Tasing a suspect endangers the suspect. A high-speed chase endangers everyone on the road. Amazingly enough, it’s possible to be in favor of one without being in favor of the other.
Let’s review what I said:
I agree with the legal, accepted, and recommended use of tasers. I disapprove of the illegal, unaccepted, and unrecommended use of tasers.
In the same vein, I agree with the police officers using legal, accepted, and recommended use of their vehicles. I disapprove with their illegal, unaccepted, or unrecommended use of their vehicles.
I approve of you using your knife to cut steak into bite sized pieces. I disapprove of you using your knife to kill people.
I approve of aliens coming to Earth to trade information with humanity. I disapprove of aliens coming to Earth to enslave our people and turn us into snack food.
None of these positions are conflicting with one another nor irrational.
On Tasers: Yes, they hurt. They’re supposed to. What good would they be if they didn’t? Would you rather be tased or shot with a pistol?
On police authority: A lot of people seem to have the attitude that they only need to cooperate with the police if they did something wrong. “I don’t have to turn around and put my hands behind my back; I didn’t do anything”. Many of these situations would never get this far out of hand if people would simply remain calm and cooperate, and not be a dick.
If an officer, in an attempt to arrest someone for a crime or suspected crime, and they ask the suspect to turn around and put their hands behind their back, and the person refuses or resists, what should the police do? Only arrest them if they desire to be arrested? How much force should they use to affect the arrest?
The answer is this: You are taught that you may use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest. Under that guideline, a Tasering would not be excessive, nor would forcing someone to the ground and putting your knee in their back.
As for the OP: We are making judgments after the fact; when the full story is out and all the facts and evidence is in and has been reviewed and analyzed over time. The officers in the OP, at the time, had none of this to base their actions on. I wasn’t there, so I don’t really know. It does look bad for the police, because that’s the way it was presented.
I don’t believe that that’s true. The purpose of a taser is to incapacitate a person, not to make them feel pain. The pain is just a side-effect of the method used.
Point in fact, I’m nigh 100% certain that incapacitating a person is the sole intended and prescribed purpose of a taser.
Intended by the designer and manufacturer, yes. The intent of the user can be somewhat different, no?
Indeed. But such use is not acceptable, will get you fired, fined, and possibly jailed.
Like I said, using a knife to eat a steak is acceptable. Using it to kill someone isn’t. A taser is the go-to device for de-escalating what could be a physical encounter into a (comparatively) peaceful subduing of a suspect for arrest, regardless of what the person’s crime was. Resisting arrest is, itself, a crime and use of a taser as a response is acceptable to the limit that it is used specifically for the purpose of incapacitating the suspect and getting them into the police car. It isn’t acceptable to use it to inflict pain.
Note that only one officer was fired. The other resigned and shortly thereafter hired by the sheriff’s office in a nearby county.
Standard police practice; when an officer is naughty, ship them somewhere they won’t be recognised. The Catholics almost perfected it with their redistribution of paedophile priests.
There wouldn’t be a dangerous high speed chase if LEO’s didn’t panic lowly car thieves into driving in a life-threatening manner.
Unless you have proof that in every instance they’d already been driving dangerously before the police joined in? Thought not.
Actually, my post was a joke. Evidently a bad one…
I admit my post could have been the result of a hasty reading but since you’re willing to take the hit, I owe you one.
You would be wrong. From Wiki :
So when it comes to police interrogations, it would be a good idea to use tasers then? If they are just a tool to get answers, then they should have free reign to tase anybody who does not answer like they wish.
We are supposed to have a right to refuse what we see as police stepping over the line and taking our rights away. Cops are often in the wrong. Real morality says you do not allow an aggressive cop to freely take away your rights. The constitution gives and the police take away. The duty of a citizen is to resist when cops step over the line. Like Rodney King ,the cops will step well over the line .If people don’t blow the whistle and try to prevent them from continuing, they just get worse. Now some states are making it against the law to film them in the act of doing their duty. Why would that be? Do they have something to hide?
Uhhh. A police officer, that should be trained in restraint technique, needs to use a tazer on an unarmed 57 year old woman? And another police officer does it too?
Two supposedly trained men against an unarmed 57 year old woman? Ah huh. Um. No.
I know it’s not Andy Griffith out there, but that is way over the top.
In a way I guess lying down and screaming “Oh god, oh god, don’t hit me! Sir! Sir, I aint done nothing” is a way of resisting. A more reasonable way to respond would be “Thank you for electrocuting me massa”. I don’t know WHAT could possibly have led her to believe that she needed to fear these policemen.
And I don’t see how two male cops could possibly be able to handle one middle aged black woman WITHOUT using tasers and mace. I think they showed exceptional restraint by not shooting her. They deserve a medal, really.
Actually they had to use pepper spray on her as well. The part that was left out of the story is that she is actually Godzilla. Note the lack of photos.
Why didn’t they just go the whole hog and beat her with a folded telephone directory, too? In for a cent, in for a dollar, sorta thing.
I’m not so sure that we, as a society, are better off if people like the OP’s victim just tamely go along to get along. Should we want petty abuses of power to slip under the radar?
One can only hope that people who defend abuses of power become victims of it, that is probably the most effective way to rehabilitate them.
I’m not saying that people defending these cops should have their testicles attacked to electrodes, or their anuses penetrated with a nightstick, I’m just saying it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if that happened…
The people who support cops having a different set of rules for themselves think there is. I don’t think cops should have a different set of rules; I think cops should get tickets when they break traffic rules when driving (not in pursuit) or when caught drunk-driving off-duty; I think cops should rat on each other all the time, as often as necessary. I don’t believe in the blue code of silence, or whatever it’s called. I think cops need to hold themselves to the possible highest standards, so that when questionable things happen, our first response isn’t; “Dammit, the cops are out of control again!” but, “That’s unusual; cops don’t usually do that.”