Unarmed Suspect Shot in the back by BART police

[G.Irish]

"Less Lethal" enforcement tools are the worst thing to happen to Law Enforcement in 20 years.

Eh I think they're a net good but tasers don't fix poor training. It's a tool and like any tool it can be misused. I think tougher and more clear cut guidelines on when tasing is appropriate will probably come about sooner or later.

[Ginger]

I'm probably wrong, but what I think Rex might be trying to say is that cops jump to their less-than-lethal arsenals in lieu of proper situation handling. There was absolutely no reason, for example, that the disabled woman who was physically unable to comply with the officer's request should have been tased. By giving the officer that quick, dirty alternative you also give him the incentive to use it... and what happens when it's use was unwarranted? You get gubment slugs saying "well, it was a bad judgment call, but she wasn't permanently injured, so all is well" which is effectively saying "take note: even if we're wrong, you should keep an eye out for 30,000 volts coming your way."

[G.Irish]

Oh I agree, but that's the whole training thing and guidelines thing. I think in a lot of these instances of misuse officers are thinking of tasers as being very low down in the force continuum rather than one step short of hitting someone with a club or shooting them.

Anyway the law suits are going to start coming sooner or later.

[Evan]

"Less Lethal" enforcement tools are the worst thing to happen to Law Enforcement in 20 years.

explain.

and how would you deal with the problems arising from using a firearm designed only for lethal force also as an instrument of coercion?

[Evan]

I'm probably wrong, but what I think Rex might be trying to say is that cops jump to their less-than-lethal arsenals in lieu of proper situation handling. There was absolutely no reason, for example, that the disabled woman who was physically unable to comply with the officer's request should have been tased. By giving the officer that quick, dirty alternative you also give him the incentive to use it... and what happens when it's use was unwarranted? You get gubment slugs saying "well, it was a bad judgment call, but she wasn't permanently injured, so all is well" which is effectively saying "take note: even if we're wrong, you should keep an eye out for 30,000 volts coming your way."

or, you get the first scenario which is a dead person.
yes, both situation suck and are "wrong", but one is clearly better than the other.

[Ginger]

Do you? I haven't tracked Police related deaths at all, but I'd be interested to see the results. I'd think that if I were a cop I'd think twice before pulling the trigger on a lethal weapon as opposed to what I'd think before temporarily injuring someone. I'm not a cop, though, either

[CaptainHenreh]

Ginger and I are on the same page.

From the hula-hoop article:

We're not defending it as best practice," Pishko said. However, "Officer Parks didn't know he was dealing with a citizen who was brain-injured.... All he knew was she was noncompliant and agitated."

Pishko said he supported dismissing the criminal charges against Brown because there wouldn't have been any point to prosecuting them. Further, he said, Brown had not suffered any serious injury from the shocks.

"The officer misjudged," Pishko said. "He didn't realize she was brain-damaged and overreacted."

Now. Thank God she didn't have a heart attack and die, but would the officer have shot her if she didn't comply? Was this guy Robocop? No, of course he wouldn't have. But since he had the less-lethal taser (notice they don't call them 'non-lethal' anymore) he was cavalier about using it. After all, no harm no foul, right?

On the other hand, if the officer had taken the time to more adequately assess the situation, there's no way this would have happened.

Same with the BART rider. The guy was belly down, subdued...why'd he need to be tased? When someone is lying on the ground saying 'Please don't tase me', I think it's probably ok to, you know, not tase them. Oh, except that guy ended up dead.

Gerald is correct, in a sense, that this is a training issue. But it wouldn't be an issue at all if they didn't have them. I don't know of anyone who would continue to do an activity after they were told to stand down by someone holding a gun. Why the need for the taser?

Are shootings by police down? We know (obviously) that tasings are up...have fewer people been shot because of it? If not, then it seems to me all that's happening is some people are getting tased for no clear reason.

I'm rambling, but I don't think I'm wrong.

[Evan]

The argument that in every case of tazing was because the cop was trigger happy just because they are "non-lethal" sounds a lot like irrational overreaction to me. Its certainly impossible to prove.
I think comparing these 2 situations are good examples of "just because the officer is using a firearm doesnt mean the officer will be more careful". When the officer makes a mistake with a gun, the results are much worse than with a tazer. Do you agree?

And comparing improperly using a tazer to properly using a firearm is apples and oranges. If everybody used everything properly every time, this wouldnt even be a discussion.

So what is your solution? Do you think that a tool designed only for lethal force should be used in all situations for coercion, controlling/disabling , and lethal force?

[Evan]

On the other hand, if the officer had taken the time to more adequately assess the situation, there's no way this would have happened.

absolutely. but thats not what we are talking about. mistakes will be made. preventing them is a different discussion and separate from what the enforcement tool the officer is using.

Same with the BART rider. The guy was belly down, subdued...why'd he need to be tased? When someone is lying on the ground saying 'Please don't tase me', I think it's probably ok to, you know, not tase them. Oh, except that guy ended up dead.

he wasnt tased, he was shot.
my emphasis added.

[CaptainHenreh]

The argument that in every case of tazing was because the cop was trigger happy just because they are "non-lethal" sounds a lot like irrational overreaction to me. Its certainly impossible to prove.

Uh, it sounds to me like that is EXACTLY what happened in both of these cases. There was no need to use a taser, and either a taser was used, or a taser was intended to be used and a person was shot with a GUN instead.

I don't know what your point is. In the BART case, the guy would never have been shot at all or even any weapon pulled if the officer hadn't had a taser on him. That's my damned solution.

A firearm is a tool for protection of the police officer and in certain cases those round the officer. A taser should be treated in the same way. If there is no danger to the officer or those in his immediate surroundings, it *should not be used*.

I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer because you're just being obtuse.

[HAULN-SS]

I would argue the guy would have never been shot if he had not wound up in such a precarious position. You or I, or most people we know will NEVER have to worry about whether we're going to get tased or shot, because we won't be laying face down with a cop on our back kicking our ass.

[CaptainHenreh]

I would argue the guy would have never been shot if he had not wound up in such a precarious position. You or I, or most people we know will NEVER have to worry about whether we're going to get tased or shot, because we won't be laying face down with a cop on our back kicking our ass.

Pssh. You say that now.

[BLINGMW]

because we won't be laying face down with a cop on our back kicking our ass.

I'm guessing a lot of people who end up in that situation didn't plan on it happening either!

[HAULN-SS]

I'm saying it's even out of the realm of possibility. First of all, we're not going to get in a fight on a subway train, and if we do, while we're sitting against the wall, we're going to shut the fuck up, and the cop will put the handcuffs on us normally, not with his knee in our back. And we damn sure won't move our own limbs, the cop will move them for us, so that we avoid looking jumpy, thus increasing our chances of getting blown away.

[CaptainHenreh]

We don't have to wear seatbelts either, because we can just hold ourselves in the unlikely event of an accident.

After all, we're all responsible people who would never get into an accident.

[HAULN-SS]

If you're alert, driving down a perfectly straight road, level road, in the daytime, and at 10mph, and were the only car on the road, you wouldn't have to wear your seatbelt. Take away any two of those conditions, and wear your seatbelt, you still have great chances of surviving the trip.

[Evan]

or a taser was intended to be used and a person was shot with a GUN instead.

if you believe his weak, after-the-fact excuse, then I think you are being deliberately disengenuous just because it fits your preconception that tasers are evil. As we already talked about earlier in the thread, its is next to impossible to confuse a stun gun with a firearm.
Would the guy still be alive if he had been shot with a taser?

A firearm is a tool for protection of the police officer and in certain cases those round the officer. A taser should be treated in the same way. If there is no danger to the officer or those in his immediate surroundings, it *should not be used*.

absolutely. But this isnt what we are talking about. An officer can misinterpret a situation and misjudge 'danger' level.
Do you think a tool designed only for lethal force is appropriate in all circumstances?
When an officer misreads a situation and makes a mistake. Would you rather them have a tool designed only designed for lethal force, or one that is not? Especially when that situation (as it was misread) does not require lethal force?

I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer because you're just being obtuse.

um. ok. I guess if obtuse = rational. Believe it or not I dont have strong feelings on the issue, but breaking down the problem rationally its pretty clear that the proper tool for the situation should be used, and a firearm is not always the best tool.
And you still havent answered my questions. Taking your toys with you?

[CaptainHenreh]

But this isnt what we are talking about. An officer can misinterpret a situation and misjudge 'danger' level.

Ok, so retarded woman doing a hula-hoop and trying to explain that she's injured is easy to misjudge "danger".

Same with a guy dogpiled on a train.

Easy to misjudge.

[BLINGMW]

teen just killed by a taser about an hour from here....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0109/584259.html">http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0109/584259.html</a><!-- m -->

After some thought, I guess I'm with Rex and Ginger. A taser is a potentially lethal weapon. A firearm is a potentially lethal weapon. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. If I kill someone with ANYTHING, it doesn't matter what it is, I go away unless I can demonstrate that my life was in danger. If I pull out a gun "just to scare someone" and I accidentally shoot, it's still my fault. Same as if I hit a kid with my car. Or throw a rock at and old guy, hit him in the head, he falls and dies. I'm the one that took on the responsibility of operating a potentially lethal weapon and took someone's life. I don't think it should be any different for the cops.

I should be able to be as non-compliant as I please, yelling and screaming all the way if the cops arrest me. Charge me with being non-compliant. Responding to non-violent protest with violence is unacceptable.

Give them a handgun, train them to use it properly. It shouldn't be out unless they intend on using it. If they shoot someone and cannot show that they were in danger, they're charged with homicide. If they want to "subdue" someone, they should have a baton and know how to fight. The taser just confuses things.

For the BART kid, the cop should be charged with homicide, no doubt. Compliance or not.

The handicapped lady, that'd just obscene. The availability of the taser made that situation worse. The cop should be fired, and subjected to sensitivity training where any wrong response is punished by taser.

In the case of this Martinsville teen, again, the taser again made things worse. If the cop feared for his life and shot the kid the shoulder, there's a good chance the kid would still be alive. If the kid just needed to be subdued, he should have punched him in the face.

[G.Irish]

Eh, the thing about a cop hitting someone with a baton or punching them is that right off the bat they are absolutely going to cause damage. Just one well placed punch can leave someone needing reconstructive surgery. Hell, you can kill someone with one punch.

In the overwhelming majority of tasings it hurts like a mofo but it doesn't cause permanent damage. There is a higher chance of an accidental death but I have no idea what percentage of tasings result in death. I have to think the chances are less than 1%.

Then there's the fact that if an officer is in a situation where a suspect may be getting violent with them, you don't really want to get into a fist fight. That increases the chances that A. the suspect could get to the cop's gun, and B. the suspect could have a hidden knife. If you can subdue someone at distance it is always better than getting into a scuffle.

Now I don't condone using a taser on someone because they were yelling and screaming. If someone is fighting and resisting arrest then that gets into a judgment call.

For my money, the taser is a tool. Any tool can be used improperly. I think it's a useful tool for law enforcement but the downside is that because it is "less-lethal" cops have become a little too eager to use it.