Is this an Acceptable Use of Force by Police? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is this an Acceptable Use of Force by Police?


DanaT
04-22-2011, 07:25
Do departments have use of force policies that indicate that someone should be killed for "acting irrational"?

How about the factthey were off-duty?

[ulr]http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/22/florida.suspect.dead/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]

As I have said earlier, police have a hard job. I am just not sure taser use should be as wide spread as it is. It is proving to not be a "non-lethal" method of compliance but a "less-lethal" version of compliance enforcement.

I know the "reasonable officer" standard will be brought up. But come on, the "reasonable officer" should by now know that death is not all that un-common of a side effect of using a taser.

-Dana

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 08:43
They weren't off duty minding their own business. They were working second jobs as fully sworn officers with LE responsibilities. So that part isn't in play.

To your last, yes death is very much an uncommon side effect, and it's easily shown. Every single cop with a taser takes the ride. (Alright, maybe a few slip by, but the ride is a standard part of training.) Look at all those fat cops with high blood pressure, heart conditions and pack-a-day habits. There has NEVER been a LE fatality or serious injury in Taser training/certification.

Whether this particular use of force was justified is a different question. It's likely good, since Tasers cause injury at a lower rate than empty hand techniques and many agencies rank them very low on the force continuum. But without details on what was going on, I'll neither support nor condemn the application.

DanaT
04-22-2011, 15:10
To your last, yes death is very much an uncommon side effect, and it's easily shown. Every single cop with a taser takes the ride. (Alright, maybe a few slip by, but the ride is a standard part of training.) Look at all those fat cops with high blood pressure, heart conditions and pack-a-day habits. There has NEVER been a LE fatality or serious injury in Taser training/certification.

This is EXCATLY why I have an issue with tasers. Police look at them as a non-lethal way to force compliance. Depending upon statisics that are used, it seems there have been at least 300 taser deaths since 2001.

Saying that there has never been a LE fatality, therefore they are safe is a falicy. That is like a drunk driver saying he is perfectly safe because he has never caused a fatality.

-Dana

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 19:08
Except that we've had plenty of similar deaths after OC use. And after good ol' fashioned thumpings. It's not a taser problem, though the device (or the spray or the baton) draws the attention.

Sam Spade
04-22-2011, 19:27
I'm on a mobile, so the cut and paste thing isn't happy. Google "OC spray deaths"; first hit is wiki that mentions 61 deaths in LA alone, over a five year period. Similar searches turn up "positional asphyxia" or "sudden in-custody death syndrome"...lots of attempts to lay the responsibility on LE's door (and in their wallets). Bit if you look closer, you'll see the actions and conditions of the dead guys having striking similarities. And if you look even further, you'll see them dying in ERs where *no* police thumpage was in play.

Instead of taking the approach that Tasers predictably cause death, we should realize that getting in fights while all spun up on stimulants is really bad for your body.

txinvestigator
04-22-2011, 19:45
Do departments have use of force policies that indicate that someone should be killed for "acting irrational"? Wow, your mind isn't already made up, is it? NO department has a policy that indicates that "someone should be killed" for ANYTHING.

Departments have policies regarding the LEVEL of force that is accceptable for the amount of force being used against them. I don't know where you got your stats, but since the TASER has been issued, BOTH officer and suspect injuries are DOWN. People HAVE died after the use of TASER, but none have been attributed solely to the TASER.

Suspects have also died after being Pepper Sprayed, had the Carotid Vascular Neck Restraint used, or just manhandled to the ground. Anytime a person must be controlled and refuses to cooperate the officer must use some type of force. A Taser is safer for both the officer and Suspect than most other methods of control.

If you have other alternatives departments would pay you a lot of money for those brilliant ideas.



How about the factthey were off-duty? That's been answered.....

As I have said earlier, police have a hard job. I am just not sure taser use should be as wide spread as it is. It is proving to not be a "non-lethal" method of compliance but a "less-lethal" version of compliance enforcement. Again, I don't know where you obtained your info, but TASERS are less lethal.

I know the "reasonable officer" standard will be brought up. But come on, the "reasonable officer" should by now know that death is not all that un-common of a side effect of using a taser. Yes, it IS uncommon. Do you know how many TASER deployments there are everyday with ZERO injury? All use of force has risks.


Why do I get the idea none of that will matter to you?

DanaT
04-23-2011, 07:44
Again, I don't know where you obtained your info, but TASERS are less lethal.

Yes, it IS uncommon. Do you know how many TASER deployments there are everyday with ZERO injury? All use of force has risks.


Why do I get the idea none of that will matter to you?

And again, drunk drivers drive everyday and people don't get hirt by them.

I believe that tasers (and OC) are overused by police. Tell me,since I seem to be ignorant, how many TASERS are used everyday with ZERO injuries? How many are used everyday with MINOR injury? How many are used veryday with MAJOR injury?

In general if TASER are being used everyday to the extent, it seems to prove my point that police have a weapon that they think is non-lethal and OK to use with even a minor hint of "non-compliance".

Of course I don't think police going to wearing combat boots and black BDU pants have made the forces more professional either. It all goes together in my mind. Police, over the last decade or two have come to see themselves as para-military organizations with their weapons, dress, and actions. The tazer is just make use of force much easier for the officer.

-Dana

pac201
04-23-2011, 08:00
It seems your mind is already made up; but I will refer you to this, Force Science Research at MSU Mankato, Dr. Bill Lewinski, very detailed research about use of force and the physiology/psychology involved.

ticktwrter
04-23-2011, 08:07
This is EXCATLY why I have an issue with tasers. Police look at them as a non-lethal way to force compliance. Depending upon statisics that are used, it seems there have been at least 300 taser deaths since 2001.

Saying that there has never been a LE fatality, therefore they are safe is a falicy. That is like a drunk driver saying he is perfectly safe because he has never caused a fatality.

-Dana
When I received my Taser training it was stressed that it is a less-lethal use of force. I am not aware of ANY actual Taser deaths caused directly by the Taser itself. Many who die after a Taser is depoleyed have already had major health issues or were hopped up on drugs etc. The Taser is one of the BEST less-lethal tools we have been given in my 20 years on the department. Also, example of a drunk driver is wrong. Yes, maybe that one drunk driver has never caused a fatality, but thousands have. The Taser example is a good one. Out of thousands of officers who have taken the ride, NONE have died.

ticktwrter
04-23-2011, 08:14
And again, drunk drivers drive everyday and people don't get hirt by them.

I believe that tasers (and OC) are overused by police. Tell me,since I seem to be ignorant, how many TASERS are used everyday with ZERO injuries? How many are used everyday with MINOR injury? How many are used veryday with MAJOR injury?

In general if TASER are being used everyday to the extent, it seems to prove my point that police have a weapon that they think is non-lethal and OK to use with even a minor hint of "non-compliance".

Of course I don't think police going to wearing combat boots and black BDU pants have made the forces more professional either. It all goes together in my mind. Police, over the last decade or two have come to see themselves as para-military organizations with their weapons, dress, and actions. The tazer is just make use of force much easier for the officer.

-Dana
Dana,

Law Enforcement has ALWAYS been para-military hence the uniforms and military rank structures. Sadly, law enforcement is enganged in war against criminals every day. Just look at ODMP.org and see how many have died this year due to firearms. I wear a BDU style uniform every day and this helps because I am not as hesitant to get dirty when I had pants that cost $70 and shirts $70.

DanaT
04-23-2011, 10:03
Dana,

Law Enforcement has ALWAYS been para-military hence the uniforms and military rank structures. Sadly, law enforcement is enganged in war against criminals every day. Just look at ODMP.org and see how many have died this year due to firearms. I wear a BDU style uniform every day and this helps because I am not as hesitant to get dirty when I had pants that cost $70 and shirts $70.

Seriously?

Do you put your gun in holster or do you worry about wearing the finish out and it costs $400+?

I am a firm believer that how people dress is how they act. That doesn't apply just to LEO. Once LEO dress like soldiers they start believing they are soldiers in a war. OF course one someone starts dressing like a gang banger, they start acting like a gang banger. People who dress like farmers act like farmers. People who dress like CEOs, act like CEOs. Of course you just said that. Who are your enemies? Citizens of the USA? How do yo determine an enemy.

Of course one someone starts dressing like a gang banger, they start acting like a gang banger. People who dress like farmers act like farmers. People who dress like CEOs, act like CEOs. So it is not just limited to LEO.


But thank you for for re-inforcing my opinion that police over the last two decades have morphed and believe they are military in a war. I couldn't have proven it better.

-Dana

Sam Spade
04-23-2011, 10:29
Time to flip the issue. Please tell us your societal acceptable plan for dealing with irrational combative people. We're past talk, he's combative. We get that you don't like Tasers. No OC either, I guess. *I* know what that leaves me, but let's hear your ideas.

steveksux
04-23-2011, 16:57
This is EXCATLY why I have an issue with tasers. Police look at them as a non-lethal way to force compliance. Depending upon statisics that are used, it seems there have been at least 300 taser deaths since 2001.[qupte]So what? That means absolutely nothing. Far fewer people have died going over Niagara Falls in a barrel since 2001. Does that mean going over the falls in a barrel is safer than being tased?

The important statistic is 300 deaths out of how many NONFATAL tasings during that time period?

[quote]Saying that there has never been a LE fatality, therefore they are safe is a falicy. That is like a drunk driver saying he is perfectly safe because he has never caused a fatality.

-DanaThat might be relevant, except that nobody has ever said they're perfectly safe.

People ***** about 70 year old grandmothers getting tased for being non compliant. Yet miraculously, they seem to survive...

Randy

DanaT
04-23-2011, 17:36
Time to flip the issue. Please tell us your societal acceptable plan for dealing with irrational combative people. We're past talk, he's combative. We get that you don't like Tasers. No OC either, I guess. *I* know what that leaves me, but let's hear your ideas.

Well, before I can say what that leaves you, i need some more info for dealing with this irrational combative person.

1) Male / Female "perp"
2) Size of "perp"
3) Male / Female Officer?
4) Size of officer
5) Time of day/night
6) How many officers present
7) How far (timewise) is backup away
8) Is the "perp" believed to be on stimulants or other drugs
9) Why is the "perp" combative
10) Is combative actually "resistive" or does the officer believe that person wants to actually fight? The first definition of combative is generally "inclined or showing an inclination to dispute or disagree, eg a style described as abrasive and contentious" or are you referring to combative as "having or showing a ready disposition to fight". There is a difference between resisting what someone is doing and showing a ready disposition for a fight.
11) What is the displayed skill level of fighting does the officer believe the "perp" has?
12) Is there a weapon involved (other than the officers)
13) Is the reason for contact a felony stop for a violent crime?
14) Is the contact for "suspicious behavior"?
15) What race is the LEO that are present
16) What race is the "perp"
17) Does the "perp" have any physical disabilities that would make compliance difficult/impossible (i.e. is the "perp" deaf or have significant hearing loss)
18) Does the "perp" understand the language the LEO are speaking.
19) How many use of force complaints does the primary responding officer have?
20) What rank is the officer?
21) How many years experience does the officer have
22) When did the LEO stop last for their donut/coffee break?

