# Officer tasers "handcuffed" woman



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2009)

At least thats what CNN is saying....

[yt]FZ3GXLpClD4[/yt]


What looks odd here?


----------



## seasoned (Jun 16, 2009)

It appears she had no handcuffs on.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 16, 2009)

Accurate reporting eh?

Try this on for size.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Accurate reporting eh?
> 
> Try this on for size.


 
Sigh........


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 16, 2009)

As they all step back, on the footage you can hear the chap shouting TASER TASER TASER.  Some good punches going in there too.  Was that man still a threat, to six of them?

Fine specimens of men eh?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> As they all step back, on the footage you can hear the chap shouting TASER TASER TASER. Some good punches going in there too. Was that man still a threat, to six of them?
> 
> Fine specimens of men eh?


 
Tbh he could have been, I have several friends who do the doors in Nottingham and have been there for the CW fights and it's like the Wild West there. there's very high drug and drink problem on the streets.
The rules now dictate that police when they arrest someone who is fighting them have to use several officers and the control and restraint part has to be done in a certain order. One officer per limb, one for the head and one to handcuff. Only certain techniques are supposed to be used as well which really aren't ideal.
I'm not saying tasering twice is necessarily right but as i said you take your life in your hands these days in Nottingham.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/28/communities.observermagazine


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 16, 2009)

Nothing to do with the thread per se, I just wanted to thank *Tez* for that link.  A most interesting article - thoughtful journalism, whatever next ?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The rules now dictate that police when they arrest someone who is fighting them have to use several officers and the control and restraint part has to be done in a certain order. One officer per limb, one for the head and one to handcuff. Only certain techniques are supposed to be used as well which really aren't ideal.



Just not sport is it?  I hate to see loads of blokes pilling in, it just looks really bad.  Is this because the way they recruit police now means there are less who can cope with physical intervention?  (That's by no way a cover all statement, btw! I know some can)  Is it a H&S thing?

I find it really hard to imagine a bloke who's just had 50,000 volts put through him and is on the floor and surrounded by four men being a threat enough to justify the use of a potentially dangerous weapon.






*Police on Patrol - Nottingham. (possibly)*


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2009)

LOL, Nottingham is far worse than Belfast ever was!

It's H&S, regs, you'll see it in the Prison Service as well, there has to be a officer to carry or restrain each limb plus one to hold the head..it's for the 'safety of the prisoner'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAqmztoY91o&feature=related


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> LOL, Nottingham is far worse than Belfast ever was!


 
I've got doubts about that.



Tez3 said:


> It's H&S, regs, you'll see it in the Prison Service as well, there has to be a officer to carry or restrain each limb plus one to hold the head..*it's for the 'safety of the prisoner'*.



You have my sympathies there then. 



Tez3 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAqmztoY91o&feature=related



Great night out!  I think I might have seen him somewhere before.... 



Tez3 said:


>



Now you see he needed Tasering.  At quite an early stage in that video I'd have said.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 16, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> As they all step back, on the footage you can hear the chap shouting TASER TASER TASER. Some good punches going in there too. Was that man still a threat, to six of them?
> 
> Fine specimens of men eh?


 

I have seen guys on drugs, that while hand cuffed, bit and kicked officers in the face they lost teeth, and broken noses. Of course they got a complaint and one officer as kicked in the head and the other bitten and they dropped him while trying to carry and put him into the back of a police car. The complaint did not go far, one given all the medical reports on the officers and yes there were over six of them. And then my report which started before the officers arrived (* as I had called them *). 


Now that being said, yes there are bad cops out there. I know from personal experience. But in both of these cases I did not see the beginning of the situation and I did nto see anything that would have made me think twice about a suspect bad guy, rolling with officers and kicking them and resisting them. And I am a very concerned about such issues form personal experience.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I've got doubts about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


In Belfast at least you knew where the bricks were coming from lol! 

I'll try to find a video of a demo on how to move  people.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2009)

Lots of issues here...

First -- based on the information in Archangel's video, I think it's possible that the woman slipped out of the cuffs, since it says she was being transferred after kicking out a cruiser's windows.  But she sure wasn't RESTRAINED at the time of the Taser implementation!  I'm also guessing that a significant factor in her difficulty walking was probably alcohol-induced...

Second -- the video from England.  Not a thing wrong there, except that the cops stood around while the Taser cycled, instead of using that opportunity to cuff the subject.  He was actively resisting and kicking at the officers.  He refused to obey commands.  When they had sufficient numbers, they used a proven tactic (if one better suited to the jails where it was developed) to contain and control someone.  As Tez said -- it's a cop for each limb.  It works -- but it means you need to have 4 to 5 cops to arrest one person.  That's why it's better suited to jail cell extractions than the street...  Oh, and the strikes you see the one officer use?  They were pretty clearly to the arm.  It's a good way to get someone to give up their arm for cuffing. You hit the tricep or even the nerves on the outside of the upper arm to make the arm relax enough that you can move it.

