# Taser Use Justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161 "2005-06-06T17:46:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/201 "2005-06-08T21:08:21Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > I don’t post links for common bloody sense, amigo. Do you seriously dispute the notion that if a person is tasered and drops dead, it was because of the taser? Keep in mind that I’m not disputing that it was because of the taser _in combination_ with other factors unique to the deceased person, such as a weak heart. Medical examiners dispute it and they’re the experts not you or I. There is a significant difference medically and legally from contributing factor and primary cause and with good reason. > [@](#): > > Both. Of course not. But it _does_ mean that they should tailor their level of force to the situation so as to appropriately minimize the risk of death and injury to the suspect. And to themselves as well, although you don’t seem to consider that. Thats exactly what the controversy is about. What level of escalation warrents taser use? In the heart attack example I’d say it was 1. a previous health condition unknown to the police and possibly the perp. 2.\*\* the perps decision\*\* to resist arrest 2. the police actions that followed their decision to resist… It unreasonable to expect the police to put themselves more at risk to minimize the risk to a perp. The attitude seems to be that she presented no physical risk to the officers. I don’t agree. I don’t think they should risk a kick to the nads, a bite, or fingernails accross the face, to save her from the taser, and thats not even considering that \*\*she \*\*might have been hurt worse than she was by they hauling her out physically. > [@](#): > > You keep saying that she physically resisted, but I simply do not see it before he tasered her sorry ass. The officer ordered her out of the car and to put her phone down. She refused. He reached in to pull her out and to show her he meant now not when she was dam good and ready. She pulled away and you hear her say. “Don’t touch me.” When she pulled away that is physical resistance. That shows the officer that she is willing to physically resist.It’s reasonable at that point for him to expect her to put up a fight. Thats when he draws his taser and warns her repeatedly. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/202 "2005-06-08T21:16:45Z")
Re: Acceptability of killing one out of every thousand taser victims: > [@drachillix](#): > > If they are resisting an otherwise lawful arrest…absolutely. Wow. You and I, we’re not getting anywhere near together on this, because that’s just way too bloodthirsty for me. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/203 "2005-06-08T21:17:41Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > So it’s okay with you for the police to use tasers to remove stubborn people from cars if it only kills one out of every thousand people? > Wow. It’s also about weighing the positives and negatives. In my earlier post I quoted a report that many perps surrendered after the officer drew his taser. Thats violence avoided. It’s an unattractive part of reality but one that folks in that position have to consider. If one life in 1000 is lost because of taser use perhaps 2 or 3 lives were saved and numerous minor to serious injuries. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/204 "2005-06-08T21:27:25Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Medical examiners dispute it No, they don’t. They merely list the cause of death as “heart attack.” It’s ordinarily not their job to say “heart attack caused by taser” or “heart attack caused by struggle with police officer” or “heart attack caused by vigorous exercise.” Though I note that in at least some instances, as described by the Amnesty report (google it yourself), the medical examiner has indeed noted that the heart attack was precipitated by electric shock. > [@](#): > > And to themselves as well, although you don’t seem to consider that. Nonsense. I’ve stated multiple times in this thread that police officers are justified in using force to protect themselves. The questions, since they seem to have escaped your notice, are _when_ they may do so, and with _what levels_ of force. > [@](#): > > It unreasonable to expect the police to put themselves more at risk to minimize the risk to a perp. Nonsense. Police officers have a legal duty not to use any more force than is justified under the circumstances. They may not simply use whatever level of force they think appropriate in going about their duties. The cop doesn’t get to put a bullet in mouthy pain in the ass driver’s head just because he thinks it reduces his personal level of risk. > [@](#): > > When she pulled away that is physical resistance. Not in any meaningful sense. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/205 "2005-06-08T21:52:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Res ipsa. Her attitude speaks for itself. What attitude is that? She thought she was pulled over illegally? She was being difficult about it? Seriously if a cop comes up to me on the street and asks to see my ID and I refuse can he whip out his taser and zap me? > [@Bricker](#): > > You and I clearly have far different ideas about what constitutes a combative attitude. But I am willing to bet that if you showed this video to a sample of 100 randomly chosen American adults, more than 80 would agree with me, not you. What questions are we asking? If its “Did the lady pose a level of physical threat to the officer warranting him to use painful and potentially lethal force?” and “Should police officers use painful and potentially lethal force on suspects not posing a physical threat?” I would say that no the majority would disagree with you. If you want to argue that its fine for the Police to use painful and potentially lethal force after 30 seconds of a request then we will just have to disagree. If you want to argue that she was a higher level of physical threat than a typical person pulled over for a traffic violation than you will have to show it. A poor attitude and questioning the officer does not meet that requirement. > [@D\_Odds](#): > > This is why, at a traffic stop, it is unwise to play games with a police officer, and why a police officer might not be willing to play games with you. This is why the officer isn’t going to ask ‘pretty please with sugar on top’. So the moral of that story is do not attempt to pull over drug dealers becuase they might shoot at you? How does that in anyway relate to a traffic violation? > [@drachillix](#): > > If they are resisting an otherwise lawful arrest…absolutely. How far does this go? If I am walking down the street and a pass by a cop: Cop: May I see some ID? treis: No I don’t have to show it to you Cop: I am not going to ask you again show me your ID treis: Bullshit I don’t have to show you ID Cop: Let me see ID or I will tase you. treis: Oh my god you’re going to shoot me Thats enough to get me zapped? Granted there was more interaction in this case but the woman did comply with every other request. [Amnesty International’s report on Taser use](http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=1A01E91E134A327080256F190042408D) Scroll down to section 2.3. The Taser was certainly a contributing factor in those deaths but was not necessarily the primary cause. From my reading basically what happens is that there is a pre-existing condition, drugs or a combination of both and the Taser knocks the heart out of commision. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/206 "2005-06-08T21:54:53Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Apples and oranges, a complete non sequitur. Unless you’re trying to establish that the cop should not have driven his car over the mouthy pain in the ass, a proposition with which I agree. Actually my number only included normal use, intentional ramming by the police officer would be far more dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/207 "2005-06-08T21:55:05Z")
> [@treis](#): > > If its “Did the lady pose a level of physical threat to the officer warranting him to use painful and potentially lethal force?” and “Should police officers use painful and potentially lethal force on suspects not posing a physical threat?” I would say that no the majority would disagree with you. I probably should add a third question being “Should a police officer use a taser on a suspect writhing on the ground in pain?”. I find it very hard that many people would say yes to that statement but I suppose if this thread is any evidence some people will. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/208 "2005-06-08T22:08:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > How far does this go? If I am walking down the street and a pass by a cop: > > Cop: May I see some ID? > treis: No I don’t have to show it to you > Cop: I am not going to ask you again show me your ID > treis: Bullshit I don’t have to show you ID > Cop: Let me see ID or I will tase you. > treis: Oh my god you’re going to shoot me. Absolutely not. If you don’t see the difference here you are being willfully ignorant. The officer in this video already had cause to arrest her, told her so, and why. In your flimsy little strawman above you have not specified any kind of reason why the officer wants to even speak to you. If this same scenarios was prefaced with: There is a knock at the door at the home of **treis** On the porch you find a police officer who states “I have a warrant for the arrest of **treis** ” You say “hes not home” insert your clip Prepare for a legit tasing as far as I am concerned. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/209 "2005-06-08T22:18:40Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I probably should add a third question being “Should a police officer use a taser on a suspect writhing on the ground in pain?”. I find it very hard that many people would say yes to that statement but I suppose if this thread is any evidence some people will. I would very much disagree with using a taser on a person writhing around on the ground in pain unless that writhing in pain was part of an attempt to resist arrest. Without better video we have no real evidence one way or the other what the exact situation was. Was she crying out and keeping her hands under her body refusing to even try to comply, was she reaching for her purse, trying to get up or crawl away? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/210 "2005-06-08T22:24:01Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > The officer in this video already had cause to arrest her, told her so, and why. In your flimsy little strawman above you have not specified any kind of reason why the officer wants to even speak to you. The officer did not say that the woman was under arrest. You may call my scenario a strawman by my actions did not differ from those of the woman’s. > [@drachillix](#): > > I would very much disagree with using a taser on a person writhing around on the ground in pain unless that writhing in pain was part of an attempt to resist arrest. Without better video we have no real evidence one way or the other what the exact situation was. Was she crying out and keeping her hands under her body refusing to even try to comply, was she reaching for her purse, trying to get up or crawl away? She was on the ground wimpering in pain and when told to put her hands behind her back said “I can’t”. The officer than tased here again. Honestly now lying on the ground wimpering in pain is resisting arrest? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/211 "2005-06-08T22:56:32Z")
Violent too, if some people around here are to be believed. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/212 "2005-06-08T23:31:27Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > No, they don’t. They merely list the cause of death as “heart attack.” It’s ordinarily not their job to say “heart attack caused by taser” or “heart attack caused by struggle with police officer” or “heart attack caused by vigorous exercise.” Though I note that in at least some instances, as described by the Amnesty report (google it yourself), the medical examiner has indeed noted that the heart attack was precipitated by electric shock. And so I did. > [@](#): > > Since 2001, more than 70 people are reported to have died in the USA and Canada after being struck by M26 or X26 tasers, with the numbers rising each year. While **coroners have tended to attribute such deaths to other factors (such as drug intoxication)**, some\*\* medical experts question\*\* whether the taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where persons are agitated, under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems such as heart disease. In at least **five recent cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the death, along with other factors such as drug abuse and heart disease.** As discussed below, the death toll heightens Amnesty International’s concern about the safety of stun weapons and the lack of rigorous, independent testing as to their medical effects this is much different than your previous statement that tasers caused these deaths. That is not the only report to consider. > [@](#): > > Here’s what the Taser scare stories don’t say: > Tasers are used about 100,000 times a year by 6,000 police departments. That’s five"possible" deaths in about a half-million Taser uses. > And in Cincinnati and other cities, injuries to cops and suspects drop sharply when cops are equipped with Tasers That means the chances of this use on the woman being lethal was minimum. In any physical confrontation there is risk of fatality. The officers had no way of knowing if she had any weapon or how hard she might fight if they tried to physically remove her. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. I’ve stated multiple times in this thread that police officers are justified in using force to protect themselves Point taken although in the specific post I responded to you mentioned only the suspect. > [@](#): > > The questions, since they seem to have escaped your notice, are _when_ they may do so, and with _what levels_ of force. Which is exactly what I’ve been discussing. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. Police officers have a legal duty not to use any more force than is justified under the circumstances. They may not simply use whatever level of force they think appropriate in going about their duties. The cop doesn’t get to put a bullet in mouthy pain in the ass driver’s head just because he thinks it reduces his personal level of risk. I suggested nothing like this ridiculous scenario. I understand the concept of appropriate force. My point is what I previously stated. The attitude seems to be that she presented no physical risk to the officers. I don’t agree. I don’t think they should risk a kick to the nads, a bite, or fingernails accross the face, to save her from the taser, and thats not even considering that she might have been hurt worse than she was by they hauling her out physically. To the officers the use of taser was no more dangerous to the woman than a physical struggle and less dangerous for them. THat makes it logical and justified. > [@](#): > > Not in any meaningful sense. I consider the legal sense pretty meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/213 "2005-06-08T23:58:19Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What attitude is that? She thought she was pulled over illegally? She was being difficult about it? Seriously if a cop comes up to me on the street and asks to see my ID and I refuse can he whip out his taser and zap me? No one is suggesting anything that ridiculous. Why are you? > [@](#): > > What questions are we asking? The question was what constitutes beligerent? I believe the point was made that beligerence does not have to include a physical threat. > [@](#): > > If its “Did the lady pose a level of physical threat to the officer warranting him to use painful and potentially lethal force?” and “Should police officers use painful and potentially lethal force on suspects not posing a physical threat?” I would say that no the majority would disagree with you. I question your use of potentially lethal. As far as painful is concerned, please be realistic. How can police force compliance without some painful results. If they had wrestled her out of the car and to the ground it could have been painful for her and them too. > [@](#): > > If you want to argue that its fine for the Police to use painful and potentially lethal force after 30 seconds of a request then we will just have to disagree. If you want to argue that she was a higher level of physical threat than a typical person pulled over for a traffic violation than you will have to show it. A poor attitude and questioning the officer does not meet that requirement. The point you seem to ignore is that when she escalated the situation to physical resistance things changed. You may assume that she posed little threat to these officers. That doesn’t make it a fact. > [@](#): > > So the moral of that story is do not attempt to pull over drug dealers becuase they might shoot at you? How does that in anyway relate to a traffic violation? The moral is exactly the point made above and previously in this thread. An officer doesn’t know what to expect from a suspect. For him to assume the best case scenario is putting himself at risk of serious injury. Even a 90 pound woman can wield a sharp object enough to do serious damage. > [@](#): > > How far does this go? > > Thats enough to get me zapped? Granted there was more interaction in this case but the woman did comply with every other request. My guess is that if you were threatened with a taser you would be smart enough to produce an ID and later file a complaint about the officer in question. I have questioned an officer when asked for my ID but I did so in a very respectful manner and was sure to convey that I was not combative. Look, I do agree that the second use in this case should have been avoided. In reading the reports it seems the deaths occured after mutiple taser use. That would indicate to me that officers might be cautioned to employ multiple taser shocks only if they face a clear and imminent physical threat. In this case I would say that after she was out of the car and on the ground they could have cuffed her without tasing her again. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/214 "2005-06-09T00:09:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > [Quoting the Amnesty report, which notes that “In at least five recent cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the death, along with other factors such as drug abuse and heart disease.”] > > this is much different than your previous statement that tasers caused these deaths. Nonsense, yet again. I expressly stated above that tasers likely caused those deaths _in conjunction with other factors such as drugs, alcohol, and weak hearts_. But take away the tasers, and those people are still alive (albeit high, drunk, or congested). > [@](#): > > That is not the only report to consider. Cite, please? > [@](#): > > The attitude seems to be that she presented no physical risk to the officers. I don’t agree. Then we are at an impasse, for your opinion is flatly wrong. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/215 "2005-06-09T00:10:04Z")
> [@treis](#): > > She was on the ground wimpering in pain and when told to put her hands behind her back said “I can’t”. The officer than tased here again. Honestly now lying on the ground wimpering in pain is resisting arrest? What pain? From the taser that was no longer shocking her? The pain from a taser is from it freaking out your nervous system, not from doing any real damage. My vote would be shes amping up the drama, not suffering. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/216 "2005-06-09T00:16:25Z")
> [@treis](#): > > She was on the ground wimpering in pain and when told to put her hands behind her back said “I can’t”. The officer than tased here again. Honestly now lying on the ground wimpering in pain is resisting arrest? **minty green** > [@](#): > > Violent too, if some people around here are to be believed. I tend to agree with you here, however, you quickly dismiss the valid point being made. We don’t know at that point, if she was feigning somewhat or concealing a weapon. Neither do the officers. In the commentary by the other officer he states exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/217 "2005-06-09T00:34:35Z")
Perhaps we have gotten caught up in the minutia of what transpired so I will sum up my argument in its simplist form: The taser should only be used in cases where the officer is in reasonable danger or when he believes that he is in reasonable danger. I am not going to rule out that it could be used in convincing a suspect to comply but in this case it was resorted to much too quickly. The suspect in this case did not pose a heightened threat to the officer. A generally poor disposition and attitude is not sufficient cause to reasonably believe an increased danger exists. When a suspect is on the ground and wimpering it is completely unacceptable to continue to tase them. Repeatedly shocking a suspect amounts to torture and should not happen unless the suspect poses a reasonable physical threat to the officers. The taser is an extremely painful and potentially life-threatening weapon and should be used accordingly. I realize the chances of a person dying from a taser are very slim but nontheless that danger is there. A couple quotes from the Amnesty International article: "Bjornstad, who was jolted for 1.5 seconds as part of his training, said all of his muscles contracted and the shock was like a finger in a light socket many times over. “Anyone who has experienced it will remember it forever …You don’t want to do this. It’s very uncomfortable … and that’s an understatement.” (The Olympian, 14 October 2002) “It’s like getting punched 100 times in a row, but once it’s off, you are back to normal again.” (The Olympian 2 March 2002)F “It felt terrible.” “It hurts. I’m going to think twice before I use this on anyone.” (two officers quoted in the Mobile Register 8 April 2002). “It is the most profound pain I have ever felt. You get total compliance because they don’t want that pain again.” (firearms consultant, quoted in The Associated Press 12 August 2003) “They call it the longest five seconds of their life … it’s extreme pain, there’s no question about it. No one would want to get hit by it a second time.” (County Sheriff, quoted in The Kalazazoo Gazette, Michigan, 7 March 2004) That is not something I want done to citizens more frequently than necessary. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/218 "2005-06-09T00:37:49Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Nonsense, yet again. I expressly stated above that tasers likely caused those deaths _in conjunction with other factors such as drugs, alcohol, and weak hearts_. But take away the tasers, and those people are still alive (albeit high, drunk, or congested). you said, > [@](#): > > On the fact that upwards of 100 people (estimates vary) are reported to have been killed by tasers. even given your later qualifier the section I quoted from the report you suggested shows this to be untrue. The report does not make the conclusion you do,{ that they would be alive if not for tasers} because it is medically and scientifically invalid. You called it common sense. Interesting that Amnesty International does not. > [@](#): > > Cite, please? It’s a article called "Taser Deaths Grossly Exaggerated " Per your suggestion to me google it yourself. > [@](#): > > Then we are at an impasse, for your opinion is flatly wrong. 😛 Cute. We are at an impasse because you flatly refuse to admit what any reasonable person would. 1. It is possible she had a weapon 2. The officers had no way of knowing if she had one or not. You want the officers to assume she was no risk and try to cajole her out or physically force her out. That assumption is how some officers get seriously hurt and exactly what the taser is meant to avoid as well as more serious injury to her. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/219 "2005-06-09T01:26:06Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Perhaps we have gotten caught up in the minutia of what transpired so I will sum up my argument in its simplist form: > > The taser should only be used in cases where the officer is in reasonable danger or when he believes that he is in reasonable danger. I am not going to rule out that it could be used in convincing a suspect to comply but in this case it was resorted to much too quickly. I don’t disagree with this statement except that we may disagree on what constitures reasonable danger to the officer and the suspect. > [@](#): > > The suspect in this case did not pose a heightened threat to the officer. A generally poor disposition and attitude is not sufficient cause to reasonably believe an increased danger exists. Thats your conclusion but don’t you see that the officers had no way of knowing that? She was in her car resisting arrest. Should the officers completely ignore any possibility that she might have a weapon and be willing to use it? > [@](#): > > When a suspect is on the ground and wimpering it is completely unacceptable to continue to tase them. Repeatedly shocking a suspect amounts to torture and should not happen unless the suspect poses a reasonable physical threat to the officers. From the reports I read it is repeated taser use that is a serious threat. I tend to agree with you here. > [@](#): > > The taser is an extremely painful and potentially life-threatening weapon and should be used accordingly. I realize the chances of a person dying from a taser are very slim but nontheless that danger is there. Very slim when used within certain guidelines. As I said, any physical confrontation has some life threatening potential. The choice might be, who do we put at risk more often. Officers doing their duty or uncooperative and potentially dangerous suspects? You can’t just look at the negative results to draw a proper conclusion. In evaluating the use of and guidelines consider how much violence has been avoided. Perhaps in a situation like this where the threat to officers is unclear or slim, a 2 second shock might be just as effective as five in showing “we mean business” My initial reaction to this video is that I wish the officer had warned her several more times before drawing his taser. Something like. “Miss. If you do not comply I will have to use force” Then draw the taser to show he’s serious and do what he did. Still after reviewing it I can see the officer was technically correct in procedure. I am dumbfounded that she did not comply in the face of his taser and repeated warnings. In placeing responsibility I would say 80% her fault. Another thing not discussed is where she was pulled over. In some areas an officer has a higher expectation of trouble than others. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161/220 "2005-06-09T01:42:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Thats your conclusion but don’t you see that the officers had no way of knowing that? She was in her car resisting arrest. Should the officers completely ignore any possibility that she might have a weapon and be willing to use it? The officer never told the woman that she was under arrest. He merely opened the door and made a grab for her. I don’t see how being disagreeable increases the chances of you having a weapon. Again is that what we really want to use to judge people? How little they question a police officer? Seriously please give me a list of what she did that made her an increased threat to the officer. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Very slim when used within certain guidelines. As I said, any physical confrontation has some life threatening potential. The choice might be, who do we put at risk more often. Officers doing their duty or uncooperative and potentially dangerous suspects? What did this woman do that made her any more potentially dangerous than any other motorist pulled over? Disagreeing with the legaility of the stop, pulling her body away when the officer tried to grab her or just being a pain in the ass? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > You can’t just look at the negative results to draw a proper conclusion. In evaluating the use of and guidelines consider how much violence has been avoided. Perhaps in a situation like this where the threat to officers is unclear or slim, a 2 second shock might be just as effective as five in showing “we mean business” She had initially refused a couple other requests but then complied without being tased. I feel that she would have gotten out of the car if the officer didn’t just yell at her and then pull a taser in 15 seconds. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > My initial reaction to this video is that I wish the officer had warned her several more times before drawing his taser. Something like. “Miss. If you do not comply I will have to use force” Then draw the taser to show he’s serious and do what he did. Still after reviewing it I can see the officer was technically correct in procedure. I am dumbfounded that she did not comply in the face of his taser and repeated warnings. In placeing responsibility I would say 80% her fault. Sorry, all of the responsibility goes with the trained person who pulled a weapon and used it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Another thing not discussed is where she was pulled over. In some areas an officer has a higher expectation of trouble than others. Yeah and what if she were David Banner and was about to turn into the Incredible Hulk. These what-ifs are getting a little bit out there. She made no physically aggressive move and I did not see anything that would make me believe she were more likely than the average motorist to have a weapon. I would note that the officer had no problem sticking around for a few minutes talking on his radio. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taser-use-justified/307161.md?page=12)