# Is it OK to tase a 9 yr. old?



## OULobo (Jun 1, 2004)

Uniformed police veteran uses taser on handcuffed 9 year old girl. Is it possible to justify this? 

http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=70273&t=24


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 1, 2004)

As the mother of a developmentally delayed son, this is preferable only to shooting her dead.  This is the nightmare that all us parents of special needs kids wake up from, sweating.  I suppose in this case, I would question why was it necessary to taze a _handcuffed_ girl?  And I have a real problem with this guy still being on duty (why not desk duty until investigation? ).

Before I get flamed, let me say this:  I recognize that the behavior some of these people exhibit (as adults) can closely mimic that of drugged-up, crazed criminals.  And I've read about other officers reading the file on things like this and swear they'd do nothing different.

Is there anything in law enforcement training about recognizing developmental disabilities?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Uniformed police veteran uses taser on handcuffed 9 year old girl. Is it possible to justify this?
> 
> http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=70273&t=24



I couldn't access the article because of security on my company computer, but the short answer is there is absolutely no justification for this.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 1, 2004)

Tulisan, I have pasted the article below.

She-Sulsa  
*Officer's Taser is used on girl, 9 :jedi1:

09:17 AM MST on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 

By C.J. Karamargin / Arizona Daily Star 

*A veteran South Tucson police sergeant is under investigation for firing his stun gun to subdue a handcuffed 9-year-old girl. 

At the request of Chief Sixto Molina, the Pima County Sheriff's Department is trying to determine if the sergeant committed a crime when he sent a jolt through the child's body. 

The police officer used a Taser on the girl at about 5:30 p.m. May 8, Molina said. The nonlethal weapon uses a pulsating electrical charge to immobilize a person for several seconds. 

"I'll be the first to admit, you've got a veteran sergeant Tasing a 9-year-old girl, it doesn't look good," said Molina. 

The sergeant was one of at least two officers who responded to a call from the Arizona Children's Home, a school for special needs children, on South Eighth Avenue, he said. 

"It had to do with a runaway from the institution," the chief said. He declined to provide further details. 

The school could not be reached for comment late Monday. But Molina said that the facility is the source of frequent calls to his 25-person department. 

Molina said one officer initially responded to the call from the school. That officer requested assistance from another officer and specifically asked that the second officer bring a Taser. 

He said the girl was handcuffed at the time the weapon was used. 

The sergeant who used the hand-held Taser remains on duty. His name is not being released while the investigation is under way. 

"It didn't involve an integrity issue," Molina said. "The officer made a decision to do what he thought he needed to do." 

Deputy Dawn Barkman, a spokeswoman with the Sheriff's Department, confirmed a review of the incident is under way but said she had no further details. 

The results of the probe will be forwarded to the Pima County Attorney's Office. 

"They'll have to present it to us to see if any criminal charges are warranted," said County Attorney's Office spokesman Dan Benavides. 

Sgt. Dan Snyder, a South Tucson police spokesman, said the investigation could be complete by the end of the week. 

For more Arizona news, visit www.azstarnet.com or www.azfamily.com. 

_©The Arizona Daily Star, 2004_


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

Thanks SheSulsa!   

Comments like these make me want to scream: 

"It didn't involve an integrity issue," Molina said. "The officer made a decision to do what he thought he needed to do." 

Seriously, WTF? But noooo...we don't live in a Police State. But that's O.K., I'm sure that little girl wasn't using her Civil Liberties anyways.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 1, 2004)

1 question - What was she doing, or trying to do, that made the officer think she needed to be zapped?

That is the information needed to determin if it was justified.

On the surface, I don't agree it was right...but I can think of several things that an individual, especially someone who is 'challenged' might do, that would require some way of safely sedating.  When I worked at McD, the one girl who worked there scared me.  She was very 'challenged', talked to the voices in her head, and had many temper tantrums. 

We're only seeing part of the story here...I want the rest.  Please, if anyone sees a follow up, let us know.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 1, 2004)

There isn't enough to say whether it is justified, but this being a child who is handcuffed, I would probably say no.  I would like to know more details though.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 1, 2004)

It isn't justified not by any means. The girl is 9 (NINE) years old. If a grown adult can't handle one like that (and just *where* was his partner or back up?), then he needs to go back to the gym or find another line of work. Even if he tazed an adult while handcuffed that isn't justification. 
What was he thinking?
I'm sorry, I just can't see any justification at all with that barring details or not. It was a kid for crying out loud. I don't even want to go there about the long term effects this will have on the kid. 
That I see as going way above and beyond arrest procedures. 
 :angry:  :soapbox:  :rpo:  :flammad:    :cuss:


----------



## arnisador (Jun 1, 2004)

It's hard to imagine how this could be appropriate.

Ball State U. officers get tasers:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/150375-3997-009.html


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 1, 2004)

It would be nice to know the whole story, but I really don't see how tazing a 9 year old in cuffs could ever be appropriate!


----------



## Mon Mon (Jun 1, 2004)

It depends on the circumstance if the child was acting in a way that could have been dangerous to herself or the other officers on duty. I think tazing her would be perfectly acceptable. It might have been painful but if she was really struggleing and they had to stop her, holding her down might have hurt her or the other officer. So in that situation to give her a quick jolt might not be so bad of a thing.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 1, 2004)

The average 9 year old would not need to be put into handcuffs.

The average 9 year old would not be a problem for an adult.

If the child was endangering another child or her own life with her actions, I could see where someone might make a decision to act to avoid teh law suit over a wrongful death either someone else's or the childs.

Articles like this cause a big issue, for no real information is given other then what will get a reaction from the average person. The information should be reported. 

My experience with a special needs child who lost it. The child turned around in my arms as I was carrying them back into the house they had run out of. The child grabbed two hands full of hair and pulled. She came away with two handsfull of my hair. I had longer hair ( 3 to 4 inches ) back then. It was not until the child saw both hands full of hair did they begin to realize what they had done. With pain I kept walking into the house with the child, to get her back to her parents. Some of these children will dislocate their joints while lifting or moving or pulling. The idea of pain does nto occur to them or register. Hence only my hug, just tight enough to life and carry. And her capability to spin on me and face me after I caught her running away. Her age was 10/11. I was about 13, 6'3" and about 190 lbs. The hair in her hands kept her occupied and off the idea of being out in the street following the yellow lines down the road.

So, like many have said, I find it hard, yet possible to believe, and would really like to know more information.

With respect to all those who love and protect children
 :asian:


----------



## someguy (Jun 1, 2004)

I'd like to know the rest of the story.  Maybe I'll do soe looking around at some point or something but I can't imagine a reason to have to taze a 9 year old girl already hand cufff unless she might hurt herself.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 1, 2004)

Take a moment and think about if this were your daughter...really think about it...your daughter has special needs - doesn't know what she's doing...not sure where she is, not intent on doing someone bodily harm or herself harm with the same intent that others do...that the only champion she has is you...that you were so alone in dealing with her, you had to place her in a group home....

For whatever reason, she felt the need to flee - you don't know why, no one probably knows why except her...then, she was handcuffed and tazed.

I dunno, I guess I'd rather an innocent child rip my hair out and scratch me all up and tweak my arm that purposely harm her "for her own good" or "for my safety."

Perhaps I could be slanted here, but....


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 2, 2004)

Avoiding for the moment whether the officer was right or wrong, there is not enough information given to call it, one of my friends daughter is 9. She is as big as a 16 year old weighs more than her mum and is very strong, she is also special needs.
If she ever "lost it" I would not be able to control her and would only suceed in doing so with extreme force, possibly hurting her seriously.Handcuffs do not imobilise a person and they can still kick, bite, squirm around and generally need to be subdued.

As a father of a girl I can understand the concern here but say again that the press is being itself again (sensationalist) and the information given seems designed to cause the sort of reaction that it has. Was the action justified I dont know but I try to keep an open mind.

David


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 2, 2004)

Just a couple of thoughts...

As some of you have said, we don't know the whole story.  The media is notorious for twisting the story to make the police look bad.  I'm not saying that's the case here, just something to consider.  Something else some of you have mentioned that warrants consideration is: what she doing to make the officer feel that this was a necessary course of action; in other words, was she biting or kicking the officers? Was she endangering herself because of her behavior?  The nice thing about tazers is that they give an officer the ability to subdue an individual without using physical force that could cause harm or injury.  The effects are short-term and to my knowledge the only real risk of injury is in the case of someone with heart problems.  
  I'm not defending the officer per se.  If he was not justified in his actions then they need to nail his butt to the wall.  However, due to the fact that the police get sued every time they give someone a dirty look most, if not all, departments are very strict about use-of-force and the types of force that can be used.  Therefore, I find it somewhat hard to believe that he would have done this without some sort of justification, on the other hand, there are rotten apples in every barrel.  Who knows?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Take a moment and think about if this were your daughter...really think about it...your daughter has special needs - doesn't know what she's doing...not sure where she is, not intent on doing someone bodily harm or herself harm with the same intent that others do...that the only champion she has is you...that you were so alone in dealing with her, you had to place her in a group home....
> 
> For whatever reason, she felt the need to flee - you don't know why, no one probably knows why except her...then, she was handcuffed and tazed.
> 
> ...



True an innocent child, and one you could carry in your arms, would be much easier. I was just offering up information, that special needs children are not always docile, and not always compliant.

As to handcuffs, I have seen guys on drugs who continues to fight to police while hand cuffed. Yes, the complied and got hand cuffed after a wrestling match then they decided that getting into the police car was not good. Biting cops, kicking them, and the guy was 5'4" and about 145 lbs. Three cops, much large could not control him with out risking further injury.

I am not justifying the actions. I am just stating that there could be other infomration we do not know about.

 :asian:


----------



## Kenpodoc (Jun 2, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Uniformed police veteran uses taser on handcuffed 9 year old girl. Is it possible to justify this?
> 
> http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=70273&t=24



NO!


----------



## someguy (Jun 2, 2004)

It's so much eaisier to simple kill than restrain.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 2, 2004)

Devils Advocate here:

IF! the 9yr old was largist OR was acting in a manner that could have led to harm to herself or others, the least harmful way to restrain would be to zap.  This allows to officer to preserve their safety, as well as avoid the possibility of more lethal force (accidental or otherwise) coming in to play.

What actions?
Biting, smashing their head into things, kicking, gnawing on the cuffs, working at the cuffs to the point of drawing blood, hysterics.

Having seen a 'challenged' individual get physically violent simply because she was told not to fill a napkin dispenser, I can accept that there may in fact be times when tasering someone is justifiable.

It is most certainly more preferable to shooting them, clubing them, or wresting them.  Or trying to drug them.

Again, devils advocate.  There is not enough evidence to make a fair judgement here.
9 yr olds can be 40lbs, and 180lbs. 3ft and 6ft.  This article makes it sound like the kid was lying there and the cop just zapped her.

I want to know is what was the kid doing that resulted in the cop thinking zapping was needed.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 2, 2004)

The other question is how was the taser employed. there are two modes: when you shoot the needles and a less intense charge when you use it as a stun gun. Which use was it in this situation? The 'special need' isn't specified, so it could be a million things - some of which can mean a reduced inhibition to doing harm to others and self (there are some BIG kids out there with special needs -we don't know enough to make a call in this case)....

I think it is ironic how little information there is in the article and how quickly people are jumping to conclusions and judgements -when we, as posters here complain about the volumes of assumptions and judgements laid on us as martial artists. 

I agree that the thin details of this situation sound bad for the LEO, but I think it is valid to say that it is entirely possible that the child, no matter how small/large and no matter what the special needs were could lead to a situation where the child was a danger to herself and the safest way to control the situation for everyone was to use a less than lethal response. 

Would the outcry be any different if, in the process of using controlling techniques (which we have all posted LEO are minimally trained in anyway), the girl had her shoulder separated or got a black eye or some other injury - NOT because the LEO was being too rough but because he was not trained/practiced as well as he could have been and she was really struggling hard? I think it would be even worse. It doesn't sound like there was any damage done, just some discomfort.

If the details pan out that the officer was in the wrong, fine. But until then, arm chair quarterbacking on this is a waste.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 2, 2004)

Seems somebody better track down the continuation of the story to get more details ...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 2, 2004)

Not enough data to comment.


----------



## Michael Billings (Jun 2, 2004)

Ya know ... we revoked an offender's parole here in Texas for using a stun gun on his son.  There was no warning on the box, he tried it on himself, spankings did not work, no bruises from the stun gun.  He was using it to encourage his son to walk faster, otherwise he would miss the school bus consistantly.  Yanking him along, spanking, etc. did not work.  This did - Gee, does that make it OK?  

 -Michael


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2004)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Ya know ... we revoked an offender's parole here in Texas for using a stun gun on his son.  There was no warning on the box, he tried it on himself, spankings did not work, no bruises from the stun gun.  He was using it to encourage his son to walk faster, otherwise he would miss the school bus consistantly.  Yanking him along, spanking, etc. did not work.  This did - Gee, does that make it OK?
> 
> -Michael



Micheal speaking from not know the rest of the story of the original post.

This story does not make sense, unless you subscribe to the child can be treated like a dog or cat. In which case most will state it is not OK.

As mentioned before, if it was done to prevent worse damage or injury to herself or other children or personages, then it might be justified under certain conditions. i.e. all factors meet to normally use the tool is in place. Yet, many will believe it not appropriate under any condition.  I just hope I am not faced with the decision myself.

 :asian:


----------



## Michael Billings (Jun 3, 2004)

I concur!

 -MB


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

We were just told in training today to consider using OC (we dont have tasers) whenever a suspect refuses to comply to arrest orders (i.e. "Your under arrest turn around and place your hands on top of your head"....."FU, Pig, Ill kick your..." PSSSTTT!). Once you lay hands on and the struggle starts the risk of injury to all involved skyrockets. Like I said, in this case there isnt enough detail, but even a  9yo kicking, biting, throwing objects etc. MAY require some form of non-lethal control to preven injury. Tasers, while not very PC in appearance, when employed are fairly safe to use on any suspect. I was zapped in training and besides the momentary loss of muscle control and confusion. I was none the less for wear.

Was it justified in this case? I dont know, maybe....and as a side note, a father using a stun gun to punish a child is light years away (in intent), when compared to an officer using one in the course of his job.


