No ID - College Student Tazed - 3 Times

[Cruentus]

Upnorth:

I would rather be tazed with a taser than beat with a club. The taser pain goes away farily quickly, broken limbs last longer.

Mike,
I can fight pretty well, while handcuffed. Its part of our training. My instructor can slip them from behind his back to the front (hinged, mind you, not chained, that I suspect would be even easier) while he is falling and rolling. So, call me stupid, but *I* personally would never see restrained in cuffs as "helpless." None of us know what that kid knew, and with the officers onsite, they certainly didnt either.

Again, should they have been tasing him? How the **** do any of us know, we weren't there... but like I said, at least they didnt beat him and break his bones... somthing I know for a fact, if it were me in his place, I would be thankful for.

Well, we can see from the video that the force continuum went from verbal command to tazing with nothing in between.

I think that this is appropriate in many circumstances where putting hands on the subject would be a danger to the subject and the officers. However, in the case when the subject is restrained, I don't think that this is the proper force continuum. I think that control should be attempted hand-to-hand, and if that is failing, then tazing is appropriate.

In this case, it seemed pretty clear that the subject was not fighting, just being a baby and not wanting to move. It seemed that the right thing to do would be to carry him out. If he was fighting so skillfully at that point while restrained, the officers could then taze him if nessicary. The thing is, and as I am sure you know, it is much easier to escalate the force continuum rather then descalate.

I just think that some people in the LE industry are trying too hard to create an environment where officers will never have to put hands on a subject. I think that this is the wrong approach.

 

[Makalakumu]

If you are saying that allowing tazing not just for subject control (meaning that the subject is out of control and resisting, and a tazer would force compliance while reducing injury to the subject and officer) but to simply make people do what they are told (you didn't move when I said so or the way I wanted you to, so you got tazed) is a slippery slope towards human rights violations, then I would agree with you. If you are saying that under this logic, MLK could have been tazed for his opinions, or Ghandi could have been tazed for not leaving a public area fast enough, then I see your point.

That is why I think that a force continuum regarding tazers needs to be very clear.

But, if I understand what you are saying to be correct, then your not really COMPARING Ghandi toTabatabainejad, of whom I think we can agree was being an *** rather then a hero. Your just saying that being too loose with the force continuum regarding tazers could lead to a disaster.

I think I can agree with that.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think that we need to have a well defined force continuum.

 

[MJS]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I think that we need to have a well defined force continuum.

Well, I for one, would like to know what theirs was. I think it would answer many unanswered questions here. Every dept. has a use of force policy. I remember when I used to work for Corrections. Any time there was a disturbance, cell extraction, etc., one person would be in charge of bringing the video camera. This would ensure that policy was followed and there would be documentation for the investigation that would follow.

 

[Makalakumu]

Upnorth:

I would rather be tazed with a taser than beat with a club. The taser pain goes away farily quickly, broken limbs last longer.

Have you ever been tazed? I've broken a dozen bones in my body and none of that hurt worse then being tazed...and I'm just being honest. When I broke my collar bone...the last time I hope...I was laughing with my friends. After being tazed, I found myself lying on the ground in a cold sweat and absolutely exhausted...not to mention damn glad that it was over.

One of the problems with tazers is that they leave hardly any mark. You can always show a judge your bruises and broken bones to prove police brutality...but with tazers, that isn't the case.

You can be tortured and it will hardly leave a mark.

 

[Makalakumu]

I just think that some people in the LE industry are trying too hard to create an environment where officers will never have to put hands on a subject. I think that this is the wrong approach.

This statement sparked a thought...because I've often wondered about the same thing...I wonder how much insurance and lawsuits have to do with this? Why wouldn't it be the same as medical malpractice?

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, we can see from the video that the force continuum went from verbal command to tazing with nothing in between.

Yeah, I believe it went:

"Do this or we will tase you!"
"**** You!"
"DO THIS OR WE WILL TASE YOU!"
"**** YOU!"