With some more information I may be able to answer your question.

-Dana

JimP
04-23-2011, 17:49
Dana - while you're trying to sort out the details to fit into your force continuum, this thug is crushing your skull. Are you certified or have you been trained in the use of the Taser?? Have you actually fought anyone other than a hair-pulling contest in grade school??

How about YOU answer those questions and we can move on from there.

trifecta
04-23-2011, 17:50
Well, before I can say what that leaves you, i need some more info for dealing with this irrational combative person.

1) Male / Female "perp"
2) Size of "perp"
3) Male / Female Officer?
4) Size of officer
5) Time of day/night
6) How many officers present
7) How far (timewise) is backup away
8) Is the "perp" believed to be on stimulants or other drugs
9) Why is the "perp" combative
10) Is combative actually "resistive" or does the officer believe that person wants to actually fight? The first definition of combative is generally "inclined or showing an inclination to dispute or disagree, eg a style described as abrasive and contentious" or are you referring to combative as "having or showing a ready disposition to fight". There is a difference between resisting what someone is doing and showing a ready disposition for a fight.
11) What is the displayed skill level of fighting does the officer believe the "perp" has?
12) Is there a weapon involved (other than the officers)
13) Is the reason for contact a felony stop for a violent crime?
14) Is the contact for "suspicious behavior"?
15) What race is the LEO that are present
16) What race is the "perp"
17) Does the "perp" have any physical disabilities that would make compliance difficult/impossible (i.e. is the "perp" deaf or have significant hearing loss)
18) Does the "perp" understand the language the LEO are speaking.
19) How many use of force complaints does the primary responding officer have?
20) What rank is the officer?
21) How many years experience does the officer have
22) When did the LEO stop last for their donut/coffee break?

With some more information I may be able to answer your question.

-Dana

I think I will give you #2 and 4. The rest weren't worth the time it took for you to write or us to read and show a lot of thinking without an ability to form rational thoughts.

Sam Spade
04-23-2011, 18:25
Well, before I can say what that leaves you, i need some more info for dealing with this irrational combative person.

(Snip)

With some more information I may be able to answer your question.

-Dana

And knowing none of this, you still condemn these officers in this situation? That's not working for me, even setting aside the utter silliness of most of your list.


People have died after being tased. People have died after being sprayed. People have died after being restrained, absent any blows, chemical agents or other devices. Whose fault is that?

It strikes me that you want breakfast, but you recoil in horror when you get a hint of how sausage is made.

DanaT
04-23-2011, 20:45
And knowing none of this, you still condemn these officers in this situation? That's not working for me, even setting aside the utter silliness of most of your list.


People have died after being tased. People have died after being sprayed. People have died after being restrained, absent any blows, chemical agents or other devices. Whose fault is that?

It strikes me that you want breakfast, but you recoil in horror when you get a hint of how sausage is made.

A gut reaction tells me that people dying while being restrained absent what you said seems to me that whomever the custodian is is at fault. The only way that I see that restraint could cause death is asphixiation. I think that LEO that place people in restraint positions that could cause death need to be regularly monitored to ensure there are no issues. Dying of asphixiation is not something that happends immediately nor without symptoms.

The list wasnt as silly as you seem to think. The situation dictates much of what is appropriate. For example, I have seen posts in thread stating most deaths by taser are due to pre-exsisting medical conditions or drugs.

Also on my list was does the "perp" understwhat is going on. As a trained professional people who are diabetic can act irrational when insulin was wrong.

Since it seems that tasers have the highest risk with drugs/medical conditions it would seem prudent to me that an officer would use extreme caution when dealing with these types of perps and learn to recognize them.

Shocking the crap out of people is not "safer for the perp". I have a background in what electrostimulation does in to cardiac rythym. Basically, it well known that high voltage can cause cardiac arrest which is often fatal.

-Dana

DanaT
04-24-2011, 09:42
Dana,

Law Enforcement has ALWAYS been para-military hence the uniforms and military rank structures. Sadly, law enforcement is enganged in war against criminals every day. Just look at ODMP.org and see how many have died this year due to firearms. I wear a BDU style uniform every day and this helps because I am not as hesitant to get dirty when I had pants that cost $70 and shirts $70.

I have looked at your url for officers killed. I see the two leading causes of death for this year as gunfire and automible accidents. Then comes heart attack. That covers 95% of what I saw there. I fail to see how taser stops officers from dying from gunfire, automobile accidents, or heart attacks.

Now, why I have the issue with taser is exactly what you have said.

"Sadly, law enforcement is enganged in war against criminals every day."

Here is what I understand when you say war:

a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.


a state or period of armed hostility or active military operation

a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns:

armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict


For example the "war on terror" is an armed conflict against islamic jihadist.

The Vietnam war was an armed conflict. WWII was an armed conflict.

When police describe themselves as a para-military unit engaged in a war, it is a mentality.

Paramilitary typically means

noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force


When you put this mentality together with a unit (or individual officers) thinking of themselves as in place of the regular military force and being in war, and then they are given weapons such as tasers, they tend to look at themselves as soldiers.

It isn't the tasers themselves I have an issue with. It isn't the use of force when justified. It is the over-use of force and the change over the last few decades of police turning into paramilitary units and thinking of the citizens of subjects and use force first because of "officer safety". If you want a safe job, don't go into the police force (or the army).

I remember the old saying on the side of police cars: To serve and to protect.

I believe this motto doesn't hold much weight. Instead it is "to wage war against criminals" (see above).

-Dana

txinvestigator
04-24-2011, 13:08
And again, drunk drivers drive everyday and people don't get hirt by them. Drunk drivers? That has to do with this discussion HOW?

I believe that tasers (and OC) are overused by police. Tell me,since I seem to be ignorant, how many TASERS are used everyday with ZERO injuries? How many are used everyday with MINOR injury? How many are used veryday with MAJOR injury? The police us the TASER daily. Most with little or no injury.

In general if TASER are being used everyday to the extent, it seems to prove my point that police have a weapon that they think is non-lethal and OK to use with even a minor hint of "non-compliance". That is right. There is much more danger to the suspect AND officer if the officer goes hands on.

Again, what boots have to do with TASERs? And you are damn right, TASERs make force easier for officers. Thank goodness.

Here is but one study out of the many; http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84955.php

From the article; [quote]
The research examined nearly 1,000 cases of Taser use, and found 99.7 per cent of them had either no injuries, or only mild injuries such as "scrapes and bruises". In 0.3 per cent of the cases (3 people) the injuries were serious enough to require hospital admission.

Early results of the study (covering nearly 600 cases of Taser use) were published in a paper last year, in the September issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine.

Lead investigator on the study and specialist in emergency medicine at Wake Forest, Dr William Bozeman said:

"This study is the first large, independent study of injuries associated with Tasers. It is the first injury epidemiology study to review every Taser deployment and to reliably assess the overall risk and severity of injuries in real-world conditions."

"The injury rate is low and most injuries appear to be minor. These results support the safety of the devices," he added.Bozeman said the review covered 100 per cent of Taser use and the study offered the best information to date on the medical risks of using the weapon


There are many other studies comming to the same conclusions. Your position is not based in fact, and is not supported by logic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20653572?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19157651?dopt=Citation

http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/13/3/260.abstract?rss=1

I could go on and on. Unbiased and scientific studies, not reactive claims by the media and special interest groups, should lead your thinking.

Take care

txinvestigator
04-24-2011, 13:13
Seriously?

Do you put your gun in holster or do you worry about wearing the finish out and it costs $400+? Apples to oranges comparison.

I am a firm believer that how people dress is how they act. That doesn't apply just to LEO. Once LEO dress like soldiers they start believing they are soldiers in a war. Absurd. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of that. OF course one someone starts dressing like a gang banger, they start acting like a gang banger. People who dress like farmers act like farmers. People who dress like CEOs, act like CEOs. Of course you just said that. So, if I wear a lab coat around I'll start seeing sick people in my house, prescribibg medicines, and earn a Doctors salary. GREAT NEWS. Yes, that ius absurd, isn't it. Who are your enemies? Citizens of the USA? How do yo determine an enemy. A LEOs enemies are YOUR enemy.


But thank you for for re-inforcing my opinion that police over the last two decades have morphed and believe they are military in a war. I couldn't have proven it better.

-DanaDana, you didn't prove anything, except your bias.

txinvestigator
04-24-2011, 13:24
The list wasnt as silly as you seem to think. The situation dictates much of what is appropriate. For example, I have seen posts in thread stating most deaths by taser are due to pre-exsisting medical conditions or drugs.

Also on my list was does the "perp" understwhat is going on. As a trained professional people who are diabetic can act irrational when insulin was wrong. it doesn't matter. if the diabetic is attacking you or someone else, or has enganged in conuct that requires restraint you have to deal with it NOW. You cannot sit on your couch behind your computer and wait for backup while the person harms others, himself or you.

It matters not how many officers are around, or the sex of the persons invloved. Going hands on ALWAYS presents more risk. If you had ever actually been involved in these situations you would realize that.

Since it seems that tasers have the highest risk with drugs/medical conditions it would seem prudent to me that an officer would use extreme caution when dealing with these types of perps and learn to recognize them.

Shocking the crap out of people is not "safer for the perp". I have a background in what electrostimulation does in to cardiac rythym. Basically, it well known that high voltage can cause cardiac arrest which is often fatal.

-DanaKnow, it is not "well known". Read the studies.

Also, it is clear you have no interest in debate, but you have decided that TASERs and cops who use them are bad, You also have no experience or training in controlling combative and resistant people, and your statements indicate you either choose to ignore facts or are completely ignorant of them and refuse to learn.

What this thread HAS accomplished is educate other readers to the facts and helped them recognize and determine bias, lies, facts and real data.

DanaT
04-24-2011, 19:45
Drunk drivers? That has to do with this discussion HOW?

Logic my dear friend. The argument is the same. It was claimed that since no police died while testing the taser was safe. The argument is trying to extrapolate no deaths in a controlled state to safety. That is the same arguemnet is saying most drunk drivers don't die therefor its mostly safe to drive drunk.

In fact, your own article said: "He said other studies were limited because they looked either at the effect on animals or healthy police volunteers undergoing training (police officers have to experience the effect of a Taser before they can use one). "

In fact, I would bet that the serious injury rate per mile of driven by drunk drivers is less than 99.3%.



Again, what boots have to do with TASERs? And you are damn right, TASERs make force easier for officers. Thank goodness.

Again, you prove exactl why I am saying I am against tasers. You prove my point. I think it is too easy of a use force device and police are convinced they are safe. It is a fine line between compliance and "contempt of cop". I think the line between illegal reistance and "contempt of cop" is being blurred with tasers.