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 3, 2004)

We don't have all the information here, true, but I can't fathom a situation in which a grown man would need to tase a handcuffed 9-year old girl. There are plenty of restraint holds that are warranted and approved for these instances. If she needed sedation, they should have called an ambulance. A taser is a VERY poor substitute. Although it's hard to always understand or predict the actions of kids with special needs, they should be afforded the dignity of humans, not animals.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Was she cuffed behind the back? Like, I said theres not enough detail for me to condemn the action here. Something strange I saw is that the officer at the scene called for the taser. So now theres 2 officers there and the taser was still used....


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 3, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> We don't have all the information here, true, but I can't fathom a situation in which a grown man would need to tase a handcuffed 9-year old girl. There are plenty of restraint holds that are warranted and approved for these instances. If she needed sedation, they should have called an ambulance. A taser is a VERY poor substitute. Although it's hard to always understand or predict the actions of kids with special needs, they should be afforded the dignity of humans, not animals.


Thank you for reminding us of something we need so desperately to remember while on the warrior path - compassion.

Autism is one developmental disability and Dennis Debbaudt is a law enforcement officer who has developed materials to train officers about handling these types of situations with minimal harm.  The techniques can be used for other types of developmental disabilities as well.

http://autism.about.com/cs/civilrights/a/lawenforce.htm  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

Heres some more


Girl hit with Taser was combative, police reports say

09:38 AM MST on Friday, May 28, 2004


By Eric Swedlund / Arizona Daily Star



A 9-year-old handcuffed girl was swearing, thrashing and attempting to kick out a patrol car window when a South Tucson police sergeant used a stun gun to subdue her, according to police reports released Thursday. 


The incident has sparked some public outcry, though an attorney for the sergeant said the out-of-control girl presented a danger to the officers and herself. The incident remains under investigation. 


On May 8, Officer Michael Hood was dispatched to catch the girl, who had run away from a residential psychiatric center for children. When he found the girl, she started swearing at him, according to the reports. 


Hood called Sgt. Armando Teyechea for backup because in prior contacts with the girl she was combative, "fighting, biting, kicking and punching school staff and other police officers," Hood wrote. The girl is 4 feet, 7 inches tall and weighs 85 pounds. 


Hood handcuffed the girl and placed her in the back of his patrol car. Teyechea and two officials from the Arizona's Children Association home, 2700 S. Eighth Ave., had also arrived. 


Hood was attempting to place leg restraints on the girl "to keep her from kicking the window out," he wrote, when the girl kicked him several times. 


Teyechea wrote that the girl was "screaming, kicking, flailing and would not listen" when he approached her with the Taser. He told staffers from the home that he was going to tell the girl to calm down and warn her that he would use the Taser if she didn't. 


The girl continued swearing at the officers and after warning her again with the Taser, Teyechea applied the stun gun to her right thigh. 


The girl, whom the Star is not identifying because of her age, screamed that it hurt and calmed down. Teyechea told her to comply or she would be shocked again. The girl was not injured and received no medical treatment. 


Hood then drove the girl to the home, where she started acting up again and was given a sedative shot by staff members. 


The Pima County Sheriff's Department is investigating the incident to determine if a crime was committed. The investigation is expected to be finished early next week. 


South Tucson Police Chief Sixto Molina said he released the reports filed by Hood and Teyechea to media outlets Thursday for "clarification purposes." 


"I probably should have put this out earlier, but I didn't want to in any way, shape or form prejudice the Sheriff's Department investigation," he said. "I wanted to keep out of it as much as possible, but as time went on there was some misinformation put out." 


Molina confirmed that officers have had prior contact with the girl but said he couldn't provide any specific details because those reports are part of the Sheriff's Department investigation. 


Teyechea has been with the department since June 1996 and Hood has been an officer since October 2003, Molina said. 


On the South Tucson police force currently, sergeants and some SWAT team members have Tasers. The department is in the process of ordering more, Molina said. 


The Taser administers 50,000 volts and four-thousandths of an amp. It can be used in contact with a person or through two probes connected to 21-foot wires fired out of a cartridge. The shock overrides the central nervous system and causes complete, involuntary muscle contraction. 


An official with the Scottsdale company that manufactures the Taser told the Star earlier this week that the stun guns have been used on children in other incidents nationally, but they do no more harm to children than adults and often result in less-serious injuries. 


Mike Storie, Teyechea's attorney, said the more facts that are shared, the better people will understand what actually occurred and why Teyechea used the Taser. 


Storie said he has seen prior reports on officers' contact with the girl and that they're consistent with her behavior May 8. 


"The officers tried all other means of control and they were unsuccessful," he said. "It's crucial people understand the officers did not just roll up, see a verbally abusive girl and say, 'Let's Tase her.' " 


For more Arizona news, visit www.azstarnet.com or www.azfamily.com.



Just for clarification purposes, when used as a contact device, the taser only gives pain compliance...the fired probes cause dysfunction. The other option would have been dragging her out and hog-tying her. Which is worse? I suppose thats still up for debate. Would have been better for the cop to hog-tie, for the girl???


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 3, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Autism is one developmental disability and Dennis Debbaudt is a law enforcement officer who has developed materials to train officers about handling these types of situations with minimal harm.  The techniques can be used for other types of developmental disabilities as well.
> 
> :asian:




Autism is a growing phenomenon in the United States and elsewhere. My son was diagnosed with "autistic tendencies". We can only hope that the growing presence of these individuals in the population will force society to open their eyes and seriously consider how they should be cared for and treated. I don't see tasers in this vision.


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hood then drove the girl to the home, where she started acting up again and was given a sedative shot by staff members....
> 
> 
> Just for clarification purposes, when used as a contact device, the taser only gives pain compliance...the fired probes cause dysfunction. The other option would have been dragging her out and hog-tying her. Which is worse? I suppose thats still up for debate. Would have been better for the cop to hog-tie, for the girl???



A better option would have been to have the staff members sedate her which they should have in the first place. The taser only served to cause her pain and temporary compliance through the pain, it didn't resolve her episode.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Heres some more
> 
> 
> Hood called Sgt. Armando Teyechea for backup because in prior contacts with the girl she was combative, "fighting, biting, kicking and punching school staff and other police officers," Hood wrote. The girl is 4 feet, 7 inches tall and weighs 85 pounds....Hood was attempting to place leg restraints on the girl "to keep her from kicking the window out," he wrote, when the girl kicked him several times....
> ...


 
#1:  *He told staffers from the home that he was going to tell the girl to calm down and warn her that he would use the Taser if she didn't.    *Why couldn't the staffers control her?  Is she in aspecial care facility or not?  why aren't the staff trained to restrain her properly without calling the cops to administer legal electric shock therapy? (sorry, guys, but this happens)  AND - trying to use logic on a child who is not rational is like pissing in the wind - DUH! - I tell my son all the time, if he touches the fire place he'll get burned...know what?  he does it anyway, and he's 14.

#2:  *Hood then drove the girl to the home, where she started acting up again and was given a sedative shot by staff members.*   Started acting up again, huh?  She probably was having a conflict with the staff or other residents at the home - typical reaction, leaving and resisting restraint and return.  And if it has happened before, she might need to be moved to a higher security facility.  Where's the family in all this?  Could be a ward of the state.

#3:  *Storie said he has seen prior reports on officers' contact with the girl and that they're consistent with her behavior May 8.  *If they were familiar with her, couldn't they have found a better way to deal with her?  given the department a head-up on these kinds of situations?

#4:  *Would have been better for the cop to hog-tie, for the girl??  *Frankly, I think I can honestly say that I would rather arrive at a scene where my son is hog-tied than find him tazed...and I very might well find myself in that position someday.

That said....Hwarang!:jedi1:


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 3, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> http://autism.about.com/cs/civilrights/a/lawenforce.htm  :asian:



Just read this shesulsa, good stuff, thanks! :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 3, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> A better option would have been to have the staff members sedate her which they should have in the first place. The taser only served to cause her pain and temporary compliance through the pain, it didn't resolve her episode.


Granted...perhaps that would have been better. The officer was concerned about the thrashing and window kicking in the back of the car. Subject injured, vehicle damaged. Personally, I would have called for 2-3 more officers and an ambulance and tied her to a gurney (done it before) as this appears more Medical than Criminal. If she is really kicking, biting or unable to be contained though, the Taser is an option. Dont get me wrong, Im still not convinced this was "right", but I would say its not "criminal". Ive been Tased and while It looks bad to watch, its relatively harmless in the long-run. Id rather get Tased than OC'd. I dont think the image of 2-3 grown men wrestling, kneeling on and hog-tying a 9 yo girl would have played out well either.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Subject injured, vehicle damaged. Personally, I would have called for 2-3 more officers and an ambulance and tied her to a gurney (done it before) as this appears more Medical than Criminal. If she is really kicking, biting or unable to be contained though, the Taser is an option. Dont get me wrong, Im still not convinced this was "right", but I would say its not "criminal". Ive been Tased and while It looks bad to watch, its relatively harmless in the long-run. Id rather get Tased than OC'd. I dont think the image of 2-3 grown men wrestling, kneeling on and hog-tying a 9 yo girl would have played out well either.


Well noted, Tgace, well noted - that always looks bad to civilians...but...so does tasing in this case.  Not sure it was criminal either - unless the hinting that this girl has escaped before and poice called before and finally tased sounds like the home is using the cops for a free electroshock treatment.."Thank You, Mr. Blue!"
I've heard orderlys joke about this kind of thing before, so...hard for me to ignore the possibility.

Guess we'll never know unless we're there, right everyone?


----------



## OULobo (Jun 3, 2004)

I'm still not sure. The girl was 4'7" and 85lbs. He likely outwieghed her by between 100 and 150lbs and was in decent to great shape, not to mention he is a veteran on the force and if we trust the other article had a partner on hand. I know that many of the officers I have talked to have been tased and say that it hurts and causes muscle failure, but not much else damage wise, however these are all fairly big adult males in good shape, not a 9 year old developing adolecent with emotional problems. I do like Tgace's idea about the gurney and thanks to him for the follow-up.


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 4, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Granted...perhaps that would have been better. The officer was concerned about the thrashing and window kicking in the back of the car. Subject injured, vehicle damaged. Personally, I would have called for 2-3 more officers and an ambulance and tied her to a gurney (done it before) as this appears more Medical than Criminal. If she is really kicking, biting or unable to be contained though, the Taser is an option. Dont get me wrong, I'm still not convinced this was "right", but I would say its not "criminal". Ive been Tased and while It looks bad to watch, its relatively harmless in the long-run. Id rather get Tased than OC'd. I dont think the image of 2-3 grown men wrestling, kneeling on and hog-tying a 9 yo girl would have played out well either.



For sure it's a difficult situation. I think that law enforcement isn't quite up to par when it comes to understanding these types of individuals. A year ago, here in Denver, a mentally challenged sixteen-year old boy was shot to death while weilding a knife. Problem was, the boy was pretty much rambling to himself while holding the knife, and the parents called the LEOs to diffuse the situation, since they thought he might hurt himself. Apparently the solution was to shoot him from a 30-foot distance through a screen door. The LEO doing the shooting was cleared, but let go for other reasons. 

In the situation we're discussing, a restraint hold would have been warranted and effective. As a high school wrestler, my nemesis sparring partner would put me in a hold he called "the crab." I was stocky, he was long and lanky. If he had the opportunity, he would simply break me down and weave his limbs to the inside of mine, applying slight outward pressure. In a few minutes, it would be called a stalemate, and I would be exhausted. This was a guy my equal weight and strength.

An LEO with backup could simply place this girl on his lap, apply outward pressure with his thighs to lock her legs and cross his arms high under her chin, grabbing onto her shoulders while his parner called in help. She couldn't bite from this position. Then they could have waited for the errant parents, guardians, or medical care to arrive. 

Perhaps the training or culture just isn't there yet. I hope it does get arrive soon, because it could be my son on the receiving end soon. :asian:

PS: I don't think this is criminal either, just a serious lack of understanding of the needs of certain people who don't fit into the mold of society's norms of behavior. It's the training that is at fault.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 4, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> In the situation we're discussing, a restraint hold would have been warranted and effective. As a high school wrestler, my nemesis sparring partner would put me in a hold he called "the crab." I was stocky, he was long and lanky. If he had the opportunity, he would simply break me down and weave his limbs to the inside of mine, applying slight outward pressure. In a few minutes, it would be called a stalemate, and I would be exhausted. This was a guy my equal weight and strength.


  A restraint hold might have worked but it said in the report that the officer had already tried to place her in leg restraints and was unable to control her.  And she apparently wasn't following the rules of a high school wrestling match where biting, kicking, etc. are banned.  Something to consider:  In a similar situation with an adult who was resisting in this manner the officer probably would have sprayed him/her and if that failed, used his baton.  I think that her age and condition were probably the reason he chose to use the tazer (the effects of which wear off quickly and cause no lasting damage) rather than a different, and possibly more dangerous, method of force.  Something else to consider is that when most people hear of someone being "tazed," they have visions of someone writhing around on the ground with two little probes stuck in them.  According to the article posted, the officer used the tazer in the "stun-gun" (or contact) mode rather than actually firing the probes at her.  The article said that it administered 50,000 volts of electricity.  I have been "zapped" by a stun-gun that administers 200,000 volts, and other than a "holy S*** that smarts!" reaction there was no loss of muscle function (Like Tgace said, this only happens when the probes are fired), and the pain only lasted for a couple of seconds.  I would much rather be zapped than sprayed with O.C. or whacked with a baton.  Could someone have administered a seditive? Maybe, but do you really want to be trying to give someone an injection with a sharp needle when they are flailing around uncontrollably?


----------



## OULobo (Jun 4, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> . . . do you really want to be trying to give someone an injection with a sharp needle when they are flailing around uncontrollably?



Yes, I'd take that chance if it would save her from getting tazed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 4, 2004)

Hmmm...

5 seconds of "**** that hurts" vs. possibility of being stabbed, bloodshed, injury and possible maiming?

I gotta disagree here...Zap me please.

needles can break. or be deflected. 

Remember, a key point here is "The girl was not injured and received no medical treatment. "  Pepper sprays can cause vison problems, sedatives can cause reactions, needles can cut and cause injury.  A miscalculation in the amount of force used to restrain can cause injury, bruises at best.  I would guess that this officers thoughts were along the lines of 'how can I safely subdue her without injury to her, me and my car?".

Some additional news reports:
http://mobile.azstarnet.com/sn/pda/23888.html

"A spokesman for the Scottsdale-based manufacturer of the device said Tasers do no more harm to children than adults and often results in less-serious injuries."
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/1694854.php


Keep in mind, a 1 year old has the strength to poke an eye causing damage, without meaning to.  A pre-teen flailing violently has the potential to do more, especially in a confined space.  

