Latest man to die by Taser in Los Angeles

[eye95]

Not stringent enough rules. And if they do, they don't seem to be followed too well. Or else people wouldn't be being tasered for things that aren't even against the law. They use it as a tool to force conformity regardless of the situation. IMO tasers should only be used on someone who is a violent threat. Not as a catch all for any behavior that the officer doesn't approve of.

I would ask you then to support that assertion by citing those rules and how they are not stringent enough or by citing specific examples of how the rules have not been followed.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

A lot of Romney supporters were sheeple mindlessly supporting whomever they were told to support.

Out of curioisity, why are you, a notorious progressive, sticking up for the other side? Could it be that progressives and neoconservative scum are close buddies behind closed doors?

Apparently, I'm not the Progressive you pontificate me being.

I will stick up for whoever it strikes me to stick up for.

 

[ADobbs1989]

I would ask you then to support that assertion by citing those rules and how they are not stringent enough or by citing specific examples of how the rules have not been followed.

Can't find much of anything on any "rules" I'm sure they differ from department to department, but here is a link that talks about the use of tasers, I would refer you to the recommendation section near the end.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/doc/slspublic/tasers.pdf

As far as stories of officers breaking the rules, I can't exactly do that since there doesn't seem to be any universal rules, although the link recommends that tasers only be used as a substitute to a firearm in situations where the use of the firearm would be permitted.

Here's some stories of tasers being used in a manner inconsistent with that recommendation, some of these officers were repromanded/sued, others weren't, to my knowledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/tasered-10-year-old-boy-sues-police/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/2...r-her-three-times-after-routine-traffic-stop/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1293mS_7xE

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Can't find much of anything on any "rules" I'm sure they differ from department to department, but here is a link that talks about the use of tasers, I would refer you to the recommendation section near the end.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/doc/slspublic/tasers.pdf

As far as stories of officers breaking the rules, I can't exactly do that since there doesn't seem to be any universal rules, although the link recommends that tasers only be used as a substitute to a firearm in situations where the use of the firearm would be permitted.

Here's some stories of tasers being used in a manner inconsistent with that recommendation, some of these officers were repromanded/sued, others weren't, to my knowledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/tasered-10-year-old-boy-sues-police/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/2...r-her-three-times-after-routine-traffic-stop/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1293mS_7xE

Many police departments, including LA have their general order manuals available on th Internet for you to search

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Just as an example this is the Seattle police policy out of their manual available on the Seattle.gov website

A. Less lethal devices provide officers with alternative resolutions short of the use of deadly force. In deciding to deploy any less lethal force option, officers should carefully evaluate conditions and factors they know, or have reason to believe, may affect a subject’s response to the application of force or may increase the secondary risks (such as injuries caused by a fall) of the force application.
Less lethal devices are not intended as the first response to potential lethal situations. In no situation are officers required to use less force than is being threatened by a subject. In the interest of public safety, less lethal options shall not be employed against lethal threats except when lethal cover is available and in place, to provide protection for the officers employing these tools, as well as innocent parties who are not involved.
B. Less Lethal devices may be used, when necessary:

1. To overcome a subject’s combative intent, active physical resistance, and/or assaultive behavior
2. To control, disable or subdue persons bent on harming themselves or others and/or
3. To provide self-defense.
C An officer is justified in using less lethal force in circumstances where an officer reasonable believes that other force options would be ineffective or impractical.
D. Only officers who have successfully completed a training course designated by the Captain of the Education & Training Section in the use and deployment of less lethal weapons will be permitted to deploy such weapons.

1. The Department will provide officers, at a minimum, biannual training in the use of less lethal weapons. This training will also include the use of OC spray and impact weapons.
E. Only Department authorized less lethal options and equipment may be used. At this time, the TASER, Department issued OC spray, specialty Patrol C.A.R.T. (Chemical Agent Response Team) munitions, impact weapons (including the expandable baton), and the beanbag round for the Remington 870 shotgun, are approved for use by appropriately trained patrol officers.
F. Personnel assigned OC spray, Patrol C.A.R.T or TASER less lethal force options are authorized to use these agents or devices during demonstrations, consistent with Department policy, unless otherwise directed by a Supervisor or the Incident Commander. Officers should weigh the capabilities and limitations of these force options in a crowd control setting. Less lethal force, specifically OC spray (Oleoresin Capsicum) or other riot control agents, shall not ordinarily be used to overcome passive resistance by nonviolent and/or peaceful protesters, absent additional compelling factors, or unless previously approved by the Incident Commander.

Funny, it seems torture or amusement isn't listed as a valid reason to use a taser.... Strange

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I wasted my 5,000th post on Sudden...I love ya man!

1245A, I love ya too! You OK by me!!

I don't think anyone realizes how many arguments I've been in to get to 5,000 posts. I'm sure some people on here are eager for the next 5k LOL

You didnt waste your 5000th post on SVG, im sure it counted, he is "a formitable oppenent"
I do realize how many argument you have had to get to 5000, I have read them all, even the really silly ones.
I even remember all the silly and/or sad things my old friend Sylvia had to say, back in the old days.
Anyhooo you da man, and I be da man too, but I actually got the equipment,haha.
Sooo could we be internet friends? Incoming friend request.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Just as an example this is the Seattle police policy out of their manual available on the Seattle.gov website



Funny, it seems torture or amusement isn't listed as a valid reason to use a taser.... Strange

Assuming similar rules for other pd's I would say that rules are then not always followed. None of the links I posted satisfied any of those requirements.

 

[minarchist]

Not stringent enough rules. And if they do, they don't seem to be followed too well. Or else people wouldn't be being tasered for things that aren't even against the law. They use it as a tool to force conformity regardless of the situation. IMO tasers should only be used on someone who is a violent threat. Not as a catch all for any behavior that the officer doesn't approve of.

It is long overdue for the trash to be taken out. It is intolerable that they take our money from us and use it to abuse us.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Of course considering prior to tasers the primary tool was a baton, I don't consider them deadly force. Every officer certified to use one has to tazed during training. And besides you can buy one if you were so inclined in most states.

Do you believe that the majority of tazing incidents are unjustified under current law?

You missed my point. I don't "consider" them deadly force but recognize they can be deadly, many seem to disregard this fact and think of them simply as tools of compliance.........like cattle prods.

Since I believe the majority of proactive policing is wrong, then it would logically follow I think the majority of tazing may be unjustified. I don't give a rats A what the current law is.....

 

[JoeSparky]

There are 364 days in a year, which means there are at least 364 tasered civilians. Let me think about this, would I rather an LEO tase a person or shoot the person? Apparently, force has been deemed necessary--we aren't talking about excessive, yet.




Agreed, taser use can be a Fourth Amendment issue, that is, if the force is actually excessive.

[/QUOTE]
Looked to the last of the current postings on this thread and I can't believe that NO ONE has suggested you calendar is FATALLY FLAWED. My calender indicates we on the planet called EARTH have a year consisting of 365 days with a correction day added every 4th year except on years ending in 00.

Yes, it may be a minor point but accuracy to detail is important if one desires to be respected in their expression of opinion or fact!

 

[Citizen]

You missed my point. I don't "consider" them deadly force but recognize they can be deadly, many seem to disregard this fact and think of them simply as tools of compliance.........like cattle prods.

Since I believe the majority of proactive policing is wrong, then it would logically follow I think the majority of tazing may be unjustified. I don't give a rats A what the current law is.....

I've seen plenty of videos showing that! Makes you wonder whether they used night-sticks and tonfas the same way.

 

[eye95]

Can't find much of anything on any "rules" I'm sure they differ from department to department, but here is a link that talks about the use of tasers, I would refer you to the recommendation section near the end.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/164097/doc/slspublic/tasers.pdf

As far as stories of officers breaking the rules, I can't exactly do that since there doesn't seem to be any universal rules, although the link recommends that tasers only be used as a substitute to a firearm in situations where the use of the firearm would be permitted.

Here's some stories of tasers being used in a manner inconsistent with that recommendation, some of these officers were repromanded/sued, others weren't, to my knowledge.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/tasered-10-year-old-boy-sues-police/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/2...r-her-three-times-after-routine-traffic-stop/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1293mS_7xE

Then if you can't support the assertions you made, I suggest that you do not make them. If you care to make new assertions based on the ex-post-facto research you did, have at it.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You didnt waste your 5000th post on SVG, im sure it counted, he is "a formitable oppenent"
I do realize how many argument you have had to get to 5000, I have read them all, even the really silly ones.
I even remember all the silly and/or sad things my old friend Sylvia had to say, back in the old days.
Anyhooo you da man, and I be da man too, but I actually got the equipment,haha.
Sooo could we be internet friends? Incoming friend request.

I like SVG.


Sylvia was working through her issues, that's for sure; 100% about her shortcomings, emotional BS, not any others.


Equipment..I got arms that I open the door for my lady with, just like you!

Internet friends is great.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Looked to the last of the current postings on this thread and I can't believe that NO ONE has suggested you calendar is FATALLY FLAWED. My calender indicates we on the planet called EARTH have a year consisting of 365 days with a correction day added every 4th year except on years ending in 00.

Yes, it may be a minor point but accuracy to detail is important if one desires to be respected in their expression of opinion or fact!

It's funny, I made a change, because one number was 364, and the other 365, and when I changed it, I changed 365 to 364. I should stop downloading midget donkey porn, and changing my posts, all at the same time.

