Taser Video (enclosed)

The people died because they had a preexisting medical condition, or were on drugs. Did you see the video of the Columbus PD Officers fighting with the huge (350+lbs) guy who later died? No Taser was used, just old school force.

I've watched the video probably a couple dozen times, and I admit that I enjoyed it. Not because I found it funny, but because that jerk represents every mouthy drunk I've ever had to deal with, and it was very satisfying to see him get his just desserts.

Of course not, if you listen closely, the trooper says "I'm not gonna make you do 50 push-ups", trying to let the drunk know that the tests were reasonable.

Because it's very difficult for a single person to subdue another person, unless the size/strength difference is ridiculous.

All were justified;

#1 - He was walking towards his truck, reaching for his keys. Obviously he was going to drive away, and you can tell how drunk he is.

#2 - He's reaching for the door handle of the truck, obviously still intent on driving away.

#3 - He's trying to get up and get at the trooper.

#4 - Once again trying to get up in the direction of the trooper.

#5 - Refused to comply with verbal commands to lie on his stomach.

I'll admit that #5 looks a little sketchy to the uninitiated, meaning those that have never been jumped by a seemingly cooperative suspect. The place you want a fighter is on his stomach, on the ground, with his hands visible.

Not having a Taser at my disposal, I can answer how I would have handled it. First, working in a densely populated city, I almost never have to effect an arrest without backup. I can usually have another officer with me within one minute, and a small army within three. Obviously, the trooper doesn't have that luxury, since it's obvious this happened in the middle of nowhere. Notice how no cars went by the entire time?

Anyway, if I did have to take down the drunk by myself, at the first sign of resistance I would have blasted him in the kisser with OC (pepper spray), disengaged, and waited for it to take effect. Once the guy was holding his eyes & coughing, I would have come up behind him, grabbed his right wrist with my right hand, grabbed his collar with my left, kicked his legs out, and forced him to ground, holding his collar so his face didn't smash into the pavement. The impact shocks them for a second, so his resistance would drop for a second, allowing me to put his right hand in the small of his back. I'd then put my knee in the center of his back, and wait until the Cavalry arrived.

If the OC didn't work (it sometimes doesn't), I'd wait until the drunk was walking back to his truck, then blast him with a Rodney Harrison-style safety blitz tackle. Keep him down until help arrived.

 

Bruce, I am not in the habit of judging a police officer’s actions or the quick decisions he or she has to make under difficult and stressful conditions. My only point was that if this individual had been injured, fatally or otherwise, due to drug use or a medical condition or not, most juries, correctly or incorrectly, would consider five “zappings” excessive. Many an attorney has taken a case to trial on much less.

Don’t get me wrong, I thought it was well-deserved and funny too. Judging by the number of smilies and humorous comments in this thread (mostly in the posts of law enforcement personnel) others do also. The only thing that would’ve made it funnier would have been if the drunk had said, “I pay your salary!”

It may be me, but I hear the officer saying, “You’re not going to do fifty pushups?” His tone indicates that he asking the drunk whether or not he is going to comply with the test. The drunk’s comments about “pussy ass tests” appear to me as relating to the demand for fifty push-ups. He immediately followed that comment with another stating his willingness to comply with a more standard sobriety test. The bottom line is that I don’t think any kind of test was necessary; it’s obvious the guy is impaired.

 

I don’t believe that the basic premise of your question is valid; no one in this thread stated or implied that they know how to do police work better than the police. Moreover, despite your pontifications, you have yet to disagree or refute a single point I have broached. Here's my question for you: Why is it that the actions of any police officer are discussed, many law enforcement personnel "circle the wagons" and resort to the same protestations rather discussing the issue logically?

 

Gus, I think both Bruce and I have logically replied to your questions, and have refuted your assertions throughout this discussion. I'm not circling the wagons and I'm happy to discuss the issues without getting personal, but my question was serious. I used it to point out that this is an area where people often have opinions that do not have any basis in fact. I've pointed out that some of your opinions were so offered - sorry if your feelings got hurt - but my real goal was not to debate you about what or why the officer did what he did. Rather, it was so that maybe, somebody will open their minds when it comes to what they "know" and that "how I'da handled it" might not jibe with reality.

That you choose to accuse me of circling the wagons and arguing illogically is just a straw-man IMHO to avoid having to concede a point.

But I'm not mad at ya,

 

I have reread all of your posts. Could you please point out which of my assertions (precisely) you have successfully refuted (please provide quotes of my comments and yours)? Bruce answered my questions without making the pretense he was disgreeing with me or refuting anything I said.

My answer was also serious. How can I answer a question that is based on an invalid premise? What would you respond if I were to inquire as to when you stopped beating your wife?

This, in and of itself, is an opinion that has no basis in fact. I you want to initiate a discussion with me by insisting that I stipulate that I don’t know what I am talking about and therefore my opinions have no merit, I politely refuse to participate.

Despite your protestations and pontifications, I don’t believe I ever commented on what the officer’s motivation were, much less questioned his judgment. Moreover, I never commented on whether the officer’s conduct was legitimate or justified. My main point was (without commenting on whether it was right or fair) that if the drunk guy had been injured (fatally or not) any semi-competent attorney would have a fairly easy time convincing a jury that they should resolve the case in his favor. I would be surprised, if you are truly in law enforcement and are familiar with attorneys, trials, juries, and awards, that you would disagree with this assessment.

Please provide a quote where I came even close to expressing how you are choosing to (erroneously) portray my comments.

First, I did not accuse you of anything. Second, I am still unclear what point, exactly I am supposed to concede. If your point is that (so) many people think they know more about how to do police work than the police, I simply disagreed with that assertion. I disagree even more with what you were implying. I asked you to point out where in this entire discussion anyone has stated or implied that he or she knows more about police work than the police. You have yet to do so.

If your point is that none other than law enforcement personnel can have valid opinions (or should be allowed to opine) on how the job is to be conducted, then I disagree even more.

 

Gus you said that Taser's were associated with deaths. I think that was refuted. You set out a lot of straw men and lodge attacks when they're pointed out and that takes all the fun out of argument. I'll let you have the last word as I'm through with this dance.

 

Associated: Make a logical or causal connection.

Refuted: Prove to be false or incorrect

Now read this article. Sixty-nine deaths nationwide have been reported after Taser zappings (there have been more since the article was written). Medical authorities have concluded that the Tasers played a part in at least five of those deaths.

Yes I think my use of the term “associated” was as apt as your use of the term “refuted” was inappropriate.

I have not presented any straw men arguments. You have not pointed them out, nor have I lodged any personal attacks. You continue to make averments without a scintilla of evidence to support them. Moreover, I noticed you still didn't provide any quotes.

How convenient: the discussion equivalent of a hit and run or drive-by shooting.

 

I've been sued a couple of times, and the plaintiffs never won a single dime. An old-timer once told me "You're not a cop until you've been sued".

When someone tells me they're going to sue, I tell them to take a number.

I hear it differently, and in any event, I'd hardly call 50 push-ups to be a "pussy ass test". I probably couldn't pass it myself, sober.

No zaps happened when the guy was face-down. Even in the possibly sketchy #5, he was on his side and refusing to comply with verbal commands to lie on his stomach.

In any event, any competent use-of-force instructor could very easily explain and justify that incident to a jury. Remember, the LAPD Officers in the Rodney King incident were found not guilty at their state trial, mostly because the defense had expert witnesses that testified that the officers acted within the scope of their training.

I mentioned it before, but it's worth repeating. That incident obviously happened in a desolate area, and there was no telling how long it would be before the trooper got backup. My brother is a deputy sheriff in Maine, and his closest backup is sometimes 30 minutes or more away. Grappling with a drunk, violent suspect for a half hour is not something that any cop should have to do, not to mention that the drunk might try to gain control of the cop's weapon.

The way that I view it, anyone who has a confrontation with law enforcement can avoid violence by simply complying with the officer's commands. I've been a cop for over 17 years, and never once have I initiated a fight with someone.

The USSC has ruled that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest. Whether it's fighting with the police to avoid a OUI arrest or leading them on a high-speed pursuit, there is only one person who can decide to end the incident with no violence, and that's the suspect. If you don't want to get pepper sprayed/Tased/tackled and beaten, then don't resist the police.

 

It’s not just cops, Bruce; in America, anybody, for any reason, can get sued. And as far as monetary awards are concerned, time and again, I’ve seen insurance company attorneys cave in and settle (even thought they know their client is in the right) solely because they don’t want to risk a jury verdict.

I believe the drunk guy's comment relayed to the fact that it wasn’t what he considered a standard or valid sobriety test, hence “pussy ass.” I am inclined to agree with Bill’s assessment as to why the officer was ordering such a test. Moreover, I think it’s hilarious the way he lets it slip that he’s been stopped for drunk driving before by saying, “You guys order these “pussy ass” tests.”

I did not say “when” or “while;” I used the term “after.” I was pointing out that an attorney would try to convince the jury that opportunities to physically restrain the guy existed without the need for further zapping. Please keep in mind that I am still referring to a hypothetical lawsuit filed as a result of grave or fatal injury.

Thank you, Bruce, this is an excellent example of the point I was trying to make. Just like the guy in the video, Rodney King was, and is still, a complete idiot. Shortly after being paroled on a robbery conviction, he was driving drunk and led police on a pursuit reaching a speed of 115 MPH. During his arrest, he got the crap beat out of him. He was such a jerk that the prosecutors did not let him testify in the trial against the officer who beat him because they felt it would work against him with the jury. And you are correct; the four police officers that beat King were acquitted, sparking riots that left at least 42 dead, 700 structures destroyed by fire, and thousands of people without jobs. 5,000 were arrested and Los Angeles suffered $1 billion in damages. Some jury pool, huh?

How does all of this illustrate my point? Well, the City of Los Angeles conceded liability in Rodney King's civil suit, and agreed to go to trial on damages. The jury in the civil suit awarded King $3.8 million in actual damages for loss of work, medical costs, and pain and suffering.

I couldn’t agree more, Bruce.

However, once again, despite the tendency of his fellow law enforcement personnel on this forum to defend his actions, I have not commented on whether or not the actions of the officer in the video were legitimate, justified, or within the scope of his training. I did not pass judgment of the officer's actions; I simply expressed my opinion that if the drunk in the video had been gravely or fatally injured, a jury would most likely find in his (or his estate’s) favor and explained how an attorney would characterize those actions. If anything, my comments were an indictment of a judicial system that encourages frivolous lawsuits, permits junk science to be presented as evidence and bogus experts to testify, and a predisposition of juries to award obscene amounts of money due to the culture of victimization that is affecting all aspects of our society. The recently reported case of the coach that is suing the school that fired him for submitting a fraudulent resume comes to mind.

The Rodney King fiasco is also a good example of how this country has gone “suit crazy.” After the award, King’s lawyers proceeded to sue each other, and then King sued his own lawyers for malpractice.

And for the record, despite it having been determined that the officers acted within the scope of their training, a federal jury convicted two of four officers of violating Rodney King's civil rights, and sentenced them to 30 months in prison.

 

TASER

A topical news item:

Paper: Taser to Increase Stun Gun's Power

If you have the patience (and stomach) for it, it's often interesting to browse the message boards attached to the news items posted on Yahoo. See the "Post/Read Msgs" link at the bottom of the article.

 

re: TASER

And a follow-up:

TASER International Clarifies Information Regarding Software Enhancement to TASER X26

 

As I mentioned, I've been sued, more than once. The plaintiffs lost, both times, and got nothing, because there was no case.

In any event, unless the city can prove gross negligence or criminal misconduct on my part, I'm indemnified by state law, meaning the city has to pay for a private lawyer for me, as well as pay any monetary awards against me. It's one of the few good things that the MA Legislature has ever done, because a cop that's constantly worried about being sued is automatically ineffective on the street

Los Angeles sold out those cops to placate the "community activists" that threatened more violence if their pockets weren't lined. Believe me, Rodney King and his lawyer were not the only ones to profit from that incident.

Perfectly justified.

I disagree. Once in awhile, a jury will swing & miss (the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit), but for the most part, they get it right.

Which is, of course, complete bullshit. It's a clear violation of double jeopardy, and is just a politically correct tool for the Feds to get a second bite of the apple. In addition, the standard of proof in a civil rights trial is much lower than a regular criminal trial, so it's basically a bag job. There is NO WAY that any of those LAPD cops should have ever spent a single day in jail.