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=052804a4_tasing
"The Taser was requested before she was handcuffed, not after as reported Wednesday in the Citizen, South Tucson Police Chief Sixto Molina said."
"There's clearly a pattern showing this girl fights with all of her might every time that police try to assist in bringing her back to the school."



Of course, there is the other side of the argument:
http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=10125


Please, if my kid is out there, and a cop needs to somehow restrain him, zap him.
Don't cause him damage to his eyes from the spray, don't beat him with a stick, don't sit on him and bruise his ribs, or try to sedate him with a needle so that when he thrashes he slices himself open. Until I can see proof that my local cops are trained in handling children safely, have the medical training needed to apply a sedative, and have the experience to know just how much of their 180-250lb frame to drop on the kid, just zap him.  Please.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 4, 2004)

Between the two articles, it sounds like the girl was posing a threat to herself, the LEO/staff (come on if she's kicking the cop trying to restrain her, what is she going to do to someone carrying a needle?) and property (the order of priority was intentional).

Given the options:

1.  Tazing for pain compliance (ever grab an electical fence?  Hurts about the same)

2.  Controlling techniques (risk of injury to both parties)

3.  Waiting for back up to strap her down (while she kicks at windows and possibly cuts herself up)

4.  Pepper spray (long lasting pain/discomfort, skin irritation, not to mention the residuals getting on all those helpful civil servants trying to keep her from hurting herself any further and help her get better in general)

5.  Shooting (not even an option in this case).

Don't know it is the 'best' choice (because I wasn't there to know all the facts) but it does seem to be a better choice than some of the other ones he could have made.


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 4, 2004)

NO NO NO NO it is never OK to tazer a 9 year old! It shouldn't be OK to tazer adults either as I'm pretty sure they do long term or permanent damage. This story should be a wake up call as to the way people with autism are treated by police and mental health proffesionals in this country.
P.S. Non abusive physical and  psycological intervention, NAPPI, has been around for a long time now. From personnal experience as a correctional officer I can tell you it works just fine on fully funtioning adults as well.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

Tazers are better than hands on IMHO...very few injuries compared to almost anything else. Wish my dept. had em.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 4, 2004)

When you see more of them accross the country you will see more and more problems. Right now there doesn't seem to be many problems with tasers because there aren't many, comparably, on the street.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

Tasers have actually been around since the 70-80's. I would like to see injury stats (when gathered) compared to "hands on injuries". What are the "severe and permanent injuries" that you believe will happen with the Taser?


http://nysdemo1.safetysites.net/airtaserinfo.php
http://www.byrdenterprises.com/yoursafety/taserinfo.htm#eye
http://www.rrivera.com/pages/2003/11/tasertr1103.pdf


----------



## Gary5000 (Jun 4, 2004)

But WHY would you do it!!!!! 

(Even though it probably won't kill. I still hate the idea!)

--Gary Crye


----------



## Tgace (Jun 4, 2004)

Gary5000 said:
			
		

> But WHY would you do it!!!!!
> 
> (Even though it probably won't kill. I still hate the idea!)
> 
> --Gary Crye


Dont get me wrong, im not "for" it pre se, kinda playing devils advocate. Which would be worse, physically restraining a child large enough to pose an injury risk to at least themselves or using a "non-lethal" tool? Albeit one that "looks bad" but ultimately results in less chance of harm? Now was this such a situation? I dont know, there still isnt enough data Ive seen to say "yes these guys were right to use it." But from my perspective, two different officers were on the scene (at least) and they still tased...that seems to say something to me. My partner and I could handle any "average" 9 yo kid. This must have been an odd circumstance.


----------



## mcjon77 (Jun 5, 2004)

In reading this I am begining to think that MAYBE the taser was the least harmful option the officer had.  That being said a strong argument can still be made for simply using more physical restraint tactics, even though they might have caused more damage to the girl (bruising, sprains, etc).  As a little kid, I sprained my own arm trying to twist and jerk away from a relative who was attempting to keep me from running out of the house..  Had the officer just used more physical force it is probably likely that the girl would have been hurt/injured more than with the taser.

HOWEVER, the officer would have a much easier time explaining bruises (IMHO) than why he electrocuted a 9 year old girl.  The people at the institution she was in obviously know how volitile she could get, so they may understand., and if his supervisor/police chief admonishes him for getting physical he could simply say "Hey chief,  what else could I have done? shoot her with the taser?"  He may have still gotten into some trouble, but the story would never have blown up the way it has now.  In the words of Larry Poindexter (Lt. Fuller) and Samuel Jackson (Sgt. Hondo)  in the movie S.W.A.T. "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."


Jon


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 6, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> A restraint hold might have worked but it said in the report that the officer had already tried to place her in leg restraints and was unable to control her.  And she apparently wasn't following the rules of a high school wrestling match where biting, kicking, etc. are banned.  Something to consider:  In a similar situation with an adult who was resisting in this manner the officer probably would have sprayed him/her and if that failed, used his baton.  I think that her age and condition were probably the reason he chose to use the tazer (the effects of which wear off quickly and cause no lasting damage) rather than a different, and possibly more dangerous, method of force.  Something else to consider is that when most people hear of someone being "tazed," they have visions of someone writhing around on the ground with two little probes stuck in them.  According to the article posted, the officer used the tazer in the "stun-gun" (or contact) mode rather than actually firing the probes at her.  The article said that it administered 50,000 volts of electricity.  I have been "zapped" by a stun-gun that administers 200,000 volts, and other than a "holy S*** that smarts!" reaction there was no loss of muscle function (Like Tgace said, this only happens when the probes are fired), and the pain only lasted for a couple of seconds.  I would much rather be zapped than sprayed with O.C. or whacked with a baton.  Could someone have administered a seditive? Maybe, but do you really want to be trying to give someone an injection with a sharp needle when they are flailing around uncontrollably?



My high school wrestling story was just an attempt to illustrate that it shouldn't be too hard for two grown men to completely immobilize a thrashing 9-year old girl. A person of equal strength could do it to me. Maybe I could have bitten him, but I doubt it. As for messing up the cruiser, well too bad. In the end, she acted up again, and they did manage to get a needle into her. I stand by my original statements, they could have found another, gentler way. And that's that.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 6, 2004)

I can not conceive of ANY circumstance where this would be needed.   That's just insane.

The pain those things inflict is severe.  He should have been able to control her.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 6, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Could someone have administered a seditive? Maybe, but do you really want to be trying to give someone an injection with a sharp needle when they are flailing around uncontrollably?


*It is done all the time.*  In fact, professionals who work with psych patients learn these techniques WELL.  Come to think of it, my ex was a night probation officer in Juvenile Hall in Orange County, CA and they did have to use a number of people to hold down a psych kid who was thrashing about (much like this...ahem...9 year old) - it took four men to hold the kid down enough for the nurse to administer the sedative.

See, this is my problem - the employees in psych homes are trained to do this - and they do it all the time.

I understand what you guys are all saying and you all have good points - but this general concensus that this is okay to do given the available training of psych professionals out there is what gives me the chills for these members of society, one of which is my son.

_Sigh._  I think I am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation from now on.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Tasers have actually been around since the 70-80's. I would like to see injury stats (when gathered) compared to "hands on injuries". What are the "severe and permanent injuries" that you believe will happen with the Taser?
> 
> 
> http://nysdemo1.safetysites.net/airtaserinfo.php
> ...



http://telluridenews.com/articles/2004/05/06/news/top_stories/news05.txt
"More than 40 people shot with Tasers, however, have died after the shock. No autopsy has conclusively linked the weapon to any of the deaths, and in some cases the fatalities were attributed to drug overdoses.

There was a case this April in Georgia of an inmate who was tased three times and died; the 38-year-old man was being held for failing to pay a $700 fine. Medical examiners could find no obvious cause of death. In another case a pregnant woman gave birth to a stillborn 6-month-old fetus four days after being tased by police who said they were not aware she was pregnant. Amnesty International has called for the suspension of Taser use until they can be tested independently - thus far, the only testing to determine that the guns don't cause heart attacks or other damage was conducted by the company that produced them, Taser International, Incorporated."


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 7, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> http://telluridenews.com/articles/2004/05/06/news/top_stories/news05.txt
> "More than 40 people shot with Tasers, however, have died after the shock. No autopsy has conclusively linked the weapon to any of the deaths, and in some cases the fatalities were attributed to drug overdoses.
> 
> There was a case this April in Georgia of an inmate who was tased three times and died; the 38-year-old man was being held for failing to pay a $700 fine. Medical examiners could find no obvious cause of death. In another case a pregnant woman gave birth to a stillborn 6-month-old fetus four days after being tased by police who said they were not aware she was pregnant. Amnesty International has called for the suspension of Taser use until they can be tested independently - thus far, the only testing to determine that the guns don't cause heart attacks or other damage was conducted by the company that produced them, Taser International, Incorporated."


If you are citing this article and quote to support your idea that Tasers cause complications, the part about no direct link undermines it horribly.

The other factors like:  Drug involvement, pre-existing medical conditions, NOT the cleanest/healthiest life styles in some cases, .... all contribute to these cases.  Replace these taser with "control/physical techniques" or "OC spray" and the stress induced on these bodies - lest we forget too that they have done something that has made LEO contact necessary as well - could have induced the same results given the other variables...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

Im not saying that there will never be any fatalities associated with the taser. There are many associated with OC and positional asphyxia. However Id be fairly certain that if you statically compared police confrontations with taser vs. OC, physical controls, beanbags etc. You will find the Taser comparitively safe.

As to amnesty international...they would probably call for the suspension of all use of force options until we can come up with a perfectly safe, infallible, method of control.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 7, 2004)

Sorry for the lapse, I'm having PC problems. Here's another. 

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/99-2/issue2/taser.html
"But Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both the Los Angeles and San Francisco coroners' offices, has a more grim view of the "non-lethal" weapon. "The problem is when it starts getting used in less than critical situations," said Allen. "In L.A. they'll shoot you for reaching for your wallet. People need to realize that this isn't 100 per cent safe, and it doesn't have a very good track record. As pathologists, we should warn law-enforcement agencies that the TASER can cause death." 

"According to a report on the effects of the TASER in The Journal of Forensic Sciences by Dr. Sara Reddy and Dr. Ronald Kornblum, chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, the TASER has been used several thousand times by the Los Angeles police department in attempts to control violent suspects. During that time the TASER has been an effective immobilizer 80 per cent of the time. There have been 16 deaths associated with its use in L.A. County. 

The report, which Laur read when he researched the TASER's potential for use in Victoria, explains that the TASER doesn't rely on damage or destruction of tissues or organs to be effective; instead, it knocks the target to the ground after causing a generalized muscle contraction. Under ordinary circumstances, these effects are temporary and completely reversible. But used on an older individual, somebody with heart trouble, or somebody weakened by excessive drug use, the weapon can be fatal. Included in the report were accounts of volunteer targets that described the experience as painful and who required several minutes to recover from the experience. The electrical current generated by the TASER is not lethal when the weapon is used as directed on an average healthy adult. 

But Allen suggested the report may be misleading. In a 1991 letter to the journal he noted that he was one of only two medical examiners in the L.A. office to list the TASER on a death certificate. 

"This was because pathologists in L.A. were under pressure from law enforcement agencies to exclude the TASER as a cause of death," wrote Allen. He suggested that the L.A. coroner's office has a strong bias and exonerates the law enforcement agencies of that city. "The L.A. coroner's office is the handmaiden of law enforcement [in that city,]" he said. 

Allen says that the TASER could cause heart defibrillation depending on where the two probes strike the targeted subject. He suggests that the use of this weapon could have dire effects on the hearts of weaker or older individuals or those under the influence of drugs or alcohol."




The fact is that whether there is drug-involvment, pre-existing medical conditions or any other instance that may make this supposedly "non-lethal" weapon lethal, they have to be accounted for, just like using it on a emotionally disturbed adolecent girl. Sure smacking a 25yr old football player in the stomache with a baton at half speed will hurt but not kill, that doesn't mean it is a justified application for all the population. Common sense tell me that the same strike to a 90yr old woman suffering from osteoperosis will have a much more damaging effect. 


Tgace- "Im not saying that there will be any fatalities associated with the taser. There are many associated with OC and positional asphyxia. However Id be fairly certain that if you statically compared police confrontations with taser vs. OC, physical controls, beanbags etc. You will find the Taser comparitively safe."

I agree, but like those other weapons and methods you listed, the taser must be applied in a situational context with good judgement, and not applied in a general OK for use in all situation against all comers. There are greater risks, both physical and phychological, in applying a taser to a 9yr old with emotional problems than to a healthy adult male.


http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/pdexcess.htm#43
"Less Than Lethal Force

Providing officers with options for less than lethal force is strongly encouraged. However, the application of any less than lethal force or device should be managed and monitored in the same way as if that force could cause serious injury or even death. There is a need to proceed with caution in establishing the threshold for police use of less than lethal methods or devices when they are introduced into the department. Furthermore, officers should not be allowed to deploy any of these methods until they have been trained in their proper use. "


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

Absolutely, I dont want to come off saying "Use the Taser on 9 yo's...thats OK." but when force has to be used it is a good tool. Wrestling a 90 with a heart condition to the ground will probably run the risk of a heart attack too. I remember when it took 3 officers to restrain an 80+ yo WWII vet with alzheimers who ran from a nursing home and refused to return onto a gurney and one cop still got kicked in the head. I dont know if tasering him would have been a good option, but what would have happened to us if he had a heart attack and died??


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 7, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Providing officers with options for less than lethal force is strongly encouraged. However, the application of any less than lethal force or device should be managed and monitored in the same way as if that force could cause serious injury or even death. There is a need to proceed with caution in establishing the threshold for police use of less than lethal methods or devices when they are introduced into the department. Furthermore, officers should not be allowed to deploy any of these methods until they have been trained in their proper use. "


Total agreement on my part.  My concern is that people are considering Tasers and OC as 'worse' than physical control/restraint techniques.  There is a tendency to demonize the tool instead of looking at the application.  A taser is like a hammer in that sense.  It is a tool and nothing more.  In this situation, I don't know enough to absolutely say he made the best choice possible, or that the medical staff couldn't have jumped in and used their training to help out instead.  I do think in the larger scheme of things the taser was a better option than some of the others.

We have all been put into positions where someone after the fact or on the outside can look at and say "Well, why didn't you do this?" and it is so obvious, but in the moment and from the perspective of the Doer, he still made better decision than he could have.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

The important question here is, what was his departments policy regarding Taser use and was he outside of policy?