Finally, the Taser does not administer a 50000 volt shock.  The INITIAL voltage is 50000 volts, to overcome clothing and skin resistance.  It rapidly (like tenths of a second, if that long, drops down to something on the order of 1500 volts -- and the amperage is miniscule.  In fact, an Automatic Defibrilator has more amperage!


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Is this because the way they recruit police now means there are less who can cope with physical intervention? (That's by no way a cover all statement, btw! I know some can) Is it a H&S thing?


 
No offense FD, but people who say things like that obviously have had little experience in APPREHENDING a resisting subject. Which is FAR different from fighting. Im sure that there are many cops who could beat a subject to the point when he/she would stop resisting...but could you imagine the outrage over THAT video???


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> *The rules now dictate* that police when they arrest someone who is fighting them have to use several officers and the control and restraint part has to be done in a certain order. One officer per limb, one for the head and one to handcuff. Only certain techniques are supposed to be used as well which really aren't idel.


 
I'd like to know just how THAT is supposed to work? If I had "rules" like that here we wouldnt be able to arrest anybody. Or we would have to tripple the size of my PD with van loads of cops out on patrol.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I'd like to know just how THAT is supposed to work? If I had "rules" like that here we wouldnt be able to arrest anybody. Or we would have to tripple the size of my PD with van loads of cops out on patrol.


 
The rules came in response to the whingers who said the police were nasty people who went round bullying people and pinching little childrens lollipops. They want police on the street but not to actually hurt anyone who may be hurting others! Everyone has mobile phones with cameras on now so the police if they can remember in the heat of the moment have to take exaggerated care of the suspects incase they get blamed for every little bump and scratch the suspect picks up.
You know yourself that situations aren't always what they seem on camera but the public wants accountability and as they pay the bills thats the way it is.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2009)

The "public"

Want you to arrest that other guy-but accuse you of railroading them when its THEY who are getting arrested.

Want you to ticket all those damn speeders-but accuse you of being a ticket monkey when you write them .

Want you to beat the crap out of someone who wronged THEM-but call you a "pig" when you taser some junkie who wants to fight with you.

Want new laws every time there is a tragedy-then accuse cops of being part of the "new world order" when they actually enforce the laws they cried so loudly for.

Yeah...Im familiar with them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The "public"
> 
> Want you to arrest that other guy-but accuse you of railroading them when its THEY who are getting arrested.
> 
> ...


 

That's the ones!
We do have armed police here and when a guy was shot dead because he had a weapon in his hand and was threatening people there was an uproar because it turned out it was a realistic toy gun and the police "should have known it was". Ok hands up who can tell that from a distance that ensures he doesn't kill anyone if it were real? No the police were supposed to walk up to him check his weapon then take it away from him.
Another case where some armed with a real gun was shot dead, there were complaints that the police marksman didn't shoot the gun out of his hand or just shoot him in the knee or something...well it works on TV cop shows!
A policemans lot is not a happy one so said Gilbert and Sullivan!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I'd like to know just how THAT is supposed to work? If I had "rules" like that here we wouldnt be able to arrest anybody. Or we would have to tripple the size of my PD with van loads of cops out on patrol.


 No kidding.......the last bar brawl fighter I arrested it was me an another officer with him on the ground, while the two other officers kept the crowd back.......to follow those rules we'd need a whole arrest SQUAD on stand-by.....sheesh.


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> At least thats what CNN is saying....
> 
> [yt]FZ3GXLpClD4[/yt]
> 
> ...


 
Sigh...the media, once again, incorrectly strikes.  How can they claim that she was cuffed when it was as clear as day that she wasn't???  And I'm sure this is all the anti-police, ACLU, bleeding hearts folks out there, who're so quick to cry abuse, will need to see.  Hopefully their eyesight is good, so they can see that this woman appears to be resisting and was not cuffed.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> No kidding.......the last bar brawl fighter I arrested it was me an another officer with him on the ground, while the two other officers kept the crowd back.......to follow those rules we'd need a whole arrest SQUAD on stand-by.....sheesh.


 
Well, it's only 'when practicable' which isn't often lol. We are lucky though, when soldiers kick off we have the Royal Military Police come in.....no they don't actually help, they become the target for everyone as no one likes them rofl! If you get two regiments fighting and the RMPs turn up , all fighting stops and everyone piles in on them, great stuff. Don't feel sorry for them, they deserve it!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 23, 2009)

MJS said:


> Sigh...the media, once again, incorrectly strikes.  How can they claim that she was cuffed when it was as clear as day that she wasn't???  And I'm sure this is all the anti-police, ACLU, bleeding hearts folks out there, who're so quick to cry abuse, will need to see.  Hopefully their eyesight is good, so they can see that this woman appears to be resisting and was not cuffed.



THANK YOU! I've rtm-ed the thread where it apparently split totally off the main topic. 
All due respect a whole other thread should've been started with the British incident to prevent this thread about an alleged handcuffed *woman* being tasered... from being buried in the topic of the man. 
They are *similar* but un-related incidents. 

 The woman was clearly not handcuffed as you can see her arms splay out wide to catch herself as she fell and doing so miserably. If an officer tells you to do something do it and argue about it in court later.


----------

