Texas Cop Tasers Granny

[whole_bean]

@Cisco

I said she was never a threat to anyone, including herself, meaning she shouldn’t have been tased.
You said ah, but she was a threat, by speeding in a construction zone.
By that logic, everyone who speeds in a construction zone should be tased.
Either she was a threat as a speeder and deserved a tasing - in which case every speeder in a construction zone should be tased - or she wasn’t a threat. If that is not your argument, then your argument is missing a link and is irrelevant.

Wow. Just, wow. Let’s see if we can break this down into digestible bits.

As has already been explained, the woman was apprehended for speeding (offense one) and was issued a notice to appear in court as an alternative to arrest (conditional consequence of offense one - consequence one). In order to avail herself of this alternative she must promise to appear in court (above referenced condition). This promise is evidenced by her signature. If she refuses to sign, then she has by default indicated her preference for physical arrest and detention (consequence where above-referenced condition is not met - consequence two). She refused. She was arrested. Here ends the analysis of the “police practices” phase of her alleged crime of speeding and the punishment for the same. *Any further response by you that references dropping a ticket through the window disqualifies you from reasoned debate on this topic.

Having opted for consequence two, arrest, she resisted the arresting officer’s attempts to place her under arrest (offense two). From a police practices standpoint, there is a continuum of consequences for this offense (these have been loosely enumerated by Jodi). Our resisting speeder works her way up to tasing (consequence of resisting arrest), i.e., the consequence of resisting arrest for our resisting speeder is tasing and detention. Here ends the analysis of the “police practices” phase of her alleged crime of resisting arrest – tasing was not the punishment for speeding, hence your statements’ along the lines of “so we should tase all speeders?” make you look, forgive the pun, slow.

You make the irrelevant argument that she was not a danger to anyone (as if this were the only grounds for tasing). Significant of nothing other than proving you to be less than observant, someone informs you that her speeding placed others in danger. Again, speeding was not the grounds for her tasing, resisting arrest was. That still doesn’t mean you weren’t wrong when you said she hadn’t endangered anyone. She had, but that’s not why she was tased.

If you still cannot see how this in no way suggest the penalty for speeding should be tasing, let me give it one more try.

She was tased for resisting arrest. Notwithstanding that, speeding (which she also did) endangers others, contrary to your statement that she was not a danger to anyone; however, speeding is not why she was tased.

Now if you were both being intellectually honest, you might say something along the lines of “so, anyone who resists arrest, but otheriwse is not placing anyone in immediate harm, should be tased?” I think you would find a chorus of, “well it would depend on all the circumsctances, but yeah, maybe.” Not what you were looking for though, was it?

[Sitnam]

@gonzomax

Wrestling her to the ground. C’mon they put cuffs on people who are standing up all the time. She was a serious threat to him, I am sure. But he could have cuffed her and taken her in if he felt the world would be safer with her in jail. The other cops would have ripped when he got there too.

Yeah, she’s 72 so she doesn’t have to obey laws anymore.

I’m wondering what the Texas State Trooper policy is, since the police chief is supporting the cop’s actions I’m guessing the policy is to avoid grappling with a suspect at all costs and she certainly didn’t seem compliant.

[Jodi]

@Cisco

I don’t understand what about it doesn’t make sense to you, unless you think tasers have never killed anyone.

Perhaps recourse to a dictionary to find out what “hyperbole” means will help you out. Here’s a hint: It doesn’t have jack-shit to do with Tasering.

[Jodi]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

An intense shock of sudden electricity, pain, adrenaline, and fear is no threat to anyone with a potential heart condition? Really? Could I get a neutral cite for this?

Can I get a cite to where in this thread anyone said “an intense shock of sudden electricity, pain, adrenaline, and fear is no threat to anyone with a potential heart condition”? Otherwise, it’s really up to you to shore up your own strawman.

[billfish678]

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am all for civil disobedience when called for. Hell, I am all for ignoring cops or giving them a hard time when called for (not that its a good idea, but there are times when REAL principles are involved).

Hell, I hope those cops who gave the EMTs a rash of shit recently loose their jobs and their retirement.

But sorry granny, you escalated it. You (literally?) asked for it. You really didnt give the officer any choice. All over him asking you to sign a speeding ticket?

Sorry, I vote BZZTTTT for this one. Heck, throw in another BZZZTTT for good measure.

[Jodi]

@smiling_bandit

But I would be much more willing to support a cop who uses judgement in an unclear situation in order to maintain public order (particularly when that means not using force), or uses nonstandard methods as a solution. It is for this reason, not simply rules-obediance, that we have and need policemen, and that they are endowed with so much power.

He did use his judgment in an unclear situation to maintain public order; in fact that’s exactly what he did. Hard to see any support for that from you, though. And what, precisely, do you mean by “nonstandard methods as a solution”?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@VinylTurnip

Such a nice old lady, he obviously could’ve disarmed her by asking to see pictures of her great-grandkids.

I"m sorry, I was not aware that she was armed. What kind of a weapon did she have?

Or did you mean disarmed in the sense of allying hostility or suspicion?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Telemark

So does putting someone in physical restraint. Plus it breaks bones, dislocats joints, and causes all sorts of bruising. Nothing is perfectly safe, but something is going to happen to you when you resist arrest.

Certainly true, but police have been very Taser-happy lately. I put it down to poor training, plus good PR by the Taser company that seems to convince police that the Taser is a harmless little zap gun that can be used anywhere, anytime.

[whole_bean]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I"m sorry, I was not aware that she was armed. What kind of a weapon did she have?

Or did you mean disarmed in the sense of allying hostility or suspicion?

are you the guy who insists on knowing why the chicken really crossed the road?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Sitnam

Yeah, she’s 72 so she doesn’t have to obey laws anymore.

I’m wondering what the Texas State Trooper policy is, since the police chief is supporting the cop’s actions I’m guessing the policy is to avoid grappling with a suspect at all costs and she certainly didn’t seem compliant.

No, nobody has said that she did not have to obey laws. This is a red herring.

You are probably correct about the policies of the police. Policies of police depts. around the world have been changing back lately though, as more and more suspects have been died after being tasered. The taser was sold to police depts. as a very safe alternative to physical restraint. It has been found that it is all too often a FATAL alternative to physical restraint. Plus, the Taser has been used much, much too frequently as a punishment device for people who are merely “lippy” to the police.

[DigitalC]

This again? when we see a news item titled “person doing absolutely nothing wrong gets tasered” we can have a real discussion.

[Cisco]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Oh, I see, you said she was never a threat to anyone, including herself and I took issue with that generalization.
You’ve got some funny logic there, mister. How would tasing them eliminate the threat assuming you actually have to pull someone over to tase them? I never suggested she should have been tased for speeding. I am, however, disagreeing with your assessment that she was a harmless old lady who was never a threat to anyone. Clearly, from the get-go and at several points during the encounter, she was a threat.
Tasing is not punitive. Tasing is a compliance technique. Just like the knee to the chest. Just like physical subjugation, handcuffing, etc. When you resist arrest, you do pose a threat to yourself and the officer carrying out the arrest because people get hurt in those situations in the best of circumstances. As as been noted over and over again, tasing–as opposed to physically forcing compliance–minimizes risk of injury to law enforcement and *usually *to the arrestee, as well. Resisting arrest, however, is never going to be 100% safe, with or without tasers.

What don’t you get? I said she was never a threat that deserved tasing. You said she WAS a threat because she was speeding in a construction zone. Further wiggling on your part just looks like you’re trying to drag me down into some complicated mess of an argument that has nothing to do with what you or I originally said. I’m not going to play.

@whole_bean

Wow. Just, wow. Let’s see if we can break this down into digestible bits.

As has already been explained, the woman was apprehended for speeding (offense one) and was issued a notice to appear in court as an alternative to arrest (conditional consequence of offense one - consequence one). In order to avail herself of this alternative she must promise to appear in court (above referenced condition). This promise is evidenced by her signature. If she refuses to sign, then she has by default indicated her preference for physical arrest and detention (consequence where above-referenced condition is not met - consequence two). She refused. She was arrested. Here ends the analysis of the “police practices” phase of her alleged crime of speeding and the punishment for the same. *Any further response by you that references dropping a ticket through the window disqualifies you from reasoned debate on this topic.

Ok, good. I can (and did, in fact) stop reading there, in that case. If you think taking someone to jail because they’re upset and don’t want to scribble on your piece of paper then you’re the one not being reasonable. If you think taking a great grandmother onto the edge of a “particularly dangerous stretch of highway”, screaming in her face, pushing her twice, shocking her out of all control over her body, and then taking her to jail because she’s upset and doesn’t want to scribble on your piece of paper is “perfectly reasonable” then I don’t care to argue with you.

And to everyone: is there any indication that he tried to make clear the consequences of not signing? Was she charged with not signing the ticket?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@whole_bean

are you the guy who insists on knowing why the chicken really crossed the road?

No, I’m just well aware of some user’s proclivity to play semantic games when caught out in a statement (“he obviously could’ve disarmed her”) that is… problematic.

[Jodi]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I"m sorry, I was not aware that she was armed. What kind of a weapon did she have?

Or did you mean disarmed in the sense of allying hostility or suspicion?

That’s a poser.

[Jodi]

@Euphonious_Polemic

No, I’m just well aware of some user’s proclivity to play semantic games when caught out in a statement (“he obviously could’ve disarmed her”) that is… problematic.

[Foghorn Leghorn] It was a joke, son. [/Foghorn Leghorn]

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Jodi

[Foghorn Leghorn] It was a joke, son. [/Foghorn Leghorn]

ya, well you know who else told jokes? Hitler, that’s who!

<reboot sense of humor>

[Mosier]

@Cisco

I just googled her name and clicked video. It was last night so I don’t remember the exact one I watched.
I don’t see why getting pushed/yelled at/shocked/hauled off to jail, or anything else remotely that serious should be a consequence of not signing a ticket. Like I said, he had her on camera. It’s not like they weren’t going to be able to serve justice on this supercriminal. Police should not be returning nerf-gun fire with rocket launchers. This woman was no threat to anyone, including “herself” as the pro-taser crowd usually likes to claim.

Being arrested was a consequence of not signing the ticket.

Being pushed was a consequence of resisting arrest and attempting to walk into traffic.

Being tazed was a consequence of continuing to resist arrest, verbally announcing her intent not to comply with the officer, and attempting to shove past him at least three times.

I can see how you might consider ALL of that to be a consequence of not signing the ticket, but that’s just not true. She got tazed because at every point during the encounter she chose to escalate the situation and continue to not to comply. It doesn’t matter whether its you, me, a cranky old granny, or the pope, any of us would have been arrested for refusing to sign the ticket.

[billfish678]

@Cisco

. If you think taking a great grandmother onto the edge of a “particularly dangerous stretch of highway”, screaming in her face, pushing her twice, shocking her out of all control over her body, and then taking her to jail because she’s upset and doesn’t want to scribble on your piece of paper is “perfectly reasonable” then I don’t care to argue with you.

Well, RISKING going to jail, getting pushd, getting tasered or getting tackled or getting shot to just NOT sign a piece of paper which just means you GOT this piece of paper is pretty stupid and irresponsible as well.

[Mosier]

@Cisco

Not having her get out of the truck in the first place. “Not gonna sign? Ok.” <drops ticket in window> “See you in court.”

That’s not how it works. If the cop gives her the ticket without making her sign it, she never got the ticket.

It’s how the law prevents cops from abusing their power and writing a bunch of bogus tickets.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Bolding mine.

Does not result in anyone getting hurt? What?

Did I miss the part of the story in which it was noted that either party was injured?

The alternative to physical restraint DOES put people at risk for DEATH. Tasering KILLS PEOPLE.

So, does physically subduing. Ever heard of positional asphyxia? Officers are also at risk of injury during physical subduing. Do you know how much blunt force is required to break a nose? Even a well-placed 72-year-old elbow can manage that without a great deal of effort. There’s a lot more technique involved in physically subduing someone and a greater risk of doing it wrong and hurting the person you’re subduing and/or getting hurt yourself.

I don’t blame cops for choosing the safer method. Frankly, if he’d physically forced her arrest without the taser and her arm was broken, you’d all be crying the same damn thing and whinging about how irresponsible he was to wrench her arm to the extent it broke, regardless of the fact that old people are much more susceptible to bone breaks at much less pressure. Perhaps, he considered that, too.