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 7, 2004)

The potential for injury or death is always there.  There was the story of a 'school yard' type of fight between two hockey dads that lead to a death.  Neither intended to kill the other but it happened.

That possibility is why there has been a shift from "non lethal force" to "less than lethal" in the market that produces these technologies and the departments that apply them.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 7, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The important question here is, what was his departments policy regarding Taser use and was he outside of policy?



That would only protect the officer from losing his job and blaming the department for not having a better policy or training, it wouldn't protect him from civil liability and it certainly won't protect him from local public opinion forcing the department to take some action against him.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2004)

Hed be open to civil liability if he did anything...my point is what is the atmosphere for taser use in this officers dept. and is it right?


----------



## OULobo (Jul 19, 2004)

Time to stir this one up a bit. 

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040719/D83TIR880.html


----------



## Ronin Moose (Jul 19, 2004)

Didn't have my glasses on when I first read this, and wondered why we had a post asking if it was OK to *"tease"* a 9 yr. old?   I almost replied "sure, if you're  not older than 12 or so"...........

Another senior moment.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 19, 2004)

> I'm still not sure. The girl was 4'7" and 85lbs. He likely outwieghed her by between 100 and 150lbs and was in decent to great shape, not to mention he is a veteran on the force and if we trust the other article had a partner on hand. I know that many of the officers I have talked to have been tased and say that it hurts and causes muscle failure, but not much else damage wise, however these are all fairly big adult males in good shape, not a 9 year old developing adolecent with emotional problems. I do like Tgace's idea about the gurney and thanks to him for the follow-up.


I'm going to have to agree with this one, OULobo. 

I (fortunately) have never been "tazed". I know people who have, however. Large, strong men kind of people. They don't talk about it as "Ow, that hurts!" and lasting for a few seconds. And I would assume that the effects would be even greater on a smaller person. 

I appreciate the challenge for the LEOs dealing with a situation such as this one. I still cannot understand why the girl was tazed, rather than other options. I realize that tazers are useful for LEOs, but they are more than just a small shock or touching an electrical fence.

ETA:  There was a case here in Indiana of a man who was repeatedly tased by a jailer, and died - he was diabetic and had an enlarged heart, and was "noncompliant", it wassuspected, due to low blood sugar.  Clearly this is not how tasers were "meant" to be used, but is an example of how they can kill someone of less-than-perfect health. 

http://www.idsnews.com/story.php?id=23278


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 20, 2004)

The INSTANT you use any form/level of force there runs the risk of temporary and permanent damage.  I don't know what the follow up on this case with the 9 yr old is so I am not speaking about that per say just the idea that statistics are the answer.  I wonder how many statistical comparisons between the injury death rates of LEO and suspects when LEO have used batons, peeper spray, defensive tactics.... next to Taser use.  The part of this equation that isn't being presented is LEO survivability with minimal use of force on the suspect/detainee.  

I still don't know if, given the number of MA here who have the impression that LEO are not very well versed in hand to hand/locking/controlling skills, laying hands on an uncooperative child (I mean REALLY uncooperative in this case - kicking full force with intent to do bodily harm) would have been 'safer' for the child (wrenched shoulder, sprained something, torn this or that).  You can say what you want about "taking one for the greater good" about getting hit by a child, but look at it this way:  

Who would be on the street patrolling if the LEO had taken the risk of getting kicked in the face or bitten by this 'little girl' and gotten his nose busted because he was taking it easy on her or had to get stitches?  How does each little incident like that jack up the cost of health care coverage on the LEO's department because it raises the "risk pool" rates that already come with the job?  Who pays for that extra cost?

I am not saying that this girls safety and dignity should be broken down to dollars and cents, but there is always a context larger than that moment to consider.

I wonder what the reaction would be if he had ended up in the news for a broken nose at the hands of a little girl?  Laughter, ridicule because he 'couldn't handle' a child?  I guess no one can win in these debates.  In the end, he is out there doing the job.




			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to agree with this one, OULobo.
> 
> I (fortunately) have never been "tazed". I know people who have, however. Large, strong men kind of people. They don't talk about it as "Ow, that hurts!" and lasting for a few seconds. And I would assume that the effects would be even greater on a smaller person.
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 20, 2004)

A few thoughts...

The article that OULobo linked to (for those of you too lazy to read it ) stated that Tazers were listed as the possible cause of death in several incidents.  The thing that needs to be understood is that Tazers, like bean-bags and rubber slugs, are not non-lethal, they are _less_-lethal.  In other words, you can die from being on the receiving end of one of the above items, it's just not as likely as if you were to get shot.  

As far as the 9 year old incident, should they have done it? was it a danger to her heath (and if so did that danger outweigh the danger her behavior posed both to herself and to the officers?)?  Who knows.  I am always hesitant to pass judgement on the actions of police officers in "use of force" situations because in most cases they only have seconds to act while everyone else has weeks to pick apart their decisions.  I believe that in an earlier post (back when this thread first started) I speculated that they might not have chosen this method in spite of the fact that she was a 9 year-old girl, but because of that fact.  Had it been an adult there is a very good chance that they would have used OC, a baton, or restraining tecniques that would have been more likely to inflict injury.  Were they right or wrong in this incident? I don't know, none of us were there.  To me this seems like one of those situations where there is no "right way."


----------



## OULobo (Jul 20, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> To me this seems like one of those situations where there is no "right way."



It's cool that people still have something to say about this thread. I originally came upon this article and thought that it would act against the "tasers don't cause permanent damage" argument, but now that we are looking back at the main story, my guile has risen again. I don't know that there is a right way, but I do know that there are very wrong ways and I think there are quite a few better ways. I think that use of force issues are the first police actions to examine, because many times they are the most damaging and least able to repair. The vast majority of police show a great amount of restraint when applying force, more restraint than the average citizen probably would, but this is likely due to a mixture of training and the obligatory investigation, both by the department and the citizenry, of any major use of force. Constantly watching use of force issues keeps them honest.


----------



## Chronuss (Jul 20, 2004)

...everyone seems to be forgetting that this child is not a normally developing child, considering that a nine-year old was cursing, thrashing, attempting to kick an officer (wouldn't that be assaulting...? hmm..), and bust out a window of a cruiser... what if this child had had a nail file, or knitting needle concealed and tried to take a slash at the officer?  ...it doesn't appear that no one would flinch if the officer had tazed a twenty-five year old male for the same behavior. this officer apparently felt that the situation escalated, the staff of the institution was doing nothing to assist the officer, and he took the most non-lethal, non-brutal method that he had at his disposal. having lived with a "special needs" child (she takes 54mg of Concerta a day and she's eleven, and the doctor just upped her dosage; Concerta is a concentrated form of Ritalin that is time released over a twelve hour period) for the latter half of my life, the actions of this child seem extremely familiar, coming home to gouged furniture, broken electronic equipment and lamps, dead pets, and items continuously missing from rooms. I truly believe this officer, to the best of his ability with the given circumstances, handled the situation aptly and without the use of deadly or physical force.


----------



## Seig (Jul 21, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> NO NO NO NO it is never OK to tazer a 9 year old! It shouldn't be OK to tazer adults either as I'm pretty sure they do long term or permanent damage. This story should be a wake up call as to the way people with autism are treated by police and mental health proffesionals in this country.
> P.S. Non abusive physical and psycological intervention, NAPPI, has been around for a long time now. From personnal experience as a correctional officer I can tell you it works just fine on fully funtioning adults as well.


I have to disagree, in my experience working with Juvenile Delinquents that were 80% violent offenders, the "Non-Violent Crisis Intervention/Prevention" methods only were NOT effective, they usually left a staff member injured.


----------



## Seig (Jul 21, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hed be open to civil liability if he did anything...my point is what is the atmosphere for taser use in this officers dept. and is it right?


This is to Lobo and Tgace, according to the United States Supreme Court, an officer acting in good faith, that is within the parameters of law and departmental policy will not be held criminaly or civilly liable for his actions in the course of his duties.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 21, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> This is to Lobo and Tgace, according to the United States Supreme Court, an officer acting in good faith, that is within the parameters of law and departmental policy will not be held criminaly or civilly liable for his actions in the course of his duties.



There are loopholes so big, in that notion, I could drive a semi through them, if I knew how to drive a semi. Policy is not law, policies change and there is no "grandfather clause" protection, regardless of the action of law public opinion can put enough pressure to terminate employment, what exactly is good faith? Courts and lawyers are tricky and it wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court has been beaten in indirect ways.


----------



## Seig (Jul 21, 2004)

"good faith" under the law is acting in a way consistant with your training and to the best of your ability _as you understand it._


----------



## Tgace (Jul 21, 2004)

If only it were so easy.....I understand where you are coming from, but I have to agree with OULobo. I could get sued over the most righteous of actions. Attorneys will argue that I wasnt "an officer acting in good faith, that is within the parameters of law and departmental policy" till the cows come home. If they cant get me, they will get the Town Gvt.


----------



## Seig (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm not saying you cannot be sued, I am saying you cannot be sued successfully, much like the Good Samaritan law. Anyone can be sued at any time for almost anything, it's the winning or losing that is important here. If they did in fact act within their departmental policy and were to get sued, they would not be held accountable. The jurisdiction being held responsible for the policy is another matter altogether.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 22, 2004)

Seig said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you cannot be sued, I am saying you cannot be sued successfully, much like the Good Samaritan law. Anyone can be sued at any time for almost anything, it's the winning or losing that is important here. If they did in fact act within their departmental policy and were to get sued, they would not be held accountable. The jurisdiction being held responsible for the policy is another matter altogether.



It also seems to depend on the judge. I believe it would be up to him to throw out the case if he agrees, I'd assume, he would do so at the opening, to save time and money. If he allows the case, which he can, then it could go to a jury. If the jury finds the cop guilty, then he would have to push the immunity issue in appeals and hope they see it his way. As with everything the law is a matter of interpretation as much as following the letter. 

Laws only work if people see them, believe them and follow them.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 26, 2004)

Here's another one. 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0722taser-abuse22-ON.html


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 26, 2004)

LTL technology hits the strip - literally.


----------



## loki09789 (Jul 27, 2004)

I posted this before, but it may been over looked because of other points in the post and by other posters at the same time but:

Has anyone considered comparing the stats of real temporary injury (sprains, strains, bruises, cuts....) or permanent injury/death from incidents of LEO applying pepper spray, hands on/defensive tactics or baton techniques relative to the stats of same injuries from incidents of LEO using Tasers?

I haven't done any hard searching myself, but my hypothesis is that the stats will show that IN GENERAL the taser applications will have a reduced incident of both temp and perm injuries/death.

The point of this question is to compare the tools affects/effects NOT the misuse of any of these things because that is about officer judgement NOT tools.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I posted this before, but it may been over looked because of other points in the post and by other posters at the same time but:
> 
> Has anyone considered comparing the stats of real temporary injury (sprains, strains, bruises, cuts....) or permanent injury/death from incidents of LEO applying pepper spray, hands on/defensive tactics or baton techniques relative to the stats of same injuries from incidents of LEO using Tasers?
> 
> I haven't done any hard searching myself, but my hypothesis is that the stats will show that IN GENERAL the taser applications will have a reduced incident of both temp and perm injuries/death.



It sounds like a good idea, but it would only be a fair study if you compared each type of action on an individual basis and we would need a larger body of data for tasers as they are only recently widely used. I would venture to say that Pepper/OC and "hands-on" would be comparable. The big problem would be what encounters are being reported, how to classify what is an acceptable injury and how valid claims of injury are decided. There are plently of situations where the officers are "hands on" and there are no injuries, like cooperative escorts and such. Technically all taser encounters leave injury because they shooting you with probes that peirce the skin.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The point of this question is to compare the tools affects/effects NOT the misuse of any of these things because that is about officer judgement NOT tools.



The issue is also that tasers make the ability to abuse force both more acceptable and easier to get away with. Besides there hasn't been a definitive decision as to what is considered abuse when tasers are involved.


----------



## AaronLucia (Aug 22, 2004)

What kind of weird question is this?


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 23, 2004)

AaronLucia said:
			
		

> What kind of weird question is this?


Read the thread.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 23, 2004)

Taser update:

Cops Disciplined for Tasering Grandmother

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040820/D84J6EMO0.html

This time it's a few officers tasing a 66 yr old grandma while her 74 yr old husband watches, because she disagreed with them giving her a ticket for honking her horn at them. The officers were diciplined and the department policy on use of tasers was changed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 23, 2004)

Good to see them diciplined.  The article doesn't say why she honked at them unfortunately.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2004)

I still wonder what the atmosphere for taser use is in some of these depts? For example, in my dept. OC is "recommended" anytime physical force is going to be necessary (if you dont do what I say and I have to go "hands on" pssst!!). Most depts. stop short of saying "you must" because "you never know" and it also opens the dept. up to liability (better to hang the cop sometimes  ). If these depts. are saying the same for the taser than there is a problem IMHO. I dont know what Taser teaches, I dont carry one. But I would only use it if it looks like a major fight is coming up or I might hurt the suspect more by not using it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 23, 2004)

I have to wonder what would have happened to me if I had honked at the Buffalo cop who was driving and yacking on his cell phone.  In NYS, it's illegal to talk-n-drive unless one has a hands free kit.  He didn't. The cops should set examples for us to follow, not be exceptions to the rules.  Maybe the old woman saw something hypocritical, maybe she just got impatient sitting behind the patrol car after a light turned.  I don't know.  Her husband was the one I would have said tasing may be 'an acceptable use of force' as he did assault a cop, abet in defence of his wife who had been assaulted by the LEO. Maybe the thinking was as Tom said: "only use it if it looks like a major fight is coming up or I might hurt the suspect more by not using it." We don't know as that information isn't in front of us.

Again, we weren't there, and the information is sketchy.  However, in this case those who do have more info did find cause for discipline, so we must assume that something was wrong there.  In the original post on this thread, was anything ever found out or settled?  (Sorry haven't read the whole thing so if it was posted, I missed it)

:asian:


----------



## OULobo (Aug 24, 2004)

I didn't see anything since it happened.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2004)

Dont take departmental punishment as "proof" of guilt. Although in this case it may be....Sometimes you can get hung out to dry just to save the dept. the bad press even if you were within policy and training.

