anon_vlad said:
I wonder if those assert that the "tazing" was justified really want to live in a society in which cops are permitted to physically assault those who simply annoy them. It clear that she was not threatening anyone.
Did it occur to anyone that the woman is mentally ill? Do you pine for the days when a treatment for the sick was to beat them to drive out the devils?
Hello Anon,
Precisely. I have never implied tasing wasn't a viable option, just that I didn't see the necessity here. I almost voted for tasing too. But after checking into the risks first, I said no. But I have wondered how many of those in favor of using the taser instead of cuffs might be reacting to the same inner feelings I had against a person who is so irrational, annoying, and foolish; the kind you have always been frustrated in dealing with and just want to give a little payback to. Possibly there was something vicariously satisfying in seeing such an annoying person, people could relate to having dealt with, being tased instead of cuffed. Maybe that's not it, but I wonder.
Some have cited the possible risk of damaging force resulting in bruises, strains, broken bones, etc. when trying to restrain an irrational and argumentative person. While the risk of those injuries might be much greater than a heart attack, a heart attack would be far more likely to be fatal than any of the other risks of restraining a person by cuffing them.
The intended purpose of using a taser may vary from one police department to another. But her is one example of taser guidelines.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0166.htm
1. when a person exhibits
violent or potentially violent behavior that threatens the safety of others and attempts to subdue by conventional means have been or appear too unlikely to be effective;
2. when it is
unsafe to get within contact range of the subject;
3. when the use of
deadly force is justified and an opportunity exists to use the taser, deploy the taser if available; and
4. when a prisoner's behavior warrants classification in
any of the above.
State Police policy authorizes the use of tasers when the use of less lethal options would help effect an arrest, restore order, or reduce the risk of more serious injury. Under the policy, an officer is justified in using the taser in the following situations, for example:
1. to restore or maintain order during
prison disturbances;
2. to restore or maintain order during very
violent civil disturbances where innocent people may be rescued or where police are confronted with a level of force likely to cause serious physical injury such as
Molotov cocktails being thrown or dangerous weapons or instruments are being used;
3. to subdue
vicious animals; or
4. to safely resolve a situation or incident, where the authorizing person deems its use necessary to resolve.
Only the last standard seems applicable, and it's debatable that this incident meets any of these standards. Seven of the eight measures here seem totally inappropriate.
In my view, there is no conclusive answer to whether this officers use of a taser was right or wrong. But, from the start, if an officer of that size over a fairly small 72 year old woman can't control the situation enough without using technology I believe is more risky in reliability and level of force and it's effect, then there must be something wrong with him or his training.
And, it still seems funny that when so many on this board have complained about police policies and attitudes that so many support this choice. I really wonder how much approval of using a taser here was motivated by a gut dislike for a type of "pain in the neck" person most have probably come to find very disagreeable.
Cheers,
Merlot
)