What do "boots" have to do with anything? Maybe try some reading. I said that when police, like you see to be, think they are in a "war" they view things different;y. Dress like a soldier; act like a soldier. Or get a cop who claims to be part of a paramilitary orgnaization and you get a cop who thinks they are in place of the military.

I could go on and on. Unbiased and scientific studies, not reactive claims by the media and special interest groups, should lead your thinking.

Take care

PoPo Unions ARE special interest groups. Guess what, the AMA is a special interest group. Police are a special interest group.

But here we go. I guess I am not alone in my "uninformed opinion". This is from the NIJ:

"Policy and Training Issues Related to CEDs

CEDs are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives. Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may decrease the chance of injury, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise concerns about overuse.

CEDs can be used inappropriately. Law enforcement executives can manage this problem with policies, training, monitoring and accountability systems that provide clear guidance (and consequences) to officers regarding when and under what circumstances CEDs should and should not be used.

Besides setting the resistance threshold appropriately (that is, determining the level of suspect resistance at which officers should be allowed to use CEDs), good policies and training would require that officers evaluate the age, size, sex, apparent physical capabilities and health concerns of a suspect. In addition, policies and training should prohibit CED use in the presence of flammable liquids or in circumstances where falling would pose unreasonable risks to the suspect (e.g., in elevated areas, adjacent to traffic, etc.). Policies and training should address use on suspects who are controlled (e.g., handcuffed or otherwise restrained) and should either prohibit such use outright or limit it to clearly defined, aggravated circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of CEDs being used in too many cases (i.e., inappropriately in instances of low-level resistance), there are also concerns about CEDs being used too many times in a single case. Deaths associated with CED use often involve multiple CED activations (more than one CED at a time) or multiple five-second cycles from a single CED. CED policies should require officers to assess continued resistance after each standard cycle and should limit use to no more than three standard cycles. Following CED deployment, the suspect should be carefully observed for signs of distress and should be medically evaluated at the earliest opportunity.


Directions for Future Research

A critical research question is whether officers can become too reliant on CEDs. During interviews with officers and trainers, the researchers heard comments that hinted at a "lazy cop syndrome." Some officers may turn to a CED too early in an encounter and may rely on a CED rather than on their conflict resolution skills or even on hands-on applications.

Another important CED-related research project would be a study of in-custody deaths involving CED use and a matched sample of in-custody deaths when no CED use occurred. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths.The subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition who were not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, not all subjects in actual cases of CED use would meet experimental requirements of good health. Law enforcement officials typically argue that most, if not all, of the citizens who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fashion. Research is needed to understand the differences and similarities in cases where suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved.


http://www.nij.gov/nij/journals/267/use-of-force.htm


-Dana

ticktwrter
04-24-2011, 20:06
Seriously?

Do you put your gun in holster or do you worry about wearing the finish out and it costs $400+?

I am a firm believer that how people dress is how they act. That doesn't apply just to LEO. Once LEO dress like soldiers they start believing they are soldiers in a war. OF course one someone starts dressing like a gang banger, they start acting like a gang banger. People who dress like farmers act like farmers. People who dress like CEOs, act like CEOs. Of course you just said that. Who are your enemies? Citizens of the USA? How do yo determine an enemy.

Of course one someone starts dressing like a gang banger, they start acting like a gang banger. People who dress like farmers act like farmers. People who dress like CEOs, act like CEOs. So it is not just limited to LEO.


But thank you for for re-inforcing my opinion that police over the last two decades have morphed and believe they are military in a war. I couldn't have proven it better.

-Dana
Dana, I've been an officer for over 20 years. Sadly, during that time things have changed dramatically in the area of law enforcement. There is a great disregard for human life on the part of many thugs in the US. Look at the Officers Down Memorial Page, ODMP.org, to look at the officers killed for doing their jobs. Sorry, I really don't care if you think my MANDATED uniform is intimidating. I'm there to keep people like you and ME safe. I intend to go home to my family at the end of my shift.

DanaT
04-24-2011, 20:39
Dana, I've been an officer for over 20 years. Sadly, during that time things have changed dramatically in the area of law enforcement. There is a great disregard for human life on the part of many thugs in the US. Look at the Officers Down Memorial Page, ODMP.org, to look at the officers killed for doing their jobs. Sorry, I really don't care if you think my MANDATED uniform is intimidating. I'm there to keep people like you and ME safe. I intend to go home to my family at the end of my shift.

I have never said being a cop is easy. I also said the last two decades the methods/attitude of police have changed. I also agree that the methods/attitude of the thugs have changed. That said, I am not sure that the per capita (or per officer) death rate has increased much (I have no statisics to say either way).

I also do not have an issue with police responding properly with force. I just believe much like the NIJ report said that tasers are used by police too early and/or too frequently.

I also believe the hard core thugs have changed. But I don't believe the drunk college student has all of a suddened become hardened thugs ready to murder police. They are just as drunk and stupid as 20 or 30 years ago. They are just doing the same stupid things.

I believe the hard core thugs have tainted police and in general when they make simple contact, they believe nearly every person is an armed felony stop. It is the distinction between what conflict resolution is needed and what force is needed.

For the uniforms, what I am saying is someone who wears a type of clothing (whether mandated or chosen) tend to act like what they wear. It is a mentality. The example that was given that if someone wears a white lab coat and wants to look like a doctor I would say probably has the mentality that they are a doctor or should be one. That doesn't mean they get the salary, it means they have that mentality. Mentality, licensing, and pay are not the same thing.

As LEO you likely do this too. I am sure if you were making a traffic stop for 10mph over the speed limit in these two cases the "perps" would be viewed different
1) Two early 20s black guys in with bandanas on their heads and other hip-hop garb driving a 15 year old Caddy with spinners on it and some smoke coming out of the windows.
2) A 50 year old white man dressed in a suit driving a Mercedes S63 AMG that is within 2 or three years of new and the interior/exterior of the car immaculately clean.

They both were going 10 over and broke the same law, yet just by appearance they will be treated differently and I would bet that both "perps" would likely act much different and have a different mentality. I would be the mentality would match the dress/outward appearance.

The hard thing with the whole situation is we are really talking about social engineering. Why is that police in europe and the USA are so different? Why is that criminals are so different? I cannot explain it. I am in Europe quite often. The police simply send drunks home as long as that the only problem. But the level of violence there is just lower. I cannot explain how to fix the social engineering issues.

-Dana

NMPOPS
04-27-2011, 02:35
DanaT, after reading this post, it appears to me that you just don't like cops in general. I retired 5 yyears ago after 25 years as a LEO and have been involved in many use of force incidents. Many times the decision to escalate use of force must be made in the blink of an eye. Unless you have "been there and done that", you should not pass judgement on those that have.

DanaT
04-27-2011, 17:50
DanaT, after reading this post, it appears to me that you just don't like cops in general. I retired 5 yyears ago after 25 years as a LEO and have been involved in many use of force incidents. Many times the decision to escalate use of force must be made in the blink of an eye. Unless you have "been there and done that", you should not pass judgement on those that have.

I guess you shouldn't vote for the president, senators, congressmen, etc. Unless you have "been there done that" and realized the pressures of their job then you should not pass judgement on those that have...

Really...using the "been there done that" excuse is nothing but a cop-out....

-Dana

Sgt127
04-27-2011, 20:42
Cops used to wear navy blue wool uniforms with big tall Bobby hats and Greatcoats. Then we went to polyester and now some departments are wearing BDU style uniforms.

During that evolution, men wore suits and top hats, women wore petticoats and garters then sweaters and slacks and then blue jeans and T-shirts. Fashions change.

Why is there a sinister reason for the change only by the Police? The BDU's are tougher, cheaper and more practical. As it stands, I still wear a regular blue polyester uniform.

The use of any kind of force has the potential for injury. Period. Every new tool for cops has come out claiming it was safer for the suspects and more effective for the Officers. After being in use for awhile, it was discovered that occasionally, people still died while being taken into custody with every tool available.

When we dogpiled them and held them down to cuff them, some died. When we pepper sprayed them, some died. When we used the corotid restraint, some died, when we used straight sticks, some died. When we used the PR 24, some died. When we used slappers, some died. When we handcuffed them, some died. When we Tased them, some died.

The only really common dominator is they fought, and some died. Its not the application of force that seems to be causing deaths, its the excited delirium they are suffering from when they choose to violently fight the Police. Of course, the more violently they fight, the more violent the encounter will be, so, they are increasing thier chances of stroking out or having a heart attack.

I have never walked up to someone and said: "Buddy, you got a couple warrants out for your arrest, go ahead and turn around, lets get the cuffs on you, get you down to the jail and you can bond out tonight." Then they said: "Yeah, I knew about those, sorry about that, lets get it taken care of." And, had them drop dead on me. I'll bet that has never happened to anyone else either.

NMPOPS
05-01-2011, 01:39
I guess you shouldn't vote for the president, senators, congressmen, etc. Unless you have "been there done that" and realized the pressures of their job then you should not pass judgement on those that have...

Really...using the "been there done that" excuse is nothing but a cop-out....

-Dana

Maybe when I vote for my local cops, you'll be right. As a cop, I enforced the law, investigated crimes and provided a service to the public. I was hired in a competitive process and trained for the job. When President and congressmen go through the same process yopu will have a point.

By the way it's not a "cop out", I do not criticize people work if I do not having a working understanding of their job. Senators and Congressmen and the president's job descriptions are pretty much covered by the Constitution.

DanaT
05-01-2011, 12:29
By the way it's not a "cop out", I do not criticize people work if I do not having a working understanding of their job. Senators and Congressmen and the president's job descriptions are pretty much covered by the Constitution.

All people who work for the executive departments is covered by the constition and other statutes. It seems that since you have a job description of the President and Congressment in the constition and that makes you qualified to judge them, I am just as able to judge actions of police as their job descriptions are pretty much covered in local, state, and federal statutes. In fact, in the state I live in, Peace Officers are authrouzed under the Colorado Statutes specifically

16-2.5-101. Peace officer - description - general authority.


16-2.5-105. Police officer.
A police officer, including a chief of police employed by a municipality, is a peace officer whose authority shall include the enforcement of all laws of the state of Colorado and who shall be certified by the P.O.S.T. board.

Therefore, if you can judge the President and Congressment because their job description is pretty much covered in this one paragraph.
Seems like the job description is pretty well defined to me....shall I continue?

-Dana

RussP
05-06-2011, 07:37
Really?I cannot explain how to fix the social engineering issues.

-DanaSure you do, Dana. Your solution begins with neutering law enforcement. I guess I could be misreading the common thread in your posts.

Oh, and the order of events, I have never said being a cop is easy. I also said the last two decades the methods/attitude of police have changed. I also agree that the methods/attitude of the thugs have changed.

-DanaI believe you have them reversed.

As for the asinine comment here,That said, I am not sure that the per capita (or per officer) death rate has increased much (I have no statisics to say either way).

-DanaHere are some stats.

1991 148
1992 170
1993 163
1994 182
1995 185
1996 143
1997 177
1998 177
1999 151
2000 164
2001 242
2002 159
2003 149
2004 165
2005 165
2006 160
2007 200
2008 150
2009 132
2010 158
2011 65
The average per year 1991-2000 = 166.

