# Yet another unjustified tasering by idiot cop **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 2, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359 "2010-09-02T07:33:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/121 "2010-09-03T16:01:25Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > > [@SmellMyWort](#): > > > > You truely believe that in this case the only alternative to the taser was to beat the guy? > > No, I simply disagreed with the post that I quoted. Oh, then you must not be aware that a nightstick has other uses than just deliverying blows. Glad I could fight your ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/122 "2010-09-03T16:28:05Z")
**Bricker** , It looks like we have a disagreement on fundamental grounds - I was trained to a more stringent level of evidence than you accept. Not a LOT more stringent, but sufficient that I disagree that there was cause, whilst obviously you feel there _was_. We’re not going to bridge that. So I’ll leave it. > [@Bricker](#): > > “Intermediate weapon” and “deadly force” don’t seem to be the same thing. So I question your assumption that tasers are considered “deadly force” by this (or any) department. It’s all _very_ clear in the Deadly Force Statement (which I still remember, essentially word-for-word, nearly twenty years later). As I said, I have no idea what those officers use for their standard policy, but tasers _have_ killed and caused serious injury, the subject in this case is right smack in the middle of the high-risk group, and a reasonable person should know that - _certainly_ an officer should know that! That makes it deadly force, no matter what the expert says about intermediate weapons.\* Intermediate weapons can _absolutely_ be used to apply deadly force. Hell, a _pillow_ can be used to apply deadly force. The definition of Deadly Force is NOT contingent on the means by which you apply it, but to the possible outcome of the application of force, no matter by _what_ means it was applied. If I smother someone with a basket full of goosedown, I’ve applied deadly force. If I fire puppies at them from an air cannon, I’ve applied deadly force. If slap them with my shoe, I have NOT applied deadly force, though I may be guilty of simple battery, or even assault. If I unholster my weapon and set it on a table in their presence, I have _not_ applied deadly force, though I may well be in violation of any number of other statutes and regulations. If I _trheaten to use my weapons against them_, I have not applied deadly force, though I’m very likely going down for assault. \*BTW: I have no problem with tasers as a tool - Properly used. But there’s a _reason_ the military calls them ‘less lethal’ instead of ‘non-lethal.’ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/123 "2010-09-03T16:35:05Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Well, the whole “respectfully” thingy differs from the case under discussion. Not to mention the fact that here you suggest “physical force or a taser” without knowing how physically imposing **Jack Batty** may be but whine defensively about cops using a taser to avoid possible bruises when the subject of the discussion is an old guy who has trouble standing up. We don’t see the beginning of the enounter, do we? Why do you assume they didn’t begin respectfully? > [@](#): > > What I see you doing [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12872003&postcount=78) is everything you can to _avoid_ making any judgment whatsoever. You offer absolute certainty for “their legal authority”. And you understand that others “might be arguing that it wasn’t good police work, that even though they had the legal authority, they should have done more checking, or something. Maybe so.” Well, duhh, that is exactly what is being argued. But you still conclude “I have no way to judge that.” Because I don’t. I didn’t see the beginning of the encounter. I didn’t hear what the paramedics said to them. I don’t know if they’ve had any prior encounters with this man. So I have no meaningful way to judge whether the cops’ exemplified the best practices of police work. But I do know the law. And I know that on the evidence we CAN see, they meet the standard for probable cause. Once that standard is met, it is difficult (although concedely not impossible) for additional information to make probable cause vanish. So it’s sfae to conclude that the police met the legal standards (a low bar) while still not having enough information to judge if they met the professional best practices standard (a higher bar). > [@](#): > > Sure you do. Watch the tape. See the circumstances. Observe the outcome. No, you cannot see or hear every single detail of every single party involved for every single moment beginning an hour before the guy fell down the steps. (I’m reminded of Arlo saying “They took pictures of the escape, the getaway, northwest corner, the southwest corner. And that’s not to mention the aerial photography.”) So no, you don’t have 27 eight by ten color glossy photographs with a paragraph of explanation on the back of every one. To say nothing of plaster tire tracks, footprints, or dog smelling prints. 