Taser's ok to force complience, dna collectin, signatures.

[Bob Hubbard]

Videos like that, show what you guys are up against. A lot of the guys claiming abuse, should watch that. When one is worried that the stop is going to turn deadly, because the guy "just walking away" is doing what so many others who drew and fired did, it's understandable and justified in zaping 1st. While I'm all for civilian safety, I'm also all for you guys coming home safe too.

 

[Archangel M]

Thanks for that Bob.

People dont realize what its like to BE in that situation. Im sure the cop was thinking "do I tase him?"..."do I let him go?".."do I draw my gun?"..."should I tackle him?"..."should I just keep saying 'STOP you are under arrest!'?"...you think about getting sued...you think about loosing your job...you think about Dep. Dinkheller....and it all happens in a split second because you have to decide to do something NOW.

The last example in this thread and the other thread about that NJ cop are MILES apart (in use of force justification) IMO...

 

[Marginal]

The second...you could just as easily kept the subject locked up until he decided to provide a sample. Which is the way these situations are typically handled. I believe the cops recieved a court order to force a sample in this case..if true, i think this falls on the judge rather than the cops.

Just on the practicality side, if someone's been tasered, the DNA's going to be on there regardless isn't it? Might as well be able to use it if you have it already.

 

[Big Don]

Just on the practicality side, if someone's been tasered, the DNA's going to be on there regardless isn't it? Might as well be able to use it if you have it already.

Unless they pulled DNA off the barbs, no. In this case the TASER was applied to his body rather than shooting the barbs, so, no as well. They tasered him so he would open his mouth an let them do a cheek swab.

 

[Marginal]

Unless they pulled DNA off the barbs, no. In this case the TASER was applied to his body rather than shooting the barbs, so, no as well. They tasered him so he would open his mouth an let them do a cheek swab.

That's hard to get behind. I was more thinking in terms of future uses of the ruling.

 

[Big Don]

That's hard to get behind. I was more thinking in terms of future uses of the ruling.

A much easier way of getting his DNA would have entailed no more than sticking a knife in him... Or a nice head shot with a nightstick, anything that would have drawn blood...
Or, you know, the guy could have complied with the court order and let them quickly and painlessly taken a cheek swab.

Smith is charged with shooting a man in the groin July 27, 2006, after allegedly invading his ex-girlfriend’s home, tying up her two children and forcing the woman to take him to the shooting victim’s home.
He is also accused of taking part in the Dec. 24, 2006, armed robbery of a Sunoco station in Niagara Falls. A codefendant in the robbery, Christopher T. Walker Jr., now 21, pleaded guilty and is serving a 10-year state prison sentence.
DNA was found on a can of pop taken from Smith’s ex-girlfriend’s refrigerator and on a glove dropped at the gas station. It matched a sample he had to give after a previous assault conviction, and prosecutors sought another sample from Smith to confirm the findings.

See that part in BOLD? They KNOW he did it, BOTH TIMES, they just wanted EXTRA confirmation.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Sometimes the level of ignorance in this place is astounding....

There used to be a principle that evidence obtained by coercion was inadmissible. The Brave New Post-9/11 World has changed all that. Police can now keep inflicting pain until suspects give over the desired evidence.

That is simply not true. Statements made using certain types of coercion during in-custody situations are inadmissable.

Police have long been able to use ruses, lies, and other techniques to get a confession or statements leading to further evidence. For example, if I told you that your buddy just told us that you planned and threatened him to commit a crime, when he actually did no such thing, and you subsequently admit to the crime in order to blame him, that is perfectly admissable. It is, however, coersive.

And, in point of fact, they did not coerce him. They used force to obtain evidence. There are often times that this is done. If I see that you have drugs in your hand, and you refuse to give me that evidence, I can then use force to obtain it from you. Perfectly legal.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous and does nothing to further this discussion.

Case #2: I'd think there're other ways to get DNA samples, so in this case, I'd say that was excessive.

Ok. Tell me how. But the caveat to that is that it must be less painful/invasive (or whatever criterea you are using to say that this is excessive) then one 5-second drive stun by a Taser.

As far as the case with the 72 year old woman, have any of you actually looked at the police camera video, or are you just spouting off at the mouth. I have. For anyone interested, it's easily available at www.break.com/index/great-grandmother-tased-by-highway-police.html

You will reflect that the things she said were lies in the police report are clearly visable on the police in-car camera. Including her pulling away, using profanity, telling the officer that she is going to leave, and then attempting to leave the scene of the incident.

Quite frankly, I am not going to wrestle in between two cars on the side of a highway, lest this happen:

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=8A4546A976107C7F

or

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=855EEAF68C19E4D1

And that, besides the fact that during any struggle with anyone, we could end up, in this situation, falling into the middle of that high-speed traffic where we both get creamed. Quite frankly, the Taser is one of many options that an officer can utilize. In this case, I believe his decision was perfectly appropriate based on her conditions of the traffic stop, her level of physical resistance, and her attempted escape.

I could explain further, but I probably won't change the opinions of those that already have a cop-disbelieving/hating mindset already.

 

[MJS]

Ok. Tell me how. But the caveat to that is that it must be less painful/invasive (or whatever criterea you are using to say that this is excessive) then one 5-second drive stun by a Taser.

As far as the case with the 72 year old woman, have any of you actually looked at the police camera video, or are you just spouting off at the mouth. I have. For anyone interested, it's easily available at www.break.com/index/great-grandmother-tased-by-highway-police.html

You will reflect that the things she said were lies in the police report are clearly visable on the police in-car camera. Including her pulling away, using profanity, telling the officer that she is going to leave, and then attempting to leave the scene of the incident.

