Be Careful During a Police Encounter

[mikeyb]

This woman was innocent of any criminal charge at this point in time, right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

That is applicable to the court system, not life. If it were, then the jails would be empty.

 

[skidmark]

You guys must realize that LEOs read the news also.

They have policies ruling when and how their various items of equipment get used, from guns to tasers.

What people fail to realize is that (IMO) many of these seeming over-the-top actions are APPROVED from the top brass, ....

Tasers and their ilk came into being to limit the amount of injury a cop could inflict during a hands-on encounter, as well as to prevent injuries to cops during hands-on encounters.

They have become so capable at doing what they were designed to do, and cops have become so reluctant - for both good and bad reasons - to go hands-on with a BG.

So yes, many departments' policy is to employ the taser before even what used to be called "hard hands" (have no idea what the current phrase in use is).

None of this should be interpreted to mean I find this use of a raser to have been the most appropriate or most efficient means of effecting the detention of the subject.

The problem with all of the what-if speculations about using a taser on someone with an undisclosed medical condition is that te only reasonable solution is to require the wearing of identification badges front and back. It's been done before http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_da.php?ModuleId=10005378&MediaId=5037 and carries some negative baggage from that. But if it saves just one life ...

stay safe.

 

[Troy bilt]

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/26/state-trooper-kills-woman-with-taser-instead-of-chasing-her/

This woman was innocent of any criminal charge at this point in time, right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Would your viewpoint change if learned she was having a medical issue and was not drunk?

What medical condition would cause you to run from the cops after they stopped you for what appeared to be an OVI?
I once had a cold that made my nose run like mad, but it never took control of my legs and feet.

 

[DocWalker]

Are you advocating for applying an action that preserves the safety of the offender over the safety the public and those charged with enforcing laws? If so, that is quintessential American entitlement that is absolving responsibility and accountability for one's actions. By the way, all this is under the umbrella of a response to a criminal fleeing. Things like the "Don't taze me, bro" incident are overboard, even if the guy was an idiot.

You suggest the officer could have chased down the offender. There's no guarantee that upon catching the offender there wouldn't be injuries to either party. You can assume, but you can't be 100% sure. She could have tripped on a stump, or tripped on a curb into traffic and gotten hit by a passing car. A taser ends the scenario. The risk of personal injury is on the offender, not the officer.

Now, assuming that you are advocating "less is more" in defusing a situation...

Why do you need a gun? It's commonly claimed on OCDO as a viable deterrent to criminal action upon the person. Wouldn't a knife work? Wouldn't improving your physique work? Wouldn't being trained in hand-to-hand defense/combat work as well? I mean, as long as we're protecting the safety of the offenders we should ban guns. They could kill a criminal.

The proportional response argument doesn't work applying to criminal activity, regardless of the severity. Why? Proportional response doesn't work as a deterrent, it only acts as a compromise on what you want to give up. For example, I've always heard that in Montana, if you were caught speeding, you paid a $5 fine on the spot (this is an example, I don't know if this was or is the case) and go about your business. Most other states, you get a large fine, or points, or whatever. At face value, which system works at deterring speeding?

I was wondering when "officer safety" was going to enter the conversation.

I also like "anything to make it home at night"

 

[Citizen]

There are many cases in with a taser has been used where it should not have. I would rather spend time defending those victims.
This lady was not a victim. She very well could of caused many victims with her actions.

Putting videos up of criminals getting tazed and asking for simply for these criminals does not show that we are on the side of the lawful citizen.

This post has nothing to do with OCers and police encounters as the title suggest.

That's like saying a video of a cop detaining a suspected burglar, demanding his identity documents, demanding an explanation of what he's doing walking down the street with a nice boom box on his shoulder, and using rhetorical tactics to get around the detainee's unwillingness to talk has nothing to do with OC.

Its also like saying the FlexYourRights videos and Prof Duane's video have nothing to do with OCers.

Its news to me that police seem to use tasers as a first resort to non-compliance. I've only seen one or two other videos in the last year that suggested it. This one makes it pretty clear.

I don't know about anybody else, but if a taser is a first resort for police for non-compliance, I'm gonna be compliant (while politely refusing consent). I don't want my head bouncing off a curb.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Are you advocating for...