IMO, thats kinda like saying "Hey, Tase me!"

Upnorth, read what I wrote.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, I believe it went:

"Do this or we will tase you!"
"**** You!"
"DO THIS OR WE WILL TASE YOU!"
"**** YOU!"

IMO, thats kinda like saying "Hey, Tase me!"

Upnorth, read what I wrote.

I think you are missing the point. When you issue a command like that, you lock yourself into that course of action...to that particular force level. However, a guy telling you to **** off is not grounds for tazing. If it was, I'd be tazing mother****ers left and right.

However, if you attempt to use a lesser level of force first and fail, then, by all means, fire em up.

And, btw, they were still tazing him after he was handcuffed. What good could that have done?

I'm not sure how many ways one can take that...other then a way for the police to assert their authority over a person in an extreme way.

 

[michaeledward]

Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting.

If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'.

I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think you are missing the point.

No, I think you are missing it.

They didnt zap him for saying **** You. They Zapped him because "**** You" was the response to the comply-or-get tazed command they issued him.

If a staff member of this board said to you "Comply with me Or I will suspend you." and your response was "**** You" you would not get Suspended from them for using foul language. You would get the suspension for non-compliance.

 

[Cryozombie]

Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting.

If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'.

I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.

Well, if the action they did not want the subject to take was not to be sitting, saying "Stop" is kinda... vague. Stand Up or Get Up is specific to the action they demanded he take. If they just said STOP and then tased him, that would be worse than what happened, because what was he supposed to stop... after all, all he was doing was sitting.

 

[Cruentus]

Yeah, I believe it went:

"Do this or we will tase you!"
"**** You!"
"DO THIS OR WE WILL TASE YOU!"
"**** YOU!"

IMO, thats kinda like saying "Hey, Tase me!"

Upnorth, read what I wrote.

I agree, he was asking for it.

But for LE, and for almost anyone for that matter, you don't give it to em just because they ask for it. It wouldn't be appropriate to shoot him because he says go ahead and shoot me, or fist fight a perp because that's what they want to do, and so on.

 

[Cruentus]

No, I think you are missing it.

They didnt zap him for saying **** You. They Zapped him because "**** You" was the response to the comply-or-get tazed command they issued him.

If a staff member of this board said to you "Comply with me Or I will suspend you." and your response was "**** You" you would not get Suspended from them for using foul language. You would get the suspension for non-compliance.

But, that supports his point, and the point I am trying to make. By going straight to the tazer with a cuffed, non-fighting individual, you missed a step, in my opinion. Hand-to-hand subject control should be the next step before a tool is used on a restrained individual, in my opinion. Remember, this is different then an unrestrained individual.

MJS had asked what is there force continuum. I don't know there's, but I do know that a lot of academies and departments now a days are teaching the tazer as a magic solution. I know that a lot of departments simply teach for the officers to give many clear verbal commands, warning that the tazer will be used, then the tazer is used. The force continuum as is taught with the tazer is simply: verbal command/warning - tazer use.

This is fine in most situations. I will assume that the officers responded exactly how they were trained, because it seemed almost textbook in its execution. The only difference is that the subject appeared not to be fighting, and was restrained. Well, that is a huge difference. No one reasonable would question the officers judgement if the subject was uncuffed and moving erratically and not cooperating.

That is why I think the grey areas need to be covered regarding tazer use; with limits in regards to restrained individuals, or injured individuals, etc.

 

[Cruentus]

Has anybody counted how many times the police officers gave the subject the instruction "stand up" or 'get up' in this video? That just doesn't seem to be an instruction that is appropriate for someone who is forcably resisting.

If the subject was resisting in any way, I would guess the instruction would be more like 'Stop'.

I counted 'Stand up' or 'Get up' more than 40 times in the first two minutes, during which the student was tazed twice.

I think the key here is that he wasn't fighting. But, he certianly was resisting, and he was certainly refusing to comply, even after being tazed. I don't view this guy as much of a victim here.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

One more, and I'll quite multiple posting, I swear.

