police use taser on 6 year old

[Baytor]

Ya, agreed that none of us here were there so armchair quarterbacking is all we can do if we want to speculate on what "I would've done" kinda of talk.
IMO tasing a child is WRONG WRONG WRONG! A teenager sure... but we're talking about a child that is still (relatively speaking) a baby. I'm thinking of long term effects physicalogically and phychologically. (1)
I'm ticked about it overall. Excessive use of force IMO (2). I'm sorry but I'm sticking with that. :asian:
The kid was obviously disturbed enough that he gets the idea to start cutting himself and actually going near his eye. Makes you wonder what the hell is going on at HOME that makes the kid, a child, a baby go to such extremes?
What did the principal say to the kid to set him off? Why was he sent to the principal's office in the first place?(3)
Too many questions not enough answers. But they should start the investigation at home or at least end there either way.
:angry: :miffer: :ticked: :disgust: and ultimately

Wow, in the time it took me to write this, there have been 9 posts, and I got logged out.

MACaver, I respectfully dissagree with you on some points, but agree on others. I put some numbers in your post to address them.
1- I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant. I have not taken a taser shot yet, but I have taken pure pepper spray, pepper+teargas mix, and pure tear gas. I can tell you that they all suck. A lot. The pain and confusion from those chemical agents would, in my opinion, cause longer term effects on the child.
First, the decontamination process would probably take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, depending on what chemical agent was used, and how the kid reacted to it. As MJS already noted, the primary effect of pepper spray is inflamaiton/heat irritation of the mucus membrane in the nose, eyes and lungs. If the chemical was tear gas+pepper, as many agencies now use, then you also have a very hard time breathing. This can cause panic. I know, the first time I got pure tear gas I knew what to expect and I still started to panic because I couldn't breathe. Then I focused on breathing, and was ok. My point is, the confusion and panic that can be caused by chemical irritants, along with the (sometimes)lengthy decontamination can make the taser a more appropriate tool for the situation.
Now lets talk about the effects of using a baton on the kid. Physical effects would include bruising of muscle mass. There is the potential to cause bruising of the bones and/or ligaments. There is also the potential to break a bone. If you were to use the baton to strike the arm to cause him to let go of the glass, you have a good chance of missing your target and stiking the elbow or hand, which could result in broken bones. The pain from taking a beating would probably last for quite some time. The memory of getting clubbed like a harp seal would probably cause a lot of issues down the road, inlcuding but not limited to an intense dislike of authority. Not to mention, to use the baton on him, you would have to bridge the gap which would put you in danger of taking a shard of glass to the gullet.
My real bottom line for point 1: The phyical and phycological effects could be as bad or worse by using other intermediate weapons.

2- This is really just semantics. If I remember correctly, excessive force would be force used after control has been established. Unreasonable force would be to use more force than is necessary to establish control. As control had not been established, your opinion would be that the force is unreasonable for the situation. While I understand that you feel that tasing this kid is unreasonable, cops are taught to follow a continuum. It would only take one lucky move to cause great bodily harm to the officer involved if he chose to bridge the gap. The ususal continuum response to great bodily harm is lethal force. By using the tasers, a less than lethal response could be made, without placing the officers in greater risk of harm.

3- I completely agree with you here. I said as much in my other post.

The bottom line here is that the officers had a very difficult decission to make in a very short time. No cop would start the night saying "lets go hurt some kid", they go out trying to stop that kind of thing from happening. They used the tool that they believed would end the incident as quickly and safely for everyone as possible. Could another option have been used? Maybe. I'm just glad it wasn't me stuck making that call.

 

[MJS]

Direct fire actually, the pain causes an intake of breath that "gets ya" with the OC. As well as gaining compliance/dispersal in and of itself. There are water filled and UV paint filled projectiles as well. Ideally you should be aiming at the bottom of the ribs down to minimize hitting the face. Pepperball is not supposed to cause eye damage, but I wouldnt want to test it.

If somebody is in a car, closet, room and you cant see them, you can fire at the walls or ceiling to disperse the payload. The powder disperses much better with gravity downward than upward from the ground. They are only .68 cal. balls after all.

Thanks again for the clarification!!

Mike

 

[Tgace]

Thanks again for the clarification!!

Mike

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Taser article....

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5035741.html

 

[MJS]

1- I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant. I have not taken a taser shot yet, but I have taken pure pepper spray, pepper+teargas mix, and pure tear gas. I can tell you that they all suck. A lot. The pain and confusion from those chemical agents would, in my opinion, cause longer term effects on the child.
First, the decontamination process would probably take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, depending on what chemical agent was used, and how the kid reacted to it. As MJS already noted, the primary effect of pepper spray is inflamaiton/heat irritation of the mucus membrane in the nose, eyes and lungs. If the chemical was tear gas+pepper, as many agencies now use, then you also have a very hard time breathing. This can cause panic. I know, the first time I got pure tear gas I knew what to expect and I still started to panic because I couldn't breathe. Then I focused on breathing, and was ok. My point is, the confusion and panic that can be caused by chemical irritants, along with the (sometimes)lengthy decontamination can make the taser a more appropriate tool for the situation.

