Your wife is wrong. I quoted the relevant law above.
Quick question here, because I don’t know: legally, is passive non-compliance seen as active resistance?
If ask because it’s crucial to the notion of “resisting”.
Yes, IMO, it looks like they did fail to give additional consideration. The taser was out from the get go. No officer ever offered his help if the man was physically unable to stand. I don’t see anything in the video to lead me to believe they made any additional considerations. Where is your evidence that they did give additional consideration?
But if we follow your logic, Bricker what situation would not call for a taser? In every single instance I can think of, an officer would be less likely to be injured if the person he was trying to take into custody was stunned into unconsciousness. So why aren’t tasers okay to be used all the time?
Nope, not to me. Except 'luci’s line, that seemed pretty authentic to me. 
Click on Lightnin’s name to see that his proposed dialog is also pretty authentic.
All of the dialog above came from the thread where I cam back after the court validated my claim about Bills of Attainder.
Note the few instances of, “OK, Bricker, you were right.” Not a thread swimming in those, eh?
Note the many cases of stop gloating.
Doesn’t seem to be a way to win, does there?
Did I post in that thread?
No?
Are you worried about me conceding this point at some possible future date, or them?
Are you trying to make points in a debate, Bricker, or make friends?
I only ask because to me it’s obvious you don’t give a rat’s fart about commiserating with other humans on this (or any other tragedy, really, from what I’ve seen). You’re here as a cold-hearted only-cares-about-the-language-and-the-letter-of-the-law-conservative, aren’t you? Since when do you give a fuck about approval or recognition from other people?
I’ll post it here for you to link to on that future date, ok?
If you’re right and the courts conclude this was probable cause at play here, I will concede the point in writing on the SDMB and move forward from there with whatever discussion is under way.
Okay?
Well, in the version I watched, the first thing they order him to do is to sit down. Which he does. Of course, they could have escourted him to the ambulance and/or patted him down while he was already standing, but they didn’t choose to do so. They told him to sit down. Then they order him to stand back up. Which he ignores. And gives them the finger. The cop repeats the command with increasing volume, now brandishing the taser, until he eventually obeys, whereupon they tase him. Apparently for failing to comply with a newer demand, that being to put his arms – the ones he is using to help himself up off the couch – behind his back. This being physically impossible given the fractions of a second that elapse between the command and the tasing, and the fact that the arms are occupied with weight bearing and all, I still maintain my moral outrage at the tasing.
Exactly when did “refusal to stand on command” become physical resistance? Back in the 60’s rather many of us engaged in passive resistance, sitting or even reclining in place after repeated orders to stand and depart. (Children, google “sit in”.) We were picked up bodily and carried to the paddy wagons. As long as we didn’t raise a hand in active resistance, we were (mostly) safe from being stroked with nightsticks. I’m sure that some cops sustained bruises from carrying us, or strained their backs, or something. And there were often large groups of us involved, clearly presenting a potential safety hazard for the cops. Are you suggesting that, had the technology existed, we all should have been tased into unconsciousness as a protective measure for the cops?
Well, bruises can smart!
I was going to find all the quotes and everything, but frankly, I’m too lazy to go back thru the whole thread. But here’s why I was gonna do it:
I think friend Bricker has confused and conflated the terms “active resistance” & “passive resistance” into the term he uses over and over: “physical resistance” (a meaningless term).
So does a nightstick upside the head, and it has the added benefit of bleeding like crazy too.
IANAL but failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer trying to take you into custody pretty much is resisting arrest.
If PD is willing to put you on 5150 status several of your rights are suspended temporarily, among them, you no longer have the right to refuse medical evaluation/treatment.
EMS folk deal with alot of people in declining mental status (like they were talking when you got there but getting less able to reply on their own as minutes passed. If the patient said “My neighbor Fred shot me” then lost conciousness PD is going to look long and hard at Fred based on the paramedics “hearsay”.
#1 Many people have insinuated that something was wrong if two cops could not manually restrain him without using a taser. Having seen what can happen when they do manually restrain someone who refuses to be cuffed a taser is kind
#2 we only saw what happened after the taser was drawn.
PD has to be more than “willing” to put you on 5150 status. There have to be reasons to do so, and in this case, thus far, I don’t think the reasons presented have been valid. I think there are too many flaws in the procedures the officers executed and a disregard for propriety and proportion, which may be so egregious as to constitute dereliction of duty, criminal negligence and/or other improprieties.
Right, they are, especially if the patient had, in fact, been shot. But if he was being treated for hypothermia after having fallen into the lake while fishing with his grandson, for example, I doubt the police would immediately rush to Fred’s house, demand he get down on the ground and spread 'em, and begin frisking him for weapons. Why? Because the evidence before them doesn’t match the previous information they gathered.
Specific to #2 above, no, we see some earlier interaction including a demand that the man sit down. This is followed by escalation of the cop’s demands, changing the demand to require standing back up, and leading eventually to threats to use a taser.
As a separate issue, could we please make a distinction between (i) general cases and cases only partly analogous to this case and (ii) this case itself? I really don’t care what law enforcement might or might not have done in any of the offered hypotheticals.
This case isn’t hypothetical. It has its own set of facts. Although there are surely additional facts outside of our knowledge, that is always the case, both in real life and in a courtroom. We can only make judgment based upon what is known to us. And what is known or seen is enough for me and some others to conclude that this was bad police work.
If someone comes along with additional, presently unknown facts that contradict what we see here, then perhaps I’ll reverse my opinion. But until then I am quite satisfied with my own conclusion. Really, this is after all a message board. No matter how much we nit pick, no matter how well researched the legal arguments, we aren’t going to turn it into a courtroom. So holding ourselves to a standard of evidence applicable to a real courtroom is entirely uncalled for. If the facts are as they appear, then these cops were jerks. If the facts are not as they appear, well, then perhaps something else. Nobody will be issued a written reprimand or reduced in pay grade because of our outrage in the Pit. We see jerkish behavior, we call it out. If later revelations require, we can reverse ourselves.
Or make excuses. 
No, Bricker’s use of the term is based on the California Taser guidelines using the term “physically resisting subject”. The law can have some funny definitions of terms at times, but I doubt his non-compliance with the officers who never laid a hand on him, and him not running or doing anything else physical to resist arrest can he be found to be a physically resisting subject.
It doesn’t matter. The guidelines on use of the Taser doesn’t say law enforcement officers can use the Taser on someone just because they’re resisting arrest; one must be resisting arrest in specific manners and be displaying certain character traits (see post #125). One vague trait that one may possess that may help cops get away with use of the Taser in these sort of circumstances is being “potentially violent”. Who isn’t?
You’re right.
But I don’t think it makes a difference:
(empahsis mine)
Police officers are representative of law and it is no surprise that law itself gives officers preferential treatment under the law. The same laws shielded officers from prosecution from Jim Crow overenforcement. There is no romantic justification by shouting “But it’s LEGAL!”; tasing a 64 year old man may be legal that doesn’t make it right or even morally right. What’s next? Invisible police cars to catch speeders? Pain guns?
My issue with tasers is that they’re a sadistic tool. The pain. The screaming. The jerking, flailing movements. It all seems very gratuitous if the end goal is compliance. Why not just shoot them with a short-acting paralytic agent and get it over with?
- Honesty
I notice that your snippet left out an important detail, one we need to be able to accurately critically assess the officer’s action.
What “pole” was the plaintiff holding and how?
A pole set in the floor, that ran to the ceiling; i.e. a support column? I have a hard time seeing why the taser would have needed to be brought into play, as there was no immenent danger to anyone from that in and of itself.
A pole like a halberd? And he wouldn’t let go? Tase him.
ETA: My bad. In my initial reading I missed the part about “no distinction”. I admit, that makes the legal aspect of that question somewhat more murky, with more light seeming to come from your side. In our current case, I think it makes a difference because the totality of the circumstances calls into question the validity of the officer’s order.
But I’ve noticed, the same thing keeps cropping up. And I looked for stuff in another thread to link it here, but it was a lot of work, and it’s Friday, and I don’t think this is a very contentious point: In other threads I’ve seen you argue about how much latitude and discretion officers have in their work. That’s why not every car that gets pulled over gets a ticket written, etc.
Yet in this case you seem to be stridently arguing that the police should not have used any discretion, in fact, you seem to be arguing that they are legally bound not to use their own discretion in any way at all.
But as I said before, that is what we pay the police to do. Not order people around, not rough people up, and not disturb the peace themselves unless absolutely necessary, and that requires good information gathering, critical thinking and risk assessment skills. I realize it’s a lot, but considering that police can injure, maim and kill in their line of work, it’s essential for an officer to have those skills, and have them well developed.
The officers in this case appear thoroughly lacking in these areas.
Because a short acting paralytic would be difficult to administer accurately and would be several orders of magnitude more likely to kill someone. Tasers are pretty much a one size fits all tool.
Tasers are dramatic but extremely short acting, if you are not hearing the clicking sound, they are not being shocked. I personally will take a tasering to a baton beatdown any day.
Going back to an earlier point in the thread:
And people also goad suicide jumpers, and spectate and cheer when drunken idiots get into street brawls. People drive by scenes where police have motorists in handcuffs on the curb and scream “kick his ass” out their car windows. Americans have a marked and significant lack of empathy. As long as they don’t physically feel the pain themselves, and don’t see any immediate threat that they will, they’re more than happy to encourage pain inflicted upon others.
The fact that “the public” supports taser use, even in highly contentious and controversial cases, is the last reason to justify it. In fact, it might even be a point against tasers in common use.
It presumes that you know your rights to begin with. It presumes that you can call a lawyer.
Those of us who are aware of the realities of the American criminal justice system and also who know that we can’t afford a criminal lawyer (or can’t mortgage a home/sell everything) should some false charges be laid have a decided self-interest in not allowing the police to illegally search our persons or property and create a situation where something can be manufactured against us.
Sort of a support column, yes. Not a weapon. A post holding up a basketball net:
Not quite. I’ve said repeatedly the police could have handled it differently. In other words, they had discretion. They COULD HAVE investigated further. They COULD HAVE laughed the whole thing off as a joke.
But they didn’t HAVE TO.
It wasn’t against the law for them to act as they did.
Yeah, I’ve already said more than once I don’t know that the officers deserve a “Patrolman of the Year,” award. I don’t say they handled it perfectly, or even well.
I just say they had legal justification for each step they took. I don’t say they were wise steps.