The average for 2001-2010 = 168

At the pace so far this year, 2011 is headed for over 190 LODD.

I know, you're grinning, saying, "SEE, they are not really on the rise, that much."

If you were to look at the level of ballistic protection and the use back in the '90s, and compare that to today, you'd see why the difference. If those levels were the same today, with the increased violence against law enforcement, the numbers would be much higher.

You call for the "feel good" policing you say exists in Europe. What country specifically.

Lets say you were to get your wish and all of a sudden police here adopt your "be nicer" attitude. How are you going to educate the bad guys and get them to reduce their level of force?

txinvestigator
05-06-2011, 08:11
I guess you shouldn't vote for the president, senators, congressmen, etc. Unless you have "been there done that" and realized the pressures of their job then you should not pass judgement on those that have...

Really...using the "been there done that" excuse is nothing but a cop-out....

-Dana

You attempt at an analogy really shows the fault with your thinking. I don't mean to criticise you, but it is really faulty logic.

A true analogy would be to chastise a surgeon for using a size of scalpel because you, with zero training and experience in using scalpels and completing surgeries, disagree with it.

Voting for a person to hold office is not comparable to judging that persons method of accomplishing his job.

DanaT
05-06-2011, 19:34
You attempt at an analogy really shows the fault with your thinking. I don't mean to criticise you, but it is really faulty logic.

A true analogy would be to chastise a surgeon for using a size of scalpel because you, with zero training and experience in using scalpels and completing surgeries, disagree with it.

Voting for a person to hold office is not comparable to judging that persons method of accomplishing his job.

A surgeon is not a publuc servant as police officers, politians, and other government employees are. Given that all government employees serve at the will of the people in the USA, the people in the USA are entitled to pass judgement about what we feel is acceptable and not acceptable in the public employees.

-Dana

DanaT
05-06-2011, 19:39
Really?[/B]
As for the asinine comment here,Here are some stats.

1991 148
1992 170
1993 163
1994 182
1995 185
1996 143
1997 177
1998 177
1999 151
2000 164
2001 242
2002 159
2003 149
2004 165
2005 165
2006 160
2007 200
2008 150
2009 132
2010 158
2011 65
The average per year 1991-2000 = 166.

The average for 2001-2010 = 168

At the pace so far this year, 2011 is headed for over 190 LODD.

I know, you're grinning, saying, "SEE, they are not really on the rise, that much."

If you were to look at the level of ballistic protection and the use back in the '90s, and compare that to today, you'd see why the difference. If those levels were the same today, with the increased violence against law enforcement, the numbers would be much higher.

You call for the "feel good" policing you say exists in Europe. What country specifically.

Lets say you were to get your wish and all of a sudden police here adopt your "be nicer" attitude. How are you going to educate the bad guys and get them to reduce their level of force?

Considering that you have said that deaths are flat, and I said I doubt that per capita rates of police being killed hasn't changed much, I am completely correct in some respects. From 1990 to 2000 the population increased 13%. If police death rates stayed flat, then the PER CAPITA rate decreased 13% in those 10 years. From estimates that I have seen the population increase from 2000 to 2010 (census data hasnet been released) has increased around 10%. Again, that would indicate another per capita decrease.

So, in general the population in 1990 was about 250M and 2010 about 300M. So, population went up 20% and police death rates stayed flat. So the per capita rate decreased. I am failing to see how me saying I doubt it increased (when it actually decreased) is assinine other than it doesnt fit what LEO want to believe.

-Dana

Guntrainer
05-06-2011, 20:27
Get loaded, show your @$$ in public, get into a fracas with Law Enforcement, and you take your chances. Cops should not and will not risk injury and death to make sure you are not injured or killed in a violent confrontation with them.

What is the goal of one fighting the cops? A reasonable person would say to get the cops' gun and shoot him with it. Makes Response to Resistance appropriate, up to and including Lethal Force.

You don't want to get sprayed, Tasered, beat or shot? Don't act a fool in public, and do what the men with a badge and gun tell you to do.

I have been sprayed, Tasered, beaten and shot. All but the last was in training. I was negligently shot on a Military range (shotgun with birdshot). If given a choice, I would rather be Tased. Although more painful than the others listed, when it's over, it's over!

Life is all about chances. Folks die on Thanksgiving, after eating a huge meal and sitting in front of the boob tube.

As one who trains Armed Professionals in armed and unarmed defense, I can say with authority that LEOS do not have to gently handle an impaired, irrational, non compliant offender. They also generally lack the skills to manage a confrontation without the mentioned tools.

At 65, I have skills to disarm and disable most folks I train. Most of them are 30+ years younger than I, and have a definite size advantage. I am 5' 10", weigh a buck sixty-five.

It takes a tremendous amount of motivation, determination, and money to learn these skills. The training needed is never ending.

Very few folks have the motivation, and very few departments have the funds for this.

The Taser and Chemical Spray are logical, safe and cost effective alternatives that protect our protectors from injury and death.

TBO
05-06-2011, 20:57
Take a look at the rate Officers are assaulted, not just deaths. Considering that you have said that deaths are flat, and I said I doubt that per capita rates of police being killed hasn't changed much, I am completely correct in some respects. From 1990 to 2000 the population increased 13%. If police death rates stayed flat, then the PER CAPITA rate decreased 13% in those 10 years. From estimates that I have seen the population increase from 2000 to 2010 (census data hasnet been released) has increased around 10%. Again, that would indicate another per capita decrease.

So, in general the population in 1990 was about 250M and 2010 about 300M. So, population went up 20% and police death rates stayed flat. So the per capita rate decreased. I am failing to see how me saying I doubt it increased (when it actually decreased) is assinine other than it doesnt fit what LEO want to believe.

-Dana

RussP
05-06-2011, 21:24
Considering that you have said that deaths are flat, and I said I doubt that per capita rates of police being killed hasn't changed much, I am completely correct in some respects. From 1990 to 2000 the population increased 13%. If police death rates stayed flat, then the PER CAPITA rate decreased 13% in those 10 years. From estimates that I have seen the population increase from 2000 to 2010 (census data hasnet been released) has increased around 10%. Again, that would indicate another per capita decrease.

So, in general the population in 1990 was about 250M and 2010 about 300M. So, population went up 20% and police death rates stayed flat. So the per capita rate decreased. I am failing to see how me saying I doubt it increased (when it actually decreased) is assinine other than it doesnt fit what LEO want to believe.

-DanaDo you just stop reading, or do you ignore things you do not like?

Did you read this part?: "If you were to look at the level of ballistic protection and the use back in the '90s, and compare that to today, you'd see why the difference. If those levels were the same today, with the increased violence against law enforcement, the numbers would be much higher".

Do you understand what the words mean?

As TBO says, you need to consider assaults on LE that without todays ballistic armor would have been a death in the '90s. The assaults on law enforcement are increasing. Asinine is appropriate.

Now, how about answering the rest of my questions.

You call for the "feel good" policing you say exists in Europe. What country specifically?

Lets say you were to get your wish and all of a sudden police here adopt your "be nicer" attitude. How are you going to educate the bad guys and get them to reduce their level of force?How 'bout it, Dana?

DanaT
05-07-2011, 07:25
You don't want to get sprayed, Tasered, beat or shot? Don't act a fool in public, and do what the men with a badge and gun tell you to do.

Yes, I forget. We should all be good subject because we know cops are always right. I am sure no evidence is ever supressed or statemenst are ever supressed because cops obtained them legally.

But a badge does make someone important.

http://www.shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tsa_badge_1.jpg

http://www.americawear.com/images/products/Badges/BA-03L.gif

Remember....do what the men with a badge say....

-Dana

DanaT
05-07-2011, 07:32
Did you read this part?: "If you were to look at the level of ballistic protection and the use back in the '90s, and compare that to today, you'd see why the difference. If those levels were the same today, with the increased violence against law enforcement, the numbers would be much higher".

Do you understand what the words mean?

As TBO says, you need to consider assaults on LE that without todays ballistic armor would have been a death in the '90s. The assaults on law enforcement are increasing. Asinine is appropriate.

Now, how about answering the rest of my questions.

How 'bout it, Dana?

Ok. I will bite. Show me the statistics that prove that deaths of LEOs would have increased at the rate of population growth had these technologies not been available. Show me the supporting evidence that the technologies themselves were the cause and the appropriate regression analysis that can, with say reasonable statisical confidence of 90%, attritube the lowering of the per capita death rate to ballstic protection and some another cause.

When you say someone's statement, is asinine I would hope you have the data to back up your claim especially, when it is quite clear that what I said is factually correct. Of course in the the course of this discussion, I have figured out that what the man in the badge says is correct.

-Dana

DanaT
05-07-2011, 07:43
You ask which countries.

I am regularly in Switzerland (at least one week a month) and not so regularly in Germany (4 to 6 times a year for a couple days each time). I would say a couple time a year in Austria and France.

The police act much different in those countries. However, the people act differently too.

There are many many differences in how the police interact with society (and vise versa). I would say the biggest difference I see is drunk people. Police in the USA treat drunks as a huge problem. In Europe, in an average large city there are so many people drunk in the evenings, they realize that "public intoxication" is "normal". If the police contact someone drinking, they send them home to sleep it off. Only if they are causing other issues (fighting/vandalism/ect) do they make an issue of it. Other "offenses" are considered "adminstrative offenses." For example, a speeding ticket is an admin offense and the police just take a picture and then later send the ticket. They don't stop a car unless its a REALLY big offense.

How the police and society interact is a two-way street.

How to fix the problem. Go read my earlier posts in this thread for my response. However, in general, two wrongs don't make a right (but even that is not 100% true)

-Dana

RussP
05-07-2011, 11:00
Ok. I will bite. Show me the statistics that prove that deaths of LEOs would have increased at the rate of population growth had these technologies not been available. Show me the supporting evidence that the technologies themselves were the cause and the appropriate regression analysis that can, with say reasonable statisical confidence of 90%, attritube the lowering of the per capita death rate to ballstic protection and some another cause.

When you say someone's statement, is asinine I would hope you have the data to back up your claim especially, when it is quite clear that what I said is factually correct. Of course in the the course of this discussion, I have figured out that what the man in the badge says is correct.

-DanaThe fact that wearing ballistic protection prevents fatal wounds is well established. It is also a known fact that officers wearing ballistic protection have been shot and had they not been wearing a vest, they would be dead. You can do the research. Proving common knowledge to you is not a high priority.

RussP
05-07-2011, 11:37
You ask which countries.

I am regularly in Switzerland (at least one week a month) and not so regularly in Germany (4 to 6 times a year for a couple days each time). I would say a couple time a year in Austria and France.

The police act much different in those countries. However, the people act differently too.

