Not necessarily preferential treatment, more a recognition that cops are allowed to use force under circumstances that a regular citizen would not.
Tasers and Mace are illegal for citizens to carry in some jurisdiction, but police carry them routinely. This isn’t preferential treatment under the law. It’s just that police can use force to effect an arrest, and not merely in self-defense.
Regards,
Shodan
You could beat them is court easily. Their defense is predicated on the supposition that cops can read the law differently as the see it in any specific circumstance. But the cops would lose this one . He not only did not have a gun, but said if I did. This would require a police friendly court.
Whether or not McFarland was a threat to himself is separate from the issue of whether or not the police officer was justified in using his Taser. A court could find that the police used poor judgment in forcing him to receive medical treatment and at the same time find their use in the Taser justified as he failed to cooperate. The two issues are separate. That said, I don’t understand why this “if” about him having a gun is relevant. If someone would shoot himself if he had a gun, surely you understand he is a threat to himself, no? Whether or not he should have been taken seriously is another matter; I just don’t understand why more than one has brought up this “if” question as being relevant.
Bricker, many thanks for the clarifications in post #160. Appreciate it.
In her defense, she only saw the excerpt on the CBS evening news. They mentioned that the guy was injured after falling down his front steps, but never mentioned, nor showed the part of the video where he threatened to hurt himself.
Here is the full video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ca_1283547136
They actually tased him again several minutes after he was handcuffed, while he was lying on the floor, because he kicked at the taser wire.
I asked my wife about the incident again this morning, and she said that the alleged threat to hurt himself changes everything.
She reiterated that anybody can refuse medical treatment, but they cannot refuse a mental health evaluation and/or commitment if they express a desire to hurt themselves or others, or show any indication that this might be the case. (She also told me that she wasn’t going to argue with an attorney. She’s a nurse, not a lawyer. 
)
I still think that the police officer could have avoided the tasing. The guy finally stood up, complying with the officer’s order, but I think that the officer had lost patience with the guy and had already decided to tase him.
For most of the time before he was tased, the officer was telling him to stand up and he was refusing. Then he starts to stand up, and the officer tells him to sit down, turn around and put his hands behind his back, which is basically impossible to do while sitting on a couch without getting up as far as I can figure.
Blazingly simple. If I had a gun, means he does not have a gun. Therefore he is in no danger of shooting himself with a gun he does not have. It is an empty threat ,if he does not have a gun.
He was lying on the couch, a threat to no one when the cops came in. Probably because he did not have a gun. If it extremely relevant.
If he actually had a gun, he would say I have a gun and I will shoot myself. That would be a threat .
If it was believed he was serious about shooting himself if he had a gun, that means it was believed he was suicidal and his life was in danger as there are other ways for suicidal folks to harm or kill themselves. Blazingly simple indeed.
Yow. Older fella, had hurt himself and the cops came. Sprained his ankle. He did not stand up when asked too (ummm…. Sprained ankle). For the most part the cops seem quite professional, at the beginning. Until, he does actually stand up and they immediately order him to sit down again. He is half standing up and they tase him. Again, and again.
“Stop resisting” my ass. He was not resisting when he was on the floor being tassed. Both off those cops should get more training and lose their ‘man cards’ sheess… What is wrong with police these days? There are three investigations going on in Denver re Police Brutality. One ended in a death. Another is being investigated by the FBI, not the CBI (Colorado Bureau Of Investigation. The Feds have been brought in. It’s crazy.
Now really, what happened? The EMT requested a wellness check on Mr. McFarland. He joked that IF I had a gun I would shoot myself. OK.
We really don’t know. But a wellness check would be appropriate/OK for an older person that had sprained their ankle.
(though as I have had a number of sprained ankles, It would piss me off to have to get up to answer the door)
But WTF? TWO cops could not ‘subdue’ a 64 year old man that has a sprained ankle? Basically a 64 yo one legged man. Uh huh. LEGAL or not, that was way, way over the line. Those cops are in the wrong line of work. Perhaps they should work for BlackWater.
Okay, I’ve just watched all 36:50 of the video, and my opinion has changed dramatically.
While I still find the whole situation regrettable, I now think that the only thing the officer with the taser did that might be construed as wrong is the tasing at about 10:30, where the handcuffed, injured man on the ground kicks at the leads to the taser. The officer tases him and tells him to stop resisting.
That one might have been gratuitous.
I still maintain that their use is terrible, and that if you follow the logic, even as it’s written in the law, there is no situation that doesn’t call for a taser, as an unconscious person is always less of a threat to themselves and others than a conscious person.
And it’s gonna be hard to change that law, since one side has a powerful lobbying group and the other side really isn’t even organized at all (with respect to this issue, I mean),
Awww, Horseshit x-ray. Did you see the vid? Was there any reason that you can see that he should be tassed? Any at all?
“If it was believed”. More horseshit. This kind of stuff needs to be stopped now.
The thing is, if a guy says those words, it’s far from probable that he means them. Quite the opposite. If half the people who ever made a similar joke about suicide wound up offing themselves, the Census would be a lot cheaper.
You’ve taken something very improbable, and turned it into “probable” cause. Orwell would be mighty proud of your profession. :rolleyes:
If you watch the full video, the officer with the taser says a very important thing:
he has no choice but to bring the man in for an evaluation, since the man confirmed he did make the remark that he would shoot himself if he had a gun. The officer tells him that he is obligated under 5150* to bring the man in for an evaluation by a professional mental health expert.
Once that word is used, that changes a lot, as it deprives the officers of discretion.
What I saw on the longer tape is that the officer(s) patiently explained what they were going to do and why. I clearly heard him explain several times that this would not cost the old man anything, but that the officer HAD to do it.
I also saw far more than passive resistance in this longer video, and I would have likely tased the old man as he got up, if I were in that cop’s shoes. It was either a lunge forward, in which case he should have been tased, or it was simply the best opportunity for the officers to gain more control over the situation, in which case the tasing is regrettable, but likely very easily justified per the statutes Bricker quoted.
I’ll even go so far, Bricker, as to say that after viewing the additional footage, I agree that these officers had probable cause. I don’t even need to wait for the court ruling after seeing that.
What part of what I said was horseshit? I’m guessing by the two questions you asked me, you’re under the impression I made a case for the officer being in the right for using his Taser on McFarland.
If you want to convince yourself the cops are correct, you can. It requires putting the cops in some kind of disadvantaged position. They were forced to take him in though they really didn’t want to. He said if I had a gun I would shoot myself. That requires convincing yourself that if I had a gun means I have one and am dangerous.
The cops could have explained, if it were true, that he has to come with them. They could have politely talked to him and I am sure he would have reluctantly gone.
You can convince yourself he lunged at the cops. That gets a little harder but you can convince yourself . This middle aged out of shape, unarmed man was a serious threat to strong trained in shape cops. You can convince yourself but it isn’t easy.
You should watch the longer clip linked above.
The officers are very polite, yet the old man still refused. And on the longer tape it’s clear that he is resisting, not merely failing to comply.
Also, I didn’t say he lunged at the police. And although I don’t believe it’s been pointed out specifically yet, your last point is fail because there is no requirement for the man to have been a “serious” threat before a taser can be used, as Bricker’s quotes show.
Again, the one on the ground seemed gratuitous to me, but after watching the full video, I have a nearly impossible time trying to claim that the police were as negligent as I first believed them to have been.
There are other circumstances too, such as not being in the right frame of mind. I’ve witnessed ER doctors forcing medical treatment on patients involved in vehicular trauma because they were shaken up and couldn’t recite the alphabet in reverse. Same would go for patients with dementia and others that aren’t competent enough to make decisions for themselves.
First, thanks very much for the concession. That’s a rare, rare thing around here, and I really appreciate it.
I’ve been burned far too often with short video clips (Shirley Sherrod, anyone?) whose longer versions reveal a different story to take that first version for granted. So good on you for watching the complete version with an open mind.
I still question the officers’ use of their judgment, and think they might well have done things better… but, yeah, they were unquestionably inside the “legal” box.