Cop assaults 11 year old child with tazer!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Abomination:

Avnger:
This is a fucking 11 year old child.

*Shrug* don't steal, don't run from the police.

A painful lesson, but a lesson nevertheless.

So if you as an adult see a 7 year old push a 5 year old down, should you go up and curb stomp the 7 year old? I mean its a lesson, right?

Worgen:

Abomination:

Avnger:
This is a fucking 11 year old child.

*Shrug* don't steal, don't run from the police.

A painful lesson, but a lesson nevertheless.

So if you as an adult see a 7 year old push a 5 year old down, should you go up and curb stomp the 7 year old? I mean its a lesson, right?

I saw a video a few weeks ago of some little shit 9 year old throwing a tantrum and punching some random dude a bunch. The dude told him to stop, 'cause it was annoying and whatnot. The kid didn't, kept screaming and hitting and the dude finally just punched the kid to the ground.

Not condoning the cops tasering a girl, but children are idiots and at a certain point consequences are all they understand. 10000% over the line with the cops, a stern talking to or a fake booking would have done the trick.

Worgen:

Abomination:

Avnger:
This is a fucking 11 year old child.

*Shrug* don't steal, don't run from the police.

A painful lesson, but a lesson nevertheless.

So if you as an adult see a 7 year old push a 5 year old down, should you go up and curb stomp the 7 year old? I mean its a lesson, right?

Oh yeah, because the cop in this scenario completely shattered the girl's neck, so it is entirely equivalent.

Abomination:

Worgen:

Abomination:
*Shrug* don't steal, don't run from the police.

A painful lesson, but a lesson nevertheless.

So if you as an adult see a 7 year old push a 5 year old down, should you go up and curb stomp the 7 year old? I mean its a lesson, right?

Oh yeah, because the cop in this scenario completely shattered the girl's neck, so it is entirely equivalent.

You support the tazering of children either way.

And yet again anti-authoritarians support police stepping way over the line because "it's legal". Weird.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Worgen:

So if you as an adult see a 7 year old push a 5 year old down, should you go up and curb stomp the 7 year old? I mean its a lesson, right?

Oh yeah, because the cop in this scenario completely shattered the girl's neck, so it is entirely equivalent.

You support the tazering of children either way.

I support the tazering of folk who run from the police.

I mean, the guy is 55 years old. That's not a feather in the cap. Ain't got the time to be chasing younglings across the yard.

Catnip1024:

OT: Do you peeps really think an 18st police officer tackling an 11 year old girl to the ground is less dangerous than a stun gun? Seriously, it's far more likely to do serious harm, particularly if she was moving away.

Tasers can kill people. Especially if it's shot at the chest, it can cause a cardiac arrest. A worst thing that can happen when tackling is a broken bone.

I feel as if there has been a fundamental fuck-up if we reach the point where a Police Officer, who I'm told must meet stringent standards for physical fitness and stamina so as to best serve and protect the public, is incapable of catching and restraining an 11 year old.

Like what the merry hell?

Incidentally, charges against the girl have been dropped. So even if this was supposed to be effective law enforcement, it failed.

Abomination:
I support the tazering of folk who run from the police.

The purpose of a taser is to deliver an electric charge large enough to disrupt a person's nervous system. If you tase a person who is running, they will fall down and be unable to break their fall. All it would take would be for that girl's head to smack against a curb, and you've got a potentially deadly head injury. Tasers have also been known to cause death and injury simply from the strength of the electric charge. They are also incredibly painful, and have been used as torture devices. The darts from the gun can also penetrate the skin, leaving puncture wounds.

A taser is a weapon. It's a non-lethal weapon, but it's still a weapon. Its purpose is to incapacitate someone who may be difficult to incapacitate by other means and who may pose a danger, not to save a police officer time or effort and not to serve as preemptive punishment of someone who has not been convicted or charged with any crime.

CheetoDust:
And yet again anti-authoritarians support police stepping way over the line because "it's legal". Weird.

I know right..

It's almost like they're actually deeply authoritarian, but have learned how to co-opt liberal language to make themselves sound less horrible than they really are.

Vendor-Lazarus:
So, nothing illegal was actually done?
The off-duty cop was within his rights to taze the thief?

Personally, I think tazing was a bit much. Couldn't he simply have grabbed the thief?
Or was the thief resisting so much that it made it impossible?
Then he should have stepped up and wrestled the thief down.
Though that would still probably have made headlines.
"Police brutality"..Seems the buzz word today.

Way to never use the words "person", "child", "girl" or any other humanising nouns. Dehumanisation 101 tactics right there. Hell you even repeated "the thief" over and over again despite the fact that switching to feminine pronouns would have been easier and made more sense. You even refer to the cop as "he" rather than "the cop". Why is that?