I'm advocating escalation of force and the force continuum--you know, those things police are trained to use.

Its kinda funny how blood-thirsty are some members. If they're willing to gravely injure a woman who would be hard pressed to be a threat to a kitten, I imagine they consider Tennessee vs Garner* was wrongly decided.



*The case where SCOTUS pointed out that the penalty for burglary was not death, so it was unreasonable for the cop to back-shoot and kill the teen burglary suspect to prevent his escape.

 

[mikeyb]

I don't know about anybody else, but if a taser is a first resort for police for non-compliance, I'm gonna be compliant (while politely refusing consent). I don't want my head bouncing off a curb.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[PALO]

Tasers and their ilk came into being to limit the amount of injury a cop could inflict during a hands-on encounter, as well as to prevent injuries to cops during hands-on encounters.

They have become so capable at doing what they were designed to do, and cops have become so reluctant - for both good and bad reasons - to go hands-on with a BG.

So yes, many departments' policy is to employ the taser before even what used to be called "hard hands" (have no idea what the current phrase in use is).

None of this should be interpreted to mean I find this use of a raser to have been the most appropriate or most efficient means of effecting the detention of the subject.

The problem with all of the what-if speculations about using a taser on someone with an undisclosed medical condition is that te only reasonable solution is to require the wearing of identification badges front and back. It's been done before http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_da.php?ModuleId=10005378&MediaId=5037 and carries some negative baggage from that. But if it saves just one life ...

stay safe.

Imo, tasers suffered (as did the general public) from "new toy disease". Officers were much too excited to try out their new toy on violators, and also the fact that case law wasn't fleshed out well enough and policies were poorly written.

Fortunately, McPherson has been decided here in the 9th circuit and it sets quite reasonable limits on taser use:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf

Such an opinion was SORELY needed. It refers to Tasers as "intermediate" force and there is a lot of spot-on analysis of when tasers are and aren't justified

Fwiw, the 9th circuit denied qualified immunity to the ofc. in the McPherson case. The SCOTUS overruled. They upheld (fortunately) the conclusion in the case about limitations on use of force but decided that QI was in fact warranted

Anecdotally, I hear far less "taser deployed" notifications now on my radio vs. a couple of years ago.

 

[XDS45]

Do we insist that officers must tackle and scuffle with anyone that runs?
We don't pay them to be punching bags for scum bags.

Face plant, priceless.
Lesson learned.
Maybe she'll teach her kids "Don't run from po po cuz day be shoot ya wif a tazar".

Really don't think she would be doing much punching since she could barely manage to run. Just because they have tasers doesn't mean that every situation warrants it's use.

 

[Troy bilt]

I'm advocating escalation of force and the force continuum--you know, those things police are trained to use.

Its kinda funny how blood-thirsty are some members. If they're willing to gravely injure a woman who would be hard pressed to be a threat to a kitten, I imagine they consider Tennessee vs Garner* was wrongly decided.



*The case where SCOTUS pointed out that the penalty for burglary was not death, so it was unreasonable for the cop to back-shoot and kill the teen burglary suspect to prevent his escape.

Hard pressed to be a threat to a kitten??? You and I must be watching two very different videos.

Drunk driving kills people and kittens.

Running from the cops at high speeds through the public streets kills people and kittens.

Failure to control your vehicle after making the decision to run from your mistakes kills innocent people and puppies( had to change it up a bit).

This woman is a criminal she did not get beat to a pulp, she did not get pistol whipped she did not get shot to death. She also did not get the chance to cause anymore harm to the people around her.

 

[Citizen]

Hard pressed to be a threat to a kitten??? You and I must be watching two very different videos.

Drunk driving kills people and kittens.

Running from the cops at high speeds through the public streets kills people and kittens.

Failure to control your vehicle after making the decision to run from your mistakes kills innocent people and puppies( had to change it up a bit).

This woman is a criminal she did not get beat to a pulp, she did not get pistol whipped she did not get shot to death. She also did not get the chance to cause anymore harm to the people around her.

Non-sequitur.

He didn't taser her into a face-plant while she was driving. He tasered her while she was trying to run away, a woman so drunk she couldn't hardly hand him her papers when she was just earlier sitting in the car.

Talking about her not getting beat up, pistol whipped, or shot is another diversion. Falling rigid onto concrete from a taser is already known to cause injuries, including concussion and broken teeth.