😃 But there’s enough in that video for anyone who isn’t being deliberately obtuse to see that the situation could – and should – have been handled better. Maybe. I’m glad you’re confident of that. I’m not. I don’t have enough information. > [@Bricker](#): > > Of course. I have no heartburn with that statement. > [@](#): > > You offer no disagreement, counselor? Or do you actually support it? I am certain you know just how different those are. Here’s what I support: > [@](#): > > And I believe that reasonable observers also know that such a judgment is not a blanket condemnation of our laws or of our public servants. Demonstrably, in many, many situations, our laws and our public servants do an admirable job. Still, there remain some situations that are problematic. It seems valid and beneficial to explore means by which this circumstance could be improved, by modification of our laws and/or our administrative guidelines. This is one such situation. Here’s what I don’t: > [@](#): > > I doubt any reasonable observer fails to feel moral outrage for this particular incident. I think, if we were to learn that the paramedics said, “Listen, this guy needs to be 5150’d. He said that he wished he had a gun, because if he did he’d shoot himself,” and if we were to learn that one of the cops said, “I know that guy; he was arrested last year for drunk in public and he broke Officer Johnson’s arm during the arrest,” then I would be perfectly fine with the events we see. But if I were to learn that the paramedics said, “Hey, I’m sure it’s nothing, but just to cover our asses, that guy joked about shooting himself because he was in so much pain,” and that there was no prior record of encounters with the man, then I’d be absolutely outraged. But without knowing ANYTHING, I do not take any position on the outrageousness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/124 "2010-09-03T16:55:05Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > It’s all _very_ clear in the Deadly Force Statement (which I still remember, essentially word-for-word, nearly twenty years later). As I said, I have no idea what those officers use for their standard policy, but tasers _have_ killed and caused serious injury, the subject in this case is right smack in the middle of the high-risk group, and a reasonable person should know that - _certainly_ an officer should know that! That makes it deadly force, no matter what the expert says about intermediate weapons.\* > ’ Although it’s not this deaprtment, the following appears to be a California police department’s taser policy: > [@](#): > > 308.5 TASER GUIDELINES > > When properly applied in accordance with this policy, the Taser is considered a non-deadly control device which is intended to temporarily incapacitate a violent or potentially violent individual without causing serious injury. It is anticipated that the appropriate use of such a device will result in fewer serious injuries to officers and suspects. > > 308.51 CARRYING THE TASER > > Personnel who have completed approved training may be issued a Taser for use during their current assignment. Personnel leaving a particular assignment may be expected to return their issued Taser to the office’s inventory. Officers shall only use Tasers and cartridges that have been issued or approved by the Sheriff’s Office. The Taser will be carried as a part of a uniformed officer’s equipment in an approved holster. > > (a) If the Taser is carried as a part of a uniformed officer’s equipment, the Taser shall not be carried on the same side as the officer’s duty weapon. > > (b) All Taser devices shall be clearly and distinctly marked to differentiate them from the officer’s duty weapon and any other device. > > (c) Whenever possible, officers shall carry a total of two or more Taser cartridges on their person at all times while carrying a Taser. > > (d) Officers shall be responsible for insuring that the Taser is properly maintained and in good working order at all times. > > (e) Officers should never hold both a firearm and a Taser at the same time unless lethal force is justified. > > 308.52 VERBAL AND VISUAL WARNINGS > > Unless it would otherwise endanger officer safety or is impractical due to circumstances, a verbal announcement of the intended use of the Taser shall precede the application of a Taser device in order to: > > (a) Provide the individual with a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply. > > (b) Provide other officers and individuals with warning that a Taser device may be deployed. > > If, after a verbal warning, an individual continues to express an unwillingness to voluntarily comply with an officer’s lawful orders and it appears both reasonable and practical under the circumstances, an officer may, but is not required to display the electrical arc (provided there is not a cartridge loaded into the Taser) or laser in a further attempt to gain compliance prior to the application of the Taser device. The aiming laser should never be intentionally directed into the eyes of another as it may permanently impair their vision. The fact that a verbal and/or other warning was given or reasons it was not given shall be documented in any related reports. > > 308.53 USE OF THE TASER > > As with