Posted on 11/23/2007 7:47:05 PM PST by Revtwo
OK- let’s just shoot the idiots instead.
eeeeeEvvvveryone wanted “non-lethal” weapons and got them. NOW they complain about THOSE. There is NO reason why ANY cop should be placed in danger because the panty-waists wring their hands over the “misunderstood” bad guys. If they keep up their whining, they may just find themselves with no one to call next time they get mugged. A lot of cops are walking away from the job and wondering why they should endanger themselves or place the economic well-being of their families in jeopardy for the sake of strangers who are increasingly ungrateful.
I, for one, do NOT have a tazer in my home. I have a gun. I will- WILL- use it without a single wrinkle in my conscience.
That would depend on the situation. The tricky word in your question is "non-violent". That description is subject to change the second the cuffs come out. Most policies state that the offender must show signs of aggression for the taser to be deployed. That is a very good policy. I have never carried a taser, but when on patrol I did carry other "less than lethal" or "intermediate" weapons that I did use. If the subject that is not responding to verbal commands, and deadly force is obviously out of the question, then the Officer has to make that decision. Most Officers wish to avoid a fight, but it only takes one of two people to decide if there is going to be a fight.
The vast majority of uncooperative people I have taken into custody I did not use a weapon of any kind. One reason is, the offender is not aggressive or violent until he is getting arrested, and you knee deep in a fight you didnt expect. The one's that I got myself hurt at in a few occasions are the family violence calls. I have ended up injured myself trying to take abusive husbands into custody without using weapons for their family's sake, but caught an ambulance ride myself. So, its a real judgment call. You never know how physical confrontations end up, its a gamble. Trying you force someone into cuffs that is struggling with all their might sometimes causes their joints to become hyper extended and those are painful injuries. I have seen this happen allot with female offenders. The Officers dont want to hurt the female offender, so a couple male Officers wrestle her arms around, not hits, no weapons, just pulling the arms around, and because she resists so hard, injuries occur in the joints. The funny thing is, a taser in those cases would avoid those injuries.
So to answer your question, I believe the Officer has to decide if he wants to risk injury to himself and the offender by using physical force, or deploy the taser. The majority of the time the decision is a weaponless hands on arrest. The minority of the time taser is the decision (in my experience that I have witnessed). Most guys in the Department I know take a smart approach, they let the Offender decide. Most of the guys I work with that carry taser will tell the Offender that it is their decision, if they do not calm down and co-operate, the taser will be used. That way the offender has the power to decide.
There is a saying we have. "We will make a decision in under a second that lawyers will argue over for years."
If you stick to the taser for offenders that show signs of aggression, and stick to the policy you'll be fine.
So, what would you do?
In #33, a fellow named mamelukesabre was expressing his view on "tasering" cops and I said "One must resist orders given by the Officer, defy his efforts to control his scene, and be show that you are not willing to co-operate with verbal commands before your tasered.
In Post #63, that angry fellow Sarajevo wrote copied and pasted my post #33 line, and wrote his response to it. He said "Yes Oh Mighty One. We will follow your commands..... yeah-RIGHT!"
Well, it seemed he made the perfect example of why Officers carry tasers, and that is when Officers get that response from people on their scene. The taser is used when verbal commands do not work, and the use of force is escalated. So, in post # 75, I pointed that out, and even offered some advise. I would not want to do that out on the street, its one thing to act like Mr Tough guy online, that does not get anyone in trouble, but I would not want him to carry out his philosophy out in the world where people can get hurt. I stated as such and even said "I would like to see everyone co-operate and get through through the scene without incident.
So then you come along in post # 100 with this posting about ego's and how LEO's need to "suck it up" if a civilian is disrespectful.
I feel that you misunderstood the conversation I was having. I am afraid that Sarajevo may get himself into trouble, and was trying to help. I was raised to show respect to LEO's, and you and Sarajevo disagree with that approach (Im sure not 100%, but to a point). But I still feel my advise to Sarajevo was valid, I dont recommend him taking that approach to Officer's, and I say that with a concern for the poor fellow. Your theory is " If a civilian is disrespectful to a LEO, then the LEO better suck it up."
well, they do, every day. I thik you can come out with a more positive outlook than what you have, but the world is full of people who dont like cops. I have scars and medical records to show it.
I tell you what, because I have seem to upset some of you guys by defending Officers with tasers, I will be the one to back down. I will swallow my "way too large of an ego" (your words to me) and say yall are right, and Im wrong.
Clearly The KG9 Kid in Post # 50 was right when he told me "Give it another ten years when police departments will be wanting funding for the Taser company's new basketball-shaped model full of electrified fishhooks that they can just roll into an elementary school cafeteria to zap everyone in the room."
He is right, that has been a secret plan all along, to taser an entire school cafeteria of elementary school children with fish hook tasers. Now that I am on your side, I will work to expose this "Truther" style conspiracy.
And mamelukesabre was correct in post #38 when he said "...a cop wearing a tasergun, within taser range, would be probable cause for me to taser him...before he tasers me."
I was wrong to disagree with that one. Tasers are legal to carry in many states, so since I am no longer defending the Officer's here and siding with you, then .. YA! Go for it!
Sarajevo's post in #97 gives some links of some news stories of where Officers may or may not have misused a taser. Perfect, this is an accurate representation of the daily use of tasers across the USA. The media give stories of soldier "abuses" in Iraq almost everyday, and even the democratic Senate acknowledges that is an accurate account of military conduct. So those Officers are clearly following their use of force policies too. After all, the media doesnt have a bias do they? I tell you, I feel liberated with this new line of thinking agreeing with you guys.
Sarajevo in Post #33 "Yes Oh Mighty One. We will follow your commands..... yeah-RIGHT!"
Im with you brother! Screw the Officers trying to control their scene and attempting to bring order. YEAH - RIGHT should be the public response. Tell the children too. I am in 100% agreement with you.
Im glad we are all on the same side now. The only thing more evil than the tasers are those officers that carry them. I have to go now, I need to send in my membership dues so I can see yall at the ACLU mixer this late December annual winter holiday non-religious festival.
Of course I am joshing you fellows. So let me take another approach and say that I disagree with your conclusions, and find your way of thinking to be funny, but a little nutty, but show a little wisdom and use caution.
Seriously, all kidding aside, I wouldnt want anyone to get hurt or in trouble with your way of thinking, or putting yall views into action.
I would agree that there is no perfect answer. Risk of injury comes with the job, but nobody wants to see it happen (especially if it is preventable).
What complicates things is that there are a number of different situations to consider, for example:
1. Belligerent suspect who’s looking for a fight and e.g. doesn’t think he is subject to the “white peoples law”
2. Suspect who resists cuffing but doesn’t try to hurt the officer
3. Suspect who is under the influence of controlled substances and completely out of his mind
4. Distressed individual who isn’t thinking clearly but isn’t dangerous either
Of course you usually don’t know which is which.
For #1 I think the answer is pretty clear. Action-reaction.
#2,#3 are borderline and these situations can go either way. Probably depends on a number of factors, including the presence of backup. If #3 is Rodney King on PCP, you need to knock (or zap) some sense into him. If it’s just a teenager who’s high on cannabis who doesn’t follow orders because he’s baked out of his gourd, not so much.
Seeing weapons deployed in #4 troubles me. Normal, sane individuals on occasion have really bad days, anxiety attacks, nervous breakdowns, etc. Most officers are very skilled at defusing these sorts of situations, but in a minority of cases (such as the Toronto airport incident) excessive force is used.
I grew up before Tasers were invented. It was pretty standard that one used batons.
My brother answered to a domestic dispute, with his partner. A very large woman answered the door. He asked if there was a problem. She said no problem. The man in her life, a little guy, was just behind her, and said “Uh...” and she clobbered him. So they had to take her downtown, having just witnessed assault and battery. She refused to go and sat down, thinking they would not be able to get her 400+ lbs down 4 stories.
After they got her down, she agreed to walk to the car.
My brother finishes his story “First time I was ever on the wrong end of a slinky.”
Since we're talking about large gals. I remember this squat 300 poundish young lass I took a report from who said she had been shot. She was up walking around, yelling and screaming how she was shot in the a** by who turned out to be her pimp (no joke.) I wasn't sure if she could be believed. Anyway, she was so rotund, what turned out to be a .380 round was pretty much stopped and buried in about 2 1/2 inches of blubber. About as much blood as you'd get pricking your finger on a needle. Damnedest thing...Pimp, who was supposedly a hard core crack user only, died from a heroin OD two days later. It's freakin weird out there 8>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.