As to the cell phone...if Im driving and yacking to a friend while driving than yes I may be a hypocrite if I ticket the next person I find doing the same. However the car is our office. Sometimes I may be going to a violent domestic when a dective may call me to tell me to be aware of the fact that the guy there is involved in a gun/drug investigation etc. Some guys do get the hands free kits, but I dont like the idea of wires around my neck when rolling with a suspect.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Aug 24, 2004)

The problem here is we are only hearing a partial story of what happend. We do know there was a problem the police we dispatched. The responding officers ended up placing someone in custody and that person when cuffed was tased.
The officer made a judgement call during the time he was dealing with the situation. I know it sounds cruel and unusual punishment but I think we need to hear the whole story and both sides before passing judgement. So many things LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) do out in the field might not sound right when only a partial view is written.

I would like to hear what the RO's (Reporting Officers) have to say about what happend and why they used the force they did to understand what happend.

I dont know how many people have ever had to deal with a mental or mentally challenged person but its sometimes not as nice as you think. 

I say we need to hear more evidence before passing judgement on right or wrong.

Just my opinion.............

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## OULobo (Aug 24, 2004)

Chicago Green Dragon said:
			
		

> The problem here is we are only hearing a partial story of what happend. We do know there was a problem the police we dispatched. The responding officers ended up placing someone in custody and that person when cuffed was tased.
> The officer made a judgement call during the time he was dealing with the situation. I know it sounds cruel and unusual punishment but I think we need to hear the whole story and both sides before passing judgement. So many things LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) do out in the field might not sound right when only a partial view is written.
> 
> I would like to hear what the RO's (Reporting Officers) have to say about what happend and why they used the force they did to understand what happend.
> ...



I'm sure you are talking about the original article, but what about the second article posted (about four posts ago) with the old couple. In this case the officers were not called out, they were in the cruiser on the phone. In that case the department itself took the outlook that the officers were wrong. I understand Tgace's opinion about the department's opinion not being proof of guilt, but we aren't talking necessarily about a crime as much as about gross abuse of less-than-lethal force in a situation that would require a less radical method. It seems to me that it is within the current rights of the officer to use a taser for any situation he sees fit. I personally would like to see that the situations they can legally apply this force be spelled out and reasonable, and not at the whim of the officer. Right now it seems to me that they can go around tasing people for simply cussing at them or flipping them the bird despite that fact that neither is illegal or a threat that calls for the applied force of a taser, whether it is less-than-lethal or not. Usually the department covers for their officers all the way, so when they condemn an action, then it must be pretty bad.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Aug 24, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I'm sure you are talking about the original article,



Yep i was refering to the original article. I ended up joining the discussion late on this topic...........

I havent had a chance to reply to any other items in this group.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Right now it seems to me that they can go around tasing people for simply cussing at them or flipping them the bird despite that fact that neither is illegal or a threat that calls for the applied force of a taser,


I dont know that thats entirely true. Are you saying cops are tasing people and walking away? I believe that there is always going to be a custodial (arrest or forced hospitalization) issue when any force of this nature is used. The issue is what level of force was required to effect that arrest.

BTW: If those actions are done in a public place where other people can see them than they are illegal (at least in my state). Its called disorderly conduct. And honking your horn for any other reason than "a reasonable warning nor be unnecessarily loud or harsh" is a vehicle and traffic violation (Illegal use of horn).  Not that any of that justifies zapping a 66 yo lady. Just making a point.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 24, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont know that thats entirely true. Are you saying cops are tasing people and walking away? I believe that there is always going to be a custodial (arrest or forced hospitalization) issue when any force of this nature is used. The issue is what level of force was required to effect that arrest./QUOTE]
> 
> agreed
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2004)

Most misdemeanors get reduced to Dis Con here...its only a violation, not a crime.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2004)

I found a similar topic (taser and use of force policy) in another forum I frequent.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=279359
Like I mentioned before, I dont carry one so I wasnt familiar with its place in the continuum. I would have thought I would have been near intermediate weapons (impact). These guys say otherwise. I must admit that I can see their point. OC is nasty, long lasting and not as effective in all situiations. I dont know if its a fact, but I would say there have been many more fatalities to OC than taser, even with length of service taken out of the equation. The real issue IMHO is one of appearance than actual danger. Show all the studies you want, but when force of any type needs to be used, the odds of injury/death are present. 

All the same, would these officers have OC'd this lady if taser wasnt available???


----------



## OULobo (Aug 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> All the same, would these officers have OC'd this lady if taser wasnt available???



Good point. It strikes at the motivation, not the method. If OC and tasers are generally on the same level of the use of force continuum, then they could've used OC. If having a grandma convulsing on the ground while her husband is watching and two officers are there making her jump is a bad image, how bout a grandma with a swollen face and burning eyes that gets no relief for hours; all because she honked her horn and argued a bit. Whether or not it is abuse, it sounds like the poster child for a movement against letting individual officers make choices about applying force. 

How about civilians decide what the force continuum is and leave the officers liable if they screw up.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> it sounds like the poster child for a movement against letting individual officers make choices about applying force.
> 
> How about civilians decide what the force continuum is and leave the officers liable if they screw up.


I have to disagree...the officer is always the one who decides what level of force to use, hes the one dealing with the situation. What would you have the officer do, call into the station to ask approval for a force level? Things happen too fast...As it is there are many officers who have been killed because they were unwilling to use deadly force soon enough. Out of fear of lawsuits or bad training I dont know. Strict ladder continuums where the officer had to exhaust every step on the way up have been ditched long ago. What if a guy 2X your size is beating the @#$% out of you with his bare hands? A strict policy may say deadly force will not be used on an unarmed subject, or you would have to try unarmed tactics/OC/Baton in order before shooting...So when the cop shoots the guy, because a disarming and being shot with your own weapon is bad, hes hung out to dry. 

The real lesson is do what your told and you wont get force used on you....


----------



## OULobo (Aug 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I have to disagree...the officer is always the one who decides what level of force to use, hes the one dealing with the situation. What would you have the officer do, call into the station to ask approval for a force level? Things happen too fast...As it is there are many officers who have been killed because they were unwilling to use deadly force soon enough. Out of fear of lawsuits or bad training I dont know. Strict ladder continuums where the officer had to exhaust every step on the way up have been ditched long ago. What if a guy 2X your size is beating the @#$% out of you with his bare hands? A strict policy may say deadly force will not be used on an unarmed subject, or you would have to try unarmed tactics/OC/Baton in order before shooting...So when the cop shoots the guy, because a disarming and being shot with your own weapon is bad, hes hung out to dry.
> 
> The real lesson is do what your told and you wont get force used on you....



I was led to believe that the "use of force continuum ladder" is not a method of "ramp up" to force as much as it is a list of available appliable force options presented in relation of class to the other options. IE you aren't required to travel up the ladder to reach an appropriate action, only know what reaction is appropriate for the victim's . . . er. . . suspect's (j/k) action. I'm not suggesting that the police call to get approval before using force in all situations, only that they be held legally and proffesionally liable for actions that exceed what is laid out in said ladder, and that the ladder be drawn by the citizenry to be a hardline set of true rules, not just a policy suggestion. I'm not advocating binding the officer's hands, I'm only holding that they be held responsible for flawed decisions, like the rest of the people they are patroling.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2004)

Re-reading the article about the 66 yo woman incident. I would say that the best point was made by the police rep. who stated that the confrontational attitude was the root of the problem. While the officer may have been within the policy and, going by the "letter of the law", justified in arresting the woman and using an approved level of force if she resisted...why did it come down to that? Ive dealt with plenty of @#$% from folks who didnt like the fact that I was giving them a ticket. "Some" cops may esclate the situation with words (im not saying abuse, just tone/volume). I think thats the root of this and the target of the punishment they recieved.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 25, 2004)

Sounds right to me.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I was led to believe that the "use of force continuum ladder" is not a method of "ramp up" to force as much as it is a list of available appliable force options presented in relation of class to the other options. IE you aren't required to travel up the ladder to reach an appropriate action, only know what reaction is appropriate for the victim's . . . er. . . suspect's (j/k) action. I'm not suggesting that the police call to get approval before using force in all situations, only that they be held legally and proffesionally liable for actions that exceed what is laid out in said ladder, and that the ladder be drawn by the citizenry to be a hardline set of true rules, not just a policy suggestion. I'm not advocating binding the officer's hands, I'm only holding that they be held responsible for flawed decisions, like the rest of the people they are patroling.


Yes that is the current "ladder model". However there were plenty of agencies and jurisdictions that were retooling it to the "ramp up" model to avoid liability. If some still are I dont know but I wouldnt be suprised. Thats why the "force wheel" came out, where options were more fluid than the ladder. Based on the lawsuits Ive seen in my dept. I would say that cops are being held liable....the town (and some cops) have had to pay up for force decisions. Just because you dont see it in the paper or TV dosent mean it isnt happening.


----------



## Doc (Sep 3, 2004)

Did  anyone consider it could have been to keep her from hurting herself? In many instances it could be preferable to physically overwhelming her in certain instances. On the face it does appear unnecessary, but I've learned after 30 years of law enforcement never second guess an incident without having all of the facts.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 3, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Did  anyone consider it could have been to keep her from hurting herself? In many instances it could be preferable to physically overwhelming her in certain instances. On the face it does appear unnecessary, but I've learned after 30 years of law enforcement never second guess an incident without having all of the facts.



How would pain compliance help in stopping someone from hurting themselves (ie. purposly causing themselves pain)? Tasers aren't system disruptors, just pain compliance tools.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 4, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> How would pain compliance help in stopping someone from hurting themselves (ie. purposly causing themselves pain)? Tasers aren't system disruptors, just pain compliance tools.


I would say that sending an electric current through a person's body would be considered system disruption.  Why? Because, while the pain is being induced, there is also disruption of the natural electrochemical system.... call it overload, override or what ever you want, but while a Taser is active, your system is disrupted.  On a straight behavioral model, if someone (in the case of a TASER/LEO situation) is telling you 'do xyz or you will get tazed' and you refuse, then feel the pain being induced, at some point you will make the connection (like a Pavlovian Dog) that you IF you comply with instructions THEN you will avoid a shock/pain.

I would say that a TASER is both a system disruptor and a pain compliance tool.  Has anyone looked at the companies information about how they designed the tool, what THEY say it is or is not (pain compliance, system disruptor or what ever)?


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 4, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> How would pain compliance help in stopping someone from hurting themselves (ie. purposly causing themselves pain)? Tasers aren't system disruptors, just pain compliance tools.


I don't think Doc meant "hurt herself" as in: Ouch! but rather "hurt herself" as in: concussion, broken bones, etc.  Any type of "pain compliance" technique or method is just that, in other words, since it hurts they stop whatever they were doing before someone (themselves or the officer) gets _injured_.


----------



## Doc (Sep 4, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I don't think Doc meant "hurt herself" as in: Ouch! but rather "hurt herself" as in: concussion, broken bones, etc.  Any type of "pain compliance" technique or method is just that, in other words, since it hurts they stop whatever they were doing before someone (themselves or the officer) gets _injured_.



I have "tased" individuals on many ocassions to prevent them from injuring themselves. People ramming their heads against walls, etc. The disrupting effect of the taser allows you the opportunity to restraint them in a manner where they cannot cause themselves further injury. The fact the officer asked for a "backup" on a nine year old is a major clue. The fact he was called on a nine yeard old and needed back up is also a major consideration.

Trying to hold a determined "mental" without injuring them regardless of age is very difficult because they can exhibit enormous strength. Although I find this may have been an unusual circumstance, because I don't know all the details I allow for a reasonable possibility based on my previous thirty years of LE experience. Also the question as presented is a loaded one, and although mentioning handcuffs, I'd bet dollars to donuts because of her age she was cuffed in the front which presents an additional dynamic to consider. The answer cannot be "never" or "always."  St happens, and often.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 4, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I would say that sending an electric current through a person's body would be considered system disruption.  Why? Because, while the pain is being induced, there is also disruption of the natural electrochemical system.... call it overload, override or what ever you want, but while a Taser is active, your system is disrupted.  On a straight behavioral model, if someone (in the case of a TASER/LEO situation) is telling you 'do xyz or you will get tazed' and you refuse, then feel the pain being induced, at some point you will make the connection (like a Pavlovian Dog) that you IF you comply with instructions THEN you will avoid a shock/pain.
> 
> I would say that a TASER is both a system disruptor and a pain compliance tool.  Has anyone looked at the companies information about how they designed the tool, what THEY say it is or is not (pain compliance, system disruptor or what ever)?



TASERS pass current through a small portion of the body with the intent of causing pain, not necessarily disruption. In many cases TASERS do not cause any disruption whatsoever, especially in cases where the person it is used on is charged with adrenalin, emotionally disturbed (as in this case) or high. The behavioural model only works on someone that is seeking to avoid pain, not a disturbed person that is seeking pain, to which a TASER is an easy pathway. 




			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> I don't think Doc meant "hurt herself" as in: Ouch! but rather "hurt herself" as in: concussion, broken bones, etc. Any type of "pain compliance" technique or method is just that, in other words, since it hurts they stop whatever they were doing before someone (themselves or the officer) gets injured.



While that makes more sense, the application of pain compliance on an individual that either doesn't register pain or isn't opposed to it doesn't make much sense. 




			
				Doc said:
			
		

> I have "tased" individuals on many ocassions to prevent them from injuring themselves. People ramming their heads against walls, etc. The disrupting effect of the taser allows you the opportunity to restraint them in a manner where they cannot cause themselves further injury. The fact the officer asked for a "backup" on a nine year old is a major clue. The fact he was called on a nine yeard old and needed back up is also a major consideration.
> 
> Trying to hold a determined "mental" without injuring them regardless of age is very difficult because they can exhibit enormous strength. Although I find this may have been an unusual circumstance, because I don't know all the details I allow for a reasonable possibility based on my previous thirty years of LE experience. Also the question as presented is a loaded one, and although mentioning handcuffs, I'd bet dollars to donuts because of her age she was cuffed in the front which presents an additional dynamic to consider. The answer cannot be "never" or "always." St happens, and often.



Now that I can see. That a TASER would give the temporary opportunity to restrain an individual, is something that makes sense to me. As for the issue of calling for backup, many police agencies have policy in place that requires officers to call for back up when dealing with children, women and the emotionally disturbed to avoid accusations and liability. This paritally negates any clue calling back up gives as to how the officer is capable of handling the child.


----------



## Doc (Sep 4, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> TASERS pass current through a small portion of the body with the intent of causing pain, not necessarily disruption.


