Oh, then you must not be aware that a nightstick has other uses than just deliverying blows. Glad I could fight your ignorance.
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.
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.’
We don’t see the beginning of the enounter, do we? Why do you assume they didn’t begin respectfully?
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).
Maybe. I’m glad you’re confident of that. I’m not. I don’t have enough information.
Here’s what I support:
Here’s what I don’t:
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.
Although it’s not this deaprtment, the following appears to be a California police department’s taser policy:
It’s not clear to me that the officers’ use here would have violated that policy.
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:
Lets see here:
I saw no violence on the part of the subject, and very little plausible violence.
Policy violation.
Hmmm. Old man, meet taser. Oops - Oughtn’ta done that.
IOW, quite clear. You did read that before dumping it, right…?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I’ll have you know, I have absolutely ***no ***trouble whatsoever standing up.
Aw, yeah, bitches.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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: 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’: 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?
Your wife is wrong. There are exceptions and being a threat to yourself is one of them.
Actually, I’m not sure. That’s a good point.
Let me see what I can find.