Is it OK to tase a 9 yr. old?

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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]

Time to stir this one up a bit.

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

 

[Ronin Moose]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[KenpoTex]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's another one.

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

 

[shesulsa]

LTL technology hits the strip - literally.

 

[loki09789]

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.