# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Florida Girl Tazed by Officer, Excessive Force Leads to Suspected Permanent Coma

## Philosophy_of_Politics

Infuriated right now.

Anyone know which part of Florida this is?

----------


## aGameOfThrones

He $#@!ing tasered her when he could have grabbed her, and she was cuffed too. She hit that pavement hard.

----------


## squarepusher

so sad

----------


## newbitech

state trooper, apparently she was running out of a state trooper station.  handcuffed.  jesus.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1n21X8gx0

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Waiting on the apologist...

----------


## MooCowzRock

*In before 30 page thread where most everyone calls America a police state and says the cop should go to hell without knowing the full story and judging off a few second clip that only shows past one second before the tasing.*

----------


## squarepusher

> *In before 30 page thread where most everyone calls America a police state and says the cop should go to hell without knowing the full story and judging off a few second clip that only shows past one second before the tasing.*


what do you think is going to happen when you taze someone who has their arms bound while on top of hard concrete?  They will fall and land head first onto concrete.  The trooper can't think.

----------


## newbitech

oh crap, this is pinellas park substation.  That is like 5 blocks from me.. eessh..

----------


## MooCowzRock

> what do you think is going to happen when you taze someone who has their arms bound while on top of hard concrete?  They will fall and land head first onto concrete.  The trooper can't think.


And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?

*You could get sued
*You could lose your job
*You could get bitten
*You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)

There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.

The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.

----------


## low preference guy

> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.


Yes, the reason is that government thugs get away with it and most are too afraid to question them.

----------


## newbitech

So I am checking out this girls arrest record and her court history.

Looks like all her three priors were bogus.  No information filed in all of them.  They didn't have a case on her.  I see speculation that she was under the influence, but none of her charges are drug related.

If you ask me, she was probably running away from more false accusations and charges that were coming her way.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.


Tazing should never be standard procedure to begin with. Especially when an individual is hand-cuffed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

If she had been a middle aged Sunday School teacher, they would have just shot her.

----------


## Anti Federalist

More on the story:



*
Experts say trooper's use of Taser on woman raises questions
*
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...stions/1215998

PINELLAS PARK

When the Taser's prongs hit her back, Danielle Maudsley spun backward and smacked her head on the pavement.

A nearby dashcam recorded the fall, even capturing the sound of her head cracking on the asphalt.

Maudsley, 20, clutched her head and struggled to rise. "I can't get up," she moaned, her final words.

Then she went still.

She has been in a vegetative state ever since. Doctors have told her family she likely will never wake up.

This week, two state agencies cleared Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Cole of any wrongdoing in the September incident, which occurred as Maudsley tried to escape from an FHP station in Pinellas Park.

But several experts and researchers who reviewed reports and video of the incident said the case raises questions.

They are troubled that Cole tasered Maudsley, a suspect in two hit-and-run crashes who had drugs in her system, while she was handcuffed. They also noted that Cole was just steps behind Maudsley when he fired the Taser.

"It just doesn't make any sense," said Greg Connor, a professor at the University of Illinois Police Training Institute who specializes in use of force. "I don't see where it's going to be that hard to apprehend her."

Cole, who at 267 pounds weighed about three times as much as Maudsley, told investigators he used his Taser because he was concerned one or both of them would be injured if he tackled her. He worried she was headed toward heavy traffic on U.S. 19.

The scrutiny of the Maudsley case comes amid calls from some national groups for police agencies to take a closer look at how and when they use Tasers.

The human rights organization Amnesty International called this week for stricter limits on Taser use after an intoxicated Georgia man died hours after police shot him with one. The group believes there should be a national policy on Taser use.

Florida has had 65 Taser-related deaths since 2001, the second highest total behind California, which had 92.

Amnesty also noted policies regarding the devices vary widely. Some agencies caution heavily about their use, while others consider them a compliance device on the same level as pepper spray.

"Some departments use it the first thing, some departments use it only for the highest level of resistance," said Gene Paoline, associate professor of criminology at the University of Central Florida, who has studied injuries from Tasers. "Unfortunately there's not a standard use of force policy for anything less than deadly force. There's not a national standard for when you should use a Taser and when you should not use it."

FHP policy allows troopers to use Tasers when it "reasonably appears necessary to control non-compliant individuals who have escalated their level of resistance from passive physical resistance to active physical resistance (i.e.: bracing, tensing, pushing, or pulling)."

The policy goes on to say it must be apparent the detained person has the ability to physically threaten others or is trying to flee or escape. It also notes that Tasers shouldn't be used on someone who is handcuffed, but says there still could be times when even that is justifiable.

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review," Sgt. Steve Gaskins, a spokesman, said Friday. "FDLE's investigation found the trooper's actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

Gaskins said the agency will not comment further because of possible legal action.

Maudsley's mother has hired lawyer Kevin Hayslett and intends to sue the FHP. Hayslett said Maudsley lives in an intensive care facility. She is fed by a tube, can't control bodily functions and has no voluntary movement. He compared her condition to Terri Schiavo, the Pinellas woman whose end-of-life case cause a nationwide stir several years ago.

Cole, the trooper, has been with FHP since 1998. He was the Pinellas Trooper of the Year in 2000. He had fired his Taser only once before — in 2009, when he used it on a suicidal man on the Sunshine Skyway bridge. The man fell to the roadway and was okay.

Investigators looking into the Maudsley case asked Cole if he would have done anything differently. He said he wouldn't have.

But experts said Cole made a series of mistakes that led to Maudsley getting away from him.

Nationally known use-of-force expert Dave Klinger, a retired Los Angeles police officer and professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, reviewed the dashcam video Friday and noted Maudsley was handcuffed in the front, which he called an "inappropriate" police tactic.

Other experts agreed, and said handcuffing in the front makes it easier for someone to escape or grab an officer's weapon.

According to the state report, Cole had the handcuffed Maudsley sit in a conference room at the FHP station while he completed paperwork in the same room. She was not handcuffed to any stationary object.

"If you have somebody in custody, you don't put them in a situation where they can escape," Klinger said. "Why in the world was she in a position to run?"

Then there's the question of whether Cole should have tasered a suspect who was simply running away and not violently resisting.

Lorie Frindell, associate criminology professor at the University of South Florida, once worked for the Washington, D.C.-based Police Executive Research Forum, which concluded that fleeing shouldn't be the sole justification for Taser use and that the officer should consider the severity of the offense, the suspect's threat level and the risk of serious injury to the suspect.

In this case, Maudsley was facing nonviolent offenses.

Other experts said it's difficult to dissect decisions officers must make in a matter of seconds.

Greg Meyer, a former captain with the Los Angeles Police Department and a use-of-force expert, has had more than 30 years of experience with electronic control devices.

He said they are becoming prolific in police agencies because they are effective and actually reduce injuries to officers and suspects. He said a national policy on Taser use is unrealistic.

"It's been a very outstanding tool when it's used properly," Meyer said. "This type of an injury from falling down from a Taser is extremely unusual."

Times researcher Natalie Watson contributed to this report. Reach Kameel Stanley at kstanley@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8643.

The incident

In September, a handcuffed Danielle Maudsley bolted out of a Florida Highway Patrol substation after she had been arrested in a hit-and-run case. Trooper Daniel Cole chased her, pulled out his Taser and fired its electric probes. Maudsley smacked her head on the asphalt parking lot and went unconscious.

The investigations

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement cleared Cole of wrongdoing. In an interview with investigators, Cole said he was concerned about Maudsley running toward U.S. 19 and about risking injury if he tried to tackle her.

----------


## ZENemy

> If she had been a middle aged Sunday School teacher, they would have just shot her.


hah, I LOLed and cried at the same time.

----------


## pcosmar

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.




WTF??

is this supposed to be some serious post or a poor attempt at sarcasm?
I am a small man. 5'8" and less than 130lbs most of my life. (150 as a fat old phart)

I have tackled bikers larger than myself,, and high as kites.
What kind of piss poor training are these cops getting?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> More on the story:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Experts say trooper's use of Taser on woman raises questions
> *
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...stions/1215998
> 
> ...


Non-Violent Suspect. No Physical Resistance. Handcuffed (against policy in most cases).

A taser is more than a "control" device. It's a weapon, apparently. It causes harm/pain.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What kind of piss poor training are these cops getting?


They are being trained that the force continuum is circular, not vertical, and that *any means available* may be used to subdue a subject and maintain authority, control of the situation and protect officer safety.

If the taser had not worked I have no doubt whatsoever that the cop in this case would have shot her dead in the back

----------


## CaptainAmerica

I'm so sick of this.

----------


## brushfire

As long as the police are not held accountable, these things will continue to happen.

I have family in law enforcement, and I am a lawful citizen, but dont believe in the safety of an officer over anyone else.  I do believe that an officer should be held accountable for their actions, including false arrest - which would allow those who had been wrongly detained a recourse (payment of legal fees, loss of work, emotional distress due to the legal process, etc)

As for this tragedy: Tasers are a false sense of security IMO, and this is just another incident supporting that opinion.
Since tasers DO KILL PEOPLE, they should be considered lethal force, therefore demanding AOJP when determining the judicious use of such lethal force.
That officer should be sent to court, tried, and if convicted, serve time for the crime.

----------


## JK/SEA

oh for pete sake...cops can't kill you with guns, cops can't kill you with tasers..just what the hell are they supposed to kill you with?...

----------


## brushfire

> oh for pete sake...cops can't kill you with guns, cops can't kill you with tasers..just what the hell are they supposed to kill you with?...


Kindness

----------


## pcosmar

> oh for pete sake...cops can't kill you with guns, cops can't kill you with tasers..just what the hell are they supposed to kill you with?...


Kindness?





> Kindness


Great minds,,,

----------


## JK/SEA

> Kindness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great minds,,,



Training being conducted as we speak, right butch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63F...eature=related

----------


## newbitech

what was interesting to see is that the court issued her an arrest warrant on this case for failing to show up in court...  Seriously.  

Of course they took it back, but WTF?  She got knocked out when she was arrested for her alleged traffic violations.  She was in a damn coma with a feeding tube.

Obviously, there is a huge detachment with what goes on in court records and what goes on in real life.  The law needs to damn catch up with technology so bull$#@! like an arrest warrant being issued for a person who was knocked out and put into a permanent coma by a cop in the case doesn't happen.

She has like 8 tickets in traffic court for offenses on the same day.  Obviously no one was killed and we are likely dealing with property damage that can be covered by insurance policies if it is true that she committed hit and run.  We have no idea what the evidence is for those tickets.  Also, she wasn't charged for drugs, even though it is claimed she was high at the time she tried to run out of the trooper station.  




> Return to Previous Page Records Main Menu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinellas Case
> ...


gee wonder why?  

oh and reinstate ROR. Sick, she was never released on her own recog. in the first place.  And you don't get ROR when you are trying to escape from custody.  

What a sick joke.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

If this is what passes for "security" in a republic, I prefer anarchy.

----------


## newbitech

> If this is what passes for "security" in a republic, I prefer anarchy.


this is what passes for rule of law.  this person was not given due process, and each time she was, there was just no proof that she was breaking the law.  Her only conviction to this point appears to be traffic, probably the driving without a license.  

I see lawlessness going on here from the people who are supposed to uphold the law.  If Rules aren't being followed, then there are no rules.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

Do you think this was personal?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

newbitech. send that to their lawyer?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> this is what passes for rule of law.  this person was not given due process, and each time she was, there was just no proof that she was breaking the law.  Her only conviction to this point appears to be traffic, probably the driving without a license.  
> *
> I see lawlessness going on here from the people who are supposed to uphold the law.*  If Rules aren't being followed, then there are no rules.


I know what you're saying, and it's a good point, but it is important to note that police have no legal obligation to uphold the law.  "To Protect And Serve" is just a motto for PR purposes.  In practice there really aren't any rules.    I don't have the cases handy, but the issue of police obligation has been taken to federal courts several times.  I bet AF has some links handy.

----------


## newbitech

> Do you think this was personal?


I'd really like to know what they were doing bringing her to the troopers station with her hands cuffed in the front instead of calling in the sheriff to take her to jail.  I am suspicious of the circumstances.  

It looks like all her charges besides the one traffic that sounds like driving without out a license, looks like those were all bogus charges.  So possibly there is a history of someone calling the cops on her and falsely accusing her.

I checked out her facebook page.  She definitely identified with a subculture that is race agnostic.  So it's possible that the cop didn't like her attitude, or its possible that she got mixed up with the wrong crowd.  She is really a beautiful girl and I can tell she got mixed up with some bad influences.  

I imagine that where she grew up and the rough economy especially for the youth down here really crushed her spirit and she probably started turning to black market activities to satisfy her needs.  

Of course I didn't know her, but damn our society for doing this to people.  It hurts.

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech. send that to their lawyer?


I might see about getting involved with this case.  It's really close to home.  I am sure the mother is devastated.  I'd like to see some justice out of this.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> I might see about getting involved with this case.  It's really close to home.  I am sure the mother is devastated.  I'd like to see some justice out of this.


I'd do it. It's the right thing to do.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I might see about getting involved with this case.  It's really close to home.  I am sure the mother is devastated.  I'd like to see some justice out of this.


That's so cool of you!    Do keep us updated, plz.

----------


## newbitech

ok so this is why the investigation was/is a sham.  

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/239...ed-to-stop-her
In the internal affairs report, part of it quoted in this article, here is what we find.




> The FDLE found Cole's actions justified, because troopers said Maudsley was running toward traffic along Highway 19, and might have caused an accident.


now here is an idea, why doesn't internal affairs review that statement a little closer.  

First off, based on the video evidence, she is not running towards the busy highway.  She is running out to the parking lot which is surrounded by a field.  The direction she is running has one very small side street to a trailer park of a 55+ community of relatively sedentary individuals next to the cops station.  The busy highway is over 100 feet probably close to 200 feet from the exit of the building.  She wasn't running in that direction anyways as the exit of the building she ran out faces parallel to the busy highway.

Liar.  He wasn't worried about her running out in to traffic causing an accident.  I would have believed him though if he would have said I didn't want to look bad by letting a criminal escape my custody WHILE IN THE STATION WITH HANDCUFFS.  

So he didn't want to tackle her cause he might hurt her.  He thought about that, but yet everything happened so fast that he couldn't think about how a person running with handcuffs might not be able to break their fall if struck with 50 thousand volts.  Unbelievable, yet he was cleared on his obviously false claim that she was running to the busy highway.

----------


## Keith and stuff

This makes me happy that one of the top liberty blog, http://www.copblock.org , is based in Keene, New Hampshire, the liberty media capital of the world.  Most of the cops in this county are insane.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I might see about getting involved with this case.  It's really close to home.  I am sure the mother is devastated.  I'd like to see some justice out of this.


Please do.

I'll be happy to help out in any way I can.

----------


## squarepusher

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.


So a permanent brain dead state is a perfectly OK consequence of running from the police?  Especially since she had no weapons, wasn't a threat to anyone, and had her hands and arms bound and would have been easily apprehended (ie: she ain't going anywhere).   So, in other words, would it be OK for the cop to simply execute her on the spot by shooting her in the back of the head for trying to run?  Tasing someone handcuffed and bound while running on concrete will not always, but very often result in death since the body locks up, and your natural defense mechanism to protect your dead is disabled.  Therefore, its like smack your head, which is a very fragile part of you, directly on concrete.

This wasn't about her harming or possibly damaging anyone, she was already bound.  This was about disobeying 'the officer' and because this officer felt disrespected he  did an action which in a very high % of likely outcomes results in death (or equivalent brain dead state).  Maybe there are some other scenarios, 5/10 of of 10 she may have landed differently which would prevent a brain injury, but the risk of brain injury is extremely high in this case, risking the suspects life over such a simple matter is very clearly a scenario of police brutality and unnecessary violence.

You response to getting sued or losing your job over taking another persons life is extremely ridiculous.  Even if she was high on PCP, she was handcuffed, if you aren't smart enough to determine a scenario to safely take the suspect in without taking her life, then you definitely should not be an officer.  Making a claim that a handcuffed _girl_ is a danger or a threat also shows how cowardly it seems the typical cop has become today (Im' referring to this, and the other stories you hear everyday about way over the line police brutality). Unfortuantely it seems the most officers now a days only skill is being able to collect bloated public pensions after their retirement.

The stories like this go on and on, police kicking handcuffed restrained suspects in the head, the BART execution of an already restrained suspect, the Kelly Thomas murder in Long Beach, thats just off the top of my head.

----------


## squarepusher

> ok so this is why the investigation was/is a sham.  
> 
> http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/239...ed-to-stop-her
> In the internal affairs report, part of it quoted in this article, here is what we find.
> 
> 
> 
> now here is an idea, why doesn't internal affairs review that statement a little closer.  
> 
> ...


no Newbitech!!!  She could have massacred the elderly community by biting them to death!!  It would have been a massacre, imaging that a entire community of elderly people bitten to death because this cop didn't tase her running on concrete handcuffed!  Would you be happy then with an _entire community dead_ because you didn't want the cop to take necessary action?!  Shame on your sir!

----------


## tod evans

Sad...and sickening!

----------


## ForLiberty2012

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.


Dont apologize for that coward ass scum... She looks all but 100 lbs... And her hands are bound... $#@! you.

----------


## phill4paul

They will simply continue to kill citizens one at a time and with no internal restraint. There are dozens of police misconduct reports DAILY and I would wager many, many, more unreported. Incidences such as this cannot be considered occasional errors in judgement. It is happening far too often. 
   I am sure the apologists will rally around this as they do other instances. There are GOOD cops they will explain. Question is... how do you know whether or not the next cop you deal with is a 'good' cop?

----------


## azxd

500+ deaths due to tazer use ... I'd like to see some statistics on how deaths have changed since they started using less-than-lethal-force tools.
I'm gonna make a wild guess that the numbers are higher than they were when LE was issued a gun, night stick, and badge.
And I'm making that guess based on the type of training and mentality that now seems to permeate LE ... We are all suspects, it seems.

----------


## newbitech

The being on drugs part is speculation.  She didn't have any drugs on her possession, she was not charged with a drug related offense.  We don't get to see the toxicology report to confirm this.  Cops love to tie drugs in to the equation because they are almost assured to get a knee jerk response from more than a few people that think that having or being on drugs is automatic proof of guilt of something.

And if she was on drugs, that might play a role in why she made a bad choice.  We know the cop wasn't on drugs right?  So what is his excuse for his bad choice?  That's right, he was justified since she was running towards traffic and might cause an accident.  Too bad, that is a lie.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They will simply continue to kill citizens one at a time and with no internal restraint. There are dozens of police misconduct reports DAILY and I would wager many, many, more unreported. Incidences such as this cannot be considered occasional errors in judgement. It is happening far too often. 
>    I am sure the apologists will rally around this as they do other instances. There are GOOD cops they will explain. Question is... how do you know whether or not the next cop you deal with is a 'good' cop?


There are no good cops, if there was, there would be no bad cops.

----------


## phill4paul

> There are no good cops, if there was, there would be no bad cops.


  Of this, I am certain. This was more a statement for the apologists that rarely 'get it' until they experience it.

----------


## fisharmor

> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)


You could have to stop pounding donuts into your pie hole long enough to be able to get in enough shape to bear-hug a practically anorexic woman almost a third of your weight....

And seriously, lose your job?  What kind of mental disconnect do you have here?
_He put her in a persistently vegetative state, and he's not losing his job._

For the record, yeah, I've dealt with all sorts of people on all sorts of drugs.  There's no drug version of a magic can of spinach that makes an anorexic girl grow little anchors on her biceps and punch cops weighing almost three times as much as her on to the top of nearby buildings.

----------


## pcosmar

> For the record, yeah, I've dealt with all sorts of people on all sorts of drugs.  There's no drug version of a magic can of spinach that makes an anorexic girl grow little anchors on her biceps and punch cops weighing almost three times as much as her on to the top of nearby buildings.


LOL
and +rep for humorous accuracy

----------


## MooCowzRock

> So a permanent brain dead state is a perfectly OK consequence of running from the police?  Especially since she had no weapons, wasn't a threat to anyone, and had her hands and arms bound and would have been easily apprehended (ie: she ain't going anywhere).   So, in other words, would it be OK for the cop to simply execute her on the spot by shooting her in the back of the head for trying to run?  Tasing someone handcuffed and bound while running on concrete will not always, but very often result in death since the body locks up, and your natural defense mechanism to protect your dead is disabled.  Therefore, its like smack your head, which is a very fragile part of you, directly on concrete.
> 
> This wasn't about her harming or possibly damaging anyone, she was already bound.  This was about disobeying 'the officer' and because this officer felt disrespected he  did an action which in a very high % of likely outcomes results in death (or equivalent brain dead state).  Maybe there are some other scenarios, 5/10 of of 10 she may have landed differently which would prevent a brain injury, but the risk of brain injury is extremely high in this case, risking the suspects life over such a simple matter is very clearly a scenario of police brutality and unnecessary violence.
> 
> You response to getting sued or losing your job over taking another persons life is extremely ridiculous.  Even if she was high on PCP, she was handcuffed, if you aren't smart enough to determine a scenario to safely take the suspect in without taking her life, then you definitely should not be an officer.  Making a claim that a handcuffed _girl_ is a danger or a threat also shows how cowardly it seems the typical cop has become today (Im' referring to this, and the other stories you hear everyday about way over the line police brutality). Unfortuantely it seems the most officers now a days only skill is being able to collect bloated public pensions after their retirement.
> 
> The stories like this go on and on, police kicking handcuffed restrained suspects in the head, the BART execution of an already restrained suspect, the Kelly Thomas murder in Long Beach, thats just off the top of my head.


He used a taser because he "felt disrespected"?  Can you try supporting your arguments with something like facts as opposed to baseless conjecture that shows your true bias?

You can't consistently cherry pick rare situations in which the taser causes death or injury, out of the millions of times the taser is used effectively and safely year after year.  Find a study that shows that the taser is a less safe and more risky alternative to physical contact and then I will believe you.  But until then, there is very good reason it is standard procedure and this cop did nothing wrong.  Its like saying that a smallpox vaccine is horrible because it causes some rare deaths, without considering there is a reason it was used and how many lives it saved.

There is a reason the police use the taser, so that they don't have to use their weapon, so that they don't have to manhandle a suspect and risk lawsuit or getting the case thrown out or getting injured yourself.  She took a risk when she ran, and she should have known better.  She took that risk and the got extremely unlucky when a very unlikely result occurred from the situation.  So until you can prove that using a taser is less safe than physical contact, or less worthwhile to use in the long run when it comes to destroying someones career or health on the very very very slight off-chance that it may result in a rare injury or death like this, WITHOUT CHERRY PICKING A COUPLE OF VIDEOS AND ARTICLES then I will come to your side.  But until then, the cops have the evidence on their side, and I would have done the same thing in his shoes.  That girl ran from the police and she would not be worth my job, my health, and my livelihood on the .0001% chance it could go wrong.

----------


## pcosmar

> and I would have done the same thing in his shoes.


-rep worthy

----------


## Czolgosz

When do we want cops to use more force?

----------


## newbitech

> He used a taser because he "felt disrespected"?  Can you try supporting your arguments with something like facts as opposed to baseless conjecture that shows your true bias?
> 
> You can't consistently cherry pick rare situations in which the taser causes death or injury, out of the millions of times the taser is used effectively and safely year after year.  Find a study that shows that the taser is a less safe and more risky alternative to physical contact and then I will believe you.  But until then, there is very good reason it is standard procedure and this cop did nothing wrong.  Its like saying that a smallpox vaccine is horrible because it causes some rare deaths, without considering there is a reason it was used and how many lives it saved.
> 
> There is a reason the police use the taser, so that they don't have to use their weapon, so that they don't have to manhandle a suspect and risk lawsuit or getting the case thrown out or getting injured yourself.  She took a risk when she ran, and she should have known better.  She took that risk and the got extremely unlucky when a very unlikely result occurred from the situation.  So until you can prove that using a taser is less safe than physical contact, or less worthwhile to use in the long run when it comes to destroying someones career or health on the very very very slight off-chance that it may result in a rare injury or death like this, WITHOUT CHERRY PICKING A COUPLE OF VIDEOS AND ARTICLES then I will come to your side.  *But until then, the cops have the evidence on their side,* and I would have done the same thing in his shoes.  That girl ran from the police and she would not be worth my job, my health, and my livelihood on the .0001% chance it could go wrong.


No they don't.  Evidence suggest when you zap someone who has their hands bound on a hard surface, they are likely to suffer a severe injury.  Pretty sure this is also part of the policy, which I am looking for sources for that, but the articles in this case suggest that is policy.

Also, he was cleared in the investigation because he says she was running towards traffic.  As I already showed the scene, and as the video evidence shows, this is just not true.  

Also, he thought enough in his statements about how the size difference might cause her injury, but he didn't think enough about how zapping someone with hands bound, running, on a hard surface might KILL her?  

Seriously, how can people like the cop and you makes statements that you'd do it again after examining the facts in this case?  He could have just let her run off.  Certainly that option never crossed his mind.  Yet here he is at the station with other cops around, a police cruiser right there that probably had another cop in it.  Was she really going to "get away".  Hell no.  

There were options, and I find it very insulting that he thinks the weapon of choice, and the method of choice was the tazer.  Why?  It shows a total lack of control on the part of the officer and the State Troopers.  They are simply out of control and a brain dead girl is the result of THEIR actions.  Not hers.  

We don't know why she ran.  We don't even know why she was there with the handcuffs in front of her.  You don't put handcuffs in the front of a violent person.  So clearly he didn't believe she was going to hurt him or anyone else.  

Also what circumstance made him bring her to the trooper station?  I don't think I have ever heard of someone in this state being taken to the trooper station for a traffic incident.  Why was the sheriff not called to the scene to take her in to custody and book her in the jail?  

If you are incapable of questioning a cop in a situation like this, and if you are so willing to support the cop in this action, what will you question and what won't you support?

I understand the need to defend authority in order to maintain a respect for it.  What I don't understand is the willing to ignore the evidence and the circumstance while simultaneously claiming their is positive evidence on the cops side.  It's like you are blindly supporting the cop, rather than actually looking at the case.  

Why do you do that?

----------


## bolil

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.


Your paid out of public coffers to act as a professional in your official duty that is: Protect and serve not taze and abuse.  If you afraid to get bit your a $#@! cop... pigs get eaten all the time.  So the girl, who is admittedly high, goes for a run and you say she can't think.... arn't you brilliant.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> ....The trooper can't think.


Cops are retarded. Seriously. The odds are that your IQ is at least 20 points higher than the average cop's. The chief of police probably doesn't have an IQ above 110. The hiring policy for police excludes applicants with genuine problem solving skills. It's a matter of public record. 

Having established that, the low intelligence of cops does not exclude them from personal responsibility for their actions; that is accomplished by other means.

----------


## Philhelm

This is outrageous.  And how can anyone justify the action?  She was handcuffed for Christ's sake!

----------


## phill4paul

> But until then, the cops have the evidence on their side, and I would have done the same thing in his shoes.  That girl ran from the police and she would not be worth my job, my health, and my livelihood on the .0001% chance it could go wrong.


  Dude, that is some kinda $#@!ed up $#@! right there.

----------


## newbitech

> Your paid out of public coffers to act as a professional in your official duty that is: Protect and serve not taze and abuse.  If you afraid to get bit your a $#@! cop... pigs get eaten all the time.  So the girl, *who is admittedly high*, goes for a run and you say she can't think.... arn't you brilliant.


this is speculation.  We don't know if she was high at the time she decided to bolt.  Even if the toxicology report detected oxy and coke in her system, the effects of those drugs especially the coke may worn off.

----------


## BUSHLIED

any cop that needs to taze a handcuffed woman is a p-ssy.

----------


## phill4paul

I thought the state of Florida was somehow relevant in something I recently read regarding a tasering...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...cle1112106.ece

  "Late one night in October, a 17-year-old on a bike was chased by a police officer in a cruiser. When the boy refused to stop, the officer aimed his Taser out the driver's window and fired. The boy fell off the bike and the cruiser ran over him, killing him."

----------


## Voluntary Man

> this is speculation.  We don't know if she was high at the time she decided to bolt....


She could've simply feared she might be raped/murdered. Not an entirely irrational fear, apparently.

----------


## newbitech

> She could've simply feared she might be raped/murdered. Not an entirely irrational fear, apparently.


To me, it looks like he already had his tazer out as he was running out of the door.  He could have been waving that thing in her face threatening to zap her if she didn't shut up.  Obviously she was in fear, and whether or not her fear was rational is probably irrelevant, unless he was threatening physical harm.  Once that fight or flight mechanism kicks in, the body takes over from the mind.  If he put her in fear mode in an attempt to control her, then that would explain why she bolted.  

The other reason that this hits home for me besides happening in my backyard, a very similar thing happened to my brother 4 years ago.

He go flipped over a railing by a cop and landed on his neck.  The cop ran off the porch and pulled his tazer and pointed it at him while he was on the ground.  He bolted from the (overweight) cop and left him in the dust.  How closed was my brother to having his neck snapped on the front lawn that he grew up in by a cop who was enforcing another traffic law?  (he didn't use his blinker to turn down our road.)

----------


## phill4paul

> Once that fight or flight mechanism kicks in, the body takes over from the mind.


  Which goes with something I was just thinking on. With the increasing awareness and reporting of police misconduct this type of reaction is bound to occur more often. Which will lead to more police misconduct against those fleeing. It'll become a never ending cycle. Until, more and more, we will see people give up on flight as a means of self preservation and take to fight over flight.

  And I'm glad your brother made it out alright. That could have turned out as forum fodder given the explanation.

----------


## newbitech

> Which goes with something I was just thinking on. With the increasing awareness and reporting of police misconduct this type of reaction is bound to occur more often. Which will lead to more police misconduct against those fleeing. It'll become a never ending cycle. Until, more and more, we will see people give up on flight as a means of self preservation and take to fight over flight.
> 
>   And I'm glad your brother made it out alright. That could have turned out as forum fodder given the explanation.


yep, in fact a very prominent attorney that was consulted in my brothers and my case (a family member who was ex chief of police in Tampa and a life long cop turned criminal defense attorney) advised that the only real defense in my brothers case was a physiological evaluation to prove that he had a fear of cops.  Crazy.  

The other thing is, we already see this in poor neighborhoods and that has been going on long before the escalation in the police state that has its roots in 9/11 sourced legislation.

----------


## MooCowzRock

> No they don't.  Evidence suggest when you zap someone who has their hands bound on a hard surface, they are likely to suffer a severe injury.  Pretty sure this is also part of the policy, which I am looking for sources for that, but the articles in this case suggest that is policy.
> 
> Also, he was cleared in the investigation because he says she was running towards traffic.  As I already showed the scene, and as the video evidence shows, this is just not true.  
> 
> Also, he thought enough in his statements about how the size difference might cause her injury, but he didn't think enough about how zapping someone with hands bound, running, on a hard surface might KILL her?  
> 
> Seriously, how can people like the cop and you makes statements that you'd do it again after examining the facts in this case?  He could have just let her run off.  Certainly that option never crossed his mind.  Yet here he is at the station with other cops around, a police cruiser right there that probably had another cop in it.  Was she really going to "get away".  Hell no.  
> 
> There were options, and I find it very insulting that he thinks the weapon of choice, and the method of choice was the tazer.  Why?  It shows a total lack of control on the part of the officer and the State Troopers.  They are simply out of control and a brain dead girl is the result of THEIR actions.  Not hers.  
> ...


No, the evidence does not suggest that tasing someone who is resisting is less likely to cause injury than manhandling them.  If he had tackled her would that be better?  She would have likely been injured more.  Trying to carefully apprehend a likely high suspect who has already chosen to run increases your likelihood of getting injured, and increases the likelihood of the suspect getting injured, and increases the likelihood of getting sued when you don't follow the proper procedure set in place.  You can't claim that she would have been less likely to sustain injuries if he had tried to grab her because you haven't provided the evidence to suggest it, not to mention everything you are arguing is things that could have been done in hindsight.  Again, there is a reason they are trained to use a taser, and thats because in situations like that, you may have a .0001% chance of injury, but by tackling or grabbing her, you may have a .01% chance of injury and a .001% chance of a lawsuit.  You play the odds, every time, and you can't change the entire procedure just because .0001% of the time it doesn't work out.  You don't stop giving vaccines just because of a few rare people get sick.  Unless you can provide evidence suggesting that more people get sick from the vaccine than without it, then you have nothing to stand on when you cherrypick videos and articles.

You cant assume what they believed or thought or felt, and you keep interjecting these assumptions in your reasoning and its an obvious sign of an inherent bias which is clouding your judgement.  This is evidenced by your rhetoric that is designed to make it seem like I am blindly following authority like a sheep when I am merely looking at the evidence and siding with the side that was right.

I understand the need to question authority in order to keep it in check.  What I don't understand is the willing to ignore the evidence and the circumstance while simultaneously claiming there is negative evidence against the cops side.  It's like you are blindly going against the cop, rather than actually looking at the case.  

Why do you do that?

----------


## newbitech

> No, the evidence does not suggest that tasing someone who is resisting is less likely to cause injury than manhandling them.  If he had tackled her would that be better?  *She would have likely been injured more.*  Trying to carefully apprehend a likely high suspect who has already chosen to run increases your likelihood of getting injured, and increases the likelihood of the suspect getting injured, and increases the likelihood of getting sued when you don't follow the proper procedure set in place.  You can't claim that she would have been less likely to sustain injuries if he had tried to grab her because you haven't provided the evidence to suggest it, not to mention everything you are arguing is things that could have been done in hindsight.  Again, there is a reason they are trained to use a taser, and thats because in situations like that, you may have a .0001% chance of injury, but by tackling or grabbing her, you may have a .01% chance of injury and a .001% chance of a lawsuit.  You play the odds, every time, and you can't change the entire procedure just because .0001% of the time it doesn't work out.  You don't stop giving vaccines just because of a few rare people get sick.  Unless you can provide evidence suggesting that more people get sick from the vaccine than without it, then you have nothing to stand on when you cherrypick videos and articles.
> 
> You cant assume what they believed or thought or felt, and you keep interjecting these assumptions in your reasoning and its an obvious sign of an inherent bias which is clouding your judgement.  This is evidenced by your rhetoric that is designed to make it seem like I am blindly following authority like a sheep when I am merely looking at the evidence and siding with the side that was right.
> 
> I understand the need to question authority in order to keep it in check.  What I don't understand is the willing to ignore the evidence and the circumstance while simultaneously claiming there is negative evidence against the cops side.  It's like you are blindly going against the cop, rather than actually looking at the case.  
> 
> Why do you do that?


I already know you blindly support cops.  I don't need any more proof.  INJURED MORE?  Are you $#@!ing serious?

SHE IS BRAIN DEAD!  Sick man.

----------


## phill4paul

> yep, in fact a very prominent attorney that was consulted in my brothers and my case (a family member who was ex chief of police in Tampa and a life long cop turned criminal defense attorney) advised that the only real defense in my brothers case was a physiological evaluation to prove that he had a fear of cops.  Crazy.


  Which, of course, would mean that he would never be allowed to own firearms because of psychological background checks. These dudes got it sewn up real good.

----------


## newbitech

Like he did her a $#@!ing favor!  I am so disgusted by you it's ridiculous!

----------


## newbitech

I can't get over this guy I am sorry.  She would have been better off dead than where she is now.  He did her no favor and caused the worst possible outcome, yes worse than death.  Only death or some miracle can remove the pain and suffering she is going through at the hands of this cop, AND FOR WHAT?

----------


## AFPVet

There is no way that I am seeing someone justify the use of a taser on this passive resistant young lady. I am trying to keep my blood from boiling here. I worked in law enforcement for nearly five years (military and civilian). NEVER, EVER, were we taught to use less lethal weapons on PASSIVE RESISTANT individuals. For all who do not know what this means, this is to say that the person is avoiding the commands of the officer and/or is running from them. 

This was involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide. Some people have serious underlying health problems which the taser can exasperate. My old department did not use tasers because officers like myself saw the problems with them. We carried military grade OC spray which was more than enough... as well as a expandable baton for less lethal. 

So when are you supposed to deploy less lethal weapons? When the subject is active resistant and assaultive. In other words, it the subject is coming at you.

----------


## dillo

How did she escape the police station in the first place?

Why are you tazering someone with handcuffs?

How did you let a handcuffed woman escape your custody?

----------


## AFPVet

> How did she escape the police station in the first place?
> 
> Why are you tazering someone with handcuffs?
> 
> How did you let a handcuffed woman escape your custody?


Excellent questions... thank you and +rep!

----------


## fisharmor

> I already know you blindly support cops.  I don't need any more proof.  INJURED MORE?  Are you $#@!ing serious?
> 
> SHE IS BRAIN DEAD!  Sick man.


I stopped reading at exactly that point.
Obvious troll is obvious.

----------


## Philhelm

When will it be okay to defend our fellow citizens from murderers?

----------


## pcosmar

> When will it be okay to defend our fellow citizens from murderers?


When enough men (and women) are ready to take that stand. 
Sadly,, not yet it seems.

----------


## mikeforliberty

These threads are so sad.  I hate hearing of how another life was destroyed by the state.  Whats even worse is hearing people on RPF that defend them... Well at least it makes it easy for me to know who needs to be on my ignorelist.

----------


## phill4paul

> When enough men (and women) are ready to take that stand. 
> Sadly,, not yet it seems.


  I dunno Pete. I guess it comes down to right place/right time (wrong place/wrong time?). As someone that avoids big cities and L.E. like the plagues they are I've never been put in this situation. I don't really want to because I know how the situation might end. Which would be bad for everyone involved. Self included.

----------


## ForLiberty2012

I'm calling for a ban of "MooCowzRock" ... he thinks this officer was completely justified... even though you can clearly tell in the beginning of the video he was within arms reach of this girl, instead he chose to go for his taser. Tasers are to be used as a LAST RESORT when the cops life is in DANGER. It's not to be thrown around as a way to control the public. Tasers are supposed to save lives by using non-lethal force when your life is threatened..... It should NOTT be used when a 90-lb WOMAN has her back turned to you in HANDCUFFS. You're scum MooCowzRock...

----------


## ForLiberty2012

A girl is braindead because of police brutality and this dude is sticking up for the cop. Who do you think you are???

----------


## JK/SEA

> How did she escape the police station in the first place?
> 
> Why are you tazering someone with handcuffs?
> 
> How did you let a handcuffed woman escape your custody?


yep..pretty much. You could make a case to say that she was set-up...but then i don't want to appear that i'm saying cops would do this....that would be silly.

----------


## MooCowzRock

> I stopped reading at exactly that point.
> Obvious troll is obvious.


Not a troll, and your attempts at simply waving off my points as trolling is sad, and I expect better from this forum.




> I'm calling for a ban of "MooCowzRock" ... he thinks this officer was completely justified... even though you can clearly tell in the beginning of the video he was within arms reach of this girl, instead he chose to go for his taser. Tasers are to be used as a LAST RESORT when the cops life is in DANGER. It's not to be thrown around as a way to control the public. Tasers are supposed to save lives by using non-lethal force when your life is threatened..... It should NOTT be used when a 90-lb WOMAN has her back turned to you in HANDCUFFS. You're scum MooCowzRock...


Wow, I expect MUCH better from this forum...calling for a ban of someone you disagree with?  Thats the strategy our opponents use against us, thats the strategy the media uses against us, etc.  This is a real low, if it wasnt for the fact that I am reasonable and support the movement for the values it holds and not its individual supporters, I would be ashamed to be part of it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Not a troll, and your attempts at simply waving off my points as trolling is sad, and I expect better from this forum.


You have no valid points.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible.

and failing publicly.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> Not a troll, and your attempts at simply waving off my points as trolling is sad, and I expect better from this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I expect MUCH better from this forum...calling for a ban of someone you disagree with?  Thats the strategy our opponents use against us, thats the strategy the media uses against us, etc.  This is a real low, if it wasnt for the fact that I am reasonable and support the movement for the values it holds and not its individual supporters, I would be ashamed to be part of it.


The point is, you're wrong.

Reflect on yourself. Imagine her parent's world-view, and the young girl herself.

Handcuffed, with a history of being wrongfully accused. Tazed because you ran in your desire for freedom from whatever scared you so bad (numerous possibilities).

Personally, if I were the parents. The cop would not wake up the next morning.

Nor would you, if you were the officer.

----------


## newbitech

> Not a troll, and your attempts at simply waving off my points as trolling is sad, and I expect better from this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I expect MUCH better from this forum...calling for a ban of someone you disagree with?  Thats the strategy our opponents use against us, thats the strategy the media uses against us, etc.  This is a real low, if it wasnt for the fact that I am reasonable and support the movement for the values it holds and not its individual supporters, I would be ashamed to be part of it.


Your ignorance to my call to examine the evidence has not gone unnoticed.  Perhaps you'd like to give examples of injuries worse than being brain dead?  That'd be a good place to start.

----------


## asurfaholic

cop was 267 pounds? Guy eating hamburgers every day lifting a pen to sign off on tickets can't catch a girl running in handcuffs, so he uses a tazer to catch her. Sorry, not cool bro. Shoulda just called for backup if you are too fat to catch the little girl...

Hiway patrol in NC won't let you work the street if you cant keep your physical attributes up at a high standard. If you fail at that, you get desk work. Maybe Fl should learn a lesson.

I hope the poor girl wakes up/

----------


## MooCowzRock

"You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.

----------


## asurfaholic

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> The girl that ran is the one that cant think.  Think before you try and run from the cops or put your mind in a state where your judgement is clouded.  This is a horrible and false example of police brutality.


I am trained and certified in Law Enforcement, but took other work for multiple reasons. Just fwiw, I graduated top of my class, and got highest score on state test. I paid attention, and learned as much as I could.

You are dead wrong. Im not calling for your ban, but you have to examine the facts of this case closer. Tasers do serve a purpose, but officers should never use the taser when they are too lazy to catch a fleeing criminal, and NEVER when in handcuffs. That is standard training. Use of force is indeed circular, but a well trained officer can take down a giant that is high on 20 different things with one well placed chop with the hand. 

Not just this case, but you also have to realize this isn't a lone incident. It is an unfortunate case were a girl is possible going to lose much of her life to an officer's bad decision, but this is an epidemic. More and more cases of excessive force are pointing to one thing - a police state that enforces laws that it wont follow. 

If you choose to be an officer, you have to accept the risk that you can be sued (if you are found guilty of wrongdoing), you can lose your job (if you suck), you could be bitten (wtf, really?), you could be injured (oh no, don't let me scratch me knee.. boo hoo). That is a pathetic list of excuses.... As an electrician, I could be sued (if I do something wrong), I could lose my job (if I suck), I could get bitten (fleas, dogs, oops touched the black wire), I could get injured (oops, touched the brown, yellow, and orange at the same time.) All that means is that I should be properly trained to do my job, so none of that stuff happens. Same for this lazy cop.

----------


## ForLiberty2012

> "You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.


A girl is BRAIN DEAD because a cop was literally within arms reach of a woman 1/3 of his size and he decided a taser was necessary. HER BACK WAS TURNED. When is it ever okay to use lethal force when someone's back is turned???? Your life is not threatened. She's in handcuffs so what can she possibly do?!!? I'd love to hear your defense for her... I'd love to hear how making someone brain dead was worth what she did. Please amuse me you scum.

----------


## phill4paul

> "You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.


 I Rarely Give -Reps



 But When I do It's Usually 
Because Some One Is -Rep
        Worthy.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> cop was 267 pounds? Guy eating hamburgers every day lifting a pen to sign off on tickets can't catch a girl running in handcuffs, so he uses a tazer to catch her. Sorry, not cool bro. Shoulda just called for backup if you are too fat to catch the little girl...
> 
> Hiway patrol in NC won't let you work the street if you cant keep your physical attributes up at a high standard. If you fail at that, you get desk work. Maybe Fl should learn a lesson.
> 
> I hope the poor girl wakes up/


+1.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> "You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.


A valid argument was already offered.

Non-violent flee'ing suspect, does not warrant a tazer, especially when hand-cuffed.

----------


## newbitech

> "You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.





> If he had tackled her would that be better? She would have likely been injured more.


TO answer your absurd question.  Hell yes tackling her would have been better, he would have braced both of their falls because 1.) she wouldn't have seized up and 2.) he was almost 3 times her size

$#@! that, you are wrong because you think she could have been injured more than being brain dead.  You are deranged to say something like that, and I don't know what to call you for not taking it back.  Don't walk away from this thread buddy, $#@!ing run.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> TO answer your absurd question.  Hell yes tackling her would have been better, he would have braced both of their falls because 1.) she wouldn't have seized up and 2.) he was almost 3 times her size
> 
> $#@! that, you are wrong because you think she could have been injured more than being brain dead.  You are deranged to say something like that, and I don't know what to call you for not taking it back.  Don't walk away from this thread buddy, $#@!ing run.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to newbitech again."

----------


## againsttheodds

This is a tragic story of a lost life due to laziness, ineptness, what have you.  Check out this nice write-up and also find ways to defend against tasers yourself with anti-taser clothing.

----------


## AFPVet

> "You're wrong, just because!" is not a valid argument.  I am done with this thread, you guys keep up the sheeping.  I'll keep looking at things fairly without screaming "police brutality!" every opportunity I get.


You cannot be serious. I've been a peace officer for a few years and I have never let a subject in custody escape my sight. I have never carried (nor would I want to) a taser. Lastly, it's not hard to stop a runner who is handcuffed. Without going into tactics, it's not hard to figure out. 

For fracks sake, this was someone's daughter. The thug committed negligent homicide—end of story.

----------


## LibForestPaul

My take, cop is a little bit heavy, girl seemed kinda fast even with cuffs, easier to taze, no thought involved except not working up a sweat. cop will rationalize any guilt away, she should have obeyed orders.

----------


## AGRP

Weren't tazers introduced as a direct *ALTERNATIVE* to guns at a close range?  I'm for tazers if that is how they treat them, but it's clear they are not.  Tazering people for things like this is absolutely inexcusable.  It almost looks like the officer used his tazer simply because he knew he couldn't catch a little girl.  His inability to run cost this girl her life.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Weren't tazers introduced as a direct *ALTERNATIVE* to guns at a close range?  I'm for tazers if that is how they treat them, but it's clear they are not.  Tazering people for things like this is absolutely inexcusable.  It almost looks like the officer used his tazer simply because he knew he couldn't catch a little girl.  His inability to run cost this girl her life.


Tasers were introduced by certain corporations who sold them as alternatives to getting your hands dirty, not as alternatives to lethal weapons. Here's how the escalation of force is supposed to work - suspect when legally detained is by law supposed to comply with orders. If there is any physical resistance, then the officer can escalate the force by overpowering the suspect.. a well trained, practiced, and physically fit officer should be able to do this with his hands/legs. If weapons are introduced by the suspect, then lethal force is STILL NOT AN OPTION. Example, if an officer sneaks up behind a suspect, and determines the suspect is holding a gun (which could also double as a water spray nozzle), then you can't shoot him jus cuz..  Lethal force is only authorized when the officer feels that his, or someone elses life is in immediate danger. Some state laws say you can also shoot a fleeing felon, but it is not a common occurance.

The problem with tasers is that it takes the work out of being a police officer. It gives them an easy way to take down a suspect without acctually having to lay hands on them. Some might say a drunk/high/emotionally charged person might pose a risk of injury to the cop if the cop physically tries to restrain the suspect. I don't know the right answer for that, and I feel that there may be instances where this is true..

Problem being some cops are lazy, don't want to work to bring the suspect under control. Problem being that "resisting arrest" is very subjective, and easily abused. Problem is some cops can't, or wont, respect the true and proper method of use of force policy and muddy and distort the facts to justify their actions. Problem is, they get away with it, time and time again.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Tasers were introduced by certain corporations who sold them as alternatives to getting your hands dirty, not as alternatives to lethal weapons. Here's how the escalation of force is supposed to work - suspect when legally detained is by law supposed to comply with orders. If there is any physical resistance, then the officer can escalate the force by overpowering the suspect.. a well trained, practiced, and physically fit officer should be able to do this with his hands/legs. If weapons are introduced by the suspect, then lethal force is STILL NOT AN OPTION. Example, if an officer sneaks up behind a suspect, and determines the suspect is holding a gun (which could also double as a water spray nozzle), then you can't shoot him jus cuz..  Lethal force is only authorized when the officer feels that his, or someone elses life is in immediate danger. Some state laws say you can also shoot a fleeing felon, but it is not a common occurance.
> 
> The problem with tasers is that it takes the work out of being a police officer. It gives them an easy way to take down a suspect without acctually having to lay hands on them. Some might say a drunk/high/emotionally charged person might pose a risk of injury to the cop if the cop physically tries to restrain the suspect. I don't know the right answer for that, and I feel that there may be instances where this is true..
> 
> Problem being some cops are lazy, don't want to work to bring the suspect under control. Problem being that "resisting arrest" is very subjective, and easily abused. Problem is some cops can't, or wont, respect the true and proper method of use of force policy and muddy and distort the facts to justify their actions. Problem is, they get away with it, time and time again.


Don't want to dispute the tone of your posts, as I am in agreement, but just a couple points of clarification:

1. Force continuums vary from state to state, county to county, locale to locale.  When I was working for County I was amazed at the difference from city to city just in my county.  What would get you fired immediately in one city was standard procedure in the city next door.

2. Tasers were absolutely sold as less lethal alternatives ONLY when they were introduced.  When I was getting a taser I was instructed explicitly that it was only to be used as an alternative to lethal force, NEVER as pain compliance.  Here in MN a case that was used to justify acquiring tasers was that of a man who was killed by LEO's when he was running towards them with a bat.  The argument was that had tasers been available to stop him but not kill him, he would be alive.

----------


## phill4paul

> Don't want to dispute the tone of your posts, as I am in agreement, but just a couple points of clarification:
> 
> 1. Force continuums vary from state to state, county to county, locale to locale.  When I was working for County I was amazed at the difference from city to city just in my county.  What would get you fired immediately in one city was standard procedure in the city next door.
> 
> 2. Tasers were absolutely sold as less lethal alternatives ONLY when they were introduced.  When I was getting a taser I was instructed explicitly that it was only to be used as an alternative to lethal force, NEVER as pain compliance.  Here in MN a case that was used to justify acquiring tasers was that of a man who was killed by LEO's when he was running towards them with a bat.  The argument was that had tasers been available to stop him but not kill him, he would be alive.


  How long since you worked for county?

  EDIT: Not accusing or whatever. Just honestly asking and inquiring.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> How long since you worked for county?
> 
>   EDIT: Not accusing or whatever. Just honestly asking and inquiring.


I left for Iraq in '03, returned to duty after injury and recovery in '06 and resigned shortly after.  I wasn't anywhere near where I am now, but even at the beginning of my journey I had trouble reconciling my profession with my belief in individual liberty.

----------


## Danke

> I left for Iraq in '03, returned to duty after injury and recovery in '06 and resigned shortly after.  I wasn't anywhere near where I am now, but even at the beginning of my journey I had trouble reconciling my profession with my belief in individual liberty.


During the RNC in Saint Paul (2008), I saw a cop standing ready, with a Taser in his hand behind his back, after some firecrackers were thrown from an apartment down on a walkway.   They were blocking the passage to pedestrians as the "investigation" was being conducted.  I was at a bar sitting in the outside table, I asked him why he had lethal weapon drawn (after more than 300 deaths had already been attributed to their use). He just smirked and said, no they don't cause death.

----------


## AFPVet

> During the RNC in Saint Paul (2008), I saw a cop standing ready, with a Taser in his hand behind his back, after some firecrackers were thrown from an apartment down on a walkway.   They were blocking the passage to pedestrians as the "investigation" was being conducted.  I was at a bar sitting in the outside table, I asked him why he had lethal weapon drawn (after more than 300 deaths had already been attributed to their use). He just smirked and said, *no they don't cause death.*


Wow. If the person has a health condition, you bet tasers can cause death. ... or, if a perfectly healthy person (such as the victim in this thread) hits his/her head on concrete, they could also cause death.

----------


## Danke

> Wow. If the person has a health condition, you bet tasers can cause death. ... or, if a perfectly healthy person (such as the victim in this thread) hits his/her head on concrete, they could also cause death.


Ya, he was a young lad.  I wish I was his superior (sorry ex military officer), I'd teach him a thing or two.

----------


## azxd

> Which goes with something I was just thinking on. With the increasing awareness and reporting of police misconduct this type of reaction is bound to occur more often. Which will lead to more police misconduct against those fleeing. *It'll become a never ending cycle. Until, more and more, we will see people give up on flight as a means of self preservation and take to fight over flight.
> *
>   And I'm glad your brother made it out alright. That could have turned out as forum fodder given the explanation.


There is a reason cops do not go into certain neighborhoods without a lot of back-up.

----------


## azxd

> No, the evidence does not suggest that tasing someone who is resisting is less likely to cause injury than manhandling them.  If he had tackled her would that be better?  She would have likely been injured more.  Trying to carefully apprehend a likely high suspect who has already chosen to run increases your likelihood of getting injured, and increases the likelihood of the suspect getting injured, and increases the likelihood of getting sued when you don't follow the proper procedure set in place.  You can't claim that she would have been less likely to sustain injuries if he had tried to grab her because you haven't provided the evidence to suggest it, not to mention everything you are arguing is things that could have been done in hindsight.  Again, there is a reason they are trained to use a taser, and thats because in situations like that, you may have a .0001% chance of injury, but by tackling or grabbing her, you may have a .01% chance of injury and a .001% chance of a lawsuit.  You play the odds, every time, and you can't change the entire procedure just because .0001% of the time it doesn't work out.  You don't stop giving vaccines just because of a few rare people get sick.  Unless you can provide evidence suggesting that more people get sick from the vaccine than without it, then you have nothing to stand on when you cherrypick videos and articles.
> 
> You cant assume what they believed or thought or felt, and you keep interjecting these assumptions in your reasoning and its an obvious sign of an inherent bias which is clouding your judgement.  This is evidenced by your rhetoric that is designed to make it seem like I am blindly following authority like a sheep when I am merely looking at the evidence and siding with the side that was right.
> 
> I understand the need to question authority in order to keep it in check.  What I don't understand is the willing to ignore the evidence and the circumstance while simultaneously claiming there is negative evidence against the cops side.  It's like you are blindly going against the cop, rather than actually looking at the case.  
> 
> Why do you do that?


By this logic, the chances of being sued or injured are even lower if you kill the suspect.

Thanks for clarifying that the priority (what is right) is to *not get sued or injured on the job.*

----------


## azxd

> Like he did her a $#@!ing favor!  I am so disgusted by you it's ridiculous!


Some people consider a vegitative state better than being dead ... Hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies come to mind

----------


## azxd

> Originally Posted by newbitech
> 
> 
> TO answer your absurd question.  Hell yes tackling her would have been better, he would have braced both of their falls because 1.) she wouldn't have seized up and 2.) he was almost 3 times her size
> 
> $#@! that, you are wrong because you think she could have been injured more than being brain dead.  You are deranged to say something like that, and I don't know what to call you for not taking it back.  Don't walk away from this thread buddy, $#@!ing run.
> 
> 
> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to newbitech again."


Covered !!

----------


## azxd

> Tasers were introduced by certain corporations who sold them as alternatives to getting your hands dirty, not as alternatives to lethal weapons. Here's how the escalation of force is supposed to work - suspect when legally detained is by law supposed to comply with orders. If there is any physical resistance, then the officer can escalate the force by overpowering the suspect.. a well trained, practiced, and physically fit officer should be able to do this with his hands/legs. If weapons are introduced by the suspect, then lethal force is STILL NOT AN OPTION. Example, if an officer sneaks up behind a suspect, and determines the suspect is holding a gun (which could also double as a water spray nozzle), then you can't shoot him jus cuz..  Lethal force is only authorized when the officer feels that his, or someone elses life is in immediate danger. Some state laws say you can also shoot a fleeing felon, but it is not a common occurance.
> 
> The problem with tasers is that it takes the work out of being a police officer. It gives them an easy way to take down a suspect without acctually having to lay hands on them. Some might say a drunk/high/emotionally charged person might pose a risk of injury to the cop if the cop physically tries to restrain the suspect. I don't know the right answer for that, and I feel that there may be instances where this is true..
> 
> Problem being some cops are lazy, don't want to work to bring the suspect under control. Problem being that "resisting arrest" is very subjective, and easily abused. Problem is some cops can't, or wont, respect the true and proper method of use of force policy and muddy and distort the facts to justify their actions. Problem is, they get away with it, time and time again.


I'm thinking that some of the officers with this problem were the Forest Gump's of their class ... Run Forest ... And went into LE for the power trip it provides.

----------


## Danke

> Waiting on the apologist...


You didn't have to wait long, was the next post!

----------


## asurfaholic

> I'm thinking that some of the officers with this problem were the Forest Gump's of their class ... Run Forest ... And went into LE for the power trip it provides.


Exactly. That's when we start seeing the head stomping of people who are already on the ground with 6 officers twisting their arms and legs into weird shapes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Covered !!


Gracias, amigo!

----------


## Jonathanm

Bah, I can't resist adding my two cents. 




> If he had tackled her would that be better? She would have likely been injured more.


I'm no doctor, but isn't brain damage + possibly permanent coma just about as close as you can get to death, without actually dying? 




> Trying to carefully apprehend a likely high suspect who has already chosen to run...


Whether or not she is high is rather unimportant when you consider that she probably weighs half of what the officer does. I don't know what kind of stimulants you're talking about, but I don't know of _any_ drug that can suddenly make someone weigh a hundred pounds more, have suddenly increased muscle mass, and fight like Rambo. You're following erroneous propaganda if you actually think that a girl who isn't trained in combat can all of the sudden beat down _trained_ officers, whilst in handcuffs, and _solely_ because she's high.




> ...increases your likelihood of getting injured,


Police aren't allowed to violate civil liberties just because it might make them more safe. There has to be _reasonable suspicion_ that their lives or others are in imminent danger. Can you explain to me how a cuffed girl, running AWAY from a cop, is any threat TO the cop?




> ...and increases the likelihood of the suspect getting injured


Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. They are quite capable of killing people, especially under the right circumstances. This is a pretty ridiculous argument, though, given that she is in a coma and might never wake up. 




> ...and increases the likelihood of getting sued when you don't follow the proper procedure set in place.


Uhhh... What? So police should violate civil liberties because they might get sued if they don't? I'm honestly really confused what you're getting at, here. Police _should_ fear the possibility of being sued. _All professionals of every field should fear this_. If you do something wrong, and someone was violated because of this, then you are liable. Why is this a bad thing? Accountability is _good_, not bad. You don't go about avoiding being sued by _violating_ someone. You avoid being sued by being _professional_. Case in point: Would anyone even be talking about this cop if he had just chased her down, grabbed her, and brought her back? 




> You can't claim that she would have been less likely to sustain injuries if he had tried to grab her because you haven't provided the evidence to suggest it,


Alright, I'll play.

Assuming the cop grabbed her, what's the most lethal thing that could happen? Since she was handcuffed, the worst is that she _might_ fall.

Taser scenario: Not only is she now at risk of the fall, but she's also at risk for cardiac arrest. She not only is almost _guaranteed_ to fall, but because she is stunned from the electricity she cannot brace herself for the impact. Even a person in handcuffs is able to alter their landing so as to avoid falling _directly_ on their head. This isn't the case if you're completely stunned, however.

Even if we disregard what I've just said, though, the police officer has no right to use force on this girl. She is innocent until proven guilty. He should have apprehended her, not shot her with a stun gun.




> not to mention everything you are arguing is things that could have been done in hindsight.


Baffled. Honestly baffled.




> Again, there is a reason they are trained to use a taser, and thats because in situations like that, you may have a .0001% chance of injury, but by tackling or grabbing her, you may have a .01% chance of injury and a .001% chance of a lawsuit.


Where the $#@! are you getting these numbers from? Can you please provide some data to back yourself up? I'd also like to point out that you're completely disregarding the civil liberty, which is really one of the core issues, here. You don't tase someone when you can simply run up to them and grab them. I'm sorry, but I completely disbelieve your statistics provided above. I've never seen _anyone_ die from being grabbed. On the contrary, I've seen plenty of evidence that tasers can be dangerous, and have first-hand experience that falls can be dangerous. 

People are always capable of resisting arrest. Would you seriously advocate that all people be tased before they're arrested? This is the path you're trodding down. 




> You play the odds, every time.


Not if you're a good cop, you don't. You play the constitution and the bill of rights, which specifically states that no person is guilty until proven guilty. You get off your ass, chase the girl, and bring her back into custody. You don't tase her. You don't shoot her in the back. You _apprehend_ her.




> You don't stop giving vaccines just because of a few rare people get sick. Unless you can provide evidence suggesting that more people get sick from the vaccine than without it, then you have nothing to stand on when you cherrypick videos and articles.


I honestly... I don't even know where to begin with this statement. Seriously. The analogy is _so_ bad that I cannot even begin to address it. 




> You cant assume what they believed or thought or felt, and you keep interjecting these assumptions in your reasoning and its an obvious sign of an inherent bias which is clouding your judgement.


I can't assume what they believe, or thought, or felt. I haven't claimed this throughout any of this post, so please, answer my points. As a rebuttal to you, what does it matter what the officer is thinking at the time? He shot her as she was _running away_, instead of expending the energy to go out and apprehend her. He violated her right to a fair trial by assuming the role of judge, jury, and (quite possibly) executioner. The police are not allowed to use excessive force like this unless it's to protect themselves, or someone else, from _imminent_ danger.




> This is evidenced by your rhetoric that is designed to make it seem like I am blindly following authority like a sheep when I am merely looking at the evidence and siding with the side that was right.


I haven't commented at all on your motives, so can you please answer all of my points?




> I understand the need to question authority in order to keep it in check. What I don't understand is the willing to ignore the evidence and the circumstance while simultaneously claiming there is negative evidence against the cops side. It's like you are blindly going against the cop, rather than actually looking at the case.


By looking at the case one can infer that the police officer shot her because she was running away. Running away does not give police officers the right to use lethal force. Tasers can in fact be lethal, especially when the victim is _handcuffed and running_ on hard pavement. Completely disregarding the lethal consequences, though, the officer had no right to use force on the woman. Again, officers are not judge, jury, and executioner. _The officers job is to apprehend the suspect._

----------


## azxd

Someone needs to invent a parking lot that is cotton based

----------


## Philhelm

This was somewhat covered within this thread, but I too had thought that taser deployment was supposed to be for a non-lethal form of self-defense, and not as a means of punishment, coercion, or behavior modification (or torture!).  If she came at him with a knife, or what have you, and the cop tasered her, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.  But here we have a bound woman attempting to flee from a _police station_ and the only solution is to shoot her with electricity?

Totally indefensible, and it cost a young woman her life.  Of course, we all know how this will end up...

I'm so sick of the damned police.  Every time I see a cop car I get thoughts in my head that violate the NAP.  Maybe if there were at least some accountability, I'd be able to calm down a bit.

----------


## ForLiberty2012

http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...ing-Fla-woman/

In the cops realm... apparently this is normal and praised.

"It was her fault"

"This lawsuit is bs"

"Good deployment of the taser"

"Sucks to be her"

"He did nothing wrong"

"Glad the trooper was cleared"

The only thing more disgusting than what this cop did is people praising his behavior... especially other cops. You have no morals if you stick up for this cop.

I mean, I think 9 times out of 10, using ANY force against her other than a taser is going to produce a better result, with the exception of shooting her in the head. Even if you shoot her in the leg, she'll fall more gracefully towards the ground. She was running on concrete... how is a taser NOT going to SERIOUSLY injure her? She's got a lot of momentum going and it's impossible to brace her fall when, for one, she's handcuffed and two, a taser shuts off your motor control. The "criminal" is going to hit their head every single time in that scenario... and with all that momentum serious injury is almost a guarantee.

I really hope that justice is served in this case and there is a standard policy of when to use and when not to use tasers so we can hold all these cops accountable when they are negligent in their duties.

----------


## asurfaholic

> This was somewhat covered within this thread, but I too had thought that taser deployment was supposed to be for a non-lethal form of self-defense, and not as a means of punishment, coercion, or behavior modification (or torture!).  If she came at him with a knife, or what have you, and the cop tasered her, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.  But here we have a bound woman attempting to flee from a _police station_ and the only solution is to shoot her with electricity?
> 
> Totally indefensible, and it cost a young woman her life.  Of course, we all know how this will end up...
> 
> I'm so sick of the damned police.  Every time I see a cop car I get thoughts in my head that violate the NAP.  Maybe if there were at least some accountability, I'd be able to calm down a bit.


If she came at him with a knife, the taser still would have been the wrong choice.... that's why they carry guns. Lethal force would have been justified.

A taser was never intended to be an alternative to lethal weapons. A taser was intended to subdue a resisting suspect, with less risk of injury to the officers involved. 

The reason the taser was wrong in this instance is not because the girl wasn't resisting, running away from custody is about as perfect a definition of resisting arrest as you can get. She was in handcuffs. That makes any sort of violence on her wrong. He should have never let her be in a position where she could escape, and once she did escape, he should have been able to catch her without the use of 50,000 volts. 

I know you aren't suggesting otherwise, but I wanted to clear it up because my earlier post may have been a bit confusing in regards to tasers being alternatives to lethal force. 

Simply put, there should be no alternative to lethal force. When lethal force is justified, then use a gun and kill the sucker. When lethal force is not justified, then physical resistance doesn't justify torture or physical harm.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> During the RNC in Saint Paul (2008), I saw a cop standing ready, with a Taser in his hand behind his back, after some firecrackers were thrown from an apartment down on a walkway.   They were blocking the passage to pedestrians as the "investigation" was being conducted.  I was at a bar sitting in the outside table, I asked him why he had lethal weapon drawn (after more than 300 deaths had already been attributed to their use). He just smirked and said, no they don't cause death.


Funny enough I was largely sympathizing Paul by '08 (was on here already) but was still stuck in the GOP has to win camp.  I was a motorcade driver for McCain during the convention.  After 2 days of listening to Jimmy McCain and his enterouge talk about how he was a 'hero soldier boy' (I was hit by an IED in Iraq and had spent the last 4 years recovering from my injuries at that point) I quit, and haven't been back to the GOP since except to support Dr. Paul.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> If she came at him with a knife, the taser still would have been the wrong choice.... that's why they carry guns. Lethal force would have been justified.
> 
> A taser was never intended to be an alternative to lethal weapons. A taser was intended to subdue a resisting suspect, with less risk of injury to the officers involved. 
> 
> The reason the taser was wrong in this instance is not because the girl wasn't resisting, running away from custody is about as perfect a definition of resisting arrest as you can get. She was in handcuffs. That makes any sort of violence on her wrong. He should have never let her be in a position where she could escape, and once she did escape, he should have been able to catch her without the use of 50,000 volts. 
> 
> I know you aren't suggesting otherwise, but I wanted to clear it up because my earlier post may have been a bit confusing in regards to tasers being alternatives to lethal force. 
> 
> Simply put, there should be no alternative to lethal force. When lethal force is justified, then use a gun and kill the sucker. When lethal force is not justified, then physical resistance doesn't justify torture or physical harm.


Again I have to clarify that this is wrong.  Tasers were explicitly sold to LE and the communties as lethal alternatives ONLY.  When they were first adopted they were to be used as a lethal alternative and NEVER as pain compliance.

Since then the move has been exactly the opposite, as you describe being used primarily as pain compliance and NOT lethal alternatives.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Again I have to clarify that this is wrong.  Tasers were explicitly sold to LE and the communties as lethal alternatives ONLY.  When they were first adopted they were to be used as a lethal alternative and NEVER as pain compliance.
> 
> Since then the move has been exactly the opposite, as you describe being used primarily as pain compliance and NOT lethal alternatives.


Thanks for the clarification. I guess my backwards way of thinking is confusing. I don't dispute you at all. Maybe you could explain a bit - tasers are a lethal alternative to WHAT? If someone pulls a gun on an officer, a taser would be the wrong choice of a weapon. A knife, while a bit muddier, would also justify lethal force. Someone can lounge or lash out very fast, faster than you can pull a gun/taser, so it is reasonable to assume that the wielder of the knife is a lethal threat. So, if the intent was to provide an alternate option when faced with lethal situations, then the situation must not be very lethal, rendering lethal force by an officer illegal. So at that point, why have a taser?

----------


## azxd

She would have been better off if he had shot her, anywhere except the head ... Truth !!

----------


## Danke

Handcuffed or not, is this a possible outcome when using a Taser on someone standing on a hard surface?

----------


## azxd

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess my backwards way of thinking is confusing. I don't dispute you at all. Maybe you could explain a bit - tasers are a lethal alternative to WHAT? If someone pulls a gun on an officer, a taser would be the wrong choice of a weapon. A knife, while a bit muddier, would also justify lethal force. Someone can lounge or lash out very fast, faster than you can pull a gun/taser, so it is reasonable to assume that the wielder of the knife is a lethal threat. So, if the intent was to provide an alternate option when faced with lethal situations, then the situation must not be very lethal, rendering lethal force by an officer illegal. So at that point, why have a taser?


BINGO !!!
And REP headed your way.

----------


## azxd

> Handcuffed or not, is this a possible outcome when using a Taser on someone standing on a hard surface?


YEP !!

----------


## AFPVet

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess my backwards way of thinking is confusing. I don't dispute you at all. Maybe you could explain a bit - tasers are a lethal alternative to WHAT? If someone pulls a gun on an officer, a taser would be the wrong choice of a weapon. A knife, while a bit muddier, would also justify lethal force. Someone can lounge or lash out very fast, faster than you can pull a gun/taser, so it is reasonable to assume that the wielder of the knife is a lethal threat. So, if the intent was to provide an alternate option when faced with lethal situations, then the situation must not be very lethal, rendering lethal force by an officer illegal.* So at that point, why have a taser?*


Well, that's a good question. My sheriff's department did not issue tasers due to safety considerations. I brought up the health risks of deploying tasers on people with underlying health conditions while I was in the law enforcement academy. These tools are nothing to sneeze at folks. They continue to add more power to these things all the time. I remember when tasers first came out and they gave you a nice jolt... these new ones will put a hurt on a healthy person for quite awhile! 

_Less lethal_ tools are only supposed to be deployed during the active resistant/assaultive phase. Use your OC first (the stuff we carried would incapacitate as well as the newest tasers) then use your taser/expandable baton. Of course, you could use your baton for holds (non striking) outside of the active threat, but it's usually not necessary.

----------


## Danke

> YEP !!


Running away from a cop should not be justification then to use this type of device, as it is in fact lethal force.

----------


## azxd

> Running away from a cop should not be justification then to use this type of device, as it is in fact lethal force.


Under such circumstances, it absolutely has the potential to be lethal.

The body acts like a tree falling, and I've never seen a tree try to break it's fall.

As human beings, we go into an automation mode of self preservation, if falling ... But when being zapped, that ability is removed.

It's why I have been saying for years that while a tazer zap is short term, I'd rather get pepper sprayed ... You still have the ability to preserve self, if needed.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess my backwards way of thinking is confusing. I don't dispute you at all. Maybe you could explain a bit - tasers are a lethal alternative to WHAT? If someone pulls a gun on an officer, a taser would be the wrong choice of a weapon. A knife, while a bit muddier, would also justify lethal force. Someone can lounge or lash out very fast, faster than you can pull a gun/taser, so it is reasonable to assume that the wielder of the knife is a lethal threat. So, if the intent was to provide an alternate option when faced with lethal situations, then the situation must not be very lethal, rendering lethal force by an officer illegal. So at that point, why have a taser?


As I said in my earlier post adressing this, the case used to justify acquisition of the taser here in MN was an instance where a perp had been running towards officers with a bat.  He was shot and killed, and officers cleared.  The argument was that with an alternative such as a taser the threat to the officer could have been neutralized without the loss of life.

It was repeatedly stressed over and over and over and over again that the taser would NOT be used as a pain compliance tool as was the number one objection to it's purchase.

This is all going back to the very first deployments of the taser.  Had it been originally sold as a pain compliance tool rather than a lethal alternative, it would not have been acquired, at least not here in MN.

----------


## AFPVet

> Running away from a cop should not be justification then to use this type of device, as it is in fact lethal force.


You are correct. Running away from a LEO is called passive resistance. During this phase, you may not use less lethal force since the subject is running away or merely ignoring your commands. During passive resistance, you may use contact controls (holds). Of course, like AF and others mentioned, many of these departments abandoned the FLETC UOF Model that we used in favor of a "circular force continuum". So now you have a bunch of enforcers who are not restrained by the UOF model... but may use any force they feel is right.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Well, that's a good question. My sheriff's department did not issue tasers due to safety considerations. I brought up the health risks of deploying tasers on people with underlying health conditions while I was in the law enforcement academy. These tools are nothing to sneeze at folks. They continue to add more power to these things all the time. I remember when tasers first came out and they gave you a nice jolt... these new ones will put a hurt on a healthy person for quite awhile! 
> 
> _Less lethal_ tools are only supposed to be deployed during the active resistant/assaultive phase. Use your OC first (the stuff we carried would incapacitate as well as the newest tasers) then use your taser/expandable baton. Of course, you could use your baton for holds (non striking) outside of the active threat, but it's usually not necessary.


I've actually been shot by a taser, I had to in order to carry it.  The taser is a much different weapon, operating not simply on the pain of electric shock, but by manipulating the central nervous system.  Essentially, the weapon uses the central nervous system to lock up all the muscle groups, forcing your body to stiffen straight as a board against your will.  It is one of the most painful and akward feelings you will ever experience, and this coming from a guy who has been shot and hit by shrapnel from a 155mm arty shell rigged with C4.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> You are correct. Running away from a LEO is called passive resistance. During this phase, you may not use less lethal force since the subject is running away or merely ignoring your commands. During passive resistance, you may use contact controls (holds). Of course, like AF and others mentioned, many of these departments abandoned the FLETC UOF Model that we used in favor of a "circular force continuum". So now you have a bunch of enforcers who are not restrained by the UOF model... but may use any force they feel is right.


As I said before, it all depends on the departments continuum.  What would get you fired immediately in one city, would be standard operations in the city next door within my county.  Many do authorize the use of pain compliance, such as OC (freeze+p), holds, baton strikes, tasers, etc. to combat passive resistance.

----------


## azxd

> As I said in my earlier post adressing this, the case used to justify acquisition of the taser here in MN was an instance where a perp had been running towards officers with a bat.  He was shot and killed, and officers cleared.  The argument was that with an alternative such as a taser the threat to the officer could have been neutralized without the loss of life.
> 
> It was repeatedly stressed over and over and over and over again that the taser would NOT be used as a pain compliance tool as was the number one objection to it's purchase.
> 
> This is all going back to the very first deployments of the taser.  Had it been originally sold as a pain compliance tool rather than a lethal alternative, it would not have been acquired, at least not here in MN.


IMO a cop is stupid to not put a bullet into a perp who is attacking with a weapon.

The objective is always to stop the threat ... Civilian or LEO does not matter.
As a civilian, run if possible, if not, defend self and family by meeting the threat with an equal level of violence ... But always remember that an individual can kill with nothing more than their hands, and an untrained individual is at a disadvantage in most every situation.

If you do not possess a concealed carry permit (even if you do not own, or intend to own a firearm), such a course can teach you many things ... But most importantly it will teach you about your local laws, and what is considered reasonable defense.

FYI:
In my state, it is legal, and has been shown in court, that shooting someone in the back, can be done as a defensive operation.
Perp leaving house, turns at waist to shoot/throw something ... Bang ... Case dismissed.

One of the biggest problems within our society is people who do not know their Rights, or their laws ... Ignorance of either can get you into trouble.

----------


## AFPVet

> As I said before, it all depends on the departments continuum.  What would get you fired immediately in one city, would be standard operations in the city next door within my county.  Many do authorize the use of pain compliance, such as OC (freeze+p), holds, baton strikes, tasers, etc. to combat passive resistance.


Yup

----------


## AFPVet

> IMO a cop is stupid to not put a bullet into a perp who is attacking with a weapon.
> 
> The objective is always to stop the threat ... Civilian or LEO does not matter.
> As a civilian, run of possible, if not, defend self and family by meeting the threat with an equal level of violence ... But always remember that an individual can kill with nothing more than their hands, and an untrained individual is at a disadvantage in most every situation.
> 
> If you do not possess a concealed carry permit (even if you do not own, or intend to own a firearm), such a course can teach you many things ... But most importantly it will teach you about your local laws, and what is considered reasonable defense.
> 
> FYI:
> In my state, it is legal, and has been shown in court, that shooting someone in the back, can be done as a defensive operation.
> ...


Well said!

----------


## RiseAgainst

> IMO a cop is stupid to not put a bullet into a perp who is attacking with a weapon.
> 
> The objective is always to stop the threat ... Civilian or LEO does not matter.
> As a civilian, run if possible, if not, defend self and family by meeting the threat with an equal level of violence ... But always remember that an individual can kill with nothing more than their hands, and an untrained individual is at a disadvantage in most every situation.
> 
> If you do not possess a concealed carry permit (even if you do not own, or intend to own a firearm), such a course can teach you many things ... But most importantly it will teach you about your local laws, and what is considered reasonable defense.
> 
> FYI:
> In my state, it is legal, and has been shown in court, that shooting someone in the back, can be done as a defensive operation.
> ...


We can have arguments about what it, or what should be, all that I am doing is clarifying how the taser was INITIALLY marketed.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> As I said in my earlier post adressing this, the case used to justify acquisition of the taser here in MN was an instance where a perp had been running towards officers with a bat.  He was shot and killed, and officers cleared.  The argument was that with an alternative such as a taser the threat to the officer could have been neutralized without the loss of life.
> 
> It was repeatedly stressed over and over and over and over again that the taser would NOT be used as a pain compliance tool as was the number one objection to it's purchase.
> 
> This is all going back to the very first deployments of the taser.  *Had it been originally sold as a pain compliance tool rather than a lethal alternative*, it would not have been acquired, at least not here in MN.


i honestly wonder where the idea came in that tasers could be sold as anything different than a (usually) non-lethal pain compliance tool.  correct me if i'm wrong but the whole idea originated with electric cattle prods?

and what are cattle prods??  pain compliance devices.




> A cattle prod, also called a stock prod, is a handheld device commonly used to make cattle or other livestock move by striking or poking them, or in the case of a Hot-Shot-type prod, through a relatively high-voltage, low-current electric shock.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_prod


  (yes, yes, it's wikipedia, but HotShot was the first to make the cattle prod designed for humans.

i mean, how much more obvious does it get?

----------


## azxd

> We can have arguments about what it, or what should be, all that I am doing is clarifying how the taser was INITIALLY marketed.


Not arguing, and am in total agreement with what you have written ... How these were marketed, and *how they are being used* ... That is the problem.

----------


## Philhelm

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess my backwards way of thinking is confusing. I don't dispute you at all. Maybe you could explain a bit - tasers are a lethal alternative to WHAT? If someone pulls a gun on an officer, a taser would be the wrong choice of a weapon. A knife, while a bit muddier, would also justify lethal force. Someone can lounge or lash out very fast, faster than you can pull a gun/taser, so it is reasonable to assume that the wielder of the knife is a lethal threat. So, if the intent was to provide an alternate option when faced with lethal situations, then the situation must not be very lethal, rendering lethal force by an officer illegal. So at that point, why have a taser?


When someone is right next to the cop while brandishing a knife, sure, pulling a firearm would be justified.  If someone is brandishing a non-ranged weapon from outside its effective range, then a taser would be a smart way to subdue the person without having to shoot.  Hell, tasering people's dogs would even be preferable to blasting them away.  There is a legitimate use for the taser, but sadly, they are used for pain compliance.  An officer shouldn't use them in a "'You made me angry!' *ZZZZZAP!!!*" method.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> IMO a cop is stupid to not put a bullet into a perp who is attacking with a weapon.
> 
> The objective is always to stop the threat ... Civilian or LEO does not matter.
> As a civilian, run if possible, if not, defend self and family by meeting the threat with an equal level of violence ... But always remember that an individual can kill with nothing more than their hands, and an untrained individual is at a disadvantage in most every situation.
> 
> If you do not possess a concealed carry permit (even if you do not own, or intend to own a firearm), such a course can teach you many things ... But most importantly it will teach you about your local laws, and what is considered reasonable defense.
> 
> FYI:
> In my state, it is legal, and has been shown in court, that shooting someone in the back, can be done as a defensive operation.
> ...


True, but there are thousands upon thousands of laws-far more than any one person can learn.  Learning rights is more practical.

----------


## ForLiberty2012

I think the solution should be a universal policy on when to use and when not to use tasers.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> i honestly wonder where the idea came in that tasers could be sold as anything different than a (usually) non-lethal pain compliance tool.  correct me if i'm wrong but the whole idea originated with electric cattle prods?
> 
> and what are cattle prods??  pain compliance devices.
> 
>   (yes, yes, it's wikipedia, but HotShot was the first to make the cattle prod designed for humans.
> 
> i mean, how much more obvious does it get?


Because a cattle prod =/= a taser.  They are COMPLETELY different devices, that operate in COMPLETELY different ways.

A cattle prod, stun gun, etc. only have one function, to impart pain.  A taser operates on the central nervous system, forcing the muscles of the body to contract and leaving the victim literally stiff and straight as a board.  It matters not about pain, it is an immobilization device, operating with electrical current in concert with the bodies central nervous system.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> Because a cattle prod =/= a taser.  They are COMPLETELY different devices, that operate in COMPLETELY different ways.
> 
> A cattle prod, stun gun, etc. only have one function, to impart pain.  A taser operates on the central nervous system, forcing the muscles of the body to contract and leaving the victim literally stiff and straight as a board.  It matters not about pain, it is an immobilization device, operating with electrical current in concert with the bodies central nervous system.


so, it doesn't hurt to get hit with a taser?  i get that they operate differently...  but isn't the concept the same?  to ensure compliance...

----------


## RiseAgainst

> so, it doesn't hurt to get hit with a taser?  i get that they operate differently...  but isn't the concept the same?  to ensure compliance...


No, that's precisely the point.  It hurts, but that has nothing to do with how it was sold.  It was sold strictly on the immobilizing effects, if a perp is charging you with a bat/knife you can stop him with a taser, not through pain compliance but through immobilization, instead of simply blowing holes in them.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> No, that's precisely the point.  It hurts, but that has nothing to do with how it was sold.  It was sold strictly on the immobilizing effects, if a perp is charging you with a bat/knife you can stop him with a taser, not through pain compliance but through immobilization, instead of simply blowing holes in them.


noted, thanks.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> noted, thanks.


Sure.  And in that respect, I actually support the taser.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we used technology to SAVE lives, instead of ruin/end them?  It's only since it's use was expanded to pain compliance that it became a tool of oppression rather than a life saving device.

----------


## flightlesskiwi

> Sure.  And in that respect, I actually support the taser.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we used technology to SAVE lives, instead of ruin/end them?  It's only since it's use was expanded to pain compliance that it became a tool of oppression rather than a life saving device.


i come from the ideology that it isn't the tool-- it's the user.  and if the user him/herself is a tool, well, then the actual tool is probably not going to be used in an appropriate manner.

----------


## pcosmar

> i come from the ideology that it isn't the tool-- it's the user.  and if the user him/herself is a tool, well, then the actual tool is probably not going to be used in an appropriate manner.


And I actually understood that.
Well said.

----------


## asurfaholic

> Sure.  And in that respect, I actually support the taser.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we used technology to SAVE lives, instead of ruin/end them?  It's only since it's use was expanded to pain compliance that it became a tool of oppression rather than a life saving device.


This



> i come from the ideology that it isn't the tool-- it's the user.  and if the user him/herself is a tool, well, then the actual tool is probably not going to be used in an appropriate manner.


And this

Would be nice if LEOs were actually held responsible for irresponsibility. A cop does have to make split second decisions, and monday morning quarterbacking doesn't always fix the problem. But there are increasing cases where officers choose to use a tool irresponsibly then try to justify it, and sadly, some people in handcuffs get tazed and fall. Unable to control their fall, they land on thier heads, and a life is ruined. I feel strongly about the fact that the officer was overweight and didn't control his suspect, and I think he should be tried and thrown in jail for the assault. Definitely should lose his badge.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> *http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...ing-Fla-woman/*
> 
> In the cops realm... apparently this is normal and praised.
> 
> "It was her fault"
> 
> "This lawsuit is bs"
> 
> "Good deployment of the taser"
> ...



Apologist central?

 After she was helped to the ground causing her to injure herself, I noticed the helper was finish helping and just stood there.

----------


## moderate libertarian

This is crazy.

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## iGGz

\/\/O\/\/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And this
> 
> Would be nice if LEOs were actually held responsible for irresponsibility. A cop does have to make split second decisions, and monday morning quarterbacking doesn't always fix the problem. But there are increasing cases where officers choose to use a tool irresponsibly then try to justify it, and sadly, some people in handcuffs get tazed and fall. Unable to control their fall, they land on thier heads, and a life is ruined. I feel strongly about the fact that the officer was overweight and didn't control his suspect, and I think he should be tried and thrown in jail for the assault. Definitely should lose his badge.


Would be nice, but it's never going to happen.  The "system" is rigged in favor of the cops and against regular folks like you and I.

----------


## JK/SEA

i'll say it again....she was set-up.

----------


## AGRP

What a horrible human being if thats what you call him.  The thing that gets me is how carelessly trigger happy he was when she was literally around 6 inches from him and running at a very slow rate.  Then as shes laying there lifeless he didnt give two $#@!s about her.  Never asked her one time if she was ok.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> What a horrible human being if thats what you call him.  The thing that gets me is how carelessly trigger happy he was when she was literally around 6 inches from him and running at a very slow rate.  Then as shes laying there lifeless he didnt give two $#@!s about her.  Never asked her one time if she was ok.


Got his combat quals.

----------


## Vanilluxe

Well, in this case I would prefer the cop using smoke bombs or even better, a net bazooka; its 2012, we're behind on technology.

http://www.brokenarrowranchtx.com/catalog/i1.html

----------


## 123tim

> Don't know if this was posted or not, but here is additional video. I don't want to read all the posts here because it would just piss me off more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This $#@! is sad though. After she drills her head, she struggles to sit up and the POS cop just keeps telling her to lay down. Meanwhile you can just hear her cry.


I asked this question in another similar post and azxd kindly answered and redirected me to this already active post....

Does anyone know if the girl would have had better chances of recovering if she would have been allowed to sit up after this incident happened?

----------


## TheTexan

You know how I know he's gonna get away with it?  The dashcam worked.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> You know how I know he's gonna get away with it?  The dashcam worked.


I lol'd.

But she probably had a beer and drove, she deserved what she got, right?  You know I can't resist.

----------


## puppetmaster

> And what do you think will happen when you try to grab a person that's high on two different drugs that is trying to run?
> 
> *You could get sued
> *You could lose your job
> *You could get bitten
> *You could get injured(have you ever tried to get control of someone thats high on uppers?  Probably not)
> 
> There is a reason that tasing is standard procedure in situations like that.
> 
> ...



As a retired officer, I disagree. There are other means to apprehend this person without causing damage.

----------


## tttppp

The cop was clearly just too lazy to run after her, thats why he tazed her. This is completely unacceptable. Cops should only use weapons when someone's life is in danger. This woman was in handcuffs and obviously unarmed. Also, she was suspected of a hit and run. Its not like she was suspected a mass murder.

----------


## AFPVet

> *The cop was clearly just too lazy to run after her, that's why he tazed her.* This is completely unacceptable. Cops should only use weapons when someone's life is in danger. This woman was in handcuffs and obviously unarmed. Also, she was suspected of a hit and run. It's not like she was suspected a mass murder.


You got it! It's freaking sick....

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> The cop was clearly just too lazy to run after her, thats why he tazed her. This is completely unacceptable. Cops should only use weapons when someone's life is in danger. This woman was in handcuffs and obviously unarmed. Also, she was suspected of a hit and run. Its not like she was suspected a mass murder.


But she could've been making a nuke or possibly kidnaping a child.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> As a retired officer, I disagree. There are other means to apprehend this person without causing damage.


Using another method could have injured her far worst(brain dead doesn't count).

----------


## Anti Federalist

Relevant bump

----------


## awake

"Youtube account terminated"...that takes care of that little record of criminal wrong doing.

----------


## tod evans

Did the cop get indicted?

How about the girl...Did she come out of the coma?

----------


## Philhelm

> Did the cop get indicted?
> 
> How about the girl...Did she come out of the coma?


Get a rope.

----------


## tod evans

> Get a rope.


Here ya' go..

 _Get a rope!_

----------


## Philhelm

> Here ya' go..
> 
>  _Get a rope!_


Get piano wire.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

The second she hit her head like that, c-spine should have been stabilized......... which cops are trained to do.  She should have not be allowed to move up and sit up like that, or at *least* advised moving like that could do more damage to her spine/neck/head.  Seriously, they didn't even check her, just let her lay there and move, which could have caused more damage... while standing above her like testosterone'd-out lazy $#@!s.



Pigs.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Did the cop get indicted?
> 
> How about the girl...Did she come out of the coma?


Yeah, right, LOLOLOLOLOLOL



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...gal-CCW-holder.

----------


## TheTexan

Bad apple!

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Michael Brown bump

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Michael Brown bump


10 million in care by now, no doubt.

----------


## Mani

She's dead.  Died this year.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=592_1391909982

----------


## Mani

> She's dead.  Died this year.
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=592_1391909982




Both the girl's family is suing him and the the cemetery owner is also suing this hero.

http://archive.wtsp.com/news/article...ielle-Maudsley

----------


## TheTexan

This is tragic for sure, but there's a reason tasers are called "less-lethal" than "non-lethal".  If she wanted to not die all she had to do was not run from the police...

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> This is tragic for sure, but there's a reason tasers are called "less-lethal" than "non-lethal".  If she wanted to not die all she had to do was not run from the police...


This $#@!'s getting old.

While you might provide a chuckle to those knowing you are trolling you are prompting the by and large retards on the fence to look at things a certain way.

A certain way that promotes this sort of bull$#@! to continue happening.

----------

