Be Careful During a Police Encounter

Linked below is a video.

In the video, a police officer tasers a woman as she is running away from him. She goes rigid, while moving, and face-plants onto the concrete sidewalk.

Many viewers will be tempted to have little sympathy for her because of the underlying reason for the police encounter, and comment to that effect, missing the point entirely. That is to say they will let their objection to her behavior stop their observation and suspend thinking. My point in mentioning this has two angles. First, to pre-empt those comments. And, second to encourage viewers to pay close attention to actual level of necessity for the tasering, regardless of her behavior that brought about the encounter.

Notice that the officer resorts to using a taser to seize a human being who clearly cannot out-run him. Early in the video, take notice of her reaction speed and tentative movements--very slow. Meaning, she's not in any condition to physically resist the officer. Yet, rather than just catch up to her and take physical control of her with his hands, he resorts first to the taser, planting her face-first onto a concrete sidewalk.

Notice the officer's relatively calm state. He's not angry, not out of control. Seemingly of professional demeanor.

Yet, to make his final apprehension, he first resorts to a level of force known to cause injuries when a head hits concrete.

The overall lesson: OCers might want to comply while politely refusing consent. Apparently not only are tasers ubiquitous, but they are being used in lieu of manual control in some circumstances as the first resort.

Another lesson: if you just can't bring yourself to comply, and the officer unholsters his taser, at least sit or lie down so you don't bounce head or face off concrete.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=106_1376010028

Hint: she's rather drunk. Can't run fast. And, moves slowly during the first moments of the encounter. She couldn't resist a cub scout, much less a police officer.


ETA: If you just can't restrain yourself from making anti-cop statements, at least keep them reasonable. No cop-bashing.

Gunslinger said:

--edited by Moderator--

Click to expand...

Some cops are fat and dimwitted.


I wonder whether/when taser use policies changed to allow for use in the event of non-violent non-compliance?

I wonder if we will see a day when politely declining to show an identity document during a Terry Stop is met with a pointed taser?

We've already had a number of reports of OCers confronted by cops with guns drawn, and a few (2-3?) with guns pointed at the OCer. Anybody threatened with a taser?

Hand on taser, taser not displayed. The implied threat was enough for me. I did request to sit down though.

I see nothing wrong here.

Now, referring to the underlying issue- are tasers being misused as the first action? Not from this video. If the woman was doing a field test, and got lippy, and then was tased, then yes, that crosses the line. But I don't care if you run like Ursain Bolt or Roseanne Barr- fleeing a scene and/or ignoring police commands is idiotic and I do not have a problem with police using force, at their discretion, to apprehend the suspect; just like the unfortunate death of the teenage vandal down in Florida. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.

OC for ME said:

Hand on taser, taser not displayed. The implied threat was enough for me. I did request to sit down though.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

mikeyb said:

I see nothing wrong here.

Now, referring to the underlying issue- are tasers being misused as the first action? Not from this video. If the woman was doing a field test, and got lippy, and then was tased, then yes, that crosses the line. But I don't care if you run like Ursain Bolt or Roseanne Barr- fleeing a scene and/or ignoring police commands is idiotic and I do not have a problem with police using force, at their discretion, to apprehend the suspect; just like the unfortunate death of the teenage vandal down in Florida. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.

Click to expand...

Lemee see.....get tazed cuz ya deserved it and a possible death inducing face-plant is nothing more than a unfortunate and unintended consequence.....OoooK

mikeyb said:

I see nothing wrong here.

Now, referring to the underlying issue- are tasers being misused as the first action? Not from this video. If the woman was doing a field test, and got lippy, and then was tased, then yes, that crosses the line. 1. But I don't care if you run like Ursain Bolt or Roseanne Barr- fleeing a scene and/or ignoring police commands is idiotic and I do not have a problem with police using force, at their discretion, to apprehend the suspect; just like the unfortunate death of the teenage vandal down in Florida. 2. Do stupid stuff, win stupid prizes.

Click to expand...

1. (sigh) So, you think risking broken teeth and/or a concussion is justified when merely trotting a bit faster and just taking her hands is justified because, in a state of impaired judgement, she took the entirely predicatable route to flee? Proportionality and necessity don't enter the picture?