any law enforcement equipment, the Taser has limitations and restrictions requiring consideration before its use. The Taser should only be used when its operator can safely approach the subject within the operational range of the Taser. Although the Taser device rarely fails and is generally effective in subduing most individuals, officers should be aware of this potential and be prepared with other options in the unlikely event of such a failure. > > Authorized personnel may use a Taser device when circumstances known to the individual officer at the time indicate that the application of the Taser is reasonable to subdue or control: > > (a) A violent or physically resisting subject, or > > (b) A potentially violent or physically resisting subject if: > > 1. The subject has verbally or physically demonstrated an intention to resist; and > > 2. The officer has given the subject a verbal warning of the intended use of the > > Taser followed by a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply; and > > 1. Other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or subject. > > (c) Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to any of the following individuals: > > 1. Pregnant females; > > 2. Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles; > > 3. Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained; > > 4. Individuals who have been recently sprayed with alcohol based Pepper Spray or who are otherwise in close proximity to any combustible material; > > 5. Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g. falls from height, operating vehicles, etc.) > > The Taser device shall not be used to torture, psychologically torment or inflict undue pain on any individual. > > 308.54 REPORT OF USE > > All Taser discharges shall be documented in the related arrest/crime report. Accidental discharges of a Taser cartridge will be documented on a memorandum and forwarded to the sheriff through the chain of command. Any report documenting the discharge of a Taser cartridge will include the Taser and cartridge serial number and an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the discharge. > > Should a Taser cartridge be required to be retained as evidence or to document a malfunction, the entire cartridge (body, wires, probes) shall be booked into evidence and held pending the outcome and subsequent disposal. > > The on-board Taser memory will be downloaded through the data port, and saved with the related arrest/crime report. > > 308.55 MEDICAL TREATMENT > > Any person who has been subjected to the electric discharge of a Taser and/or struck by > > Taser darts shall be medically cleared prior to being booked. Individuals who have been subjected to the electric discharge of a Taser and/or struck by Taser darts and who are also suspected of being under the influence of controlled substances and/or alcohol should also be examined by paramedics or other qualified medical personnel as soon as practicable. > > Further, any person struck with Taser darts or injured by a probe shall be treated by medical personnel as soon as practical after the incident with only qualified medical personnel removing the Taser darts from a person’s body. Used Taser darts shall be considered a sharp biohazard, similar to a used hypodermic needle, and disposed of accordingly. > > 308.56 TRAINING > > In addition to the initial approved training required to carry and use a Taser device personnel must be recertified by a Taser instructor annually prior to the continued use of the device. > > Notification of recertification will be done by the Training Coordinator. Any personnel who have not carried a Taser as a part of their assignment for a period of six months or more shall be recertified by an approved Taser instructor prior to again carrying or using the device. A reassessment of an officer’s knowledge and/or practical skill may be required at any time if deemed appropriate by the Training Coordinator. > > Officers shall only use Tasers and cartridges that have been issued or approved by the Sheriff’s Office. The Taser will be carried as a part of a uniformed officer’s equipment in an approved holster. > > (a) If the Taser is carried as a part of a uniformed officer’s equipment, the Taser shall not be carried on the same side as the officer’s duty weapon. > > (b) All Taser devices shall be clearly and distinctly marked to differentiate them from the officer’s duty weapon and any other device. > > (c) Whenever possible, officers shall carry a total of two or more Taser cartridges on their person at all times while carrying a Taser. > > (d) Officers shall be responsible for insuring that the Taser is properly maintained and in good working order at all times. > > (e) Officers should never hold both a firearm and a Taser at the same time unless lethal force is justified. It’s not clear to me that the officers’ use here would have violated that policy. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/125 "2010-09-03T17:07:39Z")
Well, that’s a nice big word dump, and has nothing on an over-arcing Deadly Force Policy or Statement, but but here’s the part we’re interested in: > [@](#): > > 308.53 USE OF THE TASER > > As with any law enforcement equipment, the Taser has limitations and restrictions requiring consideration before its use. The Taser should only be used when its operator can safely approach the subject within the operational range of the Taser. Although the Taser device rarely fails and is generally effective in subduing most individuals, officers should be aware of this potential and be prepared with other options in the unlikely event of such a failure. > > Authorized personnel may use a Taser device when circumstances known to the individual officer at the time indicate that the application of the Taser is reasonable to subdue or control: > > (a) A violent or physically resisting subject, or > > (b) A potentially violent or physically resisting subject if: > > 1. The subject has verbally or physically demonstrated an intention to resist; and > > 2. The officer has given the subject a verbal warning of the intended use of the > > Taser followed by a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply; and > > 1. Other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or subject. > > (c) Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to any of the following individuals: > > 1. Pregnant females; > > 2. Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles; > > 3. Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained; > > 4. Individuals who have been recently sprayed with alcohol based Pepper Spray or who are otherwise in close proximity to any combustible material; > > 5. Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g. falls from height, operating vehicles, etc.) > > The Taser device shall not be used to torture, psychologically torment or inflict undue pain on any individual. Lets see here: > [@](#): > > Authorized personnel may use a Taser device when circumstances known to the individual officer at the time indicate that the application of the Taser is reasonable to subdue or control: > > (a) A violent or physically resisting subject, or > > (b) A potentially violent or physically resisting subject if: > > 1. The subject has verbally or physically demonstrated an intention to resist; I saw no violence on the part of the subject, and very little plausible violence. Policy violation. > [@](#): > > 1. Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles;" Hmmm. Old man, meet taser. Oops - Oughtn’ta done that. IOW, _quite_ clear. You _did_ read that before dumping it, right..? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/126 "2010-09-03T17:18:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Tranquilis](#): > > > > Yeah, that’s how I read _that_, too. > > Oh. My. God. > > I’m now going to call bullshit on your claims of “experience.” > > There isn’t a police officer in this country that doesn’t know that hearsay is no barrier at all to establishing probable cause. There’s not a police office in this country that hasn’t been taught the basics of when they can rely on a tip. A tip from a non-anonymous source, with sufficient particular facts claimed, is enough for probable cause. No police officer goes through any kind of training that doesn’t mention Aguilar, Spinelli, Gates, the seminal cases that establish how hearsay can support probable cause. > > **Snowboarder Bo** , I’m sure, was simply making the same kind of mistake that anyone might make: because hearsay is (generally) inadmissible in court, he’s thinking it must be inadmissible in these circumstances too. Wrong, but totally reasonable. Wrong. That’s not what I’m thinking at all. What I’m thinking is that an officer, upon hearing a complaint, should investigate. When the situation he encounters shows itself to be markedly different from the complaint, he should take that new information into account. These officers do not appear to have done that. They appear to have performed no investigation of any kind, merely accepting the word of an EMT, unsupported by the evidence they now have in front of them, that this man was suicidal. They appear to have made no effort to determine if the man owned a gun or had one in his possession or if he could easily obtain one. I believe that an officer’s job includes gathering information so he can make the best possible decisions regarding the situation. I don’t see where these officers did that. There was no critical evaluation done, IMO, by either of the officers regarding the accuracy of the EMT’s suicidal assessment. They simply moved on hearsay, without any evidence corroborating. I can see where this would be necessary, say, if there was some immediate danger: I want cops to move fast when someone says there’s a bomb about to explode or a guy taking hostages. But even in those cases, a cop who shot a guy because someone yelled “Terrorist!” and pointed would be guilty of dereliction and failure to discharge the duties of his office, because he didn’t look at what he was about to shoot and see for himself if the shooting is warranted. hen the evidence in front of their eyes belies the hearsay evidence, an officer should be obligated to act on the totality of the evidence he has, not just ignore new evidence (or fail to look for it at all) and act accordingly. I don’t think you can say these officers did that, not with any real conviction anyway. I don’t think you can find an immediate danger to anyone that required this man’s tasing, or “quick action” by the officers. I think all you have is the technical language of the law, and even that won’t hold up in court, for the reasons I’ve outlined above. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/127 "2010-09-03T17:37:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > > The old man, after all, hadn’t threatened to shoot anyone. > > Sure he did. He threatened to shoot himself. No he didn’t. He expressed, sarcastically, his frustration with his pain and injuries. “I will shoot myself” is a threat. “If I could, I’d shoot myself” is not a threat, IMO. > [@Bricker](#): > > Look, I’ll allow the cops could, and perhaps even should, have played it a little more reasonably. That’s a judgment call. I don’t think it is a judgement call. And further, I think you know that. Officers, AFAIK, have procedures and policies to follow, and I’m pretty sure that part of that includes investigating and evaluating evidence, and it’s pretty clear (to me at least) from the video that the police did not do that. They were negligent in their duties, and this man was harmed as a result of their negligence. > [@Bricker](#): > > No one can say the cops acted illegally. They didn’t. They had probable cause to believe the man might harm himself. Again, no. We can say that all we want. It may even be true. Any probable cause these officers had to believe this man wanted to commit suicide evaporated once they were in front of him and could see that the new evidence contradicted the hearsay evidence. Any reasonable officer who was competent at his duties should have seen that things weren’t as first described, and re-evaluated what was going to be done to resolve the situation as he gathered more information. Because, **Bricker** , _that_ is what we pay the police to do. And since you helpfully quoted the statute pertaining to this, IMO, the police did not have claim to reasonable cause once they gathered information that contradicted the EMT’s hearsay evidence. > [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you suppose the paramedics made a point of informing the police of the man’s remark, by the way? If it was so crystal clear that the man was joking, why do you think they made a point of passing it on? I mean, as a joke, it’s not like it’s such a knee-slapper that it has to be shared, right? Dunno why the EMT said anything. He’s prolly been told to take that sort of thing seriously both to avoid litigation and to avoid having people kill themselves. It may not have been clear to the EMTs he was joking, but once he expressed that to the police, they now have 2 conflicting pieces of information, **Bricker**. In fact, had they asked if he had a gun, or asked his wife if she thought he was gonna kill himself, now they have more weight on one side of the situation than the other. But they didn’t do that. They failed in their duty, and perhaps criminally, since they never re-established probable cause once it was lost to the evidence before them. And come on, **Bricker** … how far did you think you’d get with carefully selecting one definition of the word “joking”? Yes, I do think he was joking, i.e. not serious. And I think anyone has the right to share anything they want with others, verbally. I’m not gonna tell someone they can’t try and relieve some stress from a recent (like, literally moments-ago) painful and unpleasant experience by making sarcastic remarks; are you? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/128 "2010-09-03T17:42:52Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Well, the whole “respectfully” thingy differs from the case under discussion. Not to mention the fact that here you suggest “physical force or a taser” without knowing how physically imposing **Jack Batty** may be but whine defensively about cops using a taser to avoid possible bruises when the subject of the discussion is an old guy who has trouble standing up. I’ll have you know, I have absolutely \*\*\*no \*\*\*trouble whatsoever standing up. Aw, yeah, bitches. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/129 "2010-09-03T17:43:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > Yesterday at work, I became so frustrated with a situation, I stood up and announced to my colleague, “I gotta get out of here or I’m going to kill somebody.” > > > > I’m sure glad he didn’t narc me out to the Marin County cops … I never would have got that report done. > > And guess what? If one of your coworkers HAD called the cops to report that they were concerned about you and their safety because you said you were going to kill someone, what do imagine would have happened? > > (A) Cops reply, “Unfortunately for you, that’s hearsay. We can’t do a thing. Bye now!” > > (B) Cops show up and investigate. Briefly detain you for their safety. Further action depend on whether or not you obey their lawful commands or refuse. B) is false. Further action should depend on validity and accuracy of information gathered. You have just said that the only thing that matters is how a person conducts themselves, and that is wrong. The police have an obligation to gather information