I'm sorry sir but you are incorrect. It was designed and is used as a dysruption device, not a paim compliant tool. In fact it was born out of the use of drugs that created a lack of feeling of pain, and enormous strength to the users to over ride the nervous system without creating injury. The alternative previously was ineffective chemical agents on this type of personor, or blunt force trauma. The taser represented a humane alternative. The fact that it is not 100 percent effective means nothing. Nothing is 100 percent effect. When I "shoot" you with a firearm it hurts, but the firearm is not a paim compliance device. I am either trying to "stop" you or "kill" you and whether it hurts or not, is immaterial. It it also a statistical fact the taser has a higher effectiveness rate than the firearm per use.

As a court appointed legal expert in police use of force, as well as a long time defensive tactics instructor and university lecturer on the subject in conjuction with my thirty year background as a police officer, I suggest you re-examine your thoughts on the subject. It is these type of misconceptions that give the civilian population the wrong impressions. The job is not to inflict pain but to induce compliance. Of course it would be nice if everyone would just lay down, put there hands behind their back and say "uncle." But they don't.


----------



## bignick (Sep 4, 2004)

taser's are disruptive to the nervous system...

my judo/jujitsu instructor is also in law enforcement...and when they were testing tasers they had four-five people linked together and tased one...the current knocked them all down...

that isn't current "passing through a small portion of the body"...

as for them not being 100%...as stated earlier nothing is...also, he's seen instances where people have been tased and their muscles "freeze"...the officer's were ordering the person to the ground and the person literally couldn't move to comply...so the officer's kept tasing and tasing...and ugly situation to be in


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 4, 2004)

The ends justify the means.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 4, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> I'm sorry sir but you are incorrect. It was designed and is used as a dysruption device, not a paim compliant tool. In fact it was born out of the use of drugs that created a lack of feeling of pain, and enormous strength to the users to over ride the nervous system without creating injury. The alternative previously was ineffective chemical agents on this type of personor, or blunt force trauma. The taser represented a humane alternative. The fact that it is not 100 percent effective means nothing. Nothing is 100 percent effect. When I "shoot" you with a firearm it hurts, but the firearm is not a paim compliance device. I am either trying to "stop" you or "kill" you and whether it hurts or not, is immaterial. It it also a statistical fact the taser has a higher effectiveness rate than the firearm per use.
> 
> As a court appointed legal expert in police use of force, as well as a long time defensive tactics instructor and university lecturer on the subject in conjuction with my thirty year background as a police officer, I suggest you re-examine your thoughts on the subject. It is these type of misconceptions that give the civilian population the wrong impressions. The job is not to inflict pain but to induce compliance. Of course it would be nice if everyone would just lay down, put there hands behind their back and say "uncle." But they don't.



Thank you for your proffesional tone. The immaterial nature of pain when you are "stopping", "shooting" or "killing" someone (your parenthesis, though I don't see any room for interpretation on such words) is only immaterial to you as the LEO, to the person you use it on, it is far from immaterial and that pain could lead you to loose your job on excessive force claims. I don't think I need to comment on stats of effectivness, most people know the "three types" saying. While I respect you background on the subject, it does lead me to the possiblity of your bias, as a long time officer and defensive tactics instructor your outlook may be skewed a bit. I believe your quote was, "The job is not to inflict pain, but to induce compliance.", yes, through pain. If it was used as a disruptor then there is no need for compliance from an unconscious or disrupted person.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> taser's are disruptive to the nervous system...
> 
> my judo/jujitsu instructor is also in law enforcement...and when they were testing tasers they had four-five people linked together and tased one...the current knocked them all down...
> 
> ...



The linked people example shows what electric current does when the path of least resistance is through many people. With one electrode on either end of the loop, the current is forced to pass through everyone to complete the curcuit. The intended use of a taser is to apply the prongs or electodes to the same person. In a small application area of the body. The path of least resistance in this case in through the small area of flesh between the prongs. This means the current is never forced through the areas that could cause disruption or worse (death or brain damage). Consequently who said anything about tasers being perfect or not. I only pointed out the limitations of using pain compliance on emotionally disturbed individuals.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 4, 2004)

Fired Probes=System disruption. You dont really feel the pain until the pulse stops (cant do much of anything until the pulse stops)

Taser electrodes (non-fireable "prongs" on the gun itself)=Pain compliance tool.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 4, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Fired Probes=System disruption. You dont really feel the pain until the pulse stops (cant do much of anything until the pulse stops)
> 
> Taser electrodes (non-fireable "prongs" on the gun itself)=Pain compliance tool.



Okay, then how do junkies and roid ragers still manage to pull out the prongs while they are still pulsing.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 4, 2004)

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun2.htm


----------



## Tgace (Sep 4, 2004)

TASER FAILS TO HALT MAN WITH KNIFE
By IAN ITH - Seattle Times staff reporter

Seattle police say that more than 90 percent of the time, the 200 high-tech electric guns they have at the ready do exactly what they are supposed to do: jolt violent suspects into submission so police don't have to shoot them.

But not early yesterday morning.

When shots from two M26 Taser guns failed to stop a knife-wielding man, a SWAT officer shot the man dead.

As police and the weapon maker were left trying to explain why the high-tech weapons failed, they were quick to again point out that nonlethal weapons are not foolproof. And they aren't meant to replace shooting people, if that's necessary.

"The M26 is not a magic bullet," said Steve Tuttle, a founder of Taser International of Scottsdale, Ariz. "I wish my advanced Taser was a perfect weapon, but it's not. Nothing works all the time. We've made what we feel is the most powerful nonlethal weapon out there, but obviously the man chose his own destiny by lunging at the officer with a knife."

The department has purchased 194 Taser guns since last December and has been gradually introducing them in the field this year as part of a special program to use more nonlethal weapons.

It was prompted by the controversy surrounding the April 2000 fatal police shooting of David Walker, who was skipping down a Lower Queen Anne street and waving a knife. Walker had a history of mental illness.

The shooting was ruled justified, but critics said Walker's life might have been spared if nonlethal weapons, such as stun guns, had been quickly available.

Even then, police warned the public that Taser guns wouldn't mean the end of police shootings.

"We told you at the outset that this (program) is not a panacea, and it wasn't in this case," Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said yesterday.

About 1,000 police departments in the country have purchased the weapons, and reports show that the guns work 94 percent of the time, the company says.

"It's the closest you can get to causing incapacitation, as long as you get a good hit," Tuttle said.

Seattle police have used the new guns about 80 times, with a success rate of 92 to 94 percent, said SWAT Officer Steve Ward, who helps train fellow officers to use the devices.

A department report released this month studied the first 37 times Seattle police used the shock guns and said that most of the time they were used against assault suspects, mentally ill people and drug dealers.

Of those 37 incidents, 55 percent of the suspects were white, 34 percent were black and 10 percent were Asian, the report said. Two of the suspects were women, and no one was injured beyond small welts from the electricity.

Bellevue police have 10 of the M26 guns, but they have used them only twice in the past five months, once successfully, department spokeswoman Marcia Harnden said.

In July, they shocked and subdued a 50-year-old, mentally ill man who was brandishing knives and a hatchet in his apartment. In September, officers zapped a man in downtown Bellevue who was high on drugs and resisting arrest. But the Taser malfunctioned.

"We had to rush him, and it ended up being an all-out fight," Harnden said.

Seattle police also keep other nonlethal weapons, including bean-bag rounds fired from special shotguns.

Coincidentally, Kirkland police Monday night used a tube-shaped device that shoots a hard plastic bullet to subdue a 40-year-old man who had poured gasoline on himself and was about to flick his cigarette lighter. He was captured without serious injury and taken to a hospital for a mental evaluation, police said.

All officers with the Special Response Team  Kirkland's version of SWAT  are trained to use plastic bullets as well as Tasers, police said.

Yesterday, Seattle police said they weren't sure why their Taser guns didn't subdue the knife-wielding man, who was 23.

Tuttle, the Taser-company spokesman, said Seattle police told him the first shot appeared to work, until the man broke the tiny wire connecting one of the shock probes to the gun. The second shot from a second gun probably didn't hit the man with both probes.

SWAT trainer Ward said that's purely speculative at this point as police investigate the death. But Tuttle said both scenarios are common with the M26.

"These wires are really thin things, and they can easily be broken in a rough situation," Tuttle said. "And you need both prongs to carry the electrical contact."

There are plenty of other situations that could cause Taser guns to fail, Tuttle and Ward say. Low batteries. Loose connections. Suspect out of range or wearing thick clothes.

In one case in another city, Tuttle said, police shot the probes at a man in a biker jacket. The probes both hit a large metal zipper, which defused the electricity away from the man.

In a Canadian case, Mounties shot a man in a hooded sweat shirt. One probe hit the dangling drawstring on the hood, too far from the suspect's body to shock him.

Because the weapons aren't perfect, the company  and Seattle police training  demands that when using a Taser against an armed suspect, another officer should stand by with a loaded pistol ready to fire.

"Even if this device was working, if (the man) was still coming after that officer and slashing, they're going to have to use lethal force," Tuttle said. "In this case, it's good that it was there because it saved that officer's life." 

Seattle Times reporters Dave Birkland and Michael Ko contributed to this report. Ian Ith can be reached at 206-464-2109


----------



## 8253 (Sep 19, 2004)

In order to determine justification, further info would be needed.  I personally dont believe that tasing a 9 year old would be the right thing to do.  As far as justification goes in Ohio, a taser is a compliance weapon that is lower on the use of force continum than oc.  Basically if a person is not doing something that they are told to do then according to the use of force continum, they would be tased(if equiped) before oc is used.  Which at the office where i work, basically weapons are not used unless they have already started to physically fight with you, and then it depends on how well you are able to handle the person.  Once again though, i see no justification in tasing a 9 yo.


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 19, 2004)

I can't actually believe someone admitted to using a taser to prevent a mentally incompetant person from banging their head. This makes me angry beyond belief.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 19, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> In order to determine justification, further info would be needed.  I personally dont believe that tasing a 9 year old would be the right thing to do.  As far as justification goes in Ohio, a taser is a compliance weapon that is lower on the use of force continum than oc.  Basically if a person is not doing something that they are told to do then according to the use of force continum, they would be tased(if equiped) before oc is used.  Which at the office where i work, basically weapons are not used unless they have already started to physically fight with you, and then it depends on how well you are able to handle the person.  Once again though, i see no justification in tasing a 9 yo.



The continuum must be different per department. My local police department gave me a copy of the force continuum that they use and it states that "striking structural areas, Mace, Tear Gas, Electrical Devices and Baton Restraints" are together in a catagory, and between the less escalated "Striking Motor Points or Muscle Masses, Take Downs, Joint Manipulations and PPC" catagory and the more escalated "Baton Techniques or L.V.N.R." catagory. This was taken from Samuel Faulkner, as a side note ther are listed special circumstances and subject factors that effect placement on the continuum, of these the subject factors are Age, Sex, Size, Skill Level, Multiple subjects/ officers, relative strength. I think that our nine yr. old falls under the lower catagories of all these subject factors.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 22, 2004)

One word.....ouch!

*Officer Receives a Jolting Lesson; A Wet Taser Packs a Punch, He Learns *


[size=-1]By Christine Vendel, The Kansas City Star[/size] 

A Kansas City police officer shockingly discovered recently that wearing a Taser in a heavy rainstorm could result in his being, well, shocked. 

The officer directed traffic in a thunderstorm about 1:15 a.m. last Saturday after a tree fell across a street at 44th Street and Park Avenue. He stood outside in the pouring rain for an extended period before getting back into his patrol car. 

That's when he heard a crackling noise and smelled something burning. He deduced that the noise and odor had come from his Taser, an electrified weapon capable of issuing a 50,000-volt shock. As he began pulling the Taser from the holster strapped to his left thigh, the weapon fired a cartridge into the bottom of the holster. 

The officer did not receive the full shock, but rather a residual shock, since the cartridge remained in the holster and did not penetrate the officer's skin. 

"He got a shock, but it didn't immobilize him," said Sgt. Mark Hatcher, supply section supervisor. 

Hatcher contacted Taser International to report the problem. Company officials told him they had not heard of a similar problem with the X26 model that Kansas City officers use. Hatcher said officials told him the weapon is not intended for use in heavy moisture. 

"They told me anytime heavy water penetrates the battery cover, there could be an electrical short, which could cause the weapon to discharge on its own," Hatcher said. 

Hatcher said he did not think the weapon was flawed. He said making the weapon waterproof would probably make it too expensive. Hatcher issued a memo to department members. He told officers to wear raincoats in inclement weather to keep the Tasers dry.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2004)

*US cops taser battling granny*
By John Oates
Published Thursday 21st October 2004 11:54 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/granny_spark_out/

A South Carolina police officer is under investigation for zapping a 75-year-old granny with a Taser. The stun gun can fire its wire-trailing darts into anyone within 20 feet and delivers an electric shock of up to 50,000 volts to the miscreant.

The police officer, a mere stripling of 35, was called to a nursing home where the woman was visiting a friend. She refused to leave because staff would not tell her where her friend was. So the police officer, Hattie Macon, took her down with a quick jolt of juice.

The zapped OAP, Margaret Kembrell, told AP she thought her end had come: "I thought I was dying, I could hear myself screaming...I didn't want to hurt her and I can't believe she would hurt me." Kembrell was handcuffed, arrested and charged with trespass and resisting arrest.

But the local police chief defended his officer's actions saying she had acted properly. Officer Macon says she only resorted to the Taser when the fiesty old-timer tried to thump her - a charge Kembrell denies.

Showing remarkable restraint, Margaret's son Jack Kembrell said: "I really don't understand why a police officer, a trained police officer, would have to use such force on a 75-year-old woman. If it was a 75-year-old man, I could maybe see it. But a 75-year-old woman? What could she do?"

In related news, a Chicago wedding came to a shocking end last month when police tasered both the pregnant bride and her father. Taser International expects sales to leap 175 per cent for 2004 compared with the year before. ®


----------



## GAB (Oct 21, 2004)

Hi Kaith, Female officer, (hattie) Had to have been there to judge it.

Regards, Gary


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 21, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> *US cops taser battling granny*
> By John Oates
> Published Thursday 21st October 2004 11:54 GMT
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/granny_spark_out/
> ...


Round II....LET'S GET READY TO SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABLE!
Sorry, I don't have any cool lazer lights or smoke; nor do I have the cool music as the posts hit either....

Waiting for the armchairing to begin....


----------



## GAB (Oct 27, 2004)

Hi Paul,

I have been checking back, I guess we put the boots to this thread, the 1-2 punch, first me then you.

Did I tell you I was concerned with my security, mental that is...LOL

I have been waiting patiently with baited finger tips, Nada, zip. What's  happening, Que pasa or is it Paso???