Quite frankly, I am not going to wrestle in between two cars on the side of a highway, lest this happen:

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=8A4546A976107C7F

or

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=855EEAF68C19E4D1

And that, besides the fact that during any struggle with anyone, we could end up, in this situation, falling into the middle of that high-speed traffic where we both get creamed. Quite frankly, the Taser is one of many options that an officer can utilize. In this case, I believe his decision was perfectly appropriate based on her conditions of the traffic stop, her level of physical resistance, and her attempted escape.

I could explain further, but I probably won't change the opinions of those that already have a cop-disbelieving/hating mindset already.

Not sure if you read the entire thread or just jumped in after a quick scan of the posts, but either way, let me point you back to my post on page 1, where I comment that I was in favor of the use of the taser of the lady. Second, how to get dna? Here are a few ways.
http://www.eyeondna.com/2007/06/06/get-a-dna-sample-from-almost-anything/

Oh and BTW, I have seen a few clips of this woman on the news, and yes, she was acting like some crazy nut. I'll close by saying this. Not sure if you're lumping me into the same group as the 'cop haters' but let me clarify a few things for you:

1) My Grandfather retired from a PD. Put in over 20yrs. I grew up in his presence so I was in a law enforcement atmosphere pretty much all my life.

2) While its not the same as a street cop, I worked for the Dept. Of Corrections for a period of time.

3) I currently work as a Police dispatcher, so I'm around cops all the time.

4) I have many friends who are in various LE agencies. This consists of cops where I work, other depts., as well as the DOC.

If I hated cops or was anti LEO in any way, a) my posts would reflect that, and b) I would not have associated myself with any of the 4 scenarios above. While I do feel that many times, the cop gets the short end of the stick, I like to do my best to get the full story. Just the other day, a cop here in CT was on his way to a disturbance involving weapons. He crashed into another vehicle enroute to the call. Right away, comments start flying that it was the cops fault. That is wrong due to the fact that we dont know the full story yet. However, if the cop was at fault, I would say that, rather than try to cover up for him. While I understand that there is a brotherhood, if I were a cop, I'm not going to stand by and defend him or her if I fully know that they are in the wrong. If it pisses people off that I wouldn't stand by them, too bad. Hiding something, covering for someone, makes me no better than they are. I've been in situations at work, and while it seems that I may be jamming up a co-worker, I will not lie, due to the fact that everything we do or say in that room I work in, is recorded. I'm not putting my *** on the line.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Not sure if you read the entire thread or just jumped in after a quick scan of the posts, but either way, let me point you back to my post on page 1, where I comment that I was in favor of the use of the taser of the lady. Second, how to get dna? Here are a few ways.
http://www.eyeondna.com/2007/06/06/get-a-dna-sample-from-almost-anything/

Oh and BTW, I have seen a few clips of this woman on the news, and yes, she was acting like some crazy nut. I'll close by saying this. Not sure if you're lumping me into the same group as the 'cop haters' but let me clarify a few things for you:

1) My Grandfather retired from a PD. Put in over 20yrs. I grew up in his presence so I was in a law enforcement atmosphere pretty much all my life.

2) While its not the same as a street cop, I worked for the Dept. Of Corrections for a period of time.

3) I currently work as a Police dispatcher, so I'm around cops all the time.

4) I have many friends who are in various LE agencies. This consists of cops where I work, other depts., as well as the DOC.

If I hated cops or was anti LEO in any way, a) my posts would reflect that, and b) I would not have associated myself with any of the 4 scenarios above. While I do feel that many times, the cop gets the short end of the stick, I like to do my best to get the full story. Just the other day, a cop here in CT was on his way to a disturbance involving weapons. He crashed into another vehicle enroute to the call. Right away, comments start flying that it was the cops fault. That is wrong due to the fact that we dont know the full story yet. However, if the cop was at fault, I would say that, rather than try to cover up for him. While I understand that there is a brotherhood, if I were a cop, I'm not going to stand by and defend him or her if I fully know that they are in the wrong. If it pisses people off that I wouldn't stand by them, too bad. Hiding something, covering for someone, makes me no better than they are. I've been in situations at work, and while it seems that I may be jamming up a co-worker, I will not lie, due to the fact that everything we do or say in that room I work in, is recorded. I'm not putting my *** on the line.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. My reply to your post was limited to the question of how you would suggest that one get DNA. The rest regarding the grand-mother was another issue. I have yet to figure out a good way to segue from replying to a quote onto another issue so that there is no confusion. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Even still, regarding you link to the DNA, I don't disagree that it can be obtained from items such as shirts, glasses, cigarettes, etc. The issue is when you take such things to courts.

It is certainly understandable to an attorney/judge/jury that DNA recovered from such items would lead to probable cause for an arrest. But remember, probable cause is less then what is needed in court for a conviction.

In court, it is only necessary for the defense to provide reasonable doubt. All they have to do is attempt to show that the shirt, glasses, cigarette, etc, was not that of their clients. That it was only circumstancial evidence.

Then, also, how do you link those items to the suspect? It becomes a long, convoluted issue in which there are many ways for the defense to object, the main one being that how do you know that that particular DNA is the suspects? If you have never directly been able to analysis a DNA sample from the suspect, prove that that item is the suspects.

Unfortunately, in todays judicial system, it is often not enough for a cop to say, "Well, I saw him smoking, and when he threw the cigarette down, I went and picked it up." Juries just don't trust cops anymore.

But how do you refute a DNA swab / blood sample taken directly from the suspect? You really can't.