Yes, it does suck!! When I was working for the Dept. of Corrections, all of the new recruits in the academy had to get a taste of the OC. They sent groups of people into a shed, where they had shot off some OC. One at a time, we all had to say our name as well as a few other things. Nobody could leave until everyone in the shed had gone through that process. Needless to say, I was the last person in line and couldnt wait to get the hell out of that shed. Every single person that went in and came out was coughing, red, watery eyes, etc. Did I suffer long term efftecs? Not at all, but it was a good 15-20 min, before I was back to normal.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Taser article....

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5035741.html

Great article!! I find it interesting in that it stated that many of the people that died, supposedly already had some underlying condition, IE- Drugs, med. condition, etc. Now, you can take OC and pretty much end up with the same results. If someone had a breathing problem such as asthma, the spray could very well put them into an attack.

So....it appears that the LEO are faced with a very tough decision.

1- Use a lethal or possibly lethal weapon such as a gun and baton and risk causing some very serious or fatal damage.

2- Use a weapon termed 'less lethal' and still risk ending up with a fatal result.

What else is left??

Mike

 

[dearnis.com]

It is a shame the kid got zapped. It is a shame the kid was raised in an environment that led him to have these issues. It would be much more of a shame if he had inflicted a catastrophic injury on himself or a rescuer before he was contained.
And to the retired judge, who doubtless in his long career sent many a juvenile recidivist back to the streets and condemned many a young sole back to the custody of abusive guardians, the six year old wasn't the threat; the sharp object was. We aren't just talking about a 6 year old having a temper tantrum here people.

 

[Flatlander]

Anything I wanted to say has been well addressed already. Good thread, guys.

In the end, it was likely a decision made by the officer on scene in the context of saving this troubled young guy from hurting himself further.

Did the officer use the appropriate method? I just can't say, not enough personal experience with the various LEO implements to know for certain.

The decision to intervene, however, sounds like it was made for the right reason, irrespective of the method used. This cop tried to help the kid from harming himself further.

Good for him. :asian:

 

[still learning]

Hello, this is just one more story. The taser is not the answer for every situations..but in some..it may make a difference?
Many years ago on the News, a man in his carport were holding four police officers at bay...they try very hard to get the man to drop the knife,and to end this.....he charge the police...they had no choice but to shoot....guess who got the bullet holes?
Would a taser have made a difference?...we will never know,but maybe? In Honolulu a few officers are train to carry and use the taser....but this is not good for "Now" situations..because only a few are allow to carry this taser. I believe this is one of the many tools every police officer should carry or have in the cars.
But when you think about...the cost to keep a prisoner alive today? is it worth it? Honolulu figures is about $32,000 per prisoner per year, and $8,000 per child for school educations. Plus they get medical,dental,vison, and surgery too, plus tv's, radios, fans, and whole brunch of good stuffs,
They also get combat training(street fighting skills) ...that actually works...Lucky know and free too...who is getting the better education?....Just my thoughts.....aloha....whoo...what was that shock!! UGH!

 

[MA-Caver]

<snips...here and there >
MACaver, I respectfully dissagree with you on some points, but agree on others. I put some numbers in your post to address them.

Okay. I don't have a problem with different opinons to mine own. That's what discussion forums are all about I'm snipping points from your reply that I, myself want to address.

1- I think that the physiological effects are quite a bit less sever with a taser than with a chemical irritant... My real bottom line for point 1: The phyical and phycological effects could be as bad or worse by using other intermediate weapons.

Weapons... against a six year old child?? Even if the kid is armed with a piece of glass or a knife or hell even a gun. Using an equal or greater weapon on a child?? Yes, the risk is great for bodily harm to the officer and I can appreciate that no-one wants to get hurt on the job... but this... is... a... child that is six years old... not 16. There had to been another way.

2- This is really just semantics. If I remember correctly, excessive force would be force used after control has been established. Unreasonable force would be to use more force than is necessary to establish control. As control had not been established, your opinion would be that the force is unreasonable for the situation. While I understand that you feel that tasing this kid is unreasonable, cops are taught to follow a continuum. It would only take one lucky move to cause great bodily harm to the officer involved if he chose to bridge the gap. The usual continum response to great bodily harm is lethal force. By using the tasers, a less than lethal response could be made, without placing the officers in greater risk of harm.

I see that and can appreciate it if not totally understand/empathize with it because I'm not a LEO and don't deal with violent people on a daily basis (depending upon the area/city) but again I will state this was a child. The logic and a cop's physical size and experience will undoubtedly win everytime. A child (that age) is by no means stronger and wouldn't have been difficult to manage the hand/arm holding the glass. The rest would have been subdued in short order, kicking legs and flailing arm and probably biting.

3- I completely agree with you here. I said as much in my other post.
The bottom line here is that the officers had a very difficult decission to make in a very short time. No cop would start the night saying "lets go hurt some kid", they go out trying to stop that kind of thing from happening. They used the tool that they believed would end the incident as quickly and safely for everyone as possible. Could another option have been used? Maybe. I'm just glad it wasn't me stuck making that call.

Yeah, me too, I appreciate but not envy the LEO's position in our society and the world they have to face day to day. I'm sure there are rewarding moments but the bad has to be faced too.
I just disagree with using the method ... there had to been another way... even in the heat of the moment. Just so damn sad that it had to happen that way.
Hope that kid gets the help he needs for whatever set him off in the first place.
:asian:

 

[dearnis.com]

"Weapons... against a six year old child?? Even if the kid is armed with a piece of glass or a knife or hell even a gun. Using an equal or greater weapon on a child?? Yes, the risk is great for bodily harm to the officer and I can appreciate that no-one wants to get hurt on the job... but this... is... a... child that is six years old... not 16. There had to been another way. "

What would you suggest? The fact that a deadly threat is innocent of deadly intention- the child who knows no better, or can not distinguish fantasy from reality- does not diminish the deadly threat.


"I just disagree with using the method ... there had to been another way..."

Again, such as? Tasers were uncommon even 2 years ago; among departments that have switched over and added them as a tool injuries to suspects and officers are way down. Suppose the Taser was not an option in this case? Someone was going to hospital with additional injuries; probably the well-meaning officer who tried to wrestle the glass away from the kid.

 

[shesulsa]

Okay - after the other thread, which heated debate I was involved in, I have done some serious soul-searching on this kind of thing, and I have come to the following, momentous conclusion:

I don't know.

Both arguments are so appropriate. This is a six-year-old child and I can get anything away from my own 6-year-old little ninja, though he rarely has glass shards in his hands. But, if the child has psychological issues (we have no idea, reading the article, and for the sake of discussion only) who knows what he would/wouldn't be able to do. I'm sure the LEO's confidence level plays in here as well.

It would be nice if we can find another way - just one more way.

 

[OULobo]

Both arguments are so appropriate. This is a six-year-old child and I can get anything away from my own 6-year-old little ninja, though he rarely has glass shards in his hands.

That is my point exactly. I am pretty confident (without being arrogant) that I can take just about anything away from a six year old. Hell if the kid had a machete, straight razor, or Ka-bar, I'm still confident I could get it without significant injury to myself. The only thing that would make me think twice is a firearm and I don't think most 6 year olds can handle the trigger pull on most guns.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm still confident I could get it without significant injury to myself.

But are you confident you could do that before the child hurt themselves? Without hurting them yourself?

Good lord, that has to be the worst looking English I think I've seen for a while. What's the right way to say that? Before the child hurt themself? Themselves? No, no, it all looks wrong.

 

[MJS]

Well, looking over the past few posts, I have to say that this is certainly turning into a very interesting debate!! Its interesting to see the 2 different sides to this.

One thing I'd like to comment on is the glass. Now, again, we weren't there, so, short of all of us sounding like the 'judge', how can we say that it would be easy to take that glass from the kid? Not trying to start anything here, just asking an honest question. Who knows what made that kid snap, and who knows what he was capable of.

I suggested in a prior post of suggestions of what we would do. Again, taking into consideration that none of us were present, but what if we put ourselves in the officers shoes. What would we haev done?

Mike

 

[rattlerbrat]

But are you confident you could do that before the child hurt themselves? Without hurting them yourself?

Good lord, that has to be the worst looking English I think I've seen for a while. What's the right way to say that? Before the child hurt themself? Themselves? No, no, it all looks wrong.

"...before the child hurt him/herself?" Or, "...before the children hurt themselves?" (Sorry, English major, journalism minor!)

I applaud the police. Obviously, they were faced with a very tough decision and had a very small amount of time to make that decision. As for the strength of children, well...my friend's son broke her ribs when she was three. We're not talking about a kid crying for a lollipop here! We're talking about a mentally disturbed child, who was probably equal parts angry AND afraid. That's a bad, bad mixture. Add a large shard of glass to it, and we're talking trouble. I don't think the cops were too worried about their OWN safety as much as they were the child's. In just a blink of an eye, he could've hurt himself even further. And whose to say that if a policeman/woman had lunged in, he or she would've actually made their target? What do you do if you MISS?