Yet another unjustified tasering by idiot cop

[Bricker]

@Giles

My guess is that the immediate danger of suicide was negligible, but the immediate danger of death from tasering was significant, so I’d have tried to use other means.

Such as?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Tranquilis

@Bricker

In any event, if the police had probable cause to believe the man was a danger to himself, they had the authority to take him into custody to prevent that harm. A man saying that if he had a gun he’d shoot himself clearly provides that probable cause.

Emphatically disagree.

It’s probable cause to investigate further, not to torture and deprive him of liberty on the spot. IF he had stated his intent to immediately go locate a weapon, then - maybe - there’d have been cause to detain him on the spot, or possibly even taser him if he actually started to get moving and wouldn’t listen.

The correct response, from the evidence presented, was to 1) inquire what he meant, 2) determine if a weapon was potentially available to him, 3) determine from other witnesses (his wife!) their assesment of the man’s state of mind, and and 4) contact mental health authorities - or at least a supervisor - with the collected information for further guidance.

And yes, I’ve had some law enforcement experience. Not a huge amount, but I’ve responded to domestic situations, riots, near-riots, assault, and violent disturbances of the peace (as opposed to drunken singing in the street. Well, I’ve been to those, too). I’ve set working dog handlers to control unruly crowds. I’ve put people in jail cells. And yes, I investigated before so doing anything that resembled force or coersion, excepting in direct violent confrontation. If I, an only sometime player in LE, can do that, I seriously wonder what the hell those officers were taught, or were thinking.

I meant to comment on this earlier, really just to say that you sound like you would make a good cop.

I also believe these officers were derelict in their duty and showed unprofessional conduct. I’d like to see them reprimanded publicly and publicly apologize to the person they wronged. I’d also like to see the entire department get some negotiation/communication skills training, as it seems to be lacking in at least 2 members of the force, it makes sense to train everyone and do what they can to ensure there isn’t a repeat of this type of thing.

[Giles]

@Bricker

@Giles

My guess is that the immediate danger of suicide was negligible, but the immediate danger of death from tasering was significant, so I’d have tried to use other means.

Such as?

Well, a variety have been suggested in this thread, including further questioning of the person and his wife to see how immediate the danger of suicide was, handcuffing the person so that he was no immediate danger to anyone, and getting a mental health professional to the site if the threat of suicide was serious.

[Alessan]

I think the fact is that the cops and those like them are fucking cowards: they’d rather inflict terrible pain on someone than take any risk to themselves, no matter how miniscule. Cowardly - and lazy, too.

[Bricker]

@Tranquilis

@Bricker

In any event, if the police had probable cause to believe the man was a danger to himself, they had the authority to take him into custody to prevent that harm. A man saying that if he had a gun he’d shoot himself clearly provides that probable cause.

Emphatically disagree.

It’s probable cause to investigate further, not to torture and deprive him of liberty on the spot. IF he had stated his intent to immediately go locate a weapon, then - maybe - there’d have been cause to detain him on the spot, or possibly even taser him if he actually started to get moving and wouldn’t listen.

As a matter of law, this statement does not appear to be correct.

@People v. Triplett

The Legislature, by necessity, has subordinated the liberty interests of persons described in the LPS Act to the benefits that may accrue to such persons by immediate therapeutic intervention.
.
.
.
Peace officers, among others, have been entrusted with the duty, on probable cause, to take into custody any person who, “as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled,” and to place such a person in a county-designated facility for the initial 72-hour treatment and evaluation.
.
.
.
To constitute probable cause to detain a person pursuant to section 5150, a state of facts must be known to the peace officer (or other authorized person) that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself…

[ElvisL1ves]

Take into custody. Not tase repeatedly.

Gawdamm, boy, you never stop, do you?

[Bricker]

@Giles

@Bricker

Such as?

Well, a variety have been suggested in this thread, including further questioning of the person and his wife to see how immediate the danger of suicide was, handcuffing the person so that he was no immediate danger to anyone, and getting a mental health professional to the site if the threat of suicide was serious.

Handcuff? How? The deputy orders him to stand up, several times, but he does not.

Are you saying the deputy should have waded in, risking his own physical safety, to force the guy to stand up or to get handcuffed?

Does this county have mental health professionals ready to roll out to calls like that?

Does the officer have some kind of training to weigh the seriousness of a suicide threat?

I suspect, if they had done that and the guy killed himself, there’d be plenty of people on board for the lawsuit against the slothful cops who had a clear duty under § 5150 to transport the guy for eval but didn’t do it.

[Bricker]

@Alessan

I think the fact is that the cops and those like them are fucking cowards: they’d rather inflict terrible pain on someone than take any risk to themselves, no matter how miniscule. Cowardly - and lazy, too.

Why should they risk getting hurt? They are giving a lawful order. It’s up to the subject to obey. Why does the cop have to risk his safety before escalating to the taser?

[Alessan]

@Bricker

@Giles

Well, a variety have been suggested in this thread, including further questioning of the person and his wife to see how immediate the danger of suicide was, handcuffing the person so that he was no immediate danger to anyone, and getting a mental health professional to the site if the threat of suicide was serious.

Handcuff? How? The deputy orders him to stand up, several times, but he does not.

Are you saying the deputy should have waded in, risking his own physical safety, to force the guy to stand up or to get handcuffed?

Yes, damn it. They’re trained police officers - they’re supposed to be able to handle themselves. If two cops can’t get one guy in a police car with their bare hands, they don’t deserve to call themselves policemen.

[SmellMyWort]

@JXJohns

@Alessan

As I’ve said before - tasers were intended to be used as less lethal guns, but instead they’re employed as more painful nightsticks.

I’d rather be tased than beat with a night stick any day. Tasing affects wear off quite quickly, broken bones and subdural hemorrhages, not so much.

You truely believe that in this case the only alternative to the taser was to beat the guy?

[Alessan]

@Bricker

@Alessan

I think the fact is that the cops and those like them are fucking cowards: they’d rather inflict terrible pain on someone than take any risk to themselves, no matter how miniscule. Cowardly - and lazy, too.

Why should they risk getting hurt? They are giving a lawful order. It’s up to the subject to obey. Why does the cop have to risk his safety before escalating to the taser?

Because it’s their job - to protect and to serve. The public isn’t the enemy, it’s the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving.

[Bricker]

@SmellMyWort

You truely believe that in this case the only alternative to the taser was to beat the guy?

Or tackle him and overwhelm him by physical strength. They already asked pretty please, and he didn’t seem inclined to comply.

[Bricker]

@Alessan

@Bricker

Why should they risk getting hurt? They are giving a lawful order. It’s up to the subject to obey. Why does the cop have to risk his safety before escalating to the taser?

Because it’s their job - to protect and to serve. The public isn’t the enemy, it’s the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving.

It’s not their job to get hurt of they don’t have to. You’re quite simply wrong.

Their job is laid out in the guidelines and the laws. Nothing they did violated the law; I have yet to see any proof that it violated any guidelines. But those two things define their job, not your infantile imagination of how many bruises a cop is supposed to take before he can use a taser.

[Alessan]

“Tackle”? Two men. Each man grabs an arm, and they frog-march him to the car. No-one gets hurt.

They may have to exert a bit of physical effort, though, which may be too much for these two pussies.

[Giles]

@Alessan

@Bricker

Why should they risk getting hurt? They are giving a lawful order. It’s up to the subject to obey. Why does the cop have to risk his safety before escalating to the taser?

Because it’s their job - to protect and to serve. The public isn’t the enemy, it’s the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving.

And in this situation they are allegedly trying to make the person less suicidal. He said that his pain made him want to kill himself – so they inflicted more pain. I don’t think that reasonable by anyone’s standards.

[Alessan]

@Bricker

@Alessan

Because it’s their job - to protect and to serve. The public isn’t the enemy, it’s the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving.

It’s not their job to get hurt of they don’t have to. You’re quite simply wrong.

Their job is laid out in the guidelines and the laws. Nothing they did violated the law; I have yet to see any proof that it violated any guidelines. But those two things define their job, not your infantile imagination of how many bruises a cop is supposed to take before he can use a taser.

And I’m saying that if they know how to do their job, no-one has to get hurt.

You Americans and your goddamn no-risk culture. *Everything *involves risk.

[Malthus]

@Bricker

@Alessan

Because it’s their job - to protect and to serve. The public isn’t the enemy, it’s the people they’re supposed to be protecting and serving.

It’s not their job to get hurt of they don’t have to. You’re quite simply wrong.

Their job is laid out in the guidelines and the laws. Nothing they did violated the law; I have yet to see any proof that it violated any guidelines. But those two things define their job, not your infantile imagination of how many bruises a cop is supposed to take before he can use a taser.

If a cop delivers an unjustified tasing, and this is later proved, is that against the law? [Not snark, I really don’t know]

[Malthus]

@Alessan

And I’m saying that if they know how to do their job, no-one has to get hurt.

You Americans and your goddamn no-risk culture. *Everything *involves risk.

I must say the the risk from an injured and unarmed 64 year old dude to two (presumably) hale and heathly cops doesn’t seem all that high.

[SmellMyWort]

@Bricker

Or tackle him and overwhelm him by physical strength. They already asked pretty please, and he didn’t seem inclined to comply.

It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. I’d think that arresting some grandpa was probably one of the easier things they did that day.

[tdn]

@Bricker

Handcuff? How? The deputy orders him to stand up, several times, but he does not.

Notice that in the video, they first taser him as he is standing up.