Regards, Gary


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 27, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> *US cops taser battling granny*
> By John Oates
> Published Thursday 21st October 2004 11:54 GMT
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/granny_spark_out/
> ...




So it ok for Women to break the law. It is ok for women to cause a disturbance. It is ok for women to assault an officer, yet none of these are allowe dif you are male.

Gee, I thought that if the officer deemed threat, they were allowed to act within policies and procedures of the local precinct. I guess if you are female you can anything you want.

 :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 27, 2004)

Actually, Mr. Parsons, it's no more okay for a woman to break the law than a man.  But exactly how much of a threat do you really think this little old lady was??  Isn't there a little room for decorum here?  Is all black and white?


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, Mr. Parsons, it's no more okay for a woman to break the law than a man. But exactly how much of a threat do you really think this little old lady was?? Isn't there a little room for decorum here? Is all black and white?


Hi, Actually it was a very humane way of handling it, at this women's age a tussle could have left her with a serious injury. The officer and the chief thought it was within the Dept's policy. 

All ended well, the disturber was taken care of, the LEO went home that night to her family, The older women had a few minutes of discomfort rather than broken bones or some other more serious injury.

Actually men have been slapped for years and years by women and are not supposed to retaliate. I am glad it was a female officer and not a male officer who did it.

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

Jeez - I'm sorry - I didn't know this was a man vs woman thread - I thought this was about the appropriate situations where the use of tasers is warranted or not warranted.

 To stay on topic, I just can't see myself tasing an old lady unless she's weilding a weapon and she'd better be a serious threat.  Any LEO who can't handle the public in an appropriate fashion just shouldn't be on the force.

 Do you want your mother tased?  Please.


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Jeez - I'm sorry - I didn't know this was a man vs woman thread - I thought this was about the appropriate situations where the use of tasers is warranted or not warranted.
> 
> To stay on topic, I just can't see myself tasing an old lady unless she's weilding a weapon and she'd better be a serious threat. Any LEO who can't handle the public in an appropriate fashion just shouldn't be on the force.
> 
> Do you want your mother tased? Please.


Hi, it was a trained LEO and a Chief of Police working inside of Department policy. Now you are setting this up as a man vs women thing, no one else.

It was women on women, and like I said, otherwise it would have been a much bigger deal.

Would I want my mother tased? No, but if a trained police officer and the Dept stands behind it, then that is one of the reasons, I am sure they brought in the taser, to handle these iffy situations. More humane, less damage done to an old, already inflamed women.

Better then the shooting that happened in the 70's in Los Angeles, when 2 trained police officers shot and killed a women for throwing a knife at them.

I would not think of judging them either unless I was there, neither should you on this one...IMO...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So it ok for Women to break the law. It is ok for women to cause a disturbance. It is ok for women to assault an officer, yet none of these are allowe dif you are male.
> 
> Gee, I thought that if the officer deemed threat, they were allowed to act within policies and procedures of the local precinct. I guess if you are female you can anything you want.
> 
> :idunno:


   ... also ...



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Actually men have been slapped by women for years and years by women and are not supposed to retaliate.


   So your statement here is false:



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Now you are setting this up as a man vs woman thing, no one else.


 Could you please quote me on my comments towards male vs female force on this thread as it applies to your accusation? My only reference to this was that "it is no more okay for a woman to break the law than a man." This statement is in support of the equality of threat between the genders and does not involve polarity at all.


----------



## Doc (Oct 28, 2004)

Eula Love didn't have the option of a taser. Whatheproblemis?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Jeez - I'm sorry - I didn't know this was a man vs woman thread - I thought this was about the appropriate situations where the use of tasers is warranted or not warranted.
> 
> To stay on topic, I just can't see myself tasing an old lady unless she's weilding a weapon and she'd better be a serious threat. Any LEO who can't handle the public in an appropriate fashion just shouldn't be on the force.
> 
> Do you want your mother tased? Please.


No, I wouldn't want to see my mother tazed.  But I also wouldn't want her man handled, armbarred, goosenecked...considering the fragility of her bone structure and weaker muscle tonallity because of age.

The thing that I don't understand, that this and the other issue brings up, is why technology is such a bad thing to use in LEO work when "economy of motion" is a common concept to martial artists.  Within a tactical view, this was an economical use of force:  LEO got the job done, woman wasn't hurt, everybody went home.  NOW, if the LEO use the tazer in a torturous way (comments like "you want it again old bitty?" or excessively long doses of shock) I would have a problem with this too.

"Economy of motion" is a sound tactical concept.  It was applied in this moment and because of it, the officer and the old woman were not put into a 'hands on' situation and went to their respective homes.  Done deal.

The other thing to remember (and any current/retired/former LEO can clarify/correct as needed) that LEO defensive tactics/'hands on' training usually isn't recertified every year through the departments NOR is the empty hand stuff regularly on the in service training schedule.  That is something that begins and ends at academies on the average.

So, would you rather have this female officer (who probably wouldn't have the strength to safely man handle this old woman) who has not had regular and consistent 'hands on' type training trying to manipulate your mother over using a less than lethal tool that she/any LEO is required to recert on regularly (like firearms, spray, baton....) on the average.  If you are more confident in the use of a tool and can control the dosage of force more affectively with that tool, I say that is the tool to pick.

How's that for armchairing?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

I'd like to know exactly how she came at the LEO - did she swing her purse at her? <can the officer not move out of the way?> Did she try to kick her? <can she not move out of the way?> Did she try to smack her repeatedly? <can she not move out of the way?>

 Or did granny pull a knitting needle? <which I would agree to taser use for> Did she pull a firearm? <I think we would be calling this the 'LEO shoots and kills granny' thread>

   This officer probably doesn't only need more hand-to-hand training - she needs better judgement skills to boot.

 The last time my mommy tried to smack me, I just grabbed her arms and wrapped her up in a rear bear hug, arms crossed in front of her. I was 16 and had no training. What's wrong with that?

   The guys who whip out the taser just because regulation sez they can frighten me more than a little.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I'd like to know exactly how she came at the LEO - did she swing her purse at her? <can the officer not move out of the way?> Did she try to kick her? <can she not move out of the way?> Did she try to smack her repeatedly? <can she not move out of the way?>
> 
> Or did granny pull a knitting needle? <which I would agree to taser use for> Did she pull a firearm? <I think we would be calling this the 'LEO shoots and kills granny' thread>
> 
> ...


I guess it is the nature of these discussions, but I am reading a lot of 'don't knows' but it wraps up with a judgements and opinions....

Either they are professionals, entrusted and evaluated by superiors (who will NOT cover for a bad cop but hold them accountable because no one wants a bad cop ruining the rep of the rest NOR does the Chief want to be accused of not taking action ie losing his job).

I don't know enough about the situation to say yes or know on judgement and as I said with the last one.  It is ALWAYS easier to come up with the perfect plan from the comfortable distance of time and hindsight.

We don't know whether she is a 'hot button' cop who 'whips out' the tazer at the drop of a pin.  We don't know if she herself is poorly trained in defensive tactics.  Those comments were general trend observations from me, not defenses of her individually.

If I am having a bad day and decide to take it out on my fellow man, I would rather get tazered by a cop than beat down with the baton/hands on any day.  When I have regained my senses, faced the music and am back on track I won't have a limp, concussion because we fell (unintentionally) during the struggle and I hit my head on a sharp corner, or be charged with any injury the cop got during the struggle that MY ACTIONS made it necessary for him/her to be called.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 28, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> So, would you rather have this female officer (who probably wouldn't have the strength to safely man handle this old woman)...


I think you have a good point about the 'economy of motion' bit. It makes sense. The tazering probably is less harmful than any hand-to-hand tussling.

But. I have a *serious* issue with yr 'probably wouldn't have the strength' comment. Based upon what? I think you're making quite a leap there. You don't know the officer OR the lady involved, so why are you assuming the officer couldn't handle this old lady? Is it because the officer in this instance is a woman? I think perhaps you should reconsider this assumption.

I agree that LEO's don't get enough self-defence training through their work, but many take responsibilty for this themselves - see numerous examples on this board. There will be some that are quite competent and confident handling themselves in a confrontation, and some that are not.


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Eula Love didn't have the option of a taser. Whatheproblemis?


 Could you clairify Whatheproblemis= What the problem is? or? 

Doc, Yes that is one of the actual officer involved shootings that had some weight to the Department going to the taser years later.

I worked with one of the officers, or I should say was in the acadamy with him. He was one I trained with on a daily basis, we were paired up because of size and ability.

He did about 30 years and retired, was in quite a few shootings in his career, the other officer was so distraught he pensioned off on a distress type IOD pension a while later...

I was very much involved with participating in arm chairing these events while working the admin part of deployment of man power and tactics, at Metro between back surgeries...We were at Georgia street then. 114 moved to Parker center in 77. 

I was forced to retire in 78. They did not change their policies until 5 years later and when I tried to get back on, they said I was not eligible because I had been off one month longer. Now they are hiring back, old men are on the job working inside. Depends on the new policies...

I would have been allowed, if I had not been off the job for so long... Rules and laws, and policy, funny how they change people's life in a heart beat.

The Feds and money (Cities and Counties and States) just have to know how to work the system...Follow the deepest pocket.

Regards, Gary


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 28, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I think you have a good point about the 'economy of motion' bit. It makes sense. The tazering probably is less harmful than any hand-to-hand tussling.
> 
> But. I have a *serious* issue with yr 'probably wouldn't have the strength' comment. Based upon what? I think you're making quite a leap there. You don't know the officer OR the lady involved, so why are you assuming the officer couldn't handle this old lady? Is it because the officer in this instance is a woman? I think perhaps you should reconsider this assumption.


Yup I am making an assumption.  I am assuming that if you are going to try to subdue someone with techniques that are limited because you are trying not to harm the person that it takes a greater proportion of raw power to do that than if you are unrestricted and can simply pound them with impact strikes and such.

This officer, if she had tried to grapple/control this old woman under the personal/departmental restriction of not doing lethal damage or causing undue physical damage would need a pretty solid strength base in order to muscle/pull/push this old woman in a way that 1.Got her under control and 2.Didn't hurt her unnecessarily in the process.  I say she would not have the level of strength is an assumption based on the fact that women are not built as densely packed with upper body muscle as a man is - basic gender development.  

Consider that goal/limitation of force application with the biological consideration of upper body strength to weight ratio and the assumption/general observation that most departments don't devote much repetitive/quality time to defensive tactics training (which means she would be recruiting muscle power more likely than applying techinque with control and fluidity) and you see where I am coming from.

It is an assumption.  But one that I deduce from my understanding of the goals/limitations of the force she would need to use, her biological make up and her probable lack of expertise in physical technique NOT a gender slam in any way.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 28, 2004)

> It is an assumption. But one that I deduce from my understanding of the goals/limitations of the force she would need to use, her biological make up and her probable lack of expertise in physical technique NOT a gender slam in any way.


 Likely, this was not intended as a gender slam. However, you are making a logical fallacy. You cannot "deduce" based on her "bilogical makeup" when that is information that you don't have. Or do you? Do we have stats on the physical makeup of the two women involved?

Irrespective of this, I see where you're going with it, and it makes sense. My problem is with the open question as to the safety of these devices. Given the uncertainty surrounding their safety, and the "assumption" that people this age are likely more susceptible to whatever harmful effects a jolt of electricity flying throught their bodies might pose, perhaps this LEO, sufficiently trained to be on the street, ought to have either tried something else, or called for backup.

This was about removing an old lady from the premises when she didn't want to go. There was no immediate threat of harm to anyone. The officer on scene was the most dangerous person involved.

Where we see a difference between this instance and the 9 year old from the original discussion, is that the 9 year old posed a risk to herself. she was being violent, and required restraint. This old lady just wouldn't leave. Backup would have been a better solution.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

If I at 16 and female (105 pounds sopping wet) could restrain my deranged mother, aged 54 (215 pounds) at the time,  I have little doubt an adult female LEO would have much trouble using her.... *ahem*  inferior biological structure :ticked: to contain and control this 75 year old woman without the use of taser.  I agree with Dan - backup was a viable alternative.

 What about words??? Has the art of persuasive communication died such a horrible death amongst trigger-happy LEOs?  I thought I left that behind when I left L.A. but it seems it is a supported and unfortunately growing social phenomenon.

 I have several swords and an Irish temper.  One of the five rules of conduct in my martial art is to never kil without cause.  Is that cause up to me to define?  Yewbetcha - hence all the other rules and virtues to guide my decision making process.

 So - someone takes the life of or molests my daughter.  Shall I behead the villain?  Cut off his hands and pecker?  Don't I have cause?

 Just because you CAN do something isn't enough reason TO do it.   This is just plain common sense.

 Now - PLEASE do not continue to insult the LEO you are defending, the women on this board, and women all around the world who have successfully fought for themselves by engaging your sexist comments further.

 SS


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> If I at 16 and female (105 pounds sopping wet) could restrain my deranged mother, aged 54 (215 pounds) at the time, I have little doubt an adult female LEO would have much trouble using her.... *ahem* inferior biological structure :ticked: to contain and control this 75 year old woman without the use of taser. I agree with Dan - backup was a viable alternative.
> 
> What about words??? Has the art of persuasive communication died such a horrible death amongst trigger-happy LEOs? I thought I left that behind when I left L.A. but it seems it is a supported and unfortunately growing social phenomenon.
> 
> ...


SS, You have really no idea what you are talking about. But your opinion is fine, but your way of going about it is supect to say the least...

You are off base and I will look forward to the continuation of this thread, if you do not cause it to be shut down...

If I even gripped your arm, as hard as you wanted to get away, not have it turn into an attack which would then be a felony on my LEO person. You would be brused for at least a week or two. 

How does that lookin the news? 

No don't say I could not do it, I can even at my tender age of 63. I am 6-2 220 work out at least 3 times a week or more. I am a carpenter by trade,
I could break your hand with my grip... OK

As you are struggling and not trying to fight you are at my mercy... Look at it like that and not some hyped up person who if they fought back just might end up in county general hospital...

Stick to the topic and quit pumping it up...Please...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, Mr. Parsons, it's no more okay for a woman to break the law than a man.  But exactly how much of a threat do you really think this little old lady was??  Isn't there a little room for decorum here?  Is all black and white?



SheSulsa,

First, Please accept my apology, as I did not mean it as a man versus women issue here. What, I was trying to say was that the issue of the person being female or male should not be the issue at all. The sarcasm was not clear. The issue should have been the threat.

Second point is that when working security you learn that females can do just as much damage as males, and sometimes more, because your guard is down.

The third point is that, when I called the police on the ex-wife and her boyfriend showing up at my place, the police showed up. The officer felt threatened by me, the caller, because of my size alone. She did nto even want to hear that I had called, who was the resident, all she cared about was that she felt threatened, and instead of asking me to get into the back of her vehicle, she pulled her gun, and pointed it at me and then had me walk over to her and get frisked and cuffed. Two ridge hands to groin from behind is what they call frisking, in that township. What could I do. Nothing. The other officers that showed up later, and she uncuffed me acting guilty and all, and denied having treated me that way. Yet, my lawyer the other officers and the judge for the divorce case all said, you are a big boy and if she felt threatened, she could do what she felt was necessary to control the situation.

Hence, my sarcastic comments about this being an old women, and that if ti was an old man then it would have been ok. It is either ok based upon threat level or it is not, it does not depend upon the sex of the person.

Peace

 :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 28, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> SS, You have really no idea what you are talking about. But your opinion is fine, but your way of going about it is supect to say the least...
> 
> You are off base and I will look forward to the continuation of this thread, if you do not cause it to be shut down...
> 
> ...


So it's better to taze, then, for the personal safety of the civilian?  Have you read the thread, are you aware of the topic here, Gary?  How on earth does your post relate at all?

Have you any clue regarding use of force laws, Gary?  This was an undue escalation of force.  Period.


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

Flatlander, Of course I do..

My post in my opinion was right on. IMO what I have said all along is that the force of a taser was OK. 

When I talked about the other force, as my over welming strength to control this older women would have left her and SS black and blue for weeks was my way of expanation. For you to come in and say Tasing was wrong puts you in the wrong... 

The dept policy said it was OK and the women LEO felt along with her training it was OK.
You are a moderator and such should not come on so strong if I have done nothing wrong in my explanation. As to strength vs weekness...

If you look at my other posts you will see where I am coming from...

So what you are telling me in your post is, I am wrong because you are a moderator here, and I am just a participant, so my background and experience counts for nothing...Wrong...

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I think you have a good point about the 'economy of motion' bit. It makes sense. The tazering probably is less harmful than any hand-to-hand tussling.
> 
> But. I have a *serious* issue with yr 'probably wouldn't have the strength' comment. Based upon what? I think you're making quite a leap there. You don't know the officer OR the lady involved, so why are you assuming the officer couldn't handle this old lady? Is it because the officer in this instance is a woman? I think perhaps you should reconsider this assumption.
> 
> I agree that LEO's don't get enough self-defence training through their work, but many take responsibilty for this themselves - see numerous examples on this board. There will be some that are quite competent and confident handling themselves in a confrontation, and some that are not.


Hi, I think it is clearly shown, the officer choose to use a taser..if mace would have been better maybe she would have chose that. Or her force meets the others force... Maybe granny was on pills that made her more combative????

Regarding, self-defense

Sure it depends on what department you are with and what position you are working. You have to be there to make these assumptions...

There are some really bad people out there and you are very wrong when getting involved in this type of thread. IMO.. Without knowledge you have an opinion, so does everone else, some are experts some are not...

Same as me telling some one who has a Professor postion that he should go back to school because I disagree with him...IMO His topic of expertise...

It reminds me of super Heavyweight Bo going into the Marine Corps and could not hack it for a couple of weeks and because of who he was got special treatment...DD is what is normal, ruins lives...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 28, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> Flatlander, Of course I do..
> 
> My post in my opinion was right on. IMO what I have said all along is that the force of a taser was OK.


Ok, let's explore that. Is the Tazer intended as a defensive weapon or a compliance tool? Was the Officer in question under threat of personal safety?





> When I talked about the other force, as my over welming strength to control this older women would have left her and SS black and blue for weeks was my way of expanation. For you to come in and say Tasing was wrong puts you in the wrong...


Sorry Gary, but I don't see how it relates, nor puts me in the wrong. It does put our views in opposition.



> You are a moderator and such should not come on so strong if I have done nothing wrong in my explanation. As to strength vs weekness...


I am, but I'm not the Moderator of this forum. Ignore the Moderator title for now. I'm just a dude putting forth an argument.



> So what you are telling me in your post is, I am wrong because you are a moderator here, and I am just a participant, so my background and experience counts for nothing...Wrong...
> 
> Regards, Gary


See above, I think you are wrong based on your argument, not because I'm a Moderator.

While on the topic though, this quote:





> SS, You have really no idea what you are talking about. But your opinion is fine, but your way of going about it is supect to say the least...


 was unneccesary, IMO.


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

Hi Flatlander,

It was in Department Policy...

She chose/chooses to use this tool. For defense or offense or for compliance, her choice, she is being paid to make decisions she did and the department stood behind her..Mace is another, baton is another, shooting is another.

It was pretty clear this went beyond the scope of just escorting granny to the door...

In whose opinion, the LEO who is/did handling this...Now it might get to court and it might get overturned and it might go to appeal and it might get overturned or it might go to the Supreme court and it might or might not stand...

That is how laws evolve in this land, I don't know about your country, but I do know about the law...Thank you...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

Gary, I am aware of a few things.

 1.  Being that I am a woman and a civilian I need to watch out for idiots who have no respect for their physical advantage and cloak themselves with a badge and blue and thump regulation to justify their ignorance - like you are doing right now.

 2.  There really are men out there who can break my arm with their grip - I personally know a few of them myself.  Your point?  How does this fact apply to the topic of discussion at all, other than your apparent need to show me you can pee farther than I?

 3.  I am aware of the escalation of force.

 4.  I don't know everything.

 What you apparently are unaware of is this:

 1.  I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement officers - though they are not infallible and there are, obviously, a few who probably need a little more seasoning.

 2.  There will always be someone who is a little feisty but not a lawbreaker - like old women who are sick and tired of being shoved around by men who present themselves much in the way you seem to present yourself on this thread.

 3.  The escalation of force cannot be black and white - it simply cannot in America.  The moment it becomes so, we lose our way of life, our police force becomes corrupt nationwide and this will truly be the turning point for American Society and all our eastern bloc immigrants will feel right at home.

 4. You don't know everything.

 Don't insult me, because when you do, you only insult all the other law enforcment officers out there who strive very hard to be responsible with their authorization of force and power.  Do you really need to do this to feel superior or smarter or something?  I'm sure at the ripe young age of 75 you will probably be able to break my arm - did you need a brownie button for this or something?  What exactly is your point here?  Are you trying to scare me off this discussion?

 Are we done with the preposterousness of this thread now?  Can we get back on topic please?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> SheSulsa,
> 
> First, Please accept my apology, as I did not mean it as a man versus women issue here. What, I was trying to say was that the issue of the person being female or male should not be the issue at all. The sarcasm was not clear. The issue should have been the threat.
> 
> ...


 Thanks, Mr. Parsons - and please accept my apology as well - it can be difficult to read sarcasm on these boards occasionally.

 Ho harm, no foul.

 And though I worked security for a very short period of time, I am quite aware that women are just as brutal as (if not more so sometimes than) men.

 I think I understand your point better now.  Thanks for clarifying!!

 :asian:

 SS


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Thanks, Mr. Parsons - and please accept my apology as well - it can be difficult to read sarcasm on these boards occasionally.
> 
> Ho harm, no foul.
> 
> ...



SheSulsa,

Call me Rich, I do nto mind, unless you feel more comfortable with the formal address.

And No Harm No Foul

 :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

Thanks, Rich.  Call me Georgia.  :asian:


----------



## OULobo (Oct 28, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> I would not think of judging them either unless I was there, neither should you on this one...IMO...



Please, being present is not a prerequisite for judgement. No judge or jury is present when behaviours that are illegal are presented in court. Why is this different. Officers like the rest of us are still held to the judgement of the public in either an indirect or direct manner. 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Either they are professionals, entrusted and evaluated by superiors (who will NOT cover for a bad cop but hold them accountable because no one wants a bad cop ruining the rep of the rest NOR does the Chief want to be accused of not taking action ie losing his job).



That's how it should work, but that's not always how it goes, is it. We have seen the "blue wall" before and seen arrogant cheifs refuse to admit they are wrong. 



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> If I even gripped your arm, as hard as you wanted to get away, not have it turn into an attack which would then be a felony on my LEO person. You would be brused for at least a week or two.
> 
> No don't say I could not do it, I can even at my tender age of 63. I am 6-2 220 work out at least 3 times a week or more. I am a carpenter by trade,
> I could break your hand with my grip... OK
> ...



You have got to be kidding. You don't know SS, her body construct or her abilities. You are either arrogant or making blanket statements and assumptions about women. This is the kind of attitude that local force here examines for in interviews so they know when to file the application in the circular file, and the type of attutude that makes it necessare for citizens to observe and judge police actions.


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

Hi Lobo, I will reverse this and say you have got to be kidding.

No I am not kidding she said she was 105 lbs.

I will stick by what I wrote...

You are making judgements you know nothing about...

Arrogant, I am not. 

I am making a blanket statement, 105 vs my 220 and background... You are the one off base Lobo...

I've got more commendations then you are or your friend put together in age, so I will say what I feel..

Regards, Gary


----------



## GAB (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Gary, I am aware of a few things.
> 
> 1. Being that I am a woman and a civilian I need to watch out for idiots who have no respect for their physical advantage and cloak themselves with a badge and blue and thump regulation to justify their ignorance - like you are doing right now.
> 
> ...


SS,

I am not going to say much more so don't worry about this being preposterous.

Everything I said I stick by. I believe as much one way as you do the other.

I am in no contest I simply made a point like you did with your Mother or grandmother weighing xxx amount...

Different set of rules the LEO was playing with...

Lobo, in court the person does not judge until the evidence is presented,
your thoughts convice me you would be a great juror in Iraq but not in the US....

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

GAB said:
			
		

> No I am not kidding she said she was 105 lbs.


  Yeah - when I was 16, I was a bag of skin and bones.  I've grown a tad since then.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> You are making judgements you know nothing about...


  Are you saying you have the market cornered on opinionating?  This is a dichotomy of your previous statements.  



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> Arrogant, I am not.


  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> I am making a blanket statement, 105 vs my 220 and background... You are the one off base Lobo...


  Clearly, you're off base, because if you 
  go
  back
  and
  read
  the
  post
  again
  you will find that was then and this is now.

  Do you need to challenge a woman?  If not, why do you continue to throw your supposed weight around?



			
				GAB said:
			
		

> I've got more commendations then you are or your friend put together in age, so I will say what I feel..


 Yes, please continue to do so, because you, above all else, have made my point clearer than I ever could have - that there are people who abuse their commendations, physical stature, training, regulations and tools / weapons and who - even worse - _don't give a damn_.

  I am done with you as you are a waste of my time and energy.  Thank God you're retired.

 Regards,

 SS


----------



## GAB (Oct 29, 2004)

SS, Thank you, my point also...Pretty sad situation, to resort to that.:flame: 

No big deal. You are who you are and I am who I am. The last progression of your comments are the answer as far as I am concerned...

Last comment on the topic. LEO's are few and far between, if you look at the situations they are in and the everyday hostility (as here) you wonder why any of them would be there in the first place.

The story, Women LEO subdues Women with taser, why does that women have the right to have all this protection from outsiders who where not there and want to say things in her behalf, this is as common as the sun coming up daily. No biggie..

I feel given the information everyone else was given the LEO made her decision and she was correct in doing what she did...
You have your thoughts I have mine...

In my opinion SS went exactly where I knew she would, sad.
Lets see 2 moderators and one hysteric. Not bad for someone who has a different opinion...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

I would expect nothing less from an ex-LAPD officer.


----------



## GAB (Oct 29, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I would expect nothing less from an ex-LAPD officer.


SS Thank you.

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2004)

Only someone like you would take that as a compliment.


----------



## GAB (Oct 29, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Only someone like you would take that as a compliment.


SS, Yes I know, thank you...

Regards, Gary


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 29, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> 1.  If I at 16 and female (105 pounds sopping wet) could restrain my deranged mother, aged 54 (215 pounds) at the time, I have little doubt an adult female LEO would have much trouble using her.... *ahem* inferior biological structure :ticked: to contain and control this 75 year old woman without the use of taser. I agree with Dan - backup was a viable alternative.
> 
> 2.  What about words??? Has the art of persuasive communication died such a horrible death amongst trigger-happy LEOs? I thought I left that behind when I left L.A. but it seems it is a supported and unfortunately growing social phenomenon.
> 
> ...


1.  Never said 'inferior' simply working from the biological fact that women do not develop the same muscle/power strength muscle density in the upper body that a man of equal wt. would have.  How is that sexist?  The POINT of the comparison was to indicate that in order to successfully control someone when A) you are minimally trained B)Trying not to injure the person in the process of controlling them C)Taking into consideration the person's (granny) mental state (GAB mentioned on drugs/what if she was between doses was out of it?) and willingness to do harm to themselves/others.  It may have started as a simple "I don't want to go" but in the desparation had the potential to escalate to lethal force from Granny because she MAY (remember we are all spitballing here) not have cared so  much about what it takes to 'not go.'

I think you may also be making assumptions that your one time example of controlling granny at 16 doesn't take into account the 'power of perception' (nor does it let you see how you are being extremely defensive about sexism) and how a person's perception of fear/removal can reduce inhibitions about how hard and what type of combativeness she will use to get her way.  I have trained home health care aides who deal with 'granny types' and have had their thumb bent back/broken by 'granny' because she did not have the inhibition control that she needed nor the respect for others anymore.  Remember that senior homes are not just sweet places that cognizent people are sent to, they are 'assisted living' developments for a reason.

2.  Her department says she was in the good.  Her incident report, witness, and any other investigation information all corroberated for her BOSS to say that she was within departmental procedures - that would mean that she applied her continuum.  Most force continuums begin/have some form of communication in them.  If you understood use of force and such, that would be common knowledge.

3 & 4.  What ever that applies to I don't know what it is considering that Tasers are defined as a LESS THAN TOOL and most departmental policies/training is to minimize the type of use that would cause injury/death.

5.  But, if your police officer boss, town/county/fed legal beagles/insurers have outlined a plan/procedure that is intended to balance the safety of the officer AND the welfare of a person who is doing something that requires police to be called.....

6.  Not insulting her, nor really defending her, so much as her ALREADY APPROVED procedural application of use of a less than lethal tool for her professionally trained job.


----------



## Seig (Oct 29, 2004)

This thread is closed until I decide to do with the lot of you. At least three of you are guilty of violating the sniping policy, and we have had two complaints of sexism. I will be making my decision tonight.

Seig 
MT OPS ADMIN


----------

