Yet another unjustified tasering by idiot cop

[Malthus]

@Bricker

Are you kidding me?!? Paramedics report to cops, “That man says he’d shoot himself if he had a gun.”

How is that not probable cause?

I don’t think the issue that has most folks up in arms is whether or not the cops have probable cause to detain him.

The problem is whether, having probable cause or not and faced with a cranky hurt old dude telling them to go away, they behaved appropriately.

Assume that they had perfectly valid probable cause to detain. Are they allowed by law to use any amount of force they want to enforce that? Seems to me the answer ought to be “no, it has to be reasonable and proportional to the actual threat the person poses to himself, others, or the cops”. But then, I don’t know the law in the US.

Otherwise, you get an absurd result, I think. Seems to me that the persons in this scenario who were a threat to the peace were not him, but those cops. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

[Bricker]

@Malthus

@Bricker

Are you kidding me?!? Paramedics report to cops, “That man says he’d shoot himself if he had a gun.”

How is that not probable cause?

I don’t think the issue that has most folks up in arms is whether or not the cops have probable cause to detain him.

The problem is whether, having probable cause or not and faced with a cranky hurt old dude telling them to go away, they behaved appropriately.

That, I don’t know. I object to the idea that many people seem to be suggesting-without-saying, which is that cops should be willing to take a few bruises, if need be, before the taser comes out.

Assume that they had perfectly valid probable cause to detain. Are they allowed by law to use any amount of force they want to enforce that?

No, of course the force used has to be proportional to the situation.

[Bricker]

@Oakminster

I am also curious about what authority, if any, the officers had to enter a private home without a warrant. Not really sure they can legitimately claim an emergency situation on the facts presented.

Community caretaker exception?

[Bricker]

@SmellMyWort

And shaking around on the floor must look a lot like “resisting” since that’s what the one cops keeps saying as he shocks the hell out of him. How exactly are you supposed to put your hands behind you when you’re convulsing on the floor or clutching at the spot where you were just tased. Plus, they could have easily just shocked him once and moved in to put on the cuffs, but they just keep shocking him.

After the first shock, they try to put his hands bhind his back and he resists that; he holds his hands forward, in front of him.

Yes, they could have tried to outmuscle him.

Would it change your mind if the responding officers were a pair of 120 pound females, clearly without the ability to physically overpower him?

[JXJohns]

@gonzomax

@JXJohns

People die from knocks to the head too. What’s your point?

Your implication that tasers are safer than getting beaten up. Nice choices aren’t they. If I had a gun I would shoot myself gives you a choice tasering or a beating. Pick which one you want.
There is another option. Cops go away saying",nothing to see here".

My implication was that I have been tased and felt fine moments later. I got hit by a bat once, broke my collar bone and hurt for weeks. I preferred the former to the latter. Nothing more nothing less.

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

@Snowboarder_Bo

I, for one, do not think that the last part there, bolded in blue, was met. I think a court of law will find that standard was not met, based on the video and the article linked in the OP.

And I don’t think that any defense of the officers’ actions with respect to that bolded part will meet with approval, once questioning of the officers begins.

Are you kidding me?!? Paramedics report to cops, “That man says he’d shoot himself if he had a gun.”

How is that not probable cause?

If I had a gun I would shoot myself. If,If,If, Not probable cause. If I had an a -bomb I would blow myself up. Would that be probable cause? If you were defending this guy in court you would hammer that point home. He did not say I have a gun and I am going to go get it and shoot myself. If I had a gun means ,I don’t have a gun. Therefore…

[JXJohns]

@SmellMyWort

@JXJohns

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?

No, I simply disagreed with the post that I quoted.

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

@Oakminster

I am also curious about what authority, if any, the officers had to enter a private home without a warrant. Not really sure they can legitimately claim an emergency situation on the facts presented.

Community caretaker exception?

I dunno. Doesn’t that require some sort of immediate danger? Not sure that exists here, or if it did, perhaps the encounter should have ended when they guy tells them he was joking, and otherwise appears to be reasonably calm and lucid.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

@Malthus

I don’t think the issue that has most folks up in arms is whether or not the cops have probable cause to detain him.

The problem is whether, having probable cause or not and faced with a cranky hurt old dude telling them to go away, they behaved appropriately.

That, I don’t know. I object to the idea that many people seem to be suggesting-without-saying, which is that cops should be willing to take a few bruises, if need be, before the taser comes out.

But Bricker, of course the police must be and have already indicated they are willing to risk injury to their persons while doing their job. They MUST have accepted that risk, and expressed a willingness to possibly be bruised, or they would not be able to do that job. An officer would be unable to handcuff anyone unless he was willing, at some point, to risk being bruised in the course of his work, since short of stunning everyone he handcuffs into unconsciousness, he’s going have to risk being hurt.

So that establishes that being bruised IS a part of the job that may occur, and that officers, by definition, must have been willing to accept that risk.

Or will you argue now about proportion, and it’s relevance when assessing and acting by officers?

Assume that they had perfectly valid probable cause to detain. Are they allowed by law to use any amount of force they want to enforce that?

No, of course the force used has to be proportional to the situation.

And do you think this was a reasonable and proportional use of force for this situation, as far as you can tell from the facts we have at hand?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

After the first shock, they try to put his hands bhind his back and he resists that; he holds his hands forward, in front of him.

Yes, they could have tried to outmuscle him.

Would it change your mind if the responding officers were a pair of 120 pound females, clearly without the ability to physically overpower him?

It wouldn’t change my mind a bit, since I can think of several ways this could have been resolved WITHOUT ANY VIOLENCE.

[Tranquilis]

@Bricker

@Tranquilis

As a statement of experience, I stand by my assesment.

Do you agree they had the legal authority to detain him under 5150?

No, I do not.

It is NOT clear to me that they had probable cause.
I will accept that they may* had reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion, absent additional evidence, is NOT probable cause. (Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants.)

The statute, as you so helpfully noted, calls for a higher burden of proof than mere reasonable suspicion. IOW, you are wrong. LEGALLY wrong, as demonstrated your own cite (for which I thank you kindly).

*If they were particularly lacking in the skills of social observation which I would normally expect of an officer of the law.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Tranquilis

@Bricker

Do you agree they had the legal authority to detain him under 5150?

No, I do not.

It is NOT clear to me that they had probable cause.
I will accept that they may* had reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion, absent additional evidence, is NOT probable cause. (Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants.)

The statute, as you so helpfully noted, calls for a higher burden of proof than mere reasonable suspicion. IOW, you are wrong. LEGALLY wrong, as demonstrated your own cite (for which I thank you kindly).

Yep, that’s how I read it too. That’s why I highlighted it up there.

@Bricker

@Snowboarder_Bo

I, for one, do not think that the last part there, bolded in blue, was met. I think a court of law will find that standard was not met, based on the video and the article linked in the OP.

And I don’t think that any defense of the officers’ actions with respect to that bolded part will meet with approval, once questioning of the officers begins.

Are you kidding me?!? Paramedics report to cops, “That man says he’d shoot himself if he had a gun.”

How is that not probable cause?

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause? :eek:

[Tranquilis]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause? :eek:

Yeah, that’s how I read that, too.

[drachillix]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause?

A few semi random thoughts

Plenty of 64 year olds are not frail helpless creatures and plenty of cops are not strong or fast enough to easily subdue someone.

Depending on county and agency a few paramedics can declare a 5150 status (its not a basic part of the licence, its an additional certification and depends on the specific agency that employs them, Joe Lunch-bucket street Paramedic generally cannot). Counties vary in the application of this.

If the medic has that authority he could basically tell the officers they are calling it as such but patient was unwilling to cooperate. Even if he does not, EMS types and the cops get to know each other and tend not to jerk each other around much (ignore the firefighters they love jerking everyone around :D).

If the patient became agitated or resisted in any real way the medics will back off and let the cops deal with it.

EMS personnel document many statements by patients as part of their assessment “patient complains of chest pain” “patent expressed desire to harm self” and the medical and legal world has an obligation to act on them.

In plenty of cases all anyone has is hearsay from a paramedic before the patient loses consciousness or kicks the oxygen habit entirely.

Fear of litigation works both ways, ignoring a possible cry for help looks just as bad as overreacting to a situation.

As other posters have put it, alternative headlines of “Police and paramedics ignored obvious cry for help” are not very appealing either.

Having been in the room when some messy law enforcement situations went down, I wish tasers had been available long ago. Alot of people get hurt in scuffles with law enforcement. Cops are not some kind of uber ninja who can with a flick of the wrist magically restrain anyone.

Hand to hand fighting is rarely pretty, and if you do, you have the possibility of losing your weapon. Tasers minimize the chance of having your weapon stripped in the scuffle.

Rule #1 in any emergency service agency is go home to your family at the end of your shift. If tasering is more likely to achieve that, so be it. Even the worst cop often has people at home who love them.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@drachillix

@Snowboarder_Bo

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause?

A few semi random thoughts

Plenty of 64 year olds are not frail helpless creatures and plenty of cops are not strong or fast enough to easily subdue someone.

True. Jack Lalane (sp?) pulled a boat full of people and livestock across the Gulf of Mexico when he was like 300 years old. It was awesome.

But that isn’t this guy, and a millisecond glance at him and knowledge of why the EMT’s were there would show that to be the case: this is a frail, recently injured old man.

@drachillix

Depending on county and agency a few paramedics can declare a 5150 status (its not a basic part of the licence, its an additional certification and depends on the specific agency that employs them, Joe Lunch-bucket street Paramedic generally cannot). Counties vary in the application of this.

If the medic has that authority he could basically tell the officers they are calling it as such but patient was unwilling to cooperate. Even if he does not, EMS types and the cops get to know each other and tend not to jerk each other around much (ignore the firefighters they love jerking everyone around :D).

If the patient became agitated or resisted in any real way the medics will back off and let the cops deal with it.

But in this situation, the EMTs were gone. And there wasn’t any real resistance, just non-compliance. There’s a difference: resisting is active, non-compliance is passive.

@drachillix

EMS personnel document many statements by patients as part of their assessment “patient complains of chest pain” “patent expressed desire to harm self” and the medical and legal world has an obligation to act on them.

In plenty of cases all anyone has is hearsay from a paramedic before the patient loses consciousness or kicks the oxygen habit entirely.

Like how? “He’s unconscious”? “This guy was in a car wreck”? If it’s an observable fact it’s not hearsay. I doubt any EMT would say “he took painkillers” because he heard someone say it. It seems far more likely he would say “his wife said he took painkillers”, at which point the wife could be consulted to see if she did say that. That’s not really “hearsay”, is it?

@drachillix

Fear of litigation works both ways, ignoring a possible cry for help looks just as bad as overreacting to a situation.

As other posters have put it, alternative headlines of “Police and paramedics ignored obvious cry for help” are not very appealing either.

Having been in the room when some messy law enforcement situations went down, I wish tasers had been available long ago. Alot of people get hurt in scuffles with law enforcement. Cops are not some kind of uber ninja who can with a flick of the wrist magically restrain anyone.

Hand to hand fighting is rarely pretty, and if you do, you have the possibility of losing your weapon. Tasers minimize the chance of having your weapon stripped in the scuffle.

Rule #1 in any emergency service agency is go home to your family at the end of your shift. If tasering is more likely to achieve that, so be it. Even the worst cop often has people at home who love them.

Absolutely. Good points. Except that they aren’t applicable to what most of us saw on that video.

The only way this law enforcement situation got messy was by the actions of the law enforcement officers themselves.

[GHO57]

There’s two things you should never say; “gun” (to a cop) and “bomb” (to airport security). Both get an instant reaction, and in both cases it’s just safer to assume it’s not a joke but a valid threat.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@GHO57

There’s two things you should never say; “gun” (to a cop) and “bomb” (to airport security). Both get an instant reaction, and in both cases it’s just safer to assume it’s not a joke but a valid threat.

That’s only true so far as it goes. If I get shot by a cop because he hears me say “goddam that’s a big son-of-a-gun”, that cop is derelict in his duty.

Just like these cops were, IMO, derelict by not noting the evidence of their own eyes and ears once it was confirmed that the old man did not have a gun, either in his possession or in his care. They did confirm that by asking if he had or owned a gun, right?

The old man, after all, hadn’t threatened to shoot anyone.

[BigT]

I don’t get why there’s even a debate. Waterboarding does no serious harm to a person either, yet I don’t see anyone saying that people should be allowed to waterboard people because they won’t comply.

Something that inflicts pain on every nerve of your body is torture, and using it when it is not absolutely necessary indicates that you do not know it hurts, or that you are a sick psychopath. Moral people do not hurt people just to make their lives a little more convenient.

Nothing else should matter. The cops valuing their own safety over the others they are sworn to protect just means they are evil, as the definition of evil is helping yourself at the expense of others. As a society, we cannot afford to empower evil individuals with the ability to torture other people. I sincerely hope the legal system actually works this time, and these evil motherfuckers get what they deserve (though I doubt tasering them repeatedly would be allowed.)

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause? :eek:

Of course hearsay can establish probable cause. Can anonymous tips establish probable cause? Duh! Of course they can, with sufficient particulars in the tip. How about tips that aren’t anonymous? Obviously, if anonymous tips can, then so can tips that are not anonymous, and in fact the required particularity is less when the tipster is known to police and not anonymous.

What kind of a bullshit question is that?!? “Did Bricker cite hearsay as probable cause?” Good grief.

[Bricker]

@Tranquilis

@Snowboarder_Bo

I mean, ffs, did Bricker just cite hearsay as probable cause? :eek:

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.

Tranquilis, though, I refuse to believe had any kind of paid experience as a sworn law enforcement officer and walked away not knowing that hearsay can establish probable cause. Were you asleep that week at the academy, Tranquilis?