and act on it. In this case, as the video demonstrates, they appear to have failed to gather information or to evaulate it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/130 "2010-09-03T17:45:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > (C) - I say, “what the fuck is this? I’m late for a conference call” … they taze me, bro … I end up on a book tour. > > I get the humor, and I get the attempt to trivialize the situation. > > But seriously. Coworker calls police, says he’s concerned for his safety because you said, “I gotta get out of here or I’m going to kill somebody.” > > Do you picture you’d be able to brush by police with “What the fuck is this? I’m late for a conference call?” > > I mean… you DO recognize that they’d want to talk to you, and when they did so, they’d want to briefly pat you down to make sure you had no weapons - right? And once they get there and speak to the man and he says “yes I made that remark out of frustration at a bad day, which is continuing now that I’m late for a meeting”, you think they should just ignore that new information and tase him so he can be transported to a hospital? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/131 "2010-09-03T17:53:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s fine, since reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause; if hearsay can provide probable cause, then _a fortiori_ it can provide reasonable suspicion. > > But consider the tip. A citizen flags you down and says, “That man running down the street just grabbed me, stuck his hand up my shirt, and then said he was going to rape me!” > > That’s hearsay - you didn’t see the event. It’s her statement, offered to you for the truth of the matter asserted. > > Yet it’s obvious that based on her word, YOU have probable cause to arrest the man. It’s not a situation where you’d need to detain the guy and and investigate further. I mean, you could certainly choose to do that, but assuming the guy said or did nothing inculpatory during the detention, you’d still have probable cause to arrest him. Flawed. This isn’t a description of hearsay, it’s testimony. The woman is relating an incident that occurred to her. It only becomes hearsay when the officer is recounting the allegations, since he has no direct knowledge of the events. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/132 "2010-09-03T18:06:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. Other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or subject. I don’t think a reasonable person could say that other available options were ever thought of, seeing as how the taser is always out and ready to be used. I say again, these officers offered no critical evaluation of the situation at any point, it seems to me. Wanted to add, too: **Bricker** , you and I seem to have the same disagreement that **Tranq** has with you, so maybe we should just let whether or not probable cause was met lie as something that will eventually be decided by the courts for this particular case. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/133 "2010-09-03T18:13:21Z")
If you watch the full video at the link provided in the OP, the man repeatedly tells the officer why he doesn’t want to go in the ambulance to the hospital to be evaluated: because he’s unemployed and doesn’t have any insurance. The possibility of being stuck with an ambulance/hospital bill for a few thousand dollars is a powerful motivation for passively resisting a cop telling you to get up so he can handcuff you and forcibly put you in an ambulance, IMHO, especially if you know that there’s nothing really wrong with you. All that happened to the guy was that he tripped on his front steps and made a bad joke due to the pain, after all. My wife is a registered nurse, and when she watched an excerpt of the video on the evening news last night, she was shocked (no pun intended). She says that people are fully within their rights to refuse medical treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/134 "2010-09-03T18:49:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Flawed. > > This isn’t a description of hearsay, it’s testimony. The woman is relating an incident that occurred to her. > > It only becomes hearsay when the officer is recounting the allegations, since he has no direct knowledge of the events. Um… what do you think the definition of hearsay is? The officer hears a woman say that a man threatened to rape her. Not hearsay. The officer hears a paramedic say that a man threatened to kill himself. Hearsay. I’d be fascinated to hear how you imagine this works. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/135 "2010-09-03T19:00:08Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > (a) A violent or physically resisting subject, or > > (b) A potentially violent or physically resisting subject if: > > 1. The subject has verbally or physically demonstrated an intention to resist; and > > 2. The officer has given the subject a verbal warning of the intended use of the > > Taser followed by a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily comply; and > > 1. Other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or subject. > [@](#): > > Policy violation. No policy violation. He was physically resisting. He refused to stand. He got his verbal warning, and he didn’t stand up. In fact, he got multiple warnings. The other options would have presented a greater danger to the officer. The officer isn’t required to get bruised subduing a subject. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles;" > > Hmmm. Old man, meet taser. Oops - Oughtn’ta done that. Not sure what constitutes “elderly,” but you fail to quote the preface to that section: “Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to any of the following individuals…” Did they fail to give additional consideration? Really? HOW DO YOU KNOW? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/136 "2010-09-03T19:04:14Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And once they get there and speak to the man and he says “yes I made that remark out of frustration at a bad day, which is continuing now that I’m late for a meeting”, you think they should just ignore that new information and tase him so he can be transported to a hospital? No. I notice you have them “getting there and speaking to the man.” But since the first thing they do when they get there is ask the man to stand and pat him down for weapons, we’ve dramatically departed from our actual situation. If he refuses to stand up and resists their attempt to do a patdown for weapons, then, YES, they should warn him that if he doesn’t comply they will tase him, and then tase him. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/137 "2010-09-03T19:15:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No policy violation. He was physically resisting. He refused to stand. He got his verbal warning, and he didn’t stand up. In fact, he got multiple warnings. Are you sure refusing to stand via verbal instructions fits the definition of physically resisting? I’d be slightly surprised if it were. I would think only if the officers put their hands on him and attempted to get the man to stand and he refused to use his own effort to aid the officers in standing would he be in the act of physically resisting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/138 "2010-09-03T19:18:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > 1. Other available options reasonably appear ineffective or would present a greater danger to the officer or subject. > > I don’t think a reasonable person could say that other available options were ever thought of, seeing as how the taser is always out and ready to be used. > > I say again, these officers offered no critical evaluation of the situation at any point, it seems to me. > > Wanted to add, too: **Bricker** , you and I seem to have the same disagreement that **Tranq** has with you, so maybe we should just let whether or not probable cause was met lie as something that will eventually be decided by the courts for this particular case. Sure. Although I am psychic, and I know how this one will go. Two years from now: BRICKER: Hey, I see the court upheld the probable cause we discussed two years ago. Looks like I was right. VARIOUS POSTERS: Get a life. Why are you bringing up the past? [ELUCIDATOR](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12799184&postcount=286): Behold, the mighty Bricker has bested **Snowboarder** , and on a legal point! Hurry, gather around, that we might share in the gloating of the mighty, mighty Bricker! THE TAOS REVENGE: Enjoy your vanity. [LIGHTNIN’](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12800705&postcount=304): Are you really so desperate for a victory that you dug this thread up to have him apologize for being wrong about that particular issue? You’re a lawyer, he’s not (at least as far as I know). Do you often call up laymen who defend themselves against you in court and gloat when they lose? And does **Snowboarder Bo** ’s wrongness on the probable cause issue invalidate the rest of his post? This is seriously weak tea here, Bricker. You’re better than this. That sound at all possble? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/139 "2010-09-03T19:22:24Z")
> [@robby](#): > > My wife is a registered nurse, and when she watched an excerpt of the video on the evening news last night, she was shocked (no pun intended). She says that people are fully within their rights to refuse medical treatment. Your wife is wrong. There are exceptions and being a threat to yourself is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359/140 "2010-09-03T19:22:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > No policy violation. He was physically resisting. He refused to stand. He got his verbal warning, and he didn’t stand up. In fact, he got multiple warnings. > > Are you sure refusing to stand via verbal instructions fits the definition of physically resisting? I’d be slightly surprised if it were. I would think only if the officers put their hands on him and attempted to get the man to stand and he refused to use his own effort to aid the officers in standing would he be in the act of physically resisting. Actually, I’m not sure. That’s a good point. Let me see what I can find. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-unjustified-tasering-by-idiot-cop/552359.md?page=8)