There are many many differences in how the police interact with society (and vise versa). I would say the biggest difference I see is drunk people. Police in the USA treat drunks as a huge problem. In Europe, in an average large city there are so many people drunk in the evenings, they realize that "public intoxication" is "normal". If the police contact someone drinking, they send them home to sleep it off. Only if they are causing other issues (fighting/vandalism/ect) do they make an issue of it. Other "offenses" are considered "adminstrative offenses." For example, a speeding ticket is an admin offense and the police just take a picture and then later send the ticket. They don't stop a car unless its a REALLY big offense.

How the police and society interact is a two-way street.

How to fix the problem. Go read my earlier posts in this thread for my response. However, in general, two wrongs don't make a right (but even that is not 100% true)

-DanaWhat about response to violent persons? How do they handle those situations?

TBO
05-07-2011, 13:50
DanaT,

You quote LE line of duty deaths as your benchmark, and when pointed out how limited a view of that, you balk and ask others to do your own homework.

Assaults on LE Officers, whether injury, non-injury, or fatal, are a far better measuring stick.

Do real homework then come back, or cling to you established bias.

The choice is yours.

DanaT
05-07-2011, 15:31
The fact that wearing ballistic protection prevents fatal wounds is well established. It is also a known fact that officers wearing ballistic protection have been shot and had they not been wearing a vest, they would be dead. You can do the research. Proving common knowledge to you is not a high priority.

Common knowledge and correlation are not one in the same and often mutually exclusive.

For example, you state it is common knowledge that ballistic protection is the source of the reduced deaths. However, do you truely believe that kevalr produced in 2009 will stop 20% more projectiles than kevlar produced in 1999. You state it is common knowledge that the improvement in ballistic protection is what reduced officer deaths. What is is 20% better between ballistic vests in 1999 and 2009?

However, from the FBI: "Most of the officers feloniously killed in 2009 (36 of the 48 officers) were wearing body armor at the time of their murders." (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/feloniouslykilled.html)

Also from the FBI. "In 2009 3.5 percent of the officers were assaulted by persons with firearms." (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/officersassaulted.html)


Many times, people try to make false (non-statistically proven) correlations to make an argument. Take the Brady Campaign as a great example.

I would in general bet the per capita reduction in police deaths more closely tracks and is has a greater correlation to the overall reduction in violent crime in the last 20 years. This in of itself has many underlying reasons and correlations have been made.

When people use "common sense" and "common knowledge" to prove connection between "events" they are normally wrong.

-Dana

DanaT
05-07-2011, 15:46
DanaT,

You quote LE line of duty deaths as your benchmark, and when pointed out how limited a view of that, you balk and ask others to do your own homework.

Assaults on LE Officers, whether injury, non-injury, or fatal, are a far better measuring stick.

Do real homework then come back, or cling to you established bias.

The choice is yours.


No. It was stated that my assumption of what I was using as a benchmark was incorrect when in fact I stated that. Now, also, do not take one line out of context. When I made that that statement I was specifically responding to Officers Down Memorial Page, ODMP.org as justification for the escalation of use of force LEO. My response to that was that I doubted that officer deaths per capita had changed over the last 20 years (as part of this thread has been about how policing and level of force have changed over the last 20 years).

-Dana

DanaT
05-07-2011, 15:53
What about response to violent persons? How do they handle those situations?

Again, see post #19




It isn't the tasers themselves I have an issue with. It isn't the use of force when justified. It is the over-use of force and the change over the last few decades of police turning into paramilitary units and thinking of the citizens as subjects and use force first because of "officer safety". If you want a safe job, don't go into the police force (or the army).

I remember the old saying on the side of police cars: To serve and to protect.

-Dana

And from post #23


CEDs are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives. Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may decrease the chance of injury, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise concerns about overuse.

CEDs can be used inappropriately. Law enforcement executives can manage this problem with policies, training, monitoring and accountability systems that provide clear guidance (and consequences) to officers regarding when and under what circumstances CEDs should and should not be used.

Besides setting the resistance threshold appropriately (that is, determining the level of suspect resistance at which officers should be allowed to use CEDs), good policies and training would require that officers evaluate the age, size, sex, apparent physical capabilities and health concerns of a suspect. In addition, policies and training should prohibit CED use in the presence of flammable liquids or in circumstances where falling would pose unreasonable risks to the suspect (e.g., in elevated areas, adjacent to traffic, etc.). Policies and training should address use on suspects who are controlled (e.g., handcuffed or otherwise restrained) and should either prohibit such use outright or limit it to clearly defined, aggravated circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of CEDs being used in too many cases (i.e., inappropriately in instances of low-level resistance), there are also concerns about CEDs being used too many times in a single case. Deaths associated with CED use often involve multiple CED activations (more than one CED at a time) or multiple five-second cycles from a single CED. CED policies should require officers to assess continued resistance after each standard cycle and should limit use to no more than three standard cycles. Following CED deployment, the suspect should be carefully observed for signs of distress and should be medically evaluated at the earliest opportunity.


Directions for Future Research

A critical research question is whether officers can become too reliant on CEDs. During interviews with officers and trainers, the researchers heard comments that hinted at a "lazy cop syndrome." Some officers may turn to a CED too early in an encounter and may rely on a CED rather than on their conflict resolution skills or even on hands-on applications.

Another important CED-related research project would be a study of in-custody deaths involving CED use and a matched sample of in-custody deaths when no CED use occurred. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths.The subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition who were not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, not all subjects in actual cases of CED use would meet experimental requirements of good health. Law enforcement officials typically argue that most, if not all, of the citizens who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fashion. Research is needed to understand the differences and similarities in cases where suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved.


http://www.nij.gov/nij/journals/267/use-of-force.htm


-Dana

RussP
05-07-2011, 18:27
Common knowledge and correlation are not one in the same and often mutually exclusive.

For example, you state it is common knowledge that ballistic protection is the source of the reduced deaths. However, do you truely believe that kevalr produced in 2009 will stop 20% more projectiles than kevlar produced in 1999. You state it is common knowledge that the improvement in ballistic protection is what reduced officer deaths. What is is 20% better between ballistic vests in 1999 and 2009?

However, from the FBI: "Most of the officers feloniously killed in 2009 (36 of the 48 officers) were wearing body armor at the time of their murders." (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/feloniouslykilled.html)

Also from the FBI. "In 2009 3.5 percent of the officers were assaulted by persons with firearms." (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/officersassaulted.html)


Many times, people try to make false (non-statistically proven) correlations to make an argument. Take the Brady Campaign as a great example.

I would in general bet the per capita reduction in police deaths more closely tracks and is has a greater correlation to the overall reduction in violent crime in the last 20 years. This in of itself has many underlying reasons and correlations have been made.

When people use "common sense" and "common knowledge" to prove connection between "events" they are normally wrong.

-DanaYou still don't get it. First, research the number of law enforcement officers wearing personal body armor in 1991 compared to how many wear body armor now. Then research the number of officers shot in the torso where without armor the wound would be fatal who did not die because they were wearing body armor.

Of the 36 officers killed while wearing armor, where were they hit?

Keep looking. You'll eventually find the truth supported by the facts the rest of us already know.

RussP
05-07-2011, 18:37
Again, see post #19

And from post #23The question was about the European law enforcement officers you hold in such high regard, "What about response to violent persons? How do they handle those situations?"

Neither Post #19 nor Post #23 answer that in any way.

RussP
05-07-2011, 18:38
Another case of "kwikrnu-Syndrome".

DanaT
05-08-2011, 09:01
You still don't get it. First, research the number of law enforcement officers wearing personal body armor in 1991 compared to how many wear body armor now. Then research the number of officers shot in the torso where without armor the wound would be fatal who did not die because they were wearing body armor.

Of the 36 officers killed while wearing armor, where were they hit?

Keep looking. You'll eventually find the truth supported by the facts the rest of us already know.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/apparel/undergear/articles/1912374-Only-59-percent-of-agencies-require-officers-to-wear-body-armor-survey-shows/

"Previous research indicated that in 1987, only 28 percent of police agencies surveyed provided body armor or a cash allowance to purchase armor for all of their uniformed patrol officers. By 1993, that figure had climbed to about 82 percent, and it rose to more than 90 percent in 2000."

I don't see how an 8% increase in body armor use equates to a 13% decrease in per capita deaths.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/PERF_BodyArmor.pdf
"Wearing bullet-resistant vests is considered one of the most effective ways for officers to protect themselves against the threat of criminals using a firearm against them."


However, it seems that since the introduction of body armor in the 1970s they Police Cheifs have said it saved 3000 officer lives. Lets assume that is linear (probably not). That is about 100 per year. If you increase all the numbers but some porportion of thr 3000 (as you have indicated it would most likely be stacked towards the later half or quarter of said period), this would indicate an almost flat per capita death rate for officers and still does not support an "increased danger." In fact, all of this points to a decreased danger to officers and therefore they should be more restrained with more technology that protects them (in many cases I do not believe this statement to be true).

-Dana

DanaT
05-08-2011, 09:11
The question was about the European law enforcement officers you hold in such high regard, "What about response to violent persons? How do they handle those situations?"

Neither Post #19 nor Post #23 answer that in any way.

Let me try to make this a little clearer.

This thread started as a thread about the use of tasers which I claim are over-used by officers and supported by the National Institute of Justice (See my posts above). To defense of this by LEO on this thread has been officer deaths by firearms and how much body armor has made them safer.

When data has been presented that supports my position of believing that tasers are over used, somehow LEO do not like that and bring in other comments suchs as firearm deaths.

Now, as this thread was started as one about tasers and my belief that their that the use needs to be restrained and not so wide spread. They are less-lethal and not non-lethal. LEO then claim they are non lethal because they were zapped with them. However, let me re-state the findings by the NIJ so that you understand my position (which is the same).

"Policy and Training Issues Related to CEDs
CEDs are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives. Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may decrease the chance of injury, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise concerns about overuse.

CEDs can be used inappropriately. Law enforcement executives can manage this problem with policies, training, monitoring and accountability systems that provide clear guidance (and consequences) to officers regarding when and under what circumstances CEDs should and should not be used.

Besides setting the resistance threshold appropriately (that is, determining the level of suspect resistance at which officers should be allowed to use CEDs), good policies and training would require that officers evaluate the age, size, sex, apparent physical capabilities and health concerns of a suspect. In addition, policies and training should prohibit CED use in the presence of flammable liquids or in circumstances where falling would pose unreasonable risks to the suspect (e.g., in elevated areas, adjacent to traffic, etc.). Policies and training should address use on suspects who are controlled (e.g., handcuffed or otherwise restrained) and should either prohibit such use outright or limit it to clearly defined, aggravated circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of CEDs being used in too many cases (i.e., inappropriately in instances of low-level resistance), there are also concerns about CEDs being used too many times in a single case. Deaths associated with CED use often involve multiple CED activations (more than one CED at a time) or multiple five-second cycles from a single CED. CED policies should require officers to assess continued resistance after each standard cycle and should limit use to no more than three standard cycles. Following CED deployment, the suspect should be carefully observed for signs of distress and should be medically evaluated at the earliest opportunity.