Commenting about her not getting a chance to harm others is another diversion. The question isn't whether she was apprehended, but how. She also wouldn't have the chance the harm others around her if he'd just hustled up a few more steps and simply grabbed her arm.

 

[Troy bilt]

Well I have to go find some kittens to protect from drunk drivers.

Good luck in fighting the man at every step they make.

 

[509rifas]

I agree with the need for caution. Though it is so tempting to just walk off if they don't state their RAS, it is dangerous.
I got asked the other day if I was "one of those Constitutionalists," and the guy seemed surprised that I said yes and I had to clarify what I meant. I don't know if I should be concerned because of all the FBI crap sent out about how "Constitutionalists" are the same as "Sovereign Citizens," and all Sovereign Citizens shoot it out with cops.
It should be patently obvious that when dealing with cops, and carrying guns, especially openly, extreme caution should be exercized. Even if RAS is not present, they may take being argumentative or even just asserting your rights as resistance, obstruction, etc.

That makes me wonder, do we know of any OCers who have been tazed?

 

[georg jetson]

Hard pressed to be a threat to a kitten??? You and I must be watching two very different videos.

Drunk driving kills people and kittens.

Running from the cops at high speeds through the public streets kills people and kittens.

Failure to control your vehicle after making the decision to run from your mistakes kills innocent people and puppies( had to change it up a bit).

This woman is a criminal she did not get beat to a pulp, she did not get pistol whipped she did not get shot to death. She also did not get the chance to cause anymore harm to the people around her.

Interesting... She did all of the things you say kills people and kittens(puppies).

Ummm. How many people and kittens did she actually kill?

Edited to add (puppies)

 

[Maverick9]

I was wondering when "officer safety" was going to enter the conversation.

I also like "anything to make it home at night"

Yeah heaven forbid the kid tagging (painting) would have gotten away. How many car crashes did it take before brass handed down decisions not to pursue certain non-felony stops when it became dangerous to the populace.

Just today a LEO was not held liable for not looking where he was going and running over a motorcyclist. The brass said 'there was no gross negligence, it was just "an accident"'. Oh really? Not looking where he was going driving a car is not negligent? Well at least he didn't back up and run over him again.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Imo, tasers suffered (as did the general public) from "new toy disease". Officers were much too excited to try out their new toy on violators, and also the fact that case law wasn't fleshed out well enough and policies were poorly written.

Fortunately, McPherson has been decided here in the 9th circuit and it sets quite reasonable limits on taser use:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf

Such an opinion was SORELY needed. It refers to Tasers as "intermediate" force and there is a lot of spot-on analysis of when tasers are and aren't justified

Fwiw, the 9th circuit denied qualified immunity to the ofc. in the McPherson case. The SCOTUS overruled. They upheld (fortunately) the conclusion in the case about limitations on use of force but decided that QI was in fact warranted

Anecdotally, I hear far less "taser deployed" notifications now on my radio vs. a couple of years ago.

Sorely needed, is this an admission that cops just couldn't control themselves until someone else told them to stop?

Well I have to go find some kittens to protect from drunk drivers.

Good luck in fighting the man at every step they make.

Damn right, I will fight the man at every step and every chance, it's called eternal vigilance.

I agree with the need for caution. Though it is so tempting to just walk off if they don't state their RAS, it is dangerous.
I got asked the other day if I was "one of those Constitutionalists," and the guy seemed surprised that I said yes and I had to clarify what I meant. I don't know if I should be concerned because of all the FBI crap sent out about how "Constitutionalists" are the same as "Sovereign Citizens," and all Sovereign Citizens shoot it out with cops.
It should be patently obvious that when dealing with cops, and carrying guns, especially openly, extreme caution should be exercized. Even if RAS is not present, they may take being argumentative or even just asserting your rights as resistance, obstruction, etc.

That makes me wonder, do we know of any OCers who have been tazed?

Been there done that and it matters whether you are OCing or not, they don't like the constitutional restrictions set upon their job, even the watered down ones the men in black keep letting them get away with.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Are you advocating for applying an action that preserves the safety of the offender over the safety the public and those charged with enforcing laws? If so, that is quintessential American entitlement that is absolving responsibility and accountability for one's actions. By the way, all this is under the umbrella of a response to a criminal fleeing. Things like the "Don't taze me, bro" incident are overboard, even if the guy was an idiot.