2. That statement works both ways. If police do stupid stuff like use a taser unnecessarily, and the citizen gets a concussion or broken teeth, the police can earn public censure. There have been enough injuries from falling that injuries are entirely predictable. There are enough videos of people going rigid and falling like a tree that injuries are entirely predictable. Heck, you don't even have to go to those videos. All you have to do is watch two videos--any video of police training using a taser on each other, and the police training video where the taser-ee is wearing a sort of helmet. In both, the taser-ees are falling on mats. Trainers wouldn't use the mats or helmet if they didn't already know one can get injured in a fall like that.

OC for ME said:

Lemee see.....get tazed cuz ya deserved it and a possible death inducing face-plant is nothing more than a unfortunate and unintended consequence.....OoooK

Click to expand...

I hate to go here, but a severe concussion, broken eye orbit, or wired jaw sound like threats that, coming imminently from another citizen, would permit lethal force in defense of self or others.

I don't think it really matters whether the head impact is from a swung bat or sidewalk or curb. Its a threat of grave bodily injury.



I'm thinking that if confronted by a pointed police taser when OCing, I'm going to treat it as a pointed gun--instant compliance.

Ditto.

OC for ME said:

Ditto.

Click to expand...

Oh, jeez. I just had a terrible thought.

What do you do if you witness a cop pointing a taser an a non-violent non-complier who you know has a heart condition or pace maker? Say, a middle-aged co-worker or relative? I've heard of people in their fifties with heart conditions.

Oh, man. I don't even want to think about it. I guess the best you can do is yell, "He has a pacemaker!" Or, "He is a heart patient!"

So many people have been tasered, some of them must have been heart patients or pace-maker recipients. I wonder what the effects of a taser are on those people? Their pace-makers?

There are many cases in with a taser has been used where it should not have. I would rather spend time defending those victims.
This lady was not a victim. She very well could of caused many victims with her actions.

Putting videos up of criminals getting tazed and asking for simply for these criminals does not show that we are on the side of the lawful citizen.

This post has nothing to do with OCers and police encounters as the title suggest.

Citizen said:

Oh, jeez. I just had a terrible thought.

What do you do if you witness a cop pointing a taser an a non-violent non-complier who you know has a heart condition or pace maker? Say, a middle-aged co-worker or relative? I've heard of people in their fifties with heart conditions.

Oh, man. I don't even want to think about it. I guess the best you can do is yell, "He has a pacemaker!" Or, "He is a heart patient!"

So many people have been tasered, some of them must have been heart patients or pace-maker recipients. I wonder what the effects of a taser are on those people? Their pace-makers?

Click to expand...

Don't forget about beanbags.

http://wgntv.com/2013/07/28/autopsy-bean-bag-rounds-fired-by-police-killed-park-forest-man-95/

Why OCers Should Be Careful During a Police Encounter

I'm with Citizen on this. My 5 year old son could have stopped her. I don't understand why a taser would be used unless absolutely necessary, my view on it is that it's no different then a gun. If someone falls like a tree and has the possibility concussion, hemorrhage etc... Wouldn't be my first choice if I was an Ofc.

mikeyb said:

I see nothing wrong here.
.

Click to expand...

Tasers have the ability to kill ... being drunk is not sufficient cause to be tased unless the drunk is a threat to a person's safety.

In this case, the use of a taser was unwarranted.

Mikeyb should learn more about tasers and their effects on the human body; I take it that he has never researched and therefore does not understand its affects.

Troy bilt said:

This post has nothing to do with OCers and police encounters as the title suggest.

Click to expand...

That's true .. bad title...

I don't understand why a taser would be used unless absolutely necessary,

Click to expand...

Do we insist that officers must tackle and scuffle with anyone that runs?
We don't pay them to be punching bags for scum bags.

Face plant, priceless.
Lesson learned.
Maybe she'll teach her kids "Don't run from po po cuz day be shoot ya wif a tazar".

You guys must realize that LEOs read the news also.

They have policies ruling when and how their various items of equipment get used, from guns to tasers.

What people fail to realize is that (IMO) many of these seeming over-the-top actions are APPROVED from the top brass, though they are likely to disclaim that approval if pushed. Police forces all have a few 'enforcers', guys who will use excessive force when called upon. They will also disclaim that, but we all know it's standard. Might even be a female if the top cops are savvy.

When they read that two cops were allowed to shoot a little 5'2 Filipino woman inside Costco and get away with it, (Sterling, Va) I think it emboldens them.

Are they permitted to use their tasers to take down a fleeing suspect. You bet. Is it always prudent. Heck no. But if they're allowed to use a certain level of force why would they care about the aftermath. In general they don't because they see it as an 'us vs them' situation. If you're not a cop you're a (potential) BG. If you're a cop and you're doing bad stuff, well, you're just having a bad day and can't get arrested like a normal person.

So be prepared if you get stopped and do not diss, get lippy or resist the nice LEO in any way or you'll be paying for it. Run your video if you can so you can send them the dentist's bills.

FWIW

Edit to add: If I were these cops Sergeant, I'd be on them for failing to take the woman's keys. They actually endangered other pedestrians and drivers for being so careless as to allow her to drive off. That's basic policing 101.

samkent said:

Do we insist that officers must tackle and scuffle with anyone that runs?
We don't pay them to be punching bags for scum bags.

Face plant, priceless.
Lesson learned.
Maybe she'll teach her kids "Don't run from po po cuz day be shoot ya wif a tazar".

Click to expand...

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/26/state-trooper-kills-woman-with-taser-instead-of-chasing-her/

This woman was innocent of any criminal charge at this point in time, right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Would your viewpoint change if learned she was having a medical issue and was not drunk?

davidmcbeth said:

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/26/state-trooper-kills-woman-with-taser-instead-of-chasing-her/

This woman was innocent of any criminal charge at this point in time, right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Would your viewpoint change if learned she was having a medical issue and was not drunk?

Click to expand...

I agree she could have been a diabetic or had a sub-crainial hematoma.....

Not every medical condition is treated with ECT's or in this case electrical shock therapy.

Citizen said:

1. (sigh) So, you think risking broken teeth and/or a concussion is justified when merely trotting a bit faster and just taking her hands is justified because, in a state of impaired judgement, she took the entirely predicatable route to flee? Proportionality and necessity don't enter the picture?

2. That statement works both ways. If police do stupid stuff like use a taser unnecessarily, and the citizen gets a concussion or broken teeth, the police can earn public censure. There have been enough injuries from falling that injuries are entirely predictable. There are enough videos of people going rigid and falling like a tree that injuries are entirely predictable. Heck, you don't even have to go to those videos. All you have to do is watch two videos--any video of police training using a taser on each other, and the police training video where the taser-ee is wearing a sort of helmet. In both, the taser-ees are falling on mats. Trainers wouldn't use the mats or helmet if they didn't already know one can get injured in a fall like that.

Click to expand...

Are you advocating for applying an action that preserves the safety of the offender over the safety the public and those charged with enforcing laws? If so, that is quintessential American entitlement that is absolving responsibility and accountability for one's actions. By the way, all this is under the umbrella of a response to a criminal fleeing. Things like the "Don't taze me, bro" incident are overboard, even if the guy was an idiot.

You suggest the officer could have chased down the offender. There's no guarantee that upon catching the offender there wouldn't be injuries to either party. You can assume, but you can't be 100% sure. She could have tripped on a stump, or tripped on a curb into traffic and gotten hit by a passing car. A taser ends the scenario. The risk of personal injury is on the offender, not the officer.

Now, assuming that you are advocating "less is more" in defusing a situation...

Why do you need a gun? It's commonly claimed on OCDO as a viable deterrent to criminal action upon the person. Wouldn't a knife work? Wouldn't improving your physique work? Wouldn't being trained in hand-to-hand defense/combat work as well? I mean, as long as we're protecting the safety of the offenders we should ban guns. They could kill a criminal.

The proportional response argument doesn't work for criminal activity, regardless of the severity. Why? Proportional response doesn't work as a deterrent, it only acts as a compromise on what you want to give up. For example, I've always heard that in Montana, if you were caught speeding, you paid a $5 fine on the spot (this is an example, I don't know if this was or is the case) and go about your business. Most other states, you get a large fine, or points, or whatever. At face value, which system works at deterring speeding?