The first tazer shot was probably justified, if they were going to make an arrest and the suspect was resisting. I’m not so sure about the second one.
Well, what about someone who’s driving under the influence? They present a clear and present danger to others if they continue to drive in their intoxicated state. Should officers still be required to have a warrent from a judge to keep them from driving?
OK, I’ve actually worked for a police department, and anytime a driver is found to be driving with a suspended license they cannot drive their car away from the scene or they are arrested (this is in NC, btw). Depending on the nature of the suspension they may be immediately arrested.
Also, pepper spray has a pretty significant risk of fatality, especially with fat and unhealthy people if they’re rolled on their stomache to bind the handcuffs. I’ve been both pepper sprayed and tasered, and would much prefer to be tasered.
So, in my opinion it was without a doubt appropriate and probably the best way to end the situation.
Holy cow. I’m not trying to be a smartass here. I am trying to understand. Slowness of traffic? So in a world where all citizens can do whatever they want on public roads traffic jams are settled by lawsuits? Does this really seem workable to you? Or am I missing the point?
Okay, I think I have a handle on it now. I’m sure that **yBeayf ** will correct me if i misrepresent him.
Basically, this is an anarchist/ libertarian view toward policy. As such, you can have no preventative measures of any sort. Only after the fact can grievances be addressed. And I suppose that the courts would be the place to air said grievances. Police, should they exist, serve only to stop immediate physical harm, enforce judicial rulings, and I suppose they would need to power to compel appearance before the court.
Is this more or less correct?
It is anathema to everything I know about civil society and my observations on what would actually work, but i do respect the consistency shown thus far.
If the person is clearly physically unable to operate the automobile safely, then I would consider the police using non-deadly force to prevent them from driving until they could do so to be justified. It would be equivalent to using force to take down a person who was randomly firing a gun on a crowded street.
Yes indeedy. Consider it an incentive to privatize the road system, so problems like this can be prevented without infringing on anyone’s rights.
Yes.
[QUOTE=BrickerI contend that what we see is an appropriate use of non-lethal force. The driver was told several times to step out of the car, and refused. She was being arrested for driving on a suspended license. When an officer tried to take the phone away from her, she tried to hit him.[/QUOTE]
Why did the officer have to take the phone from her?
Why couldn’t the officer have simply tried restating his demands?
What was the big rush?
I’m not saying he’s a jackbooted thug, but it’s a false dillemma to suppose the only options here are “jackbooted thug” or “Everything is fine.” A better cop could have resolved this situation without risking the woman’s life.
Actually according to this its not the pepper spray that is the problem it is the restraint positions that suspects are put in that causes those deaths.
to which yBeayf replied yes.
to ybeayf
If the woman was driving with a suspended licence they were enforcing a judicial ruling. Effectively she had already been convicted and sentenced, she failed to serve her sentence (suspension of licence).
She has already been determined to be an immediate threat on the road because her licence has been suspended. Judges don’t just hand out suspensions for first offense 10mph over the speed limit in perfect driving conditions. You generally have to have several tickets in a relatively short period of time or a serious dangerous act to rate a suspension at least here in CA.
For legal reference my I ask what state or country you reside in?
In addition to spin her arrest into a more libertarian POV she has a signed agreement with the state that in a nutshell says she agrees to operate a motor vehicle by the rules of her state. She failed to do so and was arrested for it.
Then she tried to assault the officer arresting her.
Driving is a privilege. It is not a right. If someone loses that privilege, then when they are found driving without a license, the officer is required to arrest them, because they can’t let the person continue driving. However, if there is someone else in the car who has a valid license, the officer can choose to cite the offender and allow the other person to drive the car away.
It is fortunately not policy, nor can it ever be policy as long as there are homo sapiens. It’s the fantasy world the die-hard Libertarians build. It totally ignores how human beings react to and exploit situations.
A taser is non-deadly force, although it is certainly not foolproof. While I’ve experienced neither, I think it is a better option than being wrestled out of a vehicle and bludgeoned with a nightstick in order to force compliance.
RickJay, from what I remember, the officers several times ordered the woman out of the car. It wasn’t “Get out of the car” (1…2…3) taser. It was closer to “Get out of the car.” (1…2…3) “Get out of the car!” (1…2…3) "Get out of the car or I will taser you! (*3 or 4).
At what point do you stop ordering and start enforcing?
I don’t believe a license should be required to drive on a public road in the first place. Even if it were worked out that she didn’t have the right to be driving on the road, as she was committing no violent act I argue the officer had no moral right to arrest her. Legally, of course, he was in the clear.
Harris County, Texas. And I realize that if in real life I tried doing what she did I should fully expect my ass to be beat down. That doesn’t make it right.
In this discussion, I have been talking about what I feel the law should be, not what it is. I argue that driving one’s automobile on a public road is indeed a right, and that by trying to regulate it as if it were a privilege, the government is infringing on that right.
Because she is using it as an excuse to ignore the officers directions. Time to cause distractions, and time to summon assistance. Is her calling people to try and escalate the situation further a good idea?
What part of “you are under arrest” was she not understanding.
A better citizen would not have been driving with a suspended licence or refusing to comply with officers orders in arresting her.
Uh, if you pepper-sprayed someone with an allergy or asthma, I could see it being severe to fatal.
Not having watched the videos (my dial-up just can’t take it), I can’t really comment too much, other than I’d rather see officers rely on tasers and other stun weapons and see them start to use those instead of lethal force.
Do you have evidence that it has been fatal in some instances?
Because he needed her to step out of the car so she could be handcuffed.
He did. At least four times. How many times should he have to?
Maybe they didn’t have a spare 45 minutes to wheedle a driver who was speeding around on a suspended license into obeying lawful directives.
45 minutes is an exaggeration the initial tasing occurs less than 30 seconds after the first request of the suspect to exit the vehicle.
From your article:
Which jives with what the study I quoted claims.
FWIW, Tasers also kill people.