Directions for Future Research
A critical research question is whether officers can become too reliant on CEDs. During interviews with officers and trainers, the researchers heard comments that hinted at a "lazy cop syndrome." Some officers may turn to a CED too early in an encounter and may rely on a CED rather than on their conflict resolution skills or even on hands-on applications.

Another important CED-related research project would be a study of in-custody deaths involving CED use and a matched sample of in-custody deaths when no CED use occurred. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths.[6] The subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition who were not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, not all subjects in actual cases of CED use would meet experimental requirements of good health. Law enforcement officials typically argue that most, if not all, of the citizens who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fashion. Research is needed to understand the differences and similarities in cases where suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved. "

DanaT
05-08-2011, 09:39
response continued

Now lets go back to the original post. The article said the person was acting "irrational" when police contacted him. Note, irrational and violent are not one in the same. So, the "violent" part of the argument at this point is not valid.

The article then said the suspect became violent after the police tried to detain him. So, somewhere between irrational and violent something occured. Now, "violent" is something that was in quotes and what is "violent resistance" is not known.

Escalation of violence during a confrontation is often a two way street. As suspects start acting out (or contempt of cop/disrepectful/agitated/etc) towards officers, officers start ratcheting up the interaction. On the flip side, an officer with a tude (see many of the above posts by LEO..Russ/TBO/Sam have not displayed this but others have) in an encounter can quickly escalate a non-violent situation to a violent one by pissing off the suspect. In general, if either party want to escalate the conflict level within a situation it will likely escalate unless the other party tries to actively de-escalate the situation.

That said, police are often put in situations where they must react with force. However, what I have seen, and why I talk about the European police, is in many situations (i.e. dealing with a drunk) they simply want the person to go home and not escalate a situation that is not violent.

Here is an example of police escalating a situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30&feature=related

The cop was obviosuly not identfyable and yet pulled out a gun. There was no indication in that video of eluding. Was the guy an idiot, sure. Did the cop over-react by pulling out a gun (while being totally not identifiable as police) for a non-violent confrontation. This is just an example of why I say that police can quickly escalate a non-violent situation.

There seems to be confusion that I am saying police should not be able to defend themselves. That is not what I am saying. I am also not saying police don't have to at times use force to bring someone into custody. What I am saying is that I believe taser are overused by police because they are looked at as non-dangerous weapons and the easiest way to bring someone into compliance. As the NIJ has said, they also believe that taser use is over used due to "lazy cop" syndrom and police do not take enough variables into account.

This is not a balck and white issue. I am not saying tasers should not be used in any circumstance. I am saying I believe they are over-used and I am also saying that the attitude of police who think of themselves "at war" and as "para-military units" are looking for conflict and will find it. When police look for conflict, they are partly to blame. I am also not saying all officers are like this.

I actually have a lot more info on this than you may believe. A close family member sees many police disiplanary (non-public) actions where she works. The police force is about 250 at here place of employment. In general, from what she talks about 90% of all cmplaints about officers (use of force, poor attitudes dealing with the public, etc) come from 10% of the officers. They try and weed these officers out, but as you know in any profession there will be people that shouldn't be in the profession (or any profession). Most of the officers I know from there (and come to parties that I attend) are perfectly normal people that are nice people. There are a couple that I have met that have really big tudes.

-Dana

trifecta
05-08-2011, 12:50
Let me try to make this a little clearer.

This thread started as a thread about the use of tasers which I claim are over-used by officers and supported by the National Institute of Justice (See my posts above). To defense of this by LEO on this thread has been officer deaths by firearms and how much body armor has made them safer.

When data has been presented that supports my position of believing that tasers are over used, somehow LEO do not like that and bring in other comments suchs as firearm deaths.

Now, as this thread was started as one about tasers and my belief that their that the use needs to be restrained and not so wide spread. They are less-lethal and not non-lethal. LEO then claim they are non lethal because they were zapped with them. However, let me re-state the findings by the NIJ so that you understand my position (which is the same).

"Policy and Training Issues Related to CEDs
CEDs are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives. Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may decrease the chance of injury, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise concerns about overuse.

CEDs can be used inappropriately. Law enforcement executives can manage this problem with policies, training, monitoring and accountability systems that provide clear guidance (and consequences) to officers regarding when and under what circumstances CEDs should and should not be used.

Besides setting the resistance threshold appropriately (that is, determining the level of suspect resistance at which officers should be allowed to use CEDs), good policies and training would require that officers evaluate the age, size, sex, apparent physical capabilities and health concerns of a suspect. In addition, policies and training should prohibit CED use in the presence of flammable liquids or in circumstances where falling would pose unreasonable risks to the suspect (e.g., in elevated areas, adjacent to traffic, etc.). Policies and training should address use on suspects who are controlled (e.g., handcuffed or otherwise restrained) and should either prohibit such use outright or limit it to clearly defined, aggravated circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of CEDs being used in too many cases (i.e., inappropriately in instances of low-level resistance), there are also concerns about CEDs being used too many times in a single case. Deaths associated with CED use often involve multiple CED activations (more than one CED at a time) or multiple five-second cycles from a single CED. CED policies should require officers to assess continued resistance after each standard cycle and should limit use to no more than three standard cycles. Following CED deployment, the suspect should be carefully observed for signs of distress and should be medically evaluated at the earliest opportunity.

Directions for Future Research
A critical research question is whether officers can become too reliant on CEDs. During interviews with officers and trainers, the researchers heard comments that hinted at a "lazy cop syndrome." Some officers may turn to a CED too early in an encounter and may rely on a CED rather than on their conflict resolution skills or even on hands-on applications.

Another important CED-related research project would be a study of in-custody deaths involving CED use and a matched sample of in-custody deaths when no CED use occurred. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths.[6] The subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition who were not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, not all subjects in actual cases of CED use would meet experimental requirements of good health. Law enforcement officials typically argue that most, if not all, of the citizens who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fashion. Research is needed to understand the differences and similarities in cases where suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved. "

You are saying things not supported by your own article. "Concerns" and "possibilities" aren't the same things you are stating as fact.

This super awesome article you are quoting also discussed some imaginary thing called "lazy cop syndrome". A quick Google search only turned up items relating to this NIJ paper. Until this thread, I would have thought it was an officer that ducked calls or hid in the back of the pack so he didn't have to do any work. Regardless, the easiest way to avoid work is to get the violator in cuffs without incident. Any other method will likely require paperwork for use of force. That is extra work and something to be avoided by the truly lazy.

You seem confused on how conversation with a violator turns violent. Sometime, using your nice words just doesn't work. Some people are so mentally or socially off the grid, there is no talking sense to them. At some point in the conversation, they may need to be in custody. There is a limit to how far words may take you in that endeavor. At that point, you have to make a choice in how to proceed. Hands on is certainly a choice, but I brought a gun to the fight and I would just as soon not give a violator access to it. Shotgun bean bag rounds are available to some officers, but I can almost promise you would rather be tased. OC and baton are other options. OC doesn't work on everybody and has issues with surroundings and weather conditions. Baton strikes may gain compliance, but can do some damage along the way. If the violator moves and is struck in a dangerous area of the body, the damage can be severe. There are also potential consequences for the officer.

This brings us to the CED. There is virtually no risk to the officer. The risk to the violator is lower than being shot with live rounds. I'm not sure where the mortality would rate compared to OC/baton/hands on, but all those methods have produced fatalities in some populations. I'm guessing it was the same population that dies from a CED.

You can minimize the hundreds of thousands of uneventful CED deployments during training all you want. Like it or not, it is a fact.

I think if you had come on here and asked if anyone was concerned with possible over use of a CED, some might have said "yes". It is a use of force and historically force has sometimes been misused. There will undoubtedly be fatalities when they are used, but CED deployments are predicated on actions of the violator. Those actions are taken by choice, both in prior bad habits and drug use as well as non compliance at the time of arrest. As is frequently the case, bad choices can have negative consequences. It is a tragedy for the family of the violator who has likely been putting up with his crap for far too long and it is usually a terrible time in the life of the officer involved. I don't know a singe officer that looks forward to the day they may be involved in a custodial death. The fact that we don't mourn the violator's passing doesn't mean we celebrate it either. :wavey:

DanaT
05-08-2011, 17:42
<snip> Hands on is certainly a choice, but I brought a gun to the fight and I would just as soon not give a violator access to it. <snip>

<snip>This brings us to the CED. There is virtually no risk to the officer. The risk to the violator is lower than being shot with live rounds. <snip>

Wow. I would have never thought that shooting someone was more likely to injure them than a taser. Who woulda thunk it?

So let me get this right. You brought a gun to the fight so you don't want to go "hands on" because a suspect may take you gun. This leaves you with the choices of a taser or a gun?

I guess if you are that concerned about bringing a gun to a fight and it being taken away, you could always leave it at home?

That said, concerns, possibilities, are based upon facts about what the NIJ analyzed. These are called "conclusions" which are based on the study of facts.

However, if you read, I have said that many times officiers are very justified in using force. But what I have also said is that I believe there are times escalation of situations are based upon a two-way interaction. This does not mean always nor even 50% of the time. It means if an officer or a suspect decide that either party wants a confrontation and violence, it will quickly escalate to that level. This does not mean that an officer can always de-escalate the situation.

As our friend TBO says, all things in balance. It is finding the balance between safety of everyone. Any technology that makes the use of violence too easy is typically not in balance and can be abused. This doesn't mean it is abused often, but abuses do happen.

-Dana

DanaT
05-08-2011, 17:43
Imagine if TSA got to use tasers.....

-Dana

barstoolguru
05-08-2011, 18:18
hey, they could have clubbed the snot out of him........ like in the old days

RussP
05-09-2011, 03:05
However, if you read, I have said that many times officiers are very justified in using force. But what I have also said is that I believe there are times escalation of situations are based upon a two-way interaction. This does not mean always nor even 50% of the time. It means if an officer or a suspect decide that either party wants a confrontation and violence, it will quickly escalate to that level. This does not mean that an officer can always de-escalate the situation.

As our friend TBO says, all things in balance. It is finding the balance between safety of everyone. Any technology that makes the use of violence too easy is typically not in balance and can be abused. This doesn't mean it is abused often, but abuses do happen.

-DanaHow frequently and what were the consequences?

DanaT
05-09-2011, 18:59
How frequently and what were the consequences?