(snip)

The proportional response argument doesn't work for criminal activity, regardless of the severity. Why? Proportional response doesn't work as a deterrent, it only acts as a compromise on what you want to give up. For example, I've always heard that in Montana, if you were caught speeding, you paid a $5 fine on the spot (this is an example, I don't know if this was or is the case) and go about your business. Most other states, you get a large fine, or points, or whatever. At face value, which system works at deterring speeding?

Are you advocating safety over liberty? Safety over rights?

Maybe in Montana they realized it is mostly not about deterrence, (no matter how many times your local government pretends it is) but about revenue collection, and they decided to become the fast food of making money on motorist who are safely traveling faster than the arbitrary limit set by the state.

By my understanding though they actually renamed the ticket so it really doesn't have to do with speeding .

I see nothing wrong here.

Now, referring to the underlying issue- are tasers being misused as the first action? Not from this video. If the woman was doing a field test, and got lippy, and then was tased, then yes, that crosses the line. But I don't care if you run like Ursain Bolt or Roseanne Barr- fleeing a scene and/or ignoring police commands is idiotic and I do not have a problem with police using force, at their discretion, to apprehend the suspect; just like the unfortunate death of the teenage vandal down in Florida. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.

No officers absolutely shouldn't have "discretion" to apprehend suspects any way they want even to the point of causing harm and death, see how far our common law right ( I say a fundamental right of liberty) to resist false arrest has been eroded, they don't care if you are innocent or not it has boiled down to "comply or die".

 

[Gunslinger]

Some cops are fat and dimwitted.


I wonder whether/when taser use policies changed to allow for use in the event of non-violent non-compliance?

I wonder if we will see a day when politely declining to show an identity document during a Terry Stop is met with a pointed taser?

We've already had a number of reports of OCers confronted by cops with guns drawn, and a few (2-3?) with guns pointed at the OCer. Anybody threatened with a taser?

My original response: "Cops are fat and dimwitted" led to Citizen's reply, for those who didn't see it. It was so incredibly obvious that it was posted as a humorous, albeit sarcastic response, that I am actually amazed it was deleted by Grapeshot, and it takes a lot to amaze me. This is the Social Lounge, I thought, where a bit of perhaps over the top humor is acceptable. When I wish to attack the actions of thug cops, my posts are specific, articulate and to the instant discussion, not a single sentence that is a flip throw away aimed at a post by someone I consider a friend. Lighten up, Grape. Or have you lost whatever sense of balance you once had?

 

[marshaul]

At face value, which system works at deterring speeding?

Neither?

 

[countryclubjoe]

I agree with the need for caution. Though it is so tempting to just walk off if they don't state their RAS, it is dangerous.
I got asked the other day if I was "one of those Constitutionalists," and the guy seemed surprised that I said yes and I had to clarify what I meant. I don't know if I should be concerned because of all the FBI crap sent out about how "Constitutionalists" are the same as "Sovereign Citizens," and all Sovereign Citizens shoot it out with cops.
It should be patently obvious that when dealing with cops, and carrying guns, especially openly, extreme caution should be exercized. Even if RAS is not present, they may take being argumentative or even just asserting your rights as resistance, obstruction, etc.

That makes me wonder, do we know of any OCers who have been tazed?

Not all sovereign citizens are cop killing murders like the government would like people/leos to believe.
It appears that any citizen that stands up for his/her rights is some sort of nut case anti government person.

I carry a wallet full of my attorneys business cards, during any encounter with a leo, I simply hand the card to the leo and say please contact my attorney for any and all information needed to fulfill your query. I play dumb and only speak thru my attorney spokesperson.

When a Leo ask why do you need an attorney to talk or answer simple questions? I say, because I am not articulate enough to have a legal conversation with someone that is familiar with all the laws, and statutes of the state, and I prefer to have my legal spokesperson speak on my behalf, just to even the playing field so to speak. However no disrespect officer, but my attorney is more informed to supply you with the answers you seek and is getting paid quit handsomely to do just that. Now please make the call or let me go on my constitutional protected way.

Just my .02 your results may vary.

CCJ