Use of police tasers - excessive force?

[thir]

Is it ok for the police to use tasers?
Is it ok in this situation?
Do the police generally use excessive force? (hand cuffing children etc.)

"WASHINGTON — There have been many hundreds of varied rulings in the lower courts on when the use of Taser stun guns by the police amounts to excessive force, and sooner or later the Supreme Court will have to bring order to this area of the law. Next week, the justices are scheduled to decide whether to hear an appeal from three Seattle police officers who say they are worried about the future of what they call “a useful pain technique.” "

"The case involves Malaika Brooks, who was seven months pregnant and driving her 11-year-old son to school in Seattle when she was pulled over for speeding. The police say she was going 32 miles per hour in a school zone; the speed limit was 20.

Ms. Brooks said she would accept a ticket but drew the line at signing it, which state law required at the time. Ms. Brooks thought, wrongly, that signing was an acknowledgment of guilt.

Refusing to sign was a crime, and the two officers on the scene summoned a sergeant, who instructed them to arrest Ms. Brooks. She would not get out of her car.

The situation plainly called for bold action, and Officer Juan M. Ornelas met the challenge by brandishing a Taser and asking Ms. Brooks if she knew what it was."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us...t.html?_r=2&hp

[StrictMasterD]

Ithink the use of them is ok IN LIMITED situations like the Policetell someone to freeze or stop and they won't it should be used incases like resisting arrst etc but not used just to use them, we need ot make sure the Police do not abuse their use of them

[TantricSoul]

Is it ok for the police to use tasers? yes
Is it ok in this situation? Not in my view
Do the police generally use excessive force? (hand cuffing children etc.) I think that the overwhelming majority of interactions between police and citizens do not involve excessive force.

For me the issue here isn't the taser. As one of the judges quoted by the article says: "“There are only so many ways a person can be extracted from a vehicle against her will, and none of them is pretty,” he explained. “Fists, batons, chokeholds, tear gas and chemical spray all carry their own risks to suspects and officers alike.”

For me the issue is, why were the officers arresting this woman? Because she didn't understand what signing the ticket meant? For that she had to be forcibly removed from her vehicle, subdued, and arrested? I'm not sure that fits my definition of protecting and serving the public good. Even if she became belligerent, does the offence warrant the actions that followed? Not in my view.

[Thorne]

For me the issue is, why were the officers arresting this woman?

Because she was breaking the law!

Because she didn't understand what signing the ticket meant?

Part of the procedure for issuing a ticket is to explain that signing the ticket is NOT an admission of guilt but a promise to appear in court. It is specifically stated on the ticket itself. Refusing to sign is considered an admission that you might NOT appear in court, and the cops are therefore required to arrest you and place you in jail.

For that she had to be forcibly removed from her vehicle, subdued, and arrested?

What are they supposed to do? Let her go? How does that work. If you refuse to cooperate, refuse to obey legal commands issued by the officers, we'll just shrug it off and say, "Oh, well. Have a nice day"?

I'm not sure that fits my definition of protecting and serving the public good.

Preventing people from speeding in a school zone is, IMO, exactly the definition of serving the public good!

Even if she became belligerent, does the offence warrant the actions that followed? Not in my view.

And again, what other choice did she leave them? Can you tell me a way they could have removed her from the car without risking further harm to her or her fetus? What if she had just robbed a bank? Should they ignore the fact that she committed a crime and allow her to go on her way simply because she refuses to leave the car?

Cops have a tough job to start with. Nobody wants to be stopped for any kind of traffic violation. Some who have been stopped have killed cops. There is no way for a cop to know whether or not someone is dangerous, or psychotic, or just stupid. I would much rather read an article about a deluded woman being arrested, after being forcibly restrained, than about her being killed in a shootout after she ran over a cop trying to issue a ticket. She suffered some possibly severe short-term pain, which apparently had no effect on her child (and which was probably a lot less severe than the pain she endured delivering that child) and endured some humiliation, because of her own actions. I think the cops behaved absolutely correctly in this instance.

[TantricSoul]

Because she was breaking the law!
True, yet many laws are broken everyday where no arrest is made.

Part of the procedure for issuing a ticket is to explain that signing the ticket is NOT an admission of guilt but a promise to appear in court. It is specifically stated on the ticket itself. Refusing to sign is considered an admission that you might NOT appear in court, and the cops are therefore required to arrest you and place you in jail.
Even if she told them straightforwardly that she would not appear in court, what would the harm be in letting her make that choice and having the judge issue a bench warrant if that judge felt so inclined?

What are they supposed to do? Let her go? How does that work. If you refuse to cooperate, refuse to obey legal commands issued by the officers, we'll just shrug it off and say, "Oh, well. Have a nice day"? In this case, sure, why not? Sure beats risking her life and her unborn child. Obviously there was a choice by the officers whether to arrest or not, or they wouldn't have needed to summon a sergeant.


Preventing people from speeding in a school zone is, IMO, exactly the definition of serving the public good!
No disagreement here^... Using any forcible means to remove her from her vehicle, risking lives over paperwork and words, and having all this happen in a school zone, where children may have witnessed this event, is more in the arena of public good I was thinking of.

And again, what other choice did she leave them? Plenty, there are unlimited choices in any given moment, no one action is ever written into stone until the choice to act is made. Can you tell me a way they could have removed her from the car without risking further harm to her or her fetus? Perhaps summoning a female officer to the scene to mediate. What if she had just robbed a bank? We could talk in "what-ifs" forever. Even if she had robbed a bank, that's only money, lives are more valuable to me. Should they ignore the fact that she committed a crime and allow her to go on her way simply because she refuses to leave the car? This particular "crime" ... yes. Pretty certain that we needent worry about the "dreaded ticket non signers". There are other ways for the law to apply its consequences for her choices that don't risk lives.

Cops have a tough job to start with. Nobody wants to be stopped for any kind of traffic violation. Some who have been stopped have killed cops. Wonder how many killers were pregnant women 7 months along? There is no way for a cop to know whether or not someone is dangerous, or psychotic, or just stupid. I suspect that there is. I would much rather read an article about a deluded woman being arrested, after being forcibly restrained, than about her being killed in a shootout after she ran over a cop trying to issue a ticket. She suffered some possibly severe short-term pain, which apparently had no effect on her child These results were not guaranteed before they tazed her, they took a risk and put lives at stake, for what? (and which was probably a lot less severe than the pain she endured delivering that child) and endured some humiliation, because of her own actions. I think the cops behaved absolutely correctly in this instance.

I'm not suggesting lawlessness is ok, this incident was a result of the choices made by this woman, and the officers who had to do their job. I'm just taking the position that the punishment was dangerous, and didn't fit the crime.

[thir]

Ithink the use of them is ok IN LIMITED situations like the Policetell someone to freeze or stop and they won't it should be used incases like resisting arrst etc but not used just to use them, we need ot make sure the Police do not abuse their use of them

Apparently the use of tasers have gone to Supreme Court: "The bottom line, in any event, was that the officers had won. They have nonetheless appealed to the Supreme Court, in an effort to clear their names and preserve the freewheeling use of “a useful pain technique.”

Their employer, the City of Seattle, seems to think they have gone rogue. In a separate Supreme Court filing, Seattle disavowed what it called the officers’ “ ‘sky is falling’ interpretation” of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which said only, as the city put it, that “three applications of a Taser in drive-stun mode in less than a minute on a pregnant woman who does not pose a safety threat” may give rise to a lawsuit for a jury to sort out

So the use of tasers as such is in the system awaiting a decision, but how can you make sure that the police do not abuse the use of them?

[thir]

Is it ok for the police to use tasers?

I am not sure. While there are undoubtedly many bad situations in confrontations with the police, it seems to me that a taser is really much the same as an electronic whip - useful pain technique - meant for the public. Is that really neccesary?

It is a close-up weapen - is it really neccesary when there are a number of police in the spot?
Will it be used in interrogation as well, eventually?
Will it be used in hate-crimes by the police - what I mean is, is it an unneccesary temptation?

Is it ok in this situation?

This begs the question: When is it neccesary to use a taser?

1) To subdue a dangerous criminal?

This woman was definitly a threat as she was speeding in a school area, and should be taught better - as is weirdly enough the case with many parents driving their kids to school, at least here. Apparently the children of other people do not matter to them!!

But this threat stopped when the car was stopped, and the question remains if she was a threat to the police. Hardly!

2) To force people to obey.

The nature of the crime, to refuse to sign, makes this use of force way over the top, as I see it. Surely you can contact her in her home later, and make the fine or whatever all the bigger for refusing to sign the ticket. I would be in favour of a prison sentence for such a behaviour behind a wheel, but not a taser just to get her out of the car.



Do the police generally use excessive force? (hand cuffing children etc.)


I find that hard to have an opinion on myself, as you only hear about (some of) the situations where excessive force is used, for instance when someone dies or sustains permanent damage. All the other situations you hear nothing about. I think it depends very much of the leadership of the police, and the present political and econimical climate. At least, that is a factor here.

[denuseri]

Reminds me of those experiments that were done in the 70's with a group of otherwise normal individuals placed in a detention facility setting with some as guards and others as prisoners providing a great deal of evidence that "power corrupts".

[tedteague]

i dont have a problem with the police using tasers when it's appropriate, but I think the criteria for "appropriate" has taken a landslide lately.
How many people are arrested for Contempt of Cop?

[thir]

Reminds me of those experiments that were done in the 70's with a group of otherwise normal individuals placed in a detention facility setting with some as guards and others as prisoners providing a great deal of evidence that "power corrupts".

Police are people just like other people, complete with hang-ups and prejudices..Only a saint do not have any at all. Difficult job, lots of provocations no doubt - a postion of authorithy - how many weapons should they have??