 

[ADobbs1989]

There really should be some rules on when one can employ a taser, even though they are non-letal, they do have the potential to be lethal and should be treated as such. They are currently used willy nilly for no good reason other than someone is doing something the officer doesn't like. There are a good number of instances where people are tased for refusing to comply, even when the refusal of compliance is within their rights as a citizen.

This was my first post, I didn't make any assertions about the rules, just stated that there need to be some because from what I see they are used frivolously.

Are you asserting that PDs do not have rules for deploying tasters?

You then asked me a question about an assertion I didn't technically make.

Not stringent enough rules. And if they do, they don't seem to be followed too well. Or else people wouldn't be being tasered for things that aren't even against the law. They use it as a tool to force conformity regardless of the situation. IMO tasers should only be used on someone who is a violent threat. Not as a catch all for any behavior that the officer doesn't approve of.

I answered with the "Assertion" that if rules are present, they are too lenient, or they are not followed.

Then if you can't support the assertions you made, I suggest that you do not make them. If you care to make new assertions based on the ex-post-facto research you did, have at it.

I then supported my assertion by providing links to incidents where the taser was used in a manner that I do not believe to be justified. So my assertion holds true, if the incidents I posted were justified then the rules are too lenient. If they were not justified then the rules are not being followed. Those are the only assertions I made, none of which actually require me to find out what the rules are.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This was my first post, I didn't make any assertions about the rules, just stated that there need to be some because from what I see they are used frivolously.



You then asked me a question about an assertion I didn't technically make.



I answered with the "Assertion" that if rules are present, they are too lenient, or they are not followed.



I then supported my assertion by providing links to incidents where the taser was used in a manner that I do not believe to be justified. So my assertion holds true, if the incidents I posted were justified then the rules are too lenient. If they were not justified then the rules are not being followed. Those are the only assertions I made, none of which actually require me to find out what the rules are.

Your examples do not support your assertions. Example number 1 the officer is facing criminal charges and a federal civil rights suit and his QI has been waived, number 2 is obviously justified as the lady suddenly ran back towards her car after being told to stay still, incident number 3 can go either way, important context is missing from the point of view of the camera

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I like SVG.


Sylvia was working through her issues, that's for sure; 100% about her shortcomings, emotional BS, not any others.


Equipment..I got arms that I open the door for my lady with, just like you!

Internet friends is great.

I like that. I have A trust in you.. It is a little thing, it talks to a spot my back.
I will take your back,,,, please,,, take my back too,, when that time comes..
I know youre MAN enough!!

I know you are more than sure to defend your wife and kids in the world than the talkers on this forum.
And for that , I have the upmost respect... Hope to meet you, In the Real, someday..

 

[eye95]

Not stringent enough rules. And if they do, they don't seem to be followed too well. ...

I would ask you then to support that assertion by citing those rules and how they are not stringent enough or by citing specific examples of how the rules have not been followed.

You can see that I specifically asked you about very specific assertions that you indeed made and that the assertions and the requests match perfectly. I was extremely careful about that.

I don't continue convos in which someone is dishonest about what is being said.

Moving on. My point has been made.

 

[ADobbs1989]

You can see that I specifically asked you about very specific assertions that you indeed made and that the assertions and the requests match perfectly. I was extremely careful about that.

I don't continue convos in which someone is dishonest about what is being said.

Moving on. My point has been made.

And I backed up my assertions. God damn I'm so sick and tired of talking to you.

 

[ADobbs1989]

Your examples do not support your assertions. Example number 1 the officer is facing criminal charges and a federal civil rights suit and his QI has been waived, number 2 is obviously justified as the lady suddenly ran back towards her car after being told to stay still, incident number 3 can go either way, important context is missing from the point of view of the camera

Sure they do. In my post with the links I said that the cop was being reprimanded for his actions, but it doesn't discard the fact that the rules were ignored by the officer (which is when it matters), great for them for recognizing what he did was completely uncalled for, but the officer still disregarded the rules. The second one, the officer was illegally trying to search the womans purse (not following rules #1) maybe she shouldn't have tried to run back to her car, but she hadn't done anything IMO to warrant the use of a taser, it was being used to force conformity, not to protect the officer. This is a time where I would say the rules are not stringent enough. The 3rd one is just pathetic. Regardless of the circumstances you can see someone with their hands up not moving who is possibly mentally retarded (his overall posture would tell me that he is in fact handicapped). The officer shoots him with a taser for no apparently good reason, there was no assumption of danger, once again it was used to force conformity on someone who probably didn't fully comprehend the instructions he was being given, he was just standing with his hands in the air, the officer could have easily walked over to him and told him to get on the ground instead of employing a taser to force the act. He then hits him with the taser again when he's on the ground, then yells at him when his body convulses and moves. If this cop was justified in these actions the rules are too lenient, if he wasn't the rules were ignored.