Often enough you dont have to search very far. And these are ones that either the police fired or were convicted so you can't even say wait for the whiole story. These are just ones that have been made public and I know about that I can quickly find. If I can find them in less than 2 minutes then my statement that abuses occur. Of course these aren't directly related to taser abuse, but if other forms of abuses occur, taser is also likely.


http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17700839

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/12/2-Denver-cops-fired-for-lying/UPI-32941302650673/

http://www.californiabeat.org/2010/11/05/breaking-former-bart-officer-mehserle-sentenced-to-2-years-in-state-prison

-Dana

RussP
05-09-2011, 19:25
Often enough you dont have to search very far. And these are ones that either the police fired or were convicted so you can't even say wait for the whiole story. These are just ones that have been made public and I know about that I can quickly find. If I can find them in less than 2 minutes then my statement that abuses occur. Of course these aren't directly related to taser abuse, but if other forms of abuses occur, taser is also likely.


http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17700839

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/12/2-Denver-cops-fired-for-lying/UPI-32941302650673/

http://www.californiabeat.org/2010/11/05/breaking-former-bart-officer-mehserle-sentenced-to-2-years-in-state-prison

-DanaWait, you are the one alleging excessive use of tasers, yet when asked, "How frequently and what were the consequences?", you cannot come up with actual incidents. Instead, you introduce examples completely unrelated to the use of tasers.

Sort of weakens your argument.

TBO
05-09-2011, 20:54
...but shows exercise of bias.

jmho

DanaT
05-09-2011, 23:59
Wait, you are the one alleging excessive use of tasers, yet when asked, "How frequently and what were the consequences?", you cannot come up with actual incidents. Instead, you introduce examples completely unrelated to the use of tasers.

Sort of weakens your argument.

Well, lets get this right. I had 10 minutes between gere tting to the hotel, getting ready for dinner with people from Europe, taking care of bodily functions and posting. So, yes, in that time I spent minimal research time but did provide you with a response. I hear all the time hoe LEO have to make judgements on the spot and are second guessed because of lack of time to make decisions....

Lets add to that that police records are not typically made public. How about this. Send me the last 2 years of police complaints, incident reports, and arrest reports from your depepartment and I will read through them and find what I need.

You guys can try and pull all the bullcrap you want, but in the field I am in, anything self incrimating to is not writen down. We may know it. We may test for it. But it is never written. The federal government can't find what isn't written.

In the end, its a game. You may not want to admit it, but it is. Both sides (police and perps) try an push the envelope and see how far it can be pushed.

You seem to think I am baised against police. No. I am baised against a justice system that is not ineterested in truth. I also didlike police that think are the law. That is different than enforcing the law.

I don't dislike any one of you. In fact, I even offered to buy TBO beer in MN. I will have these disscussions in person. However, it is telling that TBO, when proven wrong about being "nice" to out of state cars without front license plates can't even get his own state laws corrects ingnores it. How am I to take police knoweldge of laws seriously?

On the front plate thing.

Some states require 1 plate, some require 2. Those that require 1 may state it must be on the front, or may state it must be on the rear.

Regardless of the state law in which the vehicle is licensed, it must comply with the state law of which it is traveling through.

In my state, MN, you must have a license plate on the front and on the rear. This applies to all vehicles.

If LE was really a bunch of heartless automatons dispensing black and white, they'd be pulling over and citing all those out of state cars for 1 plate... but they aren't.



This does not make sense to me.

I thought that most states had reciprocity agreements that they recognized other states driver's licenses, registration, insurance, etc.

If what you said was the case, by crossing the border, I need a new registration, license, etc.

Here is exactly the wording from the state i live in (CO).



CRS 42-3-117. Nonresidents.

(1) A nonresident owner, except as otherwise provided in this section, owning a foreign motor vehicle may operate or permit such vehicle to operate within this state without registering such vehicle or paying fees so long as the vehicle is currently registered in the state, country, or other place of which the owner is a resident, and the motor vehicle displays the number plate or plates issued for such vehicle in the place of residence of such owner.

Colorado requires TWO plates but as clearly defined in the law, it accepts a single plate (plate or plates is clearly stated) issue at the place or residence.

Just googling "reciprocity motor vehicle" I was able to find a very big list. This has been done a long time ago so that police cannot do as you mentioned.

My suggestion would be as a police officer, you should probably check and see if you have reciprocity agreements with other states as to motor vehicles. I will be in MN at the end of this week. I would like to bet you some beer that MN has it....


But just to make my point. Here are MN laws....


168.181 NONRESIDENT OWNERS, RECIPROCITY AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS.
Subdivision 1.Authority; conditions and limitations.Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary or inconsistent herewith, the registrar of motor vehicles with the approval of the attorney general is hereby empowered to make agreements with the duly authorized representatives of the other states, District of Columbia, territories and possessions of the United States, or arrangements with foreign countries or provinces exempting the residents of such other states, districts, territories and possessions, and foreign countries or provinces using the public streets and highways of this state from the payment of any or all motor vehicle taxes or fees imposed by this chapter, subject to the following conditions and limitations:

(1) upon condition that the exemption provided herein shall be operative as to a motor vehicle owned by a nonresident only to the extent that under the laws of the state, district, territory or possession, or foreign country or province of residence like exemptions are granted to motor vehicles registered under the laws and owned by residents of Minnesota;

(2) upon condition that any such motor vehicle so operated in this state by any such nonresident shall at all times carry and display all license number plates or like insignia required by the laws of the state, district, territory or possession, or foreign country or province of residence;


So...now for my beer.....

Who said cops don't make up their own laws?????????
-Dana

DanaT
05-10-2011, 00:03
...but shows exercise of bias.

jmho



Or shows why citizens should question police who claim to know the law.....

Of course we shouldn't extrapolate that a police officer that can't understand a simple motor vehicle law wouldn't undertstand use of force...

But I still love ya TBO and will buy ya that beer if I am in MN again...I sometime go to Minnetonka...nice place...

-Dana

DanaT
05-10-2011, 00:17
Wait, you are the one alleging excessive use of tasers, yet when asked, "How frequently and what were the consequences?", you cannot come up with actual incidents. Instead, you introduce examples completely unrelated to the use of tasers.

Sort of weakens your argument.

See post #1. I think that is how the thread started.....

Ok.

5 seconds.

http://www.pressherald.com/archive/officer-loses-appeal-in-taser-excessive-force-case_2008-11-06.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/12/lawsuits_target_use_of_taser_e.html

http://christopherdiarmani.com/391/const-aubrey-zalaskis-excessive-force-charges/

http://takingthefifth-acriminallawblog.com/category/excessive-force/

"Streamwood, Illinois police officer, James Mandarino, while making a traffic stop, tasered, Ronald Bell, the driver and hit him with his baton 15 times. The Cook County District Attorney has charged Mandarino with felony aggravated battery and official misconduct.. "

"Furthermore, the Court ruled that based upon prior decisions of the court the fact that a Taser was used against a non-violent misdemeanant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment was clearly established prior to the incident. As a result the appellate court denied the appeal and sent the case back to the District Court for trial."

"When excessive force is used the Fourth Amendment is violated. The court “balance[s] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” The court found that the taser which uses an electrical impulse to override “the victim’s central nervous system, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless” to be a weapon of intermediate or medium force requiring “a strong government interest that compels the employment of such force.......Finally the court found that McPherson was not entitled to qualified immunity because a [b]reasonable officer facing a situation where it was only a minor crime alleged and knowing that a taser injury can cause severe damage should know that the use of the taser would violate the Fourth Amendment[/b'].”

Took...me more time to cut and paste than to find that courts have found that reasonable officers can't taze people for alleged minor crimes because they should know tazers can cause severe injury.


-Dana

RussP
05-10-2011, 05:14
...You guys can try and pull all the bullcrap you want, but in the field I am in, anything self incrimating to is not writen down. We may know it. We may test for it. But it is never written. The federal government can't find what isn't written.What field is this where you don't write things down because those writings would show you are guilty of a crime or wrongdoing at the Federal level?

RussP
05-12-2011, 08:12
...You guys can try and pull all the bullcrap you want, but in the field I am in, anything self incrimating to is not writen down. We may know it. We may test for it. But it is never written. The federal government can't find what isn't written.What field is this where you don't write things down because those writings would show you are guilty of a crime or wrongdoing at the Federal level?Well, seems this isn't a popular topic with you.

Your bio says you are a biomedical engineer. Which subfield is your specialty?

I find it very interesting that you admit on a public forum to deliberately excluding recorded documentation of your work in the biomedical field for the purpose of hiding information that would result in criminal charges by the Feds. At best you are admitting to unethical behavior.

You use "we" twice. That implies this behavior involves more people than just you. How high up in your company does this go?

You rail against the abusive use of CEDs, that they are dangerous to the recipients, yet you admit to possible criminal behavior in a field that could affect untold numbers of people.

You need to rethink some things.

DanaT
05-12-2011, 20:17
Well, seems this isn't a popular topic with you..

Is this a typical cop trait? My lack of response to you implies guilt? Have you ever extrapolated that possibly there are days where I am not posting on GT because I actually have to work or have other obligations? Its kinda like not talking to police is not the same as being guilty....

Your bio says you are a biomedical engineer. Which subfield is your specialty?..

Accoustic and electro stimulation implants.


I find it very interesting that you admit on a public forum to deliberately excluding recorded documentation of your work in the biomedical field for the purpose of hiding information that would result in criminal charges by the Feds. At best you are admitting to unethical behavior. .

Ok. First, I said many things arent written. So that means by default, that it is not recorded documentation.

You also seem to be confusing what is discoverable by feds, other regulatory bodies, and potential plantifs with criminal activity.

Now, to more specifically address what you seem to be implying when you take a few words and try to make a story. Good job detective. You make up a good story out of nothing.

But see, this is the difference between a "detective" and myself. You took a few words and made a story that you hope for some reason is true and can "convict" me with your story. What this is called is speculation. Specualtion is EXACTLY what we don't write down. Speculation is just that. Written speculation is discoverable just as it was fact. What is written down is not opinions, but facts that can be supported by evidence.



You use "we" twice. That implies this behavior involves more people than just you. How high up in your company does this go?

You rail against the abusive use of CEDs, that they are dangerous to the recipients, yet you admit to possible criminal behavior in a field that could affect untold numbers of people.

You need to rethink some things.

Again, you need to quit projecting your story of what you think occurs. I will tell you that I have stopped shipment of more products than you would care to believe. This week alone I am putting together a plan to re-introduce a a product that I stopped production and implantation of because of potential safety issues when in truth there have been no instances of failure. However, I can tell you with this issue there is some speculation (i.e. does a test adequately simulate in vivo conditions) and those are discussions. What is written down is FACT not speculation. (i.e. "the titanium passed all cytotoxicity testing" vs "the material is safe to implant"). One statement is fact. One statement is opinion. We do not write opinion or speculation.

