This ignores the fact that tasers do not merely peacefully put people to sleep.
In fact, many people are injured pursuant to having a taser used against them. An incapacitated person, whose muscles are being subject to electric shock stimuli, is unable to keep themselves erect. They fall, often onto concrete or asphalt, which can cause both minor injuries and major head trauma.
Tasers can also cause seizures in people with no prior history of such. At least one such incident happened to a police officer this year. cite
Another point: why do so many people think it’s okay to cause pain, as long as there is no injury? I mean, that’s what torture is all about, isn’t it? Causing as much pain as possible without actually impairing the subject so much that they cannot comport to your orders?
My stance is that causing pain is as wrong as causing injury, and the taser allows people to create a false dichotomy that one is different, and not as bad, as the other. To me, that’s bullshit.
Tasers are a weapon, used to force compliance. They are intended to be used as an alternative to other, more deadly weapons. It’s a good tool, backed by good intentions. However, it is not to be used indiscriminately, anymore than a night stick would be used. If someone is not a threat, there should be no need to use it. How could someone who is stuck on the shitter a threat? He’s already confined in a little room, so he isn’t going anywhere either.
He’s not a threat so long as he’s confined in his room. But the goal isn’t to keep him locked up, it’s to apprehend him.
First of all, how do you get into the room when the other person is holding it closed and fighting to not let you in? The officer chose pepper spray, what’s your solution? Or are you saying the officer should simply have left him as he was in the bathroom?
No, the goal of the officer should have been to ascertain the facts before acting. He did not. He simply acted. I need police officers who do more than shoot, then holler “Stop! Or I’ll shoot!” to cover their asses.
I only read the short article you linked, so maybe I missed something.
Our deaf and disabled was trespassing, in that the owner of the bathroom wanted him out and gone. He had been in the bathroom for one hour. He refused to answer to knocking. The officers forced the door (perhaps - this is conjecture - to find out if there was a medical emergency), and then had it slammed on them.
At this point we have a problem. Someone has been asked to leave, and won’t leave. They are using force (blocking the door), to keep from leaving. They are no longer allowed to be there.
What would you have the officer do in this situation?
Often the default assumption is that officers don’t need to do anything in situations like this. They should just wait for the guy to come out when he is ready, since this is better than Tasering him or otherwise forcing compliance.
My take is that we are arguing from different assumptions. I believe it is acceptable to incur a certain level of risk to the suspect for no other reason than to compel compliance. Those on the other side don’t seem to agree.
IOW, it seems on one side, the default for the police is to do nothing. On the other, to take action to force compliance. The problem with threads like this is that they are being argued after the fact, based on information that police don’t always have at the time, and there are always lots of anecdotes to drag in about Rodney King and Diallo and whoever.
I agree that the article is short and doesn’t contain an overabundance of details. But you’re also making assumptions here. In fact, we don’t know that the officers were called because of a trespasser. All we know is that they were called because a man had been in the bathroom of a store, reportedly for an hour.
You are wrong that it was the owner who called. The story explicitly states that store workers called the police.
We don’t know that the worker(s)told the officers “get him out of here”. IMO, it’s more likely that they were told “I don’t know what he’s doing, but other people will need the bathroom; we need some help here.”
Also, how does a deaf person “refuse to answer” something they cannot hear? A blind person doesn’t “refuse to read signs” that are all around him. An amputee doesn’t “refuse to walk”.
This man is deaf AND has the mental capacity of a 10-year old child. His perceptions of the world are not going to be the same as a fully functioning adult (or even a fully functioning child, really).
[quote]
The officers forced the door (perhaps - this is conjecture - to find out if there was a medical emergency), and then had it slammed on them.
[quote]
As you say, this is conjecture.
I’m not sure. This particular 1-in-a-million-type situation prolly doesn’t occur often enough for there to be much training or procedure covering it. Has someone been asked to leave if they cannot hear or understand the question?
As I said before, I would have liked to see that the officers tried to gather information before acting. From the story I linked, my impression is that the cops came in, asked “is he still in there?” and then went to the door and started knocking, with pepper spray following soon after. Not exactly ideal “Serve & Protect” behaviour, IMO.
Employees are owner representatives. So an employee asking is the owner asking.
You do not know what else the officers tried either, so if you are going to critque me for trying to fill in the blanks, you should follow the same rules.
You also still fail to offer another path for the police to follow. If they knock / talk / yell, and get no response, the logical next step is to force the door. If someone fights back without talking, what would you have them do?
LOL I see we both are having problems with coding this morning. (on preview, I see you fixed yours… sadly mine is past edit window)
I don’t think I’ve tried to fill in any of the blanks. I’m just using the information available in the story.
Not to nitpick the point, but “owner” and “owner’s employee” are not the same thing. “Owner” carries a lot more gravitas, and is a clearly valid person to ask to have someone removed from the premises. “Employee” doesn’t carry as much as weight, which I suspect is why you initially chose that word. No matter. It’s a small detail. I’ll drop it.
I did find more stories being posted about this, with more details, and it looks to me like not only sloppy police work, but also potentially illegal actions on the part of the police.
According to these stories, Mr. Love was detained for at least 4 hours (and possibly as many as 6 hours) before being dropped off near his home. Not taken to his home, just to the parking lot.
Mr. Love also stated that he was in the bathroom for perhaps 30 minutes before officers arrived.
Why was he in there so long? Apparently he was ill. But 30 minutes before police arrived means he was in there like 10-20 minutes before police were called. That’s a lot different than him being in the bathroom for an hour before police were called. I agree that it’s a detail we simply cannot know, but it does affect my outlook on the situation.
Mr. Love also states that he had been a customer at the store numerous times, which leads me to wonder how it could be that he wasn’t recognized by employees. I am a regular at several stores in my area, and if I locked myself in the bathroom and didn’t respond for some time, I know that store employees would not call to have me forcibly removed from the premises; they would call to ask for assistance with an unknown problem, possibly medical assistance needed.
I know it’s a slim hope in my city (cops here have tackled old men to the ground in broad daylight for no reason, shot unarmed handicapped people, and occasionally kill people for no reason), but I would hope that the response to unknown situations isn’t to immediately resort to violence and the inflicting of pain and possible injury, as it seems to be in this situation.
*Bagsby is a police spokesperson.
So, they know someone is inside, and not responding to their knocks. Could he be deaf? Could he not speak English and not understand them? Could he have had a seizure? Better to assume that he is some sort of Umbrella Ninja with murderous intent, and start pepper spraying, right?
IMO, the police could have asked if anyone had seen him come into the store, if anyone recognized him or knew him. They could have refrained from the quick escalation of the situation. What if it had been a pregnant lady who was deaf, and her water had broken? What if the person inside was injured and unable to respond? Why was violence necessary?
The officers also failed to call for a translator, as is the law.
So, pepper sprayed, tasered 3 times, handcuffed, held prisoner for 4-6 hours without being read his Miranda Rights or being charged with a crime… how did that “serve & protect” anyone?
The only thing the officers were wrong in was arresting after learning that he had medical issues. I have no problems with them forcing the door open, pepper spraying, or tasing him because at the time, all they knew was that someone was resisting.
Mock it all you want, anything, including an umbrella, can be used as a weapon. I don’t care how unlikely a person thinks that poking an eye out is, but it can happen, and as a cop you have to expect the unexpected.
I don’t believe this case makes a great statement for not using tasers. To the cops, some unknown guy behind a door was resisting their attempts to get in, with a possible weapon clearly visible. They had no choice.
They did wrong by arresting him for disorderly conduct after they found out his condition. And for laughing at him when they found out he was deaf, if true.
Yes, we should allow law enforcement to be able to inflict great pain and suffering on citizens because something that is what’s required and sometimes its much better than the alternative of a metal fragment into flesh
Even a series of incidents wouldn’t change my mind. Like the disproportionate media coverage on school shootings, one incident, or a few, gets magnified into what is seemingly an epidemic. So no, a few incidents or a series wouldn’t change my mind. There would have to be hundreds of incidents over the course of a year to establish trend. Also, if evidence is discovered that tasers are almost as lethal as guns.
If this person was deaf, of course he won’t respond to knocking, or orders to open the door. He didn’t hear any of it. I will cut the police a break - they didn’t know this. However, we shouldn’t really blame the “perp” either. He didn’t hear anything. If I am on the toilet and someone shoves the door open, my first impulse would be to push the door shut too. If I don’t know you, can’t hear any “orders or identification” you are shouting, etc, I will push the door shut. It isn’t resisting, it isn’t a “crime”, it’s just what it is - someone trying to come in and me shutting the door.
The more I think bout it, the more I think it is a “shit happens” incident.
Agree. They didn’t have a clue that the person was deaf and didn’t hear them, they had no idea what was going on. For all they knew it COULD have been some heavily armed dope fiend.
That’s why I lean more and more toward the “shit happens” explanation. No one is at fault, shit just happened.
How can he obey commands he cannot perceive? You are falsely equating “not obeying” with “disobeying”.
Actually, the police report and Mr. Love’s account do not differ greatly, as some of the stories note.
(Bolding mine, to help you find the pertinent part. You’re welcome.)
If I have given more weight to Mr. Love’s account, I have good reasons: the police have contradicted themselves:
So, they either pepper sprayed him after forcing open the door and seeing a potentially lethal parasol, or they pepper sprayed him after confirming he was in the bathroom. The police have contradicted themselves publicly, thus lessening any credence I give to their accounts.
(on preview, I see you fixed yours… sadly mine is past edit window)