Woman calls police. They brutalize and arrest her.

[Sage Rat]

The cop wasn't using it to get answers. He was using it to get her to stop resisting arrest so that she could be taken back and put in jail.

And the only reason he arrested her was because she refused to answer a question. Therefore, the only reason she was tased was because she didn't answer the question.

Technically true. And if I use a salt lick to lure a cow to be brought in for slaughter, then technically one could say that a salt lick is a murderous device.

She did get tased because she refused to answer questions. But that's not actually relevant.

Presuming that the cop was right that she was legally mandated to give the information he was asking for, on penalty of jail time, then he was perfectly in his right to arrest her and take her back whereupon either fines or jail time would have been used to coerce the information from her. These are considered to be legal and acceptable methods of coercion if undertaken by the court. One may not use a taser as a method of inducing a person to give up information, but there's no indication that this was the case.

That's not an argument in favor of nor against the use of tasers for any purpose what-so-ever, that's just stating the facts of the situation. The cop was presumably justified in arresting her, and presumably at some point there would have been a method of coercion used to get her to give information. But the taser was, so far as we can tell, used as a method of subduing her so that she could be brought in, whereupon legal methods of coercion would have been used to compel her to talk. It was not literally used as a torture device to compel her to speak.

And again, this doesn't mean that his use to subdue her was acceptable nor legal. It's entirely possible, and even likely, that he used unnecessary force and deserves to have been fired or to be thrown in jail. But, the point remains that the force he utilized was in subduing her, not in coercing information from her. That's just factually inaccurate, except through a tortured train of logic.

 

[Labrador Deceiver]

Based on what, their spidey senses? They had no reason to do what they did but we always have the group that is on the cops side . It can never be the cops fault, she just needed a bunch of tasing.

What the hell are you blubbering about now? Dewey didn't give any indication that he was on the side of the cops. Why did you think that a lengthly explanation of the situation indicated that he was?

Nobody has defended these cops in this thread.

 

[alice_in_wonderland]

What the hell are you blubbering about now? Dewey didn't give any indication that he was on the side of the cops. Why did you think that a lengthly explanation of the situation indicated that he was?

Nobody has defended these cops in this thread.

I believe Hal came awfully close up there.

Because obviously police tasing a woman waving a gun around and threatening to kill everyone is exactly the same as tasing an unarmed woman lying on the ground, pinned up against their car and unable to escape.

Clearly someone who criticizes one of these groups is criticizing ALL police.

 

[Vinyl Turnip]

I thought that my home was my castle
With no one scrutinizing me
No pigs, no lyin

 

[billfish678]

Like nearly ALL the other cops did wrong threads, it boils down to this. When a COP TELLS you to do something, you DO IT. If you don't do, he is pretty much required to FORCE you to comply. To allow otherwise would defeat the very concept of a cop.

I'm a cop, and I'm telling you to suck my dick.

On your knees, bitch.

Funny.

You first.

But you know what I really meant. And if you don't your a fucktard.

 

[ivan astikov]

Not all crimes are the same though and tasering a suspect in a petty shoplifting arrest is less justifiable than in a suspected armed robbery arrest.

 

[alice_in_wonderland]

Someone get the taser!

But I'm just the messenger! Please dont' taze me, Sis!

Or you can choose a broken arm.

I would like the arm please.

 

[Labrador Deceiver]

I believe Hal came awfully close up there.

Because obviously police tasing a woman waving a gun around and threatening to kill everyone is exactly the same as tasing an unarmed woman lying on the ground, pinned up against their car and unable to escape.

Clearly someone who criticizes one of these groups is criticizing ALL police.

No he didn't. Hal was talking about different police officers involved in a different situation. Nobody has defended the cops in the OP. They may be along to do so later in the thread, but gonzo's post was nothing but a big pile of stupid.

 

[Sage Rat]

Not all crimes are the same though and tasering a suspect in a petty shoplifting arrest is less justifiable than in a suspected armed robbery arrest.

I wouldn't agree with that at all, personally. A single officer trying to subdue someone who is fighting for long enough to get handcuffs on and get them in the back of the police cruiser, has the option of wrestling with the person, tasing them, or simply letting them get away with the crime. Of those three, imperfect, options the best one is to tase the person. If you let them get away rather than fight with them, then the police lose their power to enforce anything. If you do fight them, there's good odds that both the suspect and the police man will be physically damaged. Tasing hurts like hell and is a very bad thing to do to someone, but so is punching them, breaking their arm, accidentally jabbing a finger through their eye, or anything else that can happen in an all-out bought of wrestling. The idea that policemen are martial arts experts who can simply evade all hits, grab a person in a magical martial arts way, and move them into the desired position regardless of all struggling is simply not reality. In most cases where a larger person subdues a smaller person, it's because the smaller person recognizes that they're going to lose and simply gives in. If the two were to actually go and see the fight through, the bigger, better trained person will almost certainly win, but there's still a good chance of broken bones, lost digits, hair having been torn out, shrapnel jutting out of their body, etc.

A taser isn't an ideal solution. But, it is still the better solution of everything in a polceman's arsenal for a resisting suspect for both of their sake.

Again, this doesn't mean that a police officer can't proceed to use a taser as a torture device or as a way to effectively beat a person up without leaving a mark. Misuse is by all means a bad thing. The police related to the incidence in question may well have been guilty of abusing this woman. But, to say that a person doesn't deserve to be tased if they performed a minor crime is silly. The only other options -- presuming the person resists arrest -- are again to beat them or to let them go. Neither of those is a better option.

 

[ivan astikov]

I suppose you agree with police officers breaking numerous motoring laws and endangering the general public in order to catch a car thief, too?

 

[alindallas]

I don't hate cops. I just feel better when they're not around.

 

[descamisado]

Hey now, don't be bringing up any reasonable points into our weekly "All copz is duh suxxorz!" festival...

May I punch your weekly festival attendance card, Sir? Ten punches gets a free corn dog. And be sure to enter our raffle!

 

[Hal Briston]

I suppose you agree with police officers breaking numerous motoring laws and endangering the general public in order to catch a car thief, too?

Tasing a suspect endangers the suspect. A high-speed chase endangers everyone on the road. Amazingly enough, it's possible to be in favor of one without being in favor of the other.

 

[Vinyl Turnip]

"Feelin's mutual," Officer Flatfoot mumbled through a mouthful of soggy cruller, and then resumed filing the serial number off his throwaway.

 

[Sage Rat]

I suppose you agree with police officers breaking numerous motoring laws and endangering the general public in order to catch a car thief, too?

Let's review what I said:

I agree with the legal, accepted, and recommended use of tasers. I disapprove of the illegal, unaccepted, and unrecommended use of tasers.

In the same vein, I agree with the police officers using legal, accepted, and recommended use of their vehicles. I disapprove with their illegal, unaccepted, or unrecommended use of their vehicles.

I approve of you using your knife to cut steak into bite sized pieces. I disapprove of you using your knife to kill people.

I approve of aliens coming to Earth to trade information with humanity. I disapprove of aliens coming to Earth to enslave our people and turn us into snack food.

None of these positions are conflicting with one another nor irrational.

 

[kidchameleon]

No he didn't. Hal was talking about different police officers involved in a different situation. Nobody has defended the cops in the OP. They may be along to do so later in the thread, but gonzo's post was nothing but a big pile of stupid.

Shocking!

 

[StusBlues]

I don't hate cops. I just feel better when they're not around.

I guess I feel that way, too. When I see cops, I'm always afraid the situation will escalate into something violent or, for want of a better word, inconvenient. They don't make me feel safer.

Call it a reaction formation, like how an old-school ostentatious bank vault triggers a gut-level response to safecrack in ways that a simple cash register does not.

 

[Oglomott]

On Tasers: Yes, they hurt. They're supposed to. What good would they be if they didn't? Would you rather be tased or shot with a pistol?

On police authority: A lot of people seem to have the attitude that they only need to cooperate with the police if they did something wrong. "I don't have to turn around and put my hands behind my back; I didn't do anything". Many of these situations would never get this far out of hand if people would simply remain calm and cooperate, and not be a dick.

If an officer, in an attempt to arrest someone for a crime or suspected crime, and they ask the suspect to turn around and put their hands behind their back, and the person refuses or resists, what should the police do? Only arrest them if they desire to be arrested? How much force should they use to affect the arrest?

The answer is this: You are taught that you may use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest. Under that guideline, a Tasering would not be excessive, nor would forcing someone to the ground and putting your knee in their back.

As for the OP: We are making judgments after the fact; when the full story is out and all the facts and evidence is in and has been reviewed and analyzed over time. The officers in the OP, at the time, had none of this to base their actions on. I wasn't there, so I don't really know. It does look bad for the police, because that's the way it was presented.

 

[descamisado]

I guess I feel that way, too. When I see cops, I'm always afraid the situation will escalate into something violent or, for want of a better word, inconvenient. (emphasis mine)

What are you afraid of, a charge of aggravated eyeballing?

FTR, I feel exactly this way.

 

[StusBlues]

I guess I feel that way, too. When I see cops, I'm always afraid the situation will escalate into something violent or, for want of a better word, inconvenient. (emphasis mine)

What are you afraid of, a charge of aggravated eyeballing?

From what I've heard, "aggravated eyeballing" as such might well get you pulled in on disorderly conduct if the cop is in a bad mood. The charges may not stick, but I'd be in a position with some dude with a gun hauling me to a place I would rather not be.