-Dana

RussP
05-12-2011, 21:39
Is this a typical cop trait? My lack of response to you implies guilt? Have you ever extrapolated that possibly there are days where I am not posting on GT because I actually have to work or have other obligations? Its kinda like not talking to police is not the same as being guilty....-You are the one bringing up "guilt". I just said the topic is not popular with you.Accoustic and electro stimulation implants.Thanks.Ok. First, I said many things arent written. So that means by default, that it is not recorded documentation.No, you did not. Here again is exactly what you posted....You guys can try and pull all the bullcrap you want, but in the field I am in, anything self incrimating to is not writen down. We may know it. We may test for it. But it is never written. The federal government can't find what isn't written.No, you did not use the word "some".You also seem to be confusing what is discoverable by feds, other regulatory bodies, and potential plantifs with criminal activity.You used the word "incriminating".Now, to more specifically address what you seem to be implying when you take a few words and try to make a story. Good job detective. You make up a good story out of nothing.Detective?But see, this is the difference between a "detective" and myself. You took a few words and made a story that you hope for some reason is true and can "convict" me with your story. What this is called is speculation. Specualtion is EXACTLY what we don't write down. Speculation is just that. Written speculation is discoverable just as it was fact. What is written down is not opinions, but facts that can be supported by evidence.
Again, you need to quit projecting your story of what you think occurs. I will tell you that I have stopped shipment of more products than you would care to believe. This week alone I am putting together a plan to re-introduce a a product that I stopped production and implantation of because of potential safety issues when in truth there have been no instances of failure. However, I can tell you with this issue there is some speculation (i.e. does a test adequately simulate in vivo conditions) and those are discussions. What is written down is FACT not speculation. (i.e. "the titanium passed all cytotoxicity testing" vs "the material is safe to implant"). One statement is fact. One statement is opinion. We do not write opinion or speculation.

-DanaCongratulations.

However, you still have these words hanging out there....You guys can try and pull all the bullcrap you want, but in the field I am in, anything self incrimating to is not writen down. We may know it. We may test for it. But it is never written. The federal government can't find what isn't written.Statements like that raise the level of some peoples interest.

DanaT
05-13-2011, 20:11
You are the one bringing up "guilt". I just said the topic is not popular with you.

I guess its more popular with me than post 61 is with LEO.....

Dana

RetDet
07-04-2011, 21:42
I just can't help posting this. Looking at Dana's list of crap that he'd need to know prior to using a taser reminded me of the list of questions a democrat would need answers to before using a handgun to defend his family. I firmly believe that he needs to hide in his ivory tower and not bother anyone. Failing that, he ought to grow a backbone, attend a citizens's academy, and then try to hit the street. If he can really screw up some courage, he ought to become a reserve officer somewhere and see what the real world's like. I don't believe he could ever qualify as a full-time, sworn police officer.

OldCurlyWolf
07-05-2011, 12:50
I just can't help posting this. Looking at Dana's list of crap that he'd need to know prior to using a taser reminded me of the list of questions a democrat would need answers to before using a handgun to defend his family. I firmly believe that he needs to hide in his ivory tower and not bother anyone. Failing that, he ought to grow a backbone, attend a citizens's academy, and then try to hit the street. If he can really screw up some courage, he ought to become a reserve officer somewhere and see what the real world's like. I don't believe he could ever qualify as a full-time, sworn police officer.

I wouldn't feel safe anywhere in any jurisdiction where he was an officer of ANY sort. Not because of the citizenry, but because of him/it.

:wow:

RetDet
07-05-2011, 15:28
My error. You're 100% right.

TBO
08-03-2012, 11:13
It's been over a year now, plenty of time to research, learn, apply.
Anything new?

AZL
08-06-2012, 08:19
I'm not going to quote statistics...which we ALL know can be skewed to support just about any argument by "creative language and massaging" of the way data is input. Thus, I will simply make an observation based upon real-world experience over a 23 year career as an officer.

Simply put...TASER deployment (and often, the mere presense of same) prevents serious injury (or ANY injury at all) to both officers and subjects.

I was always willing to talk to someone for a long time before going hands-on. Once THE SUBJECT made the decision that force was going to be necessary...then it was on like Donkey Kong as they say. But...it wasn't MY decision. It was a decision that rested squarely on the shoulders of the subject. Had the subject simply given compliance to a lawful order...I can promise you that 100% of the time, they would NOT have had force of any kind used on them. The conversation could have and WOULD have continued to a reasonable, and non-violent conclusion. It was my job to enforce that law, not make the law, or punish subject on the street. To that end, it was never ME who made the decision to employ force. I simply responded in a manner consistent with taking the subject into custody with the least amount of force necessary to do so.

The level of force used, being necessary and driven by the actions of the subject, was no longer even relevent to the situation. I considered ANY use of force a failure. As I mentioned already...I was willing to talk a long time before rolling around in the dirt. Again...THE SUBJECT chose how far I/we would have to go to in making an arrest.

The TASER has made it far easier for BOTH officers and subjects to avoid traumatic injury. The TASER does not hurt. I know this as I have been TASED nearly a dozen times for both qualification, and as a test subject at TASER International in Scottsdale. The only sensation I ever felt was two little pricks from the probes. Personally...I'd much rather "ride the lightning" than be struck, choked out, falling on HOT concrete...you name it. It can ALL happen in a situation where physical force must be used.

Think about this....when taking a violent subject into custody...the subject is far more likely to be seriously injured if a lone officer is compelled to use physical (blunt trauma) force because he/she is alone and will have to use MORE force than if other officers are there to employ holds, and assist in cuffing, etcetera. HOWEVER...if the officer has a TASER, it can be employed with NO blunt trauma, and the arrest can be made without injury to the officer or subject.

Now...of course...as I am not citing anyone's beloved statistics...and am ONLY speaking from personal experience, and observation...I think the TASER is a phenominal success.

The TASER has saved lives. The TASER will continue to save lives. It will save not only the lives of officers and civilians, it will save the lives of subjects who might otherwise have to have LETHAL force used upon them. The TASER has also become one helluva good deterrent and threat management tool as well. I'd love for the myth of the TASER causing "extreme pain" to continue for the deterrent effect alone.

I STILL carry a TASER with me. My wife carries a TASER with her when she is off duty.

LEO hyperbole in full effect: TASER..."Time out for adults". But it is true...if the subject's ability to inflict injury to officers or innocent civilians can be removed by application of the TASER...everyone wins. The subject isn't dead, and the officer involved doesn't have to live with the consequences of the bad decision the SUBJECT made.

Still all in all....if the subject would just do what the nice officers tells him to do...NO force of ANY kind would be necessary, and none would be used.

Bren
08-06-2012, 08:43
Do departments have use of force policies that indicate that someone should be killed for "acting irrational"?


Yes, it's an acceptable use of force - what you wrote is an unacceptable use of truth.

They used non-deadly force (and, even if the Taser caused the death, ir would still be non-deadly force, legally). Many departments' policies say the taser should be used before hands, because the taser is less dangerous. That would be true even if the worst taser oppoenents were taken at their word.


How about the factthey were off-duty?


Makes absolutely no legal difference.

As I have said earlier, police have a hard job. I am just not sure taser use should be as wide spread as it is. It is proving to not be a "non-lethal" method of compliance but a "less-lethal" version of compliance enforcement.

"Proving" - not so much. The "Tasers kill" crowd have no more credibility than bigfoot "researchers" and alien abductees, so far.


I know the "reasonable officer" standard will be brought up. But come on, the "reasonable officer" should by now know that death is not all that un-common of a side effect of using a taser.

-Dana

Yes, death actually caused by a Taser, if it exists, is very, very uncommon.

Do you have any idea how many times Tasers have been used against people? Now how many of those millions have died?

Did you know police officers, corrections officers, soldiers, etc., are shot or drive stunned with Tasers every day, yet not one has ever died from it...ever?

Bren
08-06-2012, 09:12
See post #1. I think that is how the thread started.....

Ok.

5 seconds.

http://www.pressherald.com/archive/officer-loses-appeal-in-taser-excessive-force-case_2008-11-06.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/12/lawsuits_target_use_of_taser_e.html

http://christopherdiarmani.com/391/const-aubrey-zalaskis-excessive-force-charges/

http://takingthefifth-acriminallawblog.com/category/excessive-force/

"Streamwood, Illinois police officer, James Mandarino, while making a traffic stop, tasered, Ronald Bell, the driver and hit him with his baton 15 times. The Cook County District Attorney has charged Mandarino with felony aggravated battery and official misconduct.. "

"Furthermore, the Court ruled that based upon prior decisions of the court the fact that a Taser was used against a non-violent misdemeanant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment was clearly established prior to the incident. As a result the appellate court denied the appeal and sent the case back to the District Court for trial."

"When excessive force is used the Fourth Amendment is violated. The court “balance[s] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” The court found that the taser which uses an electrical impulse to override “the victim’s central nervous system, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless” to be a weapon of intermediate or medium force requiring “a strong government interest that compels the employment of such force.......Finally the court found that McPherson was not entitled to qualified immunity because a [b]reasonable officer facing a situation where it was only a minor crime alleged and knowing that a taser injury can cause severe damage should know that the use of the taser would violate the Fourth Amendment[/b'].”

Took...me more time to cut and paste than to find that courts have found that reasonable officers can't taze people for alleged minor crimes because they should know tazers can cause severe injury.


-Dana

Let's see - I looked at your first link, about Parker and the South Portland Police - seems "Parker had a small abrasion on his left knee and elbow from where he hit the ground." Parker v. City of South Portland, 2007 WL 1468658, 11 (D.Me.,2007). That's just terrible - I can imagine how upset you'd be if the case said the Taser injured him at all.:upeyes: They also found the department's Taser policy legal.

The next link, from Cleveland, only quotes the Plaintiff's version in a complaint, with nothing about the actual law. I've seen federal court complaints that claim Jimmy Carter and several other government officals was responsible for using mind control on citizens and kidnapping sex slaves from the middle east...so?

I was a little surprised by your quote from the "takingthefifth" web site, since it seems contrary to all of the law I've seen. Turns out you and the blog author forgot to mention that the Court found that, basically, using any force, without warning to arrest the woman, would have been excessive. "Although Tasers may not constitute deadly force, their use unquestionably “seizes” the victim in an abrupt and violent manner. Accordingly, the “nature and quality” of the intrusion into the interests of Ms. Cavanaugh protected by the Fourth Amendment was quite severe." Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 625 F.3d 661, 665 (10th Cir. 2010). So, basically, it was an unreasonable seizure, having nothing specifically to do with the Taser and her injury was caused by falling, not by being shocked. "the Court ruled that based upon prior decisions of the court the fact that a Taser was used against a non-violent misdemeanant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment," is not a correct interpretation of that opinion.

Kingarthurhk
08-08-2012, 17:28
And again, drunk drivers drive everyday and people don't get hirt by them.

I believe that tasers (and OC) are overused by police. Tell me,since I seem to be ignorant, how many TASERS are used everyday with ZERO injuries? How many are used everyday with MINOR injury? How many are used veryday with MAJOR injury?

In general if TASER are being used everyday to the extent, it seems to prove my point that police have a weapon that they think is non-lethal and OK to use with even a minor hint of "non-compliance".

Of course I don't think police going to wearing combat boots and black BDU pants have made the forces more professional either. It all goes together in my mind. Police, over the last decade or two have come to see themselves as para-military organizations with their weapons, dress, and actions. The tazer is just make use of force much easier for the officer.

-Dana

I guess you would prefer a bone breaking good Asp or side handled baton?

But, I suspect you would rather send them out with water pistols and large fuzy stuffed animals that make that cute squeaky noise when they bounce off things.:upeyes: