Cop Tasers Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Liquidacid23:

as so I take it you are in the law enforcement field in the same department as he is and have those protocols at hand? I mean if not then you are just making it up and would look silly

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review of the incident," FHP spokesperson Sgt. Steve Gaskins said. "Their investigation found that the trooper's actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

apparently the department says they ARE withing protocol and legal

silly would be not noticing that they are quoted right in the article:

Hayslett said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:

"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."

...

An Office of Inspector General Investigation Unit report states: "Although the FHP policy on Electronic Control Devices states that a member should not use the device on a handcuffed prisoner, it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy."

So, the official policy is to NOT do what he did, but they leave a "case-by-case" escape clause which is why he was cleared by an internal investigation.

that doesn't mean he acted within protocol, simply that the review board didn't think he acted illegally.

GrandmaFunk:

Liquidacid23:

as so I take it you are in the law enforcement field in the same department as he is and have those protocols at hand? I mean if not then you are just making it up and would look silly

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review of the incident," FHP spokesperson Sgt. Steve Gaskins said. "Their investigation found that the trooper's actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

apparently the department says they ARE withing protocol and legal

silly would be not noticing that they are quoted right in the article:

Hayslett said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:

"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."

...

An Office of Inspector General Investigation Unit report states: "Although the FHP policy on Electronic Control Devices states that a member should not use the device on a handcuffed prisoner, it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy."

So, the official policy is to NOT do what he did, but they leave a "case-by-case" escape clause which is why he was cleared by an internal investigation.

that doesn't mean he acted within protocol, simply that the review board didn't think he acted illegally.

uhh she had slipped out of the cuffs before and the officers statement about all the other factors he considered before using the tazer so fleeing wasn't the SOLE reason he used it and the whole bit about "it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy"

maybe you should brush up on your legalese cause by those "protocols" and their judgment he was acting correctly... you don't have to agree but to claim he was acting against the established protocol after seeing that is just stupid because that last "clause" IS part of the protocol...

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
As for the "fat slob" comments, that's just ignorant.

Observing the fact that he's chosen to be obese is ignorant? How? It's an observation. He's either fat, or not. Considering he's clearly very fat in the video in the news also reports the same, I'd say I'm right here.

You know when you only include half of the quote your reply is pretty silly and meaningless. Go back and read what I said again, and then try replying to the actual point. (Oh, and "fat slob" on its own is ALWAYS ignorant. Yes, he's clearly morbidly obese, but the slob thing is just immature name calling)

Blablahb:

Hero in a half shell:
That was nothing like the situation in the video.

It's exactly the same. It's violence against someone who is not a threat, out of lazyness.

No, in your analogy the person had done absolutely nothing wrong, and got their head deliberately bashed in by abusive mall security. In the actual event the person already guilty of several crimes was in the process of commiting another one: resisting arrest, and therefore it was perfectly within the cops power to stop her using reasonable force, resonable force being the non-lethal weapons he had been given to apprehend offenders.

Hero in a half shell:
The police officer was unfit to catch her

Of which the consequence should've been that the suspect was able to run away. The fault of the police for allowing people to work who are uncapable of working.

Yes, and in cases that the police officer cannot physically catch an offender what do they do? Just give up. Does the law say that if you can outrun a policeman in a fair race that you are cleared of all charges? No, of course not. He has non-lethal devices for instances such as this, to stop an offender that cannot be aprehended by good old-fashioned running.

That the policeman chooses to be obese and the police force tolerates disfunctional employees is a poor excuse for the use of deadly violence against peacefull people.

I agree that his physical state is a disgrace, and this guy is unfit for purpose, but the girl was not "peacefull" nor was the violence "deadly". This was a clear offender trying to evade a police officer who used non-lethal means to aprehend her, and unfortunately was screwed over by the wheel of fortune, because she fell down the wrong way and hit her head hard enough to cause brain damage.

You treat it like someone running away is a crime on par with genocide at least, but it's little more than how the game is played.

Running away is not "a crime on par with genocide" nor did I ever alude to that, but it is a crime, and as such the police have the authority to aprehend someone running away, and to use their non-lethal weapons in doing so, and it isn't some sort of game with 'honor rules' or somesuch nonsense,

Criminals break the law and attempt to evade capture, policemen try to enforce the law and arrest criminals with minimal force.

You said it, not me: "policemen try to enforce the law and arrest criminals with minimal force." using a tazer is a non-lethal method to stop someone breaking the law. Lethal force was never intended. if it had been then he would have used his real gun.

Killing someone because one is too lazy to run two steps is more like maximal force.

Again, there was no intention of killing her. His only intent was aprehending her with minimal harm to both him and her. In that respect using the tazer was in some ways justified, although the specifics of where he used it could have led to less chance of her injury (over softer ground.)

As far as I was aware, tasers were supposed to be a "non-lethal" alternative to a firearm.

Clearly this was complete bullshit, merely serving as backdoor for commonplace use.

The worst part is a large proportion of the public see no problem with it, one wonders when tasers are being used indiscriminately on them for daring to disagree with an unjust law or political issue if their positions would be reconsidered. Just think, a mere 60 years ago a "civilised" nation committed one of the worst atrocities in history - how much worse would it be if it happened tomorrow with these policing methods already established? It's very possible, youngsters have not heeded warnings from the past (look no further than this off-topic forum) except this time around instead of Jews and "undesirables" it will be Muslims and "undesirables".

Video makes me sick to my stomach, as it should any rational person.

Hero in a half shell:
resonable force being the non-lethal weapons he had been given to apprehend offenders.

Shit of the bull.

There is a reason why even the US Justice Department has begun calling tasers and the like "less-lethal weapons". [1]

The officer clearly did not follow protocol and thanks to the insular nature of policing, got out of jail free on a technicality.

Tasers are generally non-lethal, but much more safe than shooting them with their real gun. I'm not sure the police officer should be at fault, but he chose the non-lethal way, which may have been one of the better options.

I wish tasers caused no long-lasting damage, but shit happens sometimes that you have zero control over.

Hero in a half shell:
No, in your analogy the person had done absolutely nothing wrong

They were talking back to me. How dare they upset the authoritarian order where the one in uniform is always right.

Much like running away, talking is clearly a good grounds for beating someone up mercilessly, don't you agree? Actually, talking to someone and disagreeing with them is obviously more agressive than running away, so it's an even better reason.

Hero in a half shell:
In the actual event the person already guilty of several crimes

I wasn't aware that in the US trials had been abolished for charges other than terrorism and copyright infringement as well. Since when has that been?

Hero in a half shell:
Yes, and in cases that the police officer cannot physically catch an offender what do they do? Just give up.

Exactly. Just about everybody gets caught later on anyway, or report themselves because living a fugitive sucks.

Hero in a half shell:
I agree that his physical state is a disgrace, and this guy is unfit for purpose, but the girl was not "peacefull" nor was the violence "deadly".

She had cuffs on and was running *away*. How can that possibly be violent? And she's dead. How could the violence not be deadly? Besides, like others have already argued, even US policeman are trained to understand what tasing someone does. That policeman made a concious decision to expose someone to grave harm, resulting in death, rather than trying to run after her.

And for that decision, he would've been punished in any justice system.

Hero in a half shell:
You said it, not me: "policemen try to enforce the law and arrest criminals with minimal force." using a tazer is a non-lethal method to stop someone breaking the law.

Which is tied to rules. Rules like "Don't kill people if you can just grab a hold of them". Although obviously, that rule didn't make it into the US police handbook. Much like was shown in the summary executions of Kenneth Harding and Michael Nida, and many other cases of weapon-crazed US cops shooting first and checking if it was allowed later.

And they wonder why in the US, more policemen are killed in a year than in most countries in a century. Well, because some offender quite rightly think "It's you or me, and I got these legal guns here anyway, so..."

Hero in a half shell:
Again, there was no intention of killing her.

Which is why he should be sacked from the police, and convicted for manslaughter, but not murder.

Hero in a half shell:
His only intent was aprehending her with minimal harm to both him and her.

That's not true. He used something close to maximal violence to aprehend her. The only more violent option would've been to draw his firearm and perform an extrajudicial execution on the spot.

Simple answer... don't break the law in the first place!! It doesn't go down well!

I don't know about the US but British police are not trained to chase criminals. They will only run if they know they actually have a good chance to catch, otherwise they will just take all the details and follow it up using the rest of the patrolling bobby!

The reason for this is so they can still think strait and make good decisions, without being impaired by fatigue. Then again, we don't arm our police with weapons like that, so I can't really comment on whether tasers are neccesary. Personally I am in the military, and having tools to incapacitate criminals seems perfectly legit to me, but I also know that my views on the tratment of criminals and detained humans is a lot less liberal than other people, so as someone who neither breaks the law, or has to detain, I will keep my views to myself!

Yeah, first impression: taser was unnecessary. Hell if he hadn't pulled it out he probably would've caught her before they even got on camera.

Now I'm gonna go look for sources other than some guy's blog.

In all honesty, I think tasers are used way too often by police officers.

Because these weapons are classified as non-lethal (which isn't even 100% true), the police seem to use them out of shear convenience rather then necessity.

Sure the girl was running away, i.e. resisting arrest, but they could've chased after her in the police cruiser. And seeing as she was running across the road, this cop should've realized that the minute he tased her, this girl would smack her skull against the asphalt.

I'm not saying she's a totally innocent victim, but it's the officer's responsibility to not turn her into a vegetable simply because she was running away. This could've easily been avoided had they simply chased after her on foot or by car.

this should be her new theme song... she can listen to it while just hanging out and vegetating :P

Okay this makes it even worse for the cop: http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2012/february/383311/Exclusive:-Trooper-defends-tasing-new-video-shows-suspect-out-of-handcuffs

In the new video, Maudsley is seen in the back of Cole's cruiser after being arrested, managing to get her right hand free from handcuffs and eventually playing with her hair. At one point, it appears she tries to open the cruiser's door, but can't.

As Cole pulls into the Pinellas Park FHP Substation, Maudsley works to slip the handcuff back on, but it's too late.

"I took this off," Maudsley tells Cole.

"Put it back on," he told her.

Cole puts the handcuff back on Muadsley's wrist and escorts her into the substation.

Forty minutes later, video shows Maudsley running from the substation before she is tased with her hands cuffed in front of her and slams down to the parking lot ground.

This didn't happen at the scene of a crime, it happened at a police station! Y'know, the kind of place where there are other cops around to help out.

"I know that I can't just jump on her. I'm three times her weight. If we go down, one, or both of us, is going to get hurt. The taser is the intermediate weapon of choice," he says.

Well, there is that, but....

The investigator asks Cole if he considered Maudsley falling and injuring herself if he tased her.

"No."

Idiot.

Eh, moral of the story kids: Don't run from the cops -AFTER- they cuff you.

Silliness aside, Should he have tazed her? It's in his guidelines -not- to tazer a suspect who is fleeing or restrained, and she was, remarkably both. The book says no he shouldn't have.

But, and I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for this... even my avatar is looking at me judgementally. But I honestly cannot feel sympathy for her, she is a drug addict and a criminal who was attempting to flee from police, I would say she was brain-dead a long time before her head touched pavement.

Liquidacid23:
this should be her new theme song... she can listen to it while just hanging out and vegetating :P

Also, this made me giggle. Does that make me an awful person?

Valanthe:

Liquidacid23:
this should be her new theme song... she can listen to it while just hanging out and vegetating :P

Also, this made me giggle. Does that make me an awful person?

no more than any of us are

I love how people in this thread are somehow able to make an accurate assessment of all details based on a two second segment (being generous here) of the girl running and the cop pulling the taser behind her. Whether she was in grabbing distance or not is not for you to decide. Sure, it is possible that the policeman could have caught her if not the taser, but maybe not - what if she suddenly sped up? These two weren't on a racing track but in a building, which, you should remember, have corridors and turns. Also, you should remember that when running, you tend to slow down in order to make a turn. It's perfectly plausible that the girl would have gotten away, if the cop tried to just sprint after her.

Also, he clearly didn't mean to harm her (well more than tasing, that is), when reading some comments I might assume that the guys was either a precog or clearly thought "Now, I'll paralyse her and she'll fall down, hopefully hitting her head. If I'm lucky, I might kill her." He might have not realised that would happen but he did not intend it to happen.

I'm not defending the guy, whether tasing was needed or not I cannot say but saying "he could have totally caught her" or implying that he meant to put her in hospital is just wrong.

No one is to blame for that. Shit just happends.

DoPo:
These two weren't on a racing track but in a building

I don't think anyone who cannot tell the difference between being inside a building and a road with a nice blue sky overhead should be commenting at all, let alone inferring superiority over others.

GoaThief:

DoPo:
These two weren't on a racing track but in a building

I don't think anyone who cannot tell the difference between being inside a building and a road with a nice blue sky overhead should be commenting at all, let alone inferring superiority over others.

OK, let me rephrase that, they were inside the building seconds before going outside. Is that better? Let me describe it - the two are in a building, the girl starts to run, the cop follows, they go out and cop tases her.

Cole puts the handcuff back on Muadsley's wrist and escorts her into the substation.

Forty minutes later, video shows Maudsley running from the substation before she is tased with her hands cuffed in front of her and slams down to the parking lot ground.

OK, I don't know whether my assumption is correct but isn't the parking lot, like, really close to the entrance?

Has anyone else noticed that cops have been getting off easy a lot lately even when they ruin peoples lives? I've seen 3 cases in the last few months where a cop has ruined someones life by being a fatass/tard/asshole and gets off with NO PUNISHMENTS.

On a serious note, I hope this guy dies alone honestly.

DoPo:
/snip

Now who's making (by your own admission) an impossibly accurate assessment based on a two-second segment?

Hypocritical, much?

Adultism:
Has anyone else noticed that cops have been getting off easy a lot lately even when they ruin peoples lives?

I don't know which is more worrying, the above or the complete disregard of humanity and compassion expressed by many here.

DoPo:
I love how people in this thread are somehow able to make an accurate assessment of all details based on a two second segment (being generous here) of the girl running and the cop pulling the taser behind her. Whether she was in grabbing distance or not is not for you to decide. Sure, it is possible that the policeman could have caught her if not the taser, but maybe not - what if she suddenly sped up? These two weren't on a racing track but in a building, which, you should remember, have corridors and turns. Also, you should remember that when running, you tend to slow down in order to make a turn. It's perfectly plausible that the girl would have gotten away, if the cop tried to just sprint after her.

Also, he clearly didn't mean to harm her (well more than tasing, that is), when reading some comments I might assume that the guys was either a precog or clearly thought "Now, I'll paralyse her and she'll fall down, hopefully hitting her head. If I'm lucky, I might kill her." He might have not realised that would happen but he did not intend it to happen.

I'm not defending the guy, whether tasing was needed or not I cannot say but saying "he could have totally caught her" or implying that he meant to put her in hospital is just wrong.

She was HANDCUFFED. Does that give him the right to pull out his taser like a fatass instead of chasing her down

THERE WERE OTHER COPS AROUND WHO COULD HAVE CAUGHT HER.

Her life is ruined because some fatass decided that he didn't want to lose weight and wanted to TAZE A HANDCUFFED WOMEN.

GoaThief:

DoPo:
/snip

Now who's making (by your own admission) an impossibly accurate assessment based on a two-second segment?

Hypocritical, much?

Erm, did you see that quote? Let me repeat: she ran from the substation. They were both inside before it happened. The news article has been linked to multiple times in this thread. It's this one.

Also, you can actually see the building in the video. Yes, you can't actually see them exit, but it's hard to imagine them doing something else than running outside from the building.

EDIT:

Adultism:
She was HANDCUFFED. Does that give him the right to pull out his taser like a fatass instead of chasing her down

THERE WERE OTHER COPS AROUND WHO COULD HAVE CAUGHT HER.

Her life is ruined because some fatass decided that he didn't want to lose weight and wanted to TAZE A HANDCUFFED WOMEN.

Did you READ my post? I didn't say he was RIGHT or not. I said that people shouldn't make assumptions based on TWO SECONDS OF THE VIDEO.

Another one of these threads ey? Theres never one about the cops doing a good job -_-

An unfortunate accident, how was he supposed to know that she was gonna be knocked out like this? The drugs probably had scrambled her brains enough already...

She was charged already with 2 hit and runs, i'd hardly call that a "harmless" person.

If the chase had gone on and she ran across the road, causing an accident or something, or hurt somebody these people would be "why didnt the cop just tase her to stop the chase" Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

DoPo:
/snip

Oh come on, your argument was the he needed to tase her because she might have been faster at turning than he was (especially in the context of corridors).

They were outside when he tased her.

Not only that, you are doing the exact same thing you chastised others for. This makes you a hypocrite.

If tasers hadn't been greenlit for police use, would you agree that the officer was entitled to shoot her with his firearm?

As mentioned, tasers are less-lethal weapons to be used instead of a firearm[footnote]I notice that two posters before me have mentioned that it was better he tasered her rather than shot her, which, while technically correct, is a bit worrying[/foonote].

You aren't supposed to use them except as a safer alternative to a bullet.

Yes, police will repeatedly tase people to stop them doing whatever it is they are doing, regardless of whether a bullet would be justified in that situation, but they are not supposed to. Even if you are calling them "non-lethal weapons", they are still weapons and should be treated accordingly.

well on the bright side we know no one will ever have to worry about her committing a hit and run again less her mom gets drunk while pushing the wheelchair... :P

I really, really think the cop could have easily caught her if he wasn't rigger happy and reached for his weapon against an unarmed girl.

He was clearly able to catch her despite his fatass. Now he just ended her life.

GoaThief:

DoPo:
/snip

Oh come on, your argument was the he needed to tase her because she might have been faster at turning than he was (especially in the context of corridors).

They were outside when he tased her.

Not only that, you are doing the exact same thing you chastised others for. This makes you a hypocrite.

*facepalm*

Seriously people, what are you reading? I didn't say he needed to. I explicitly pointed out

DoPo:
I'm not defending the guy, whether tasing was needed or not I cannot say but saying "he could have totally caught her" or implying that he meant to put her in hospital is just wrong.

What I was saying, which is also clarified in that last paragraph is that it's wrong to make the assumption that he could have reached her or that he intended to harm her.

I probably had to stress a lot more on it but I was giving a counter possibility which people saying "he could have totally grabbed and restrained her" apparently didn't think about. No, I'm not saying what actually happened by using my awesome scrying-by-video powers, I was suggesting that other's scrying-by-video powers might be weak because they didn't see a pretty obvious other possibility and limited themselves to one.

And what the hell was that part?

GoaThief:
she might have been faster at turning than he was

No, no, no - when you are about to turn a corner, you slow down (generally). And then when you make the turn, you speed up. I didn't say that she turned corners faster than him. Assuming they were in a building and assuming she just made a turn (reasonable assumptions, since they were in a building), since she is in front of him, she will speed up faster than the cop. Speaking from experience, when chasing somebody, you can get really close to them while they are turning but if you don't catch them, they will outrun you, while you're building up speed again.

But we can drop the corner example, because it was just an example, and still, it is perfectly reasonable that the cop might have not caught and grabbed the girl. Saying he totally could is simply not true.

DoPo:
But we can drop the corner example

I do love your vain attempts to wriggle yourself free, but yes we can. Addressing the previously posed firearm question would be nice, as that is the heart of the matter.

Is a police officer authorised to use lethal force in this specific situation?

GoaThief:

DoPo:
But we can drop the corner example

I do love your vain attempts to wriggle yourself free, but yes we can.

I do love how you basically made up words I said and don't mentioned it. I also agree to drop it.

GoaThief:
Addressing the previously posed firearm question would be nice, as that is the heart of the matter.

Is a police officer authorised to use lethal force in this specific situation?

Now this I do not really know. I even tried to look for relevant procedures about (Florida) police and tasers and I only found this (it's a PDF). It doesn't really apply to that particular cop. However, it does seriously implies that tasers are not "mostly harmless". Now, assuming proper procedures are followed, the taser is not that dangerous. On the other hand, as the document says, using of tasers is not regulated and this itself makes them far more deadly. In fact, the first of the recommendations is "The Use of Tasers by Police Officers should be limited to circumstances under which the use of lethal force would also be permitted." which sounds like a really, really good idea.

In fact, judging from that document there, the cop shouldn't have done it. Some posters say that the girl was on drugs (I couldn't find a confirmation) and if true, then that further meant that the cop shouldn't have tased her.

Strictly speaking about the law, maybe he was, authorised, or rather he wasn't prohibited to (there is a subtle difference). However, obviously, shooting electricity through somebody's body, thus causing pain and paralysis, is not "minimum force". It may be non-lethal but it's far from desirable and certainly it should not be common.

The girl is at fault too, but it's not totally her fault.

So, LEO goes for less-lethal option, gets pilloried for it?

Even if you take a riot cop in his/her prime, a one on one subjugation doesn't end in hugs and puppies. Tasers have risks, but far less than a 9mm hole in your skull, I'd call it a reasonable call on a fleeing suspect.

Not that I would have liked her to faceplannt and all, but that's always a risk.

Aris Khandr:
It takes a special kind of stupid to run from the police AFTER you're already handcuffed.

What about the guy that drove the car away, crashed it into a pond and turned himself in two days later while handcuffed? (and considering that, maybe better ways of detaining criminals should be considered.)
not to mention she was arrested for hit-and-run's. obviously she is a fan of 'or flight', in the 'fight or flight' situations.

also,

defense attorney Kevin Haylsett, who put FHP on notice for a lawsuit said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:

"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."

"When you shoot someone in the back, and they're running away, all that force - as you saw when Danielle's head hit the concrete - that's why they don't allow you to do that, because you can have horrible tragedies like this,"

The police force is specifically told "don't just reach for the taser so you don't mentally disable people." (that's also why, when people do videos to demonstrate tasers, they have two massive guys pinning them upright).
No matter how you look at it, he was in the wrong. Don't say "but the police said he was right because of x, y and z." because of course they'd say that, otherwise they're making a pretty shitty defence for court.

i agree that the taser was excessive. he should have just run after her and grabbed her arm. take his gun away and put the pudgy bastard behind a desk where be belongs.

that said, i don't feel bad for her. she was resisting arrest. i guarantee you that she'll never do it again. ZING! dark humor!

Eh, I feel sorry for the girls' family and friends, but definitely not for her, not by a long shot. Why? It is impossible for me to respect and sympathise with someone so amazingly moronic as her. She brought it on herself as well, so it is difficult to feel sorry for her based on that alone.

On the side of the officer, a taser may have been a bit much. He may have been able to tackle her down or something, but ultimately, it isn't my place to say - he knows his job a lot better than I do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked