Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

The problem is that this is very simple.

Police officers are required to use minimal force.

Using excessive force is a crime.

This was excessive force.

How do I know it was excessive force?

Because the use of a tazer is potentially deadly force. You can argue that it isn't, and that argument is wrong. Police are trained to know the effects of tasers.

And potentially deadly force may only be used if the suspect represents an immediate threat of harm. This is how police officers are trained. This is the law.

In addition to knowing when they are permitted to use a taser, police are also trained to know when using a taser represents a greater risk to the target. For instance when someone is running over concrete.

This suspect did not represent an immediate threat of harm, and the shallow vapid factually incorrect excuses you and Ninjaboot are making that she was, are shallow, vapid and factually incorrect. The argument that she is a drug user and has committed crimes in the past is completely irrelevant to that fact, yet you two keep using it as an excuse.

And contrary to what you may believe Kaijyuu, I am holding very steadfast to my ideals. Justice is the highest ideal.

The facts do not change, no matter how much you ignore them. And in arguing the facts, I keep going over the same arguments... perhaps because facts do not change? If you want to call that irrational or a circular argument? go right ahead, you would be just as wrong as the people arguing that it is just and right for police to break the law because they are police and their victims are criminals.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/library/tasers.pdf

"the use of tasers should be permitted to the extent that such use is necessary to
protect officer safety while minimizing the risk of physical injury to suspects."

"These strong muscle contractions usually render a subject temporarily
unable to control his or her movements and may result in secondary
injuries. Under certain circumstances, this loss of control can elevate the
risk(s) of serious injury or death. These circumstances may include, but
are not limited to, use of the TASER device on a person who is physically
infirm or pregnant, or a person on an elevated or unstable platform,
operating a vehicle or machinery, running or in water where the inability
to move may result in drowning."

[darkflagrance]

^I would really like to see a good response to the above post, but the likelihood of that happening in this thread before it gets closed or posts get modded/deleted is probably nil.

I will just say that I am sympathetic to Nadaka's views and that he/she has summed up my own opinions over his/her many posts better than I could have expressed myself.

[Chaoswizkid]

I think Nadaka's argument relies too heavily on what police policy might be. I have trouble finding any information about actual policy, just stuff where people caution that tazers are too lethal and that whatever policy does exist should be changed.

The argument against Nadaka seems, at least in my observation, to be 'nothing illegal happened because the officer's actions can be possibly defended by tazer policy.' That is not agreeing or disagreeing with the use of tazers, just that the law is a certain way. The arguments therefore seem only somewhat related: Nadaka's "tazers are bad" and the opposing "not illegal by law." Where they intersect is in defining what policy actually is. I don't think that jurisdiction's policies have been sourced yet (though I could be wrong, currently on my phone). As soon as that's done, the legality issue can be definitively settled. Afterward, arguments about whether or not it should be illegal can be brought forth.

I might be wrong here, but that's what I'm seeing, and hopefully my input helps to stop this debate from being too personal.

[MadocComadrin]

The problem is that this is very simple.

Nothing is simple. Trying to think of it as simple is foolish to a high degree.

Police officers are required to use minimal force.

Using excessive force is a crime.

This was excessive force.

Not under current law. Plus, resisting arrest and fleeing in such a manner as to act in such a threat to public is escalation.

How do I know it was excessive force?

Because the use of a tazer is potentially deadly force. You can argue that it isn't, and that argument is wrong. Police are trained to know the effects of tasers.

You're still just saying it's wrong. It's not classified as a lethal weapon for a reason as well.

And potentially deadly force may only be used if the suspect represents an immediate threat of harm. This is how police officers are trained. This is the law.

Really, you don't see drugged up lady running towards a highway as an immediate threat of harm?

In addition to knowing when they are permitted to use a taser, police are also trained to know when using a taser represents a greater risk to the target. For instance when someone is running over concrete.

And tackling offers those same dangers. On concrete, there is no good way to take a person down--12-13 years of martial arts training will tell you that much. It will also tell you that it's rather hard to get a running person into a lock. The taser was the safest option for both of them.

This suspect did not represent an immediate threat of harm, and the shallow vapid factually incorrect excuses you and Ninjaboot are making that she was, are shallow, vapid and factually incorrect. The argument that she is a drug user and has committed crimes in the past is completely irrelevant to that fact, yet you two keep using it as an excuse.

First off, an unsound tautology is not an argument: stop pretending like it is. Unless I was led to believe wrongly: she was high at the time and was out to be arrested for a hit and run. If this hit and run caused enough damage to be considered a felony, then the fleeing felony rule applies, and the continuum of force is more lenient. Do remember that police (affirmed in multiple court cases) are obligated to protect society as a whole, not individuals. Incapacitating her was more important.

And in the very least, she was in danger of running into a highway and getting her brains splattered in the grill of a freight truck.

Also, past crimes do play a role in how much of a threat to society a person is in whole. A person who has a tendency to get into hit and runs, especially under the influence, may as well be a person with a pistol taking pot shots at passing cars. You do realize how dangerous cars are under even normal use, right?

And contrary to what you may believe Kaijyuu, I am holding very steadfast to my ideals. Justice is the highest ideal.

His post is unrelated. Either way, do you think that I'm opposed to justice? No, I'm saying what I believe to be just. Having the self-righteous attitude that you're the one on the high road and everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil is called demonization--it's fallacious.

The facts do not change, no matter how much you ignore them. And in arguing the facts, I keep going over the same arguments... perhaps because facts do not change? If you want to call that irrational or a circular argument? go right ahead, you would be just as wrong as the people arguing that it is just and right for police to break the law because they are police and their victims are criminals.

That's the problem here: you're not arguing what's on the table, rather the points that are in your own head. Frankly, if anyone is ignoring facts here, it's you.

running

A guy in the town in which I lived tripped while running and died from the impact. There are very few things you can do on a running suspect that can bring them under control that doesn't involve taking them down, and if you have to do it on concrete, there is always a risk of death, no matter what you do.

@Chaoswizkid: You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The officer was within lawful bounds and did what he believed was right and correct. He can't be held accountable for things he has no control over--current laws, training, and specification being a part of that. Even if the law would change in the future, no ex post facto means this case is settled.

[lemon10]

They have not.
Here is the description from the video:

Spoiler: description from video, spoilerd for length, probably from a news article (click to show/hide)

The Florida Highway Patrol have cleared 267-pound Trooper Daniel Cole of wrongdoing and have released a disturbing dash cam video that captured him tasing a 100 pound, 20 year old handcuffed girl in the back as she fled.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined Trooper Daniel Cole's "use of force" was justified when he tased the woman last September at the FHP Pinellas Park Substation and cleared him of wrongdoing.

The fleeing woman, Danielle Maudsley, 20, suffered severe brain damage after hitting her head on the concrete and has been in a persistent vegetative state ever since.

The video shows Maudsley fleeing a back door of the substation with Cole following closely behind.

Maudsley was arrested for her alleged involvement in two hit-and-run crashes and driving without a license.

Cole brought Maudsley to the substation to complete his paperwork before taking her to the Pinellas County Jail, according to FHP reports.

As she enters the parking lot, Cole deploys his taser and Maudsley hits the ground hard, with her head slamming into the asphalt.

"What were you thinking? What are you, stupid?," Cole can be heard asking Maudsley on the video.
"I can't get up," said Maudsley.
"I don't want you to get up," said Cole.
"I can't get up," Maudsley said again. The last words Maudsley has spoken since being tasered.

On the video, Maudsley loses consciousness about two minutes after hitting her head.
Maudsley's mother said the trooper should have used other means to stop her daughter from fleeing.
"He was right behind her. He could've reached out," Maudsley said. "It was unnecessary."
The mother hired defense attorney Kevin Haylsett, who put FHP on notice for a lawsuit.

Hayslett said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:
"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."
"When you shoot someone in the back, and they're running away, all that force -- as you saw when Danielle's head hit the concrete -- that's why they don't allow you to do that, because you can have horrible tragedies like this," Hayslett said.

With any rule, there is an exception.

An Office of Inspector General Investigation Unit report states: "Although the FHP policy on Electronic Control Devices states that a member should not use the device on a handcuffed prisoner, it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy."

The report goes on to state: "In this situation, Maudsley ... removed one of her handcuffs while in the back of Cole's patrol car, and moved her handcuffs from behind her back, to in front of her body, as she attempted to flee the FHP Station. In addition, Maudsley was running towards US Highway 19 which is a high volume road."

According to the report, Maudsley had oxycodone and cocaine in her system at the time.

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review of the incident," FHP spokesperson Sgt. Steve Gaskins said. "Their investigation found that the trooper's actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

"He would've been better off to use his nightstick on her than he would a taser," Hayslett said.

The attorney also pointed out that Maudsley only weighs about 100 pounds.

In the report, Cole said he chose to use the taser because he "felt she was more susceptible to being injured if he attempted to tackle her." Cole weighs approximately 267 pounds.

Hayslett called the dash cam video disturbing. "It's one of those videos -- when you see it and you watch her head hit the pavement -- that it's hard to get those images out of your head," he said.

Maudsley's mom said her daughter's prognosis is not good. She is likely to remain in a vegetative state.

Maudsley is now in a Ft. Lauderdale rehab center that specializes in severe brain injuries.

So, that tells a us a few facts.
First off, it doesn't say anywhere (except the video title, which I don't think it really trustworthy), that she is actually brain dead, only that she is (and has been for quite a while) in a coma that she probably won't wake from (which is significantly different from being braindead.
Secondly, it was against policy, even though they try flimsily justify it afterwards.
Third, ninjaboot was correct when he said that she managed to slip her cuffs.

[Nadaka]

The video shows the hands bound together when she falls. She was still handcuffed, even if the handcuffs are no longer behind her back.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we had gone over before that she had previously slipped one hand out of her cuffs, but had been placed back in them and was still fully handcuffed when she was tasered.

Nadaka, your tone and style are not productive, no matter how right you feel you are.  They don't advance the discussion and put this whole thing in danger of gaining moderator attention.  You need to stop repeating what amounts to "I believe that I'm right and you're wrong" over and over again, and stop demonizing.

"What were you thinking? What are you, stupid?," Cole can be heard asking Maudsley on the video.
"I can't get up," said Maudsley.
"I don't want you to get up," said Cole.
"I can't get up," Maudsley said again. The last words Maudsley has spoken since being tasered.

On the video, Maudsley loses consciousness about two minutes after hitting her head.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  Clearly no remorse or concern.  The first thing the officer does after someone sustains a serious injury is tell them how stupid they are, which is exactly what every cop seems to do every time this sort of thing happens.  Then two minutes go by where nobody fucking tends to her in any way.

First off, an unsound tautology is not an argument: stop pretending like it is. Unless I was led to believe wrongly: she was high at the time and was out to be arrested for a hit and run. If this hit and run caused enough damage to be considered a felony, then the fleeing felony rule applies, and the continuum of force is more lenient. Do remember that police (affirmed in multiple court cases) are obligated to protect society as a whole, not individuals. Incapacitating her was more important.

And this justification is unsubstantiated, as I've pointed out previously.  We don't know what "hit and run" means in this case.  Tapping an empty parked car in a parking lot and leaving is technically defined as a hit and run.  Please show that she did something as terrible as you're implying if you intend to continue using this as justification for abandoning concern for her safety.

[Nadaka]

The rule of applying potentially deadly force does not change for a fleeing felon.

[kaenneth]

The rule of applying potentially deadly force does not change for a fleeing felon.

Than it should be changed to do so.

[Nadaka]

The rule of applying potentially deadly force does not change for a fleeing felon.

Than it should be changed to do so.

Why?

[darkflagrance]

Honestly, it really makes little sense to worry about police injustices.

As long as we continue to be relatively wealthy, law-abiding, inobstrusive members of the middle class, the police will never have any reason to harm us outside of bad information where they confuse our homes with those of drug dealers and shoot our dogs. Because if the police did this to a member of the middle class, there would be a terrible media outcry, we at least can be certain that we will be safe, and it actually benefits us to allow the police to use any force they feel fit to use to crack down on the uneducated, the ill-bred, the insane and unstable lower elements of society.

It would take further shifts in society and politics for things to come to a point where the police actively threaten members of the middle class. As long as the middle class provides a market for corporations and its voting provides legitimacy for the government, better-off Americans will not have to worry about police brutality except when they are accidental victims of it - but that's merely comparable to being hit by lightning: a contingency not worth caring about.

Indeed, to the extent that people will try to raise awareness of police injustice, it will only be as part of a greater anti-status quo agenda used to draw sympathy.

[Osmosis Jones]

As long as we continue to be relatively wealthy, law-abiding, inobstrusive members of the middle class, the police will never have any reason to harm us outside of bad information where they confuse our homes with those of drug dealers and shoot our dogs. Because if the police did this to a member of the middle class, there would be a terrible media outcry, we at least can be certain that we will be safe, and it actually benefits us to allow the police to use any force they feel fit to use to crack down on the uneducated, the ill-bred, the insane and unstable lower elements of society.

Isn't that kind of the point with a lot of the outcry over the police actions re: Occupy though? A lot of people that should not have been at risk, were.

In this case I am referring to clearly labelled and announced reporters, judges and medical personnel who were there to document/protect/care for people, and were not at all involved in the proests.

[Duuvian]

What do you all make of this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/executive-order-establishment-interagency-trade-enforcement-center

Quite an interesting executive order.

[darkflagrance]

As long as we continue to be relatively wealthy, law-abiding, inobstrusive members of the middle class, the police will never have any reason to harm us outside of bad information where they confuse our homes with those of drug dealers and shoot our dogs. Because if the police did this to a member of the middle class, there would be a terrible media outcry, we at least can be certain that we will be safe, and it actually benefits us to allow the police to use any force they feel fit to use to crack down on the uneducated, the ill-bred, the insane and unstable lower elements of society.

Isn't that kind of the point with a lot of the outcry over the police actions re: Occupy though? A lot of people that should not have been at risk, were.

In this case I am referring to clearly labelled and announced reporters, judges and medical personnel who were there to document/protect/care for people, and were not at all involved in the proests.

Guilty by association; if they had left well alone, they would not have been injured. By paying any attention at all to a bunch of shiftless dissidents who were about to be met with the full fury of the law, they took the risk of becoming collateral damage upon themselves.

Besides, it is only when people society values become exposed to injustice that some people even begin to care. Even then, I see little impact that the public outcry over their injuries had. The middle-class didn't begin to fear enough to change anything.

[Osmosis Jones]

Guilty by association; if they had left well alone, they would not have been injured. By paying any attention at all to a bunch of shiftless dissidents who were about to be met with the full fury of the law, they took the risk of becoming collateral damage upon themselves.

Left well enough alone? While I pay that it was perhaps a little strange for the judge to be there, are you seriously suggesting reporters should not attend potentially world changing events, or doctors to ignore the badly injured? It is literally a violation of their code of ethics!