As for nothing illegal having been done then congrats you're a textbook authoritarian.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
Oh yeah, because the cop in this scenario completely shattered the girl's neck, so it is entirely equivalent.

You support the tazering of children either way.

I support the tazering of folk who run from the police.

I mean, the guy is 55 years old. That's not a feather in the cap. Ain't got the time to be chasing younglings across the yard.

Children. You support the tazering of children. You use the word folk to ignore that you by your own admission have condoned the tazering of an 11 year old child. If you really are ok with it, then you should have no issue admitting it. If you feel the need to mince words, then maybe you should reconsider your stance.

A 55 year old man is very much way stronger than any 11 year old child. If they are so incompetent to require tazering children to get by, then they are unfit for duty and should be let go or put into a position that doesn't require physical effort.

There should probably be a minimum estimated age rule regulating the use of tasers. A taser hitting an 11-year-old kid is a heck of a lot more dangerous than a taser hitting a healthy adult. You really shouldn't be using it on anyone who looks younger than 14.

I see some guys in this thread going full-force on the "it's okay to tase people if they're running away" position. Firstly: this is not an adult we're talking about, this is a child. Police are meant to use the minimum force necessary to effect an arrest in the circumstances. It does not require much force to effect an arrest on an 11-year-old. It certainly doesn't require a taser.

Secondly, what this normalises is the very disturbing trend of cops being a heck of a lot more willing to use a taser than they really ought to be. You hand a cop something that is effectively a magic wand that incapacitates people with blistering pain, then what you get is lazy cop syndrome. Lazy cop syndrome is where the cop sees an 11-year-old running away, thinks "eh, fuck it," and tases them instead of bothering to use their goddamn legs. If you can't chase people - a task that is literally part of your job description - then you shouldn't be on the police force.

I won't lie; cops using tasers without justification is a much better problem to have than cops using guns without justification. But I definitely think cops should be using these things more circumspectly. They do have a very small chance of killing a person. They're less-lethal, not non-lethal.

Lykosia:

Catnip1024:

OT: Do you peeps really think an 18st police officer tackling an 11 year old girl to the ground is less dangerous than a stun gun? Seriously, it's far more likely to do serious harm, particularly if she was moving away.

Tasers can kill people. Especially if it's shot at the chest, it can cause a cardiac arrest. A worst thing that can happen when tackling is a broken bone.

Well first, that mahoosive oversimplification neglects frequencies. A 1 in 10,000 chance of a cardiac arrest, for instance, is probably less harmful overall than a 1 in 10 chance of serious injury.

Second, the worst that can happen tackling somebody on a street is that they bang their head on the curb and get brain damage / die. It happens.

Catnip1024:

Lykosia:

Catnip1024:

OT: Do you peeps really think an 18st police officer tackling an 11 year old girl to the ground is less dangerous than a stun gun? Seriously, it's far more likely to do serious harm, particularly if she was moving away.

Tasers can kill people. Especially if it's shot at the chest, it can cause a cardiac arrest. A worst thing that can happen when tackling is a broken bone.

Well first, that mahoosive oversimplification neglects frequencies. A 1 in 10,000 chance of a cardiac arrest, for instance, is probably less harmful overall than a 1 in 10 chance of serious injury.

Second, the worst that can happen tackling somebody on a street is that they bang their head on the curb and get brain damage / die. It happens.

Novel suggestion. If you can't handle an eleven year old child without tasering or tackling them to the ground, you're an incompetent police officer and you need to turn in your badge.

Catnip1024:
Second, the worst that can happen tackling somebody on a street is that they bang their head on the curb and get brain damage / die. It happens.

Happens when tasering people as well. Hell, there was a thread in Off-Topic some years back about a police officer shooting a fleeing handcuffed suspect and permanently paralysing them. IIRC, the taser prongs penetrated their skull or spine, but it was a long time ago it could have been the impact with the street.

Thaluikhain:
Happens when tasering people as well. Hell, there was a thread in Off-Topic some years back about a police officer shooting a fleeing handcuffed suspect and permanently paralysing them. IIRC, the taser prongs penetrated their skull or spine, but it was a long time ago it could have been the impact with the street.

I'm not saying it doesn't - you are still falling, and shit still has a habit of happening. The speed involved is likely to be considerably less, though.

Both have their risks - that's why force should only be used at the appropriate time. Which this quite likely was not.

erttheking:
Novel suggestion. If you can't handle an eleven year old child without tasering or tackling them to the ground, you're an incompetent police officer and you need to turn in your badge.

Yes, because restraining is so much safer and there isn't a record of people dying through that at all.

Criminals have to be apprehended in some manner. This will always involve some form of risk to apprehender and apprehendee.

Catnip1024:
