Police and Taser Usage

Likely, I am the only person who thinks this way, but I have a gripe about many of the news stories about the police using a taser on a suspect. The way I see it, if the suspect runs, resists arrest, or assaults the police officer, then that officer is justified in using their taser. Furthermore, if the suspect physically assaults the officer, whether armed or not, that police officer is justified in using their baton.

I'm not saying that the police should be allowed to do anything they want. Abusive use of force should be prosecuted — just demoting, fining, suspending the officer is not enough. Overstepping authority should always be punished.

It seems like every news story I see on my local news always has some relative of the tased person, complaining about how the police had no right to use their taser. This makes me mad. Very mad.

What are your thoughts?

The circumstances matter.

If possible, officers should aim to use the minimum of harm to all parties in order to perform their duties. Nothing unnecessary.

Seems like you're neglecting to give any description of actual abusive taser usage, and presuming that they all involve a fleeing suspect.

There's the principle of using the least amount of force necessary, but people also need to remember that at some point, some force is going to have to be applied.

There's always the two extremes. Too much force, and not enough. The million dollar question is finding the point of balance.

It's pretty hard to make generalizations, it's really better evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Britain is a country where the police are not routinely armed. That included tasers until recently; in 2008 tasers entered wider usage with non-firearms officers, and I believe that trend is going to continue. Provided that tasers are indeed safe to use on people to incapacitate them, I don't think I have a problem with police officers using them provided the situation warrants it.

{No. Not even in jest. Don't do that. —Madrugada}

Nah, I kid. Way I see it, often times if a taser is used the person being tasered did something wrong to provoke it, either be being belligerent with the officer or what have you. I won't deny that there are police who overstep their boundaries out there, but I think most tasings are brought on by the tasered.

edited 20th Jun '11 5:35:11 PM by Madrugada

Lets say that a man has just punched his girlfriend in the face, and is about to continue his beat down. The girl is clearly beat up, and it is easy to suppose that this was not the first punch he's thrown during their argument. The police see the incident and ask guy to stand away from the woman, and approach to restrain him. He pushes the girl away and starts to run. The police officer chases after him, but cannot catch up, so they use their taser.

Justified?

I have a question: why does the controversy even exist in the first place? Sometimes, it's like any force a police officer uses is ultimately seen as a mark against them.

Is it the media accentuating the negative? The victim playing the Wounded Gazelle Gambit?

edited 20th Jun '11 3:21:16 PM by KylerThatch

cancer: in that case I'd be more for a bullet to the kneecap, but only due to my own thoughts on domestic violence. Long story. But yeah I'd say the tasing would be justified there.

Kyler: I think a little of both, actually.

x3

You can come up with all sorts of scenarios to justify Taser usage, but then you can for firearms too.

This means what?

That tasers aren't being banned outright?

Ok, but how does this mean that there isn't a problem with taser abuse?

x2

Because police abuse exists. Hence any tool they use will be subject to some misuse. And since they are allowed the use of force, they are also scrutinized for any use of it. This is treated as unreasonable because unfortunately both sides have too great a tendency to polarization. The police defend each other regardless, society questions regardless.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:31:25 PM by blueharp

Both statements are true, so long as the officer involved can properly articulate that fact.

Also, your example of the guy running after beating the girl up is also justified. You are allowed to use less than lethal force to take down a fleeing suspect who has committed a felony.

The problem is, some folks cry foul whenever a cop uses a taser. Any use of force short of defending your own life is suddenly an abuse of authority to some people, that's probably why we don't pay much attention to civilian opinions on such events.

You are allowed to use less than lethal force to aid you in restraining a suspect who is being actively resistant, fleeing from the scene of a felony, or actively attempting to harm themselves, someone else, or the officer involved. Lethal force is authorized if the suspect is attempting or has already committed their own use of force in a way that can cause death or permanent injury with a risk of death.

So if I'm trying to cuff someone and they get really froggy and won't stop resisting, I'm allowed to take a step back and taser him so I can get down there and finish cuffing him. People always freak out about that shit, if I can choose between getting compliance immediately or spending several minutes in a wrestling match I may or may not win, I'm going with the former.

The most important thing in law enforcement short of integrity is the ability to articulate the justification of your actions. I'd say about 50 percent of all my law enforcement related training is classroom training on when it's appropriate to use what level of force and how to properly articulate why I decided to do so.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:29:56 PM by Barkey

You're missing my point.

I'm watching the local news, and a story very much similar to the one I just presented airs. Immediately they interview the accused's cousin who is outraged. Then a community leader is interviewed and threatened to sue the police for excessive force.

This made me angry. When is non-leathal force justified in stopping crime? There seems to be community outrage whenever a taser is used, but then the same people complain that crime is out of control. What are the police supposed to do?

I think it's partly our culture of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility. People aren't willing to accept they fucked up to get tased, and wanna sue the cops. Family members aren't willing to admit their relative was an asshole who fucked up and got tased, and wanna sue the cops.

It's always someone ELSE'S fault, it seems.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:32:15 PM by MarkVonLewis

^^

Did you catch my post?

^

I lost sympathy for that sort of thing long ago. People like to think that there's an option when a police officer finally decides to say someone is under arrest. If I say you're under arrest, that means you will be coming with me in cuffs, and you can either comply and do it the easy way, or resist and get some combination of joint manipulation, tasing, or a baton to the thigh. People think that they have some other option and that arguing will somehow make us change our mind and go "You know what, nevermind, go on ahead." An officer stating someone is under arrest cannot be taken back by an officer. At all. Ever. Even if the officer realizes that the person is not in the wrong, they still have to take them to the station, process them, and get a statement. They are free to go afterwards. We don't have the power to change our minds.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:35:18 PM by Barkey

x3

Then your problem is with the media then?

They always sensationalize things.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:33:08 PM by blueharp

@ Barkey - I started writing before yours posted. Sorry.

@ blueharp - My problem is with society at large for crying foul whenever the police do anything.

edited 20th Jun '11 3:57:41 PM by cancerlad

So you have a problem with what you believe society does then?

I think you may want to be sure you're not suffering from a perceptive bias then, and that you have accurately gauged society's feelings.

For one thing, you do realize that there's no reason for there to be significant media coverage where there's nobody complaining. There might be a brief bit about an arrest, or something, but it just won't get much attention. For another, have you not seen the up-swelling of support when some tragedy does happen to a member of the police? Or for a more media-related version, look at how many cop shows are on the air. I don't think the public would watch them if there wasn't some popular appeal.

edited 20th Jun '11 4:12:45 PM by blueharp

^

Exactly. An arrest isn't worth media coverage if there's no abuse of authority. :P

Shit, hundreds, if not thousands of arrests happen every day in my state. They only get mention if they are either adequately important, it's a slow news day, it's for a bizarre crime, or a cop abused his authority.

In other news, bridges did not collapse, surgeries went as planned, and an airplane did not crash.

edited 20th Jun '11 4:14:10 PM by blueharp

No need to be an asshole. Sorry I offended you delicate sensibilities with my completely vauluntary thread.

I think that was more a sarcastic add-on to what I said about routine arrests not being discussed, rather than a dig on what you said.

Asshole? It was just explaining the filter of news with some examples to demonstrate the point being made about events attracting media attention.

This is why the best way to be depressed is to watch the news.

Depressing or 'scandalous' news always sells.

Basically, the police arresting someone with minimal fuss is not news.

The police having to use a taser probably won't be news.

The family of the arrested person (or friends, or some other public figure) making a fuss about the tasering is news.

This means that the about only times you'll hear about a taser being used is when someone makes a fuss about it.

Thread hop:

I'm Deboss, and I support this message.