This whole thing begs the question: Which is the safer route, hand-to-hand subject control or tazing?

This question is much more complex then it seems.

However, companies like Tazer Intl. want you to believe that tazing is the safest, most humane was of handling a subject in every case. They will claim that this is a very black and white issue. They have sponsered many studies to support their claims.

Groups like Amnesty intl. have also sponsered studies. They claim with their evidence the opposite; and they would completely ban the use of tazers if they could.

I think both sides of the arguement, each with their sponsered studies, are completely biased and often extremist in their view. There isn't much 3rd party evidence available on this issue.

Amnesty and others of similar ilk would rather that every officer handle the subject without the use of tools, and that no one gets hurt. Their view on subject control and law enforcement is completely unrealistic at best. At worst, they seem often in favor of putting our operators in excess danger to protect the criminals. This is not a fair view.

Tazer Intl. and their ilk, however, has a clear agenda; which is to make their stock go up, and to sell their product. This makes their opinion a bit unbalanced. Police also have a clear agenda as well; albeit a much more noble one which is to make their job easier and safer so they can go home to their familes at the end of the day rather then the hospital or morgue. Yet, this agenda can also skew an objective viewpoint.

The reality is, the jury is still out on the effects, both short term and long term, of tazer use. This is contrary to what many will claim as this being a completely safe, "nonlethal" alternative. We know from studies that a short burst of electricity in the case of a restisting subject is relatively safe. We don't know what the effects are of repeated use (like tazing 3, 4, and times), and long or multiple bursts (more then a second or so). We also haven't taken into consideration all the different body types, or physical influences that might alter the results of tazer effects.

We do know that at lower voltages then what tazers provide, many ill effects of electricy can be seen on the body. Electric shock can cause protien coagullation, tissue necrosis (death), ventricullar fibrillation (disordered heart rhythm that can be fatal), irregular blood clotting (decrease or increase), seizures, and so on. Respitary failure, perminant nervous system damage, and perminent organ damage can occur at high voltages or for longer durations. People have dies from voltages around 32 under certain conditions. A tazer delivers around 50,000 volts.

The fact is, electricity can be very damaging. How damaging in regards to tazers? We don't have a lot of information or studies regarding the long term effects of tazer use, or the effects after repeated, long duration shocks.

We do know the effects of a subject beating down an officer, or vice versa, or the range of effects that could occur to the officer or the perp if a fight occurs. These effects could also range from perminent injury to death.

So I am willing to support tazers, with the risks involved, on a fighting, unrestrained subject, as it seems proven to be more effective and less injurous to both parties (but especially the officer who should be protected the most here) in that case. But, I am not willing to regard tazer use as being with no ill after effects, or as "perfectly safe." The evidence just isn't available to support that claim.

So, I would maintain that the question isn't exactly black and white. But, I think that until it is, we should consider erring on the side of caution in regards to tazer use, and should avoid them in cases of a non-combative or restrained individual.

Paul

 

[Rich Parsons]

John aka Upnorth,

I believe there was a defined force continuum.

What would you do with a 6'3" 280 or 290 pound person. How would you drag me out? In particular if I grab something to hang on. And scream stop beating me stop beating me. Ouch that hurts? How is that better?

ME,

Your question of the isuue being discrimination against a Muslim, please provide your evidence. For your theory is as good as mine. And that is just theory. No amount of arguement will change that, so why argue it.

As to the stand up and get up commands this sure makes it look like he was "willing" to leave with no problems as some have stated was his intent from watching the video.

Can you resolve this conflicting point. ** I know you did not say it the confliction, but asking for you to explain to me how can it be both ways? **

 

[Cruentus]

And....here is an article from our local paper on the subject:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0502/18/D01-93891.htm

I think that anything touted as "non-lethal" should be looked at with scrutiny. When will people understand that a fight or use of force is never gauranteed to be "non-lethal," no matter what is used. "Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.

 

[shesulsa]

I think that anything touted as "non-lethal" should be looked at with scrutiny. When will people understand that a fight or use of force is never gauranteed to be "non-lethal," no matter what is used. "Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.

I've read this entire thread and that video is *still* loading on my dial-up. But your post I quoted above and the one you posted just before that are key elements to this whole issue and others like it.

In the meantime, this really is the crux of the taser debate - the term is "Less-Than-Lethal" or "LTL" (as *I* recall when it was still in testing phases - yes, I remember back that far - gah) Technology. Tazing can still be lethal but not as assuredly nor nearly as often as a bullet fired with the same accuracy at the same range.

The advent of this techology was praised early on for not only being a viable alternative to the more deadly firearm but also as a very viable alternative for hand-to-hand altercation, the interest being the increased chances of safety to not only the perp but the uniform as well. I distinctly remember hearing an officer make the remark that with this kind of technology police would be safer, arrested subjects would be safer and perhaps fewer people would have to die from a gunshot or sleeperhold and more cops could go home to their families not only safe but with the assurance that they did not permanently harm their charges that day.

Wonderful words and a great idea.

Problem is the good ol' human factor - we muck things up every time.

I haven't viewed the video yet, so I'll refrain from commenting on it, though I'm reading that he was asked to leave, then hands were placed upon him and then he was tazed. If it's that simple, then it seems reasonable ... but I'm having trouble getting past that this guy was on the ground AND cuffed ... AND TAZED? while on the ground? I'll even grant Cryo's notation about ability to roll out of a rear-cuff position, but ... well ... I'll shut up for now until I watch the video.

 

[Carol]

In a situation where unstable, belligerent man was trying to gain access to a restricted area full of college students, and police resorted to tasering the man because after he was cuffed and down he still is not leaving the area where he was trying to gain access....

....had I been there at that particular time, I think I would have been horrified by the event but also grateful for the cops for removing the person that was trying to gain access to where I was.

I don't think the situation was particularly pleasant. But I'm not sure if it was abuse.

 

[Drac]

"Less lethal" is definatily a more appropriate term.

That's the term used at a number of LEO schools that I've attended...

 

[michaeledward]

ME,

Your question of the isuue being discrimination against a Muslim, please provide your evidence. For your theory is as good as mine. And that is just theory. No amount of arguement will change that, so why argue it.

As to the stand up and get up commands this sure makes it look like he was "willing" to leave with no problems as some have stated was his intent from watching the video.

Can you resolve this conflicting point. ** I know you did not say it the confliction, but asking for you to explain to me how can it be both ways? **

In one or two of the articles, it was pointed out that the student did not show his ID to the library staff because he felt he was being singled out because of ethnicity. I have no other evidence than that. Please see the thread about Congressman Elect Ellison. Apparently, in some circles today, it is acceptable to work from the supposition that someone is 'Working for the Enemy'.

The first vocalization on the video is the student crying out "Take Your Hand Off Of Me'.

If, as according to the articles, the student was walking out of the library - because the staff called the real police - and the real police took him by the arm, as described in the articles - I can absolutely see that the student feels jeapordized by the police, and taking the passive resistance action of sitting down.

Something like this:

Resident Advisor says to student show me ID or leave.
Student says 'Up Yours'
Resident Advisor requests police
Police arrive
Student begins to leave
Police put their hands on Student
Student yells 'Don't Touch Me' and begins passive resistance

Police taze student
Police restrain students hands

Student continues passive resistance
Police say 'Stand Up'
Police say 'Get Up'
Police taze student
​

We can't tell from this video whether the first tazing occurs with the students hands restrained or not. We can tell at later incidents that they are tazed.

I have no evidence other than the news articles and the video from which I posit this time line. This time line does seem to match with the news articles and the video and audio.

By the time the video starts, the police apparently are "Hands On" the student ... is there a way for the police to de-escalate and allow the student to leave - if that were his intent - I don't know. But through most of this tape, the police have their hands on the student - which would, I think, bring out the resistance we observe - demanding 'Stand Up'.