Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Tell that to her and her kids:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702486.html
Is there an official inquest into every fatal police shooting? I only ask because there's one going on back home at the moment and was wondering how it worked in the US.
If you're interested, the case I referred to is here, looks justified;
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22427298-2761,00.html
If you're interested, the case I referred to is here, looks justified;
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22427298-2761,00.html
Depends on situation. There was no need to taser this kid, even if the video was amusing for some people.
That story, if the truth is at all close to what the allegations are, is about an abusive and murderous use-of-force by police.Tell that to her and her kids:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702486.html
However, that doesn't mean that police have to exhaust lesser means before using higher ones. Some departments may have policies that mandate a specific continuum of force at a more restrictive standard, but that also doesn't make cops in such departments criminals for breaking their own policies...it just means they can be disciplined or fired by their department for violating policy.
The level of force is Constitutionally set at "reasonable," not "minimum."
People keep saying that, but I have yet to hear the alternate to removing a struggling, full sized adult?
Seriously, run down to your local bar and pick a stranger up and drag him out. Tell me how that works for you.
Police here receive a referendum trial-by-Internet...
Yeah, of course there's an investigation into anything that results in someone's death.
I hope the facts play out as in the link you sent. Is it necessary that Australian police be in fear of their own lives prior to using deadly force?
That's why they should have just shot him in the face right off the bat. I don't know why they even waited two minutes as he could have easily gotten a bitch-slap or nipple-twist in during those precious seconds before they tazed him.
and finally, it comes to this:
My cousin has been a cop for 20 years and I asked him if he's ever fired his gun and he just laughed and said "only at paper targets". He told me even getting the thing out of its holster results in a night of paperwork. It's very rare that the cops shoot anyone in Western Australia, maybe once every 3 or 4 years. In the east with the bigger population it happens once or twice a year. Its even rarer that police get murdered. In WA the last cop murder was in 1978.
The cops do however get in lots of fights and frequently get their arses kicked as well as giving ratbags and meatheads a good kickin'.
Isn't Ratbag Kickin' the national pasttime? I mean it's just good natured fun after a jug of vodka right?
but tasers are such dangerous weapons
wow, i'm glad we don't have to do gun point reports anymore, i'd never get anything done. with an average of 2 felony/high risk arrest per week, my gun is out of the holster a lot. clearing buildings, arrest warrants, armed robbery response........
we've had two officer involved shootings in two years. both were deemed justified. the most recent one was textbook. crazy guy pistol whips customers in a convenience store, walks outside w/ gun still in hand. officer approaches from the rear, orders him to drop the weapon about 50 times (according to witnesses). suspect turns toward officer with gun drawn, officer center-punches him 4 times then immediately begins cpr.
turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there
You insensitive prick! That man was MENTALLY ILL! No mentally ill person should be punished for it by being shot by the psychotics we hire as police these days. The gun wasn't even loaded! What the hell did that stupid officer shoot him for, then!?turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there
to prove darwin right (yet again). 
Obviously, it was racially motivated.
(manimal, he was totally black/latino/arab, right? we know cops don't shoot the white ones)
hey, i´ve got a question.wow, i'm glad we don't have to do gun point reports anymore, i'd never get anything done. with an average of 2 felony/high risk arrest per week, my gun is out of the holster a lot. clearing buildings, arrest warrants, armed robbery response........
we've had two officer involved shootings in two years. both were deemed justified. the most recent one was textbook. crazy guy pistol whips customers in a convenience store, walks outside w/ gun still in hand. officer approaches from the rear, orders him to drop the weapon about 50 times (according to witnesses). suspect turns toward officer with gun drawn, officer center-punches him 4 times then immediately begins cpr.
turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there
do you guys (cops) think about where to aim before shooting a person??
i guess i´d insctintively aim for the head/torso if i was to shoot a gun... but what about you? does the idea of a potential lawsuit and how the circumstances would appear to a jury roam your head?
What you're trained to do and what you actually do (or can manage to do) under stress are sometimes different things...especially when things like someone pointing a gun back at you or dodging behind cover come into play.
However, cops are trained to shoot at the center of whatever target is presented to them, whether it's a full torso or part of a body sticking out from behind an object.
There's no allowance for shooting someone in a "non-critical" spot to wound them...it's a matter of shooting at whatever you're most likely to hit and whatever will most likely stop the attack the quickest (the center of the chest).
The only variation is a "failure to stop" drill, which means you go for a head shot, if feasible, after delivering rounds to the chest which do not stop the target. (Body armor, drugs, crazed psychotics...)
And once you throw in your movement, target movement, obstacles, etc., the rules from the square, static range can get tossed out.
Apparently not. This headline claims they are safe, just make sure to skip over the section that I bolded in the quoted article.but tasers are such dangerous weapons
oster_oops:"Study: Tasers Safe for Police to Use
By TIM KLASS | Associated Press Writer
6:03 AM CDT, October 9, 2007
Tasers and similar stun guns, increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies nationwide, are generally safe for police to use, according to new research.
... Nearly all the cases they found resulted in no injuries or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises.
"This is the first time we've got an accounting of how likely it is that you'll be seriously injured by one of these devices," said lead researcher, Dr. William P. Bozeman, an emergency medical specialist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine...
In the cases reviewed for the study, two people died, but autopsies found neither death was related to use of a Taser. Three people were hospitalized after being zapped, two with injuries from falls. It was unclear whether a third hospitalization was related to the use of a stun gun, according to the researchers...
By July, Amnesty International USA had tallied 250 cases in six years in which people died after being stunned with Tasers, but the group didn't track the individual causes of death...
Dr. Robert R. Bass, executive director of the Maryland ... said he found "somewhat reassuring" the findings that the devices are safer than individual reports of death and injury would suggest."
I don't know. Maybe you're right, RR. Cops should take a complete medical history before trying to restrain a non-compliant person. Maybe even issue nerf guns and bats instead of the real thing?!?
By TIM KLASS | Associated Press Writer
6:03 AM CDT, October 9, 2007
Tasers and similar stun guns, increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies nationwide, are generally safe for police to use, according to new research.
... Nearly all the cases they found resulted in no injuries or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises.
"This is the first time we've got an accounting of how likely it is that you'll be seriously injured by one of these devices," said lead researcher, Dr. William P. Bozeman, an emergency medical specialist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine...
In the cases reviewed for the study, two people died, but autopsies found neither death was related to use of a Taser. Three people were hospitalized after being zapped, two with injuries from falls. It was unclear whether a third hospitalization was related to the use of a stun gun, according to the researchers...
By July, Amnesty International USA had tallied 250 cases in six years in which people died after being stunned with Tasers, but the group didn't track the individual causes of death...
Dr. Robert R. Bass, executive director of the Maryland ... said he found "somewhat reassuring" the findings that the devices are safer than individual reports of death and injury would suggest."
I don't know. Maybe you're right, RR. Cops should take a complete medical history before trying to restrain a non-compliant person. Maybe even issue nerf guns and bats instead of the real thing?!?
It does doesn't it? Now if they were only used in situations previously requiring bullets they would have my FULL AND COMPLETE support.
I was being glib.
If there's a situation that requires bullets, there's a reasonable chance that someone other than the perpetrator will die or sustain serious injury. I won't let that person's life, or my own, ride on the chance of two little prongs getting through someone's clothes so he can be shocked silly. It'd be irresponsible of me to do so, especially just so I can save a perpetrator from injury or death.
So the perp gets 9mm, in heavy dosage. Really sucks to be him. But he could have stayed at home and not threatened anyone's life, couldn't he?
That said, the taser does allow cops to push back that envelope of death or serious injury...two officers confront man with knife. Given the opportunity, one deploys a taser while the other covers with a firearm. That's a nice neat scenario, but not always a possible one. The problem with the taser, per se, is that it makes people like you think that it's always a viable option, so your sympathies go to the poor assailant instead of the victim and/or the police (who themselves may be victims.)
Wouldn't be more apropriate to compare a tazer to being physically restrained instead of being shot. What is more dangerous, having your arm bent behind your head like gumby and your face smashed into the ground or being tazed. I'll take the tazer myself.
Don't most officers have to be on the recieving end of a tazer before they are allowed to use one? How many deaths result from that?
Don't most officers have to be on the recieving end of a tazer before they are allowed to use one? How many deaths result from that?
Im personally in favor of mandatory tazings for everyone who isnt me.
I repped you up on your reply. It is quite wise.
But here is the thing...
In my opinion, because you cannot know the end result of taser use, it should not be used in a case where deadly force would not be justified.
And like in this case, when you see 5 or 6 officers holding a kid (who threatened nobody) down and using the taser on him, how can the people help but sympathize with the taser-ee?
Tasers are not compliance tools, they are weapons, and should be treated as such.
But here is the thing...
It sure does, but there is always the potential for death to occur as a result. Taser use should not be taken lightly and as such...
It's not so much that I consider it a viable option, but rather that the police consider it an easy one.
In my opinion, because you cannot know the end result of taser use, it should not be used in a case where deadly force would not be justified.
And like in this case, when you see 5 or 6 officers holding a kid (who threatened nobody) down and using the taser on him, how can the people help but sympathize with the taser-ee?
Tasers are not compliance tools, they are weapons, and should be treated as such.
yes and none.
Two issues here.
1. Lugnuts, OMGF, and myself discussed this previously, and the means used in training would not deliver a full jolt:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2361611&highlight=taser#post2361611
2. Dunkin' Donuts aside, wouldn't one reasonably expect officers to be in better physical condition than the general population, and also less likely to be hopped up on meth or [insert drug of choice here]?
I would also expect police officers to not find themselves in situations where they needed to be restrained or removed from a situation. Kind words and promises of candy will not stop people from behaving poorly.
Well (serious hat on) "needed to be restrained" is really the issue here though. I mean the guy in question wasnt a threat, I agree with Rick on this issue to a point. I think its ok in violent situations, not just in "deadly force" situations, but for unruly guests at a speech who pose no physical threat? Really?
We are all pissing over details that are really opinions at this point but the guy did struggle to escape. Intentional or not struggling to escape can still hurt the person or officer, Tazing is still probably the safest for all parties. Just think of that douchebag Milton Bradly who blew his knee out while trying to be held back from a ref by one of his coaches.
He would have been much better off if the coach just tazed him.Leave it to Westy to pull the "Milton Bradly" card...
I'm not very good at creating .gif's...so if anyone can take that Will Ferrell gif of him hitting the cowbell and put electric looking flashes and sparks eminating from him with the words, "More Taser!" I would be forever indebted.
You can't know the end result of pretty much anything you do.
Someone can be allergic to OC, someone can get smacked in the head with a baton. Tasers are as safe or safer than doing a lot of other non-lethal things...just avoid tasing the exceedingly old or young person. I'd hope that doesn't lead to shooting them instead, though.
Non-lethal means not reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Tasers aren't reasonably likely to do that and don't generally cause harm as lasting as that delivered by a good old-fashioned ass-whupping.
Correct. I also agree it's an odd use of a taser in this case, given that they had hands-on already...and I don't know their department policy on the use of the taser, which may specify, with more restriction than the Constitutional standards, when a taser may be used
However, the kid offered decidely active resisitance (this does not mean fighting, necessarily...his attempts to pull away are obvious and active) up until he was on the ground, and we can't see what was going on under that dog-pile. The taser, as an intermediate weapon, is appropriate to overcome active resistance.
Anyhow, definitely appreciate a reasoned conversation on the topic...
How long before passive resistance is grounds for using a taser?
I say less than 10 years before you'll find police departments tasering every protester except for the ones in front of an abortion clinic. Hell, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to say no to that...
I say less than 10 years before you'll find police departments tasering every protester except for the ones in front of an abortion clinic. Hell, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to say no to that...