
 you know some law firm is gonna jump all over that officer like white on rice!
 Taze them too!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2005)

Many times when the person stopped starts being an *** from the get-go, instead of doing the "good afternoon officer" routine, theres something wrong with the car/license or theres a warrant. I havent figured out if its an attempt to scare the officer off, getting pissed because they see the arrest coming or trying to set up some sort of complaint/suit against the officer. Or a combination thereof. 

As compared to just knowing that you took your chances, got caught and should just face the music. Now she probably added a resisting (penal law) charge to what was more than likely just a traffic misdemeanor.


----------



## Franc0 (Jun 8, 2005)

Gawd, I gotta get me one of those tasers! artyon:
And yeah, she asked for it.

Franco


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Many times when the person stopped starts being an *** from the get-go, instead of doing the "good afternoon officer" routine, theres something wrong with the car/license or theres a warrant. I havent figured out if its an attempt to scare the officer off, getting pissed because they see the arrest coming or trying to set up some sort of complaint/suit against the officer. Or a combination thereof.


 I assumed she was setting up a complaint or lawsuit. She couldn't possibly have thought that he'd back off because she's a problematic person to deal with--does that _ever_ happen?



> As compared to just knowing that you took your chances, got caught and should just face the music. Now she probably added a resisting (penal law) charge to what was more than likely just a traffic misdemeanor.


 Maybe her license was suspended for drunk driving or something and she's a repeat offender--sometimes that means harsher penalties, no? A really long suspension, or fine, or something?


----------



## oldnewbie (Jun 8, 2005)

Deserved.. clear-cut IMO

 Did you hear her quoting law to the officer in the begining? Jeesh...
 And she opened the door at the begining... big no, no...

 My hat's off to all LEO's.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Many times when the person stopped starts being an *** from the get-go, instead of doing the "good afternoon officer" routine, theres something wrong with the car/license or theres a warrant. I havent figured out if its an attempt to scare the officer off, getting pissed because they see the arrest coming or trying to set up some sort of complaint/suit against the officer. Or a combination thereof.
> 
> As compared to just knowing that you took your chances, got caught and should just face the music. Now she probably added a resisting (penal law) charge to what was more than likely just a traffic misdemeanor.


wel, if poeple like that could use reason and planning and forethought, they wouldn't be the losers they are.  "Getting pissed becasue they see the arrest coming" is probably a good description of it.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I assumed she was setting up a complaint or lawsuit. She couldn't possibly have thought that he'd back off because she's a problematic person to deal with--does that _ever_ happen?


No, but people think it can.




> Maybe her license was suspended for drunk driving or something and she's a repeat offender--sometimes that means harsher penalties, no? A really long suspension, or fine, or something?


Unless she was drunk at the time of arrest, with a suspended license for intox. most traffic misdemeanors rarely result in jail time. Repeat drunk drivers are probably the most likely to see bars...a resisting charge however is a penal law arrest and some judges dont look favorably on them.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 8, 2005)

Deserves has nothing to do with it.  She took what was, all in all, a minor offence and escalated it.  Once that happen she IS getting arrested.  On most agencies the taser is low on the force scale, about equal with pepper spray.
The average person simply can not comprehend what jackasses many people are on traffic stops.  The bottom line is that most folks did something to cause the traffic stop.  And, for some reason, the ones who have revoked licenses and bench warrants tend to do the  most extreme things...


----------



## OULobo (Jun 8, 2005)

Regarless of right, wrong, justified, within policy, deserved ect., this video is going to be a nightnmare for public relations at that PD. I also wouldn't put it past being a hell of a trial if it goes to jury for excessive force. To the eyes of the trained and the educated, like many on this board, this seems easily justified, but I think the average citizen will see it as excessive.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 9, 2005)

The question then becomes excessive compared to what?  To cracking her with a baton?  To grappling with her and dislocating a joint?  To punching  her?

THe problem comes down to a public perception that cops have all these wonderful star wars less lethal easy capture tools when it just aint so.  The problem is compounded by the increasing tendency of otherwise normal people to resist for no apparent reason.

Honestly, I would like to see the  blackjack back in vouge, but it aint gonna happen...


----------



## modarnis (Jun 9, 2005)

>>THe problem comes down to a public perception that cops have all these wonderful star wars less lethal easy capture tools when it just aint so. The problem is compounded by the increasing tendency of otherwise normal people to resist for no apparent reason.>>


As a prosecutor I see a growing number of incidents of relatively run of the mill speeding, stop sign, expired registration situations where people choose to fight with the police.  At least once per month we have someone get violent in court over these kinds of stupid things too.

In the video, the cop gave repeated, calm, clear instructions to that motorist from the moment of first contact.  She resisted his requests from the initial approach.  Prior to the tazer being deployed, she was asked to "step" out of the vehicle no less than 4 times, with at least 2 warnings that the tazer would be coming if she failed to comply.  Oh well, she should not be surprised when the officer makes good on his statement.   

It is the classic criminal trying to negotiate.  Listen closely.  First its the I know my rights/I know the law.  When that didn't work it was the race card/po-lice hassling her family, then it was the call someone who cares on the phone to alert them to the "miscarriage of justice"  The cop on the other hand was calm and professional.  As a professional who reviews these type of incidents, it was textbook police work.  He worked his way up the force continuom from verbal, to a hands on escort attempt, to deployment of a less lethal, the tazer.


----------



## hemi (Jun 9, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> The question then becomes excessive compared to what? To cracking her with a baton? To grappling with her and dislocating a joint? To punching her?
> 
> THe problem comes down to a public perception that cops have all these wonderful star wars less lethal easy capture tools when it just aint so. The problem is compounded by the increasing tendency of otherwise normal people to resist for no apparent reason.
> 
> ..


Hmm where to start, fist off I think the officer was VERY justified in doing what he did. I also think that she should think herself lucky thats all she got. Seems to me that America needs a reality check the general public takes and runs with all these video clips doing anything they can to deface the men and women of law enforcement. Its very easy for the average person to sit in their safe home and see something on TV. And think wow that was overboard. I bet if the rolls were reversed, and that same person found themselves faced with a life or death situation I bet they would think different. 



It just makes me crazy to think we want people to go and catch the bad guys and keep us safe and protect us. But America does not want to equip and give the ability to use what ever force is necessary to do this in a manner that is safe for the Law Enforcement officers. 



I am considering a career change into law enforcement but I am hesitant for several reasons. I hate the fact that if some nut bag waves a gun around and threatens people in his surroundings and I had to use deadly force to stop that threat I may have to go before a jury to see if I will go on trial. How can you expect anyone to go and do a dangerous job putting their life on the line. Then place the added burden of telling them you have to take down this armed suspect but if you have to use deadly force to do so you may face jail yourself. That is crazy


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 9, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> The question then becomes excessive compared to what?  To cracking her with a baton?  To grappling with her and dislocating a joint?  To punching  her?
> ..



The problem is that people don't realize that the Tazer is less harmful with less of a chance of perminent injury then trying to wrestle someone out of a car.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 9, 2005)

No, the problem is that our society has been dumbed down to the point where people think actions have no consequences, no one accepts responsibility for anything, and everyone thinks they are special and that the rules dont apply.


----------



## swiftpete (Jun 9, 2005)

Yeah i agree..people who don't take responsibility for their own actions annoy me more than anything. At least if you have done something wrong accept you've done something rather than try to blame someone else. i see it a lot and it always gets me! 

I can imagine this woman sitting round with her family afterwards and them all tutting about how racist and violent the police are. When it was her attitude that led to the tazering anyway, like someone said earlier she could've been directing someone with a gun to the scene so he had to deal with it and he did give her enough warnings.
When i'm pulled over for i never argue with the police that have pulled me over, they are people after all and if you argue and cause a scene for no reason of course they're going to take it the next level, if i was police i'd do the same. 


So anyway yeah i think she deserved it and personally i burst out laughing when i saw him do it.


----------



## dscott (Jun 9, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> No, the problem is that our society has been dumbed down to the point where people think actions have no consequences, no one accepts responsibility for anything, and everyone thinks they are special and that the rules dont apply.


People also have a complete lack of respect for authority. Whether it be police, teachers or parents.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 9, 2005)

Justified! 

The officer gave her repeated warnings, even politely, and even told her what he would do if she did not comply.  All of this time, she was babbling into her phone, asserting that the officer had a gun and was going to shoot her.  

Her license was suspended, and she should not have been driving in the first place.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> As a professional who reviews these type of incidents, it was textbook police work. He worked his way up the force continuom from verbal, to a hands on escort attempt, to deployment of a less lethal, the tazer.


 Yes, he did handle it very professionally. Your comments remind us that that's not merely appropriate because he _is_ a professional--it's also smart because these things can end up in court, and perception will matter. Had she fallen and broken a wrist when tazed, there'd be a lawsuit for sure.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2005)

swiftpete said:
			
		

> When i'm pulled over for i never argue with the police that have pulled me over, they are people after all and if you argue and cause a scene for no reason of course they're going to take it the next level


 Yes, I still find it hard to believe that she could really think that her attitude would be helpful. If you're pulled over, they _will_ run a check on your plate and see if you have a valid license--it's going to happen. Even viewed as pure strategy, I don't see what she gains.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 9, 2005)

IMO..car cameras are a bigger minus for the officer than a plus. Its to the point now where the defense wants to see the tapes more than the prosecution does...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 9, 2005)

That made my day. Thank you for posting a link to this video. At the risk of sounding sick and jaded, the idiot was warned repeatedly of the upcoming effects of her failure to comply. Common sense ain't so common. If, while you're in voilation, a cop with a gun to your head -- or tazer pointed atcha -- says "jump", it's a good time to see just how high you can go.

Regards,

D.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 9, 2005)

Unless it shows the police rescuing little duckies from a storm drain or shooting down bank robbers wearing body armor and carrying AK47's, most people just dont want to see, or cant accept the reality of, police work. Especially the more commonplace use of force incidents out there. The taser gets a bad rep because the subject yells and falls down and thrashes around. Im telling ya, Id rather be tasered than deal with the hours of aftereffects from OC. Which by looks seems harmless because the subject just stands there and gasps, blinks, freezes. The initial pain of the taser is worse, but when its over you are back to normal fairly quickly.

And when you go home and shower after being tasered you dont get zapped all over again. But with OC the stuff washes out of your hair and eyebrows and here ya go again....


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 10, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> No, the problem is that our society has been dumbed down to the point where people think actions have no consequences, no one accepts responsibility for anything, and everyone thinks they are special and that the rules dont apply.



Yup...well, that would be the bigger problem.


----------



## Booie_101 (Aug 14, 2005)

Hell yes....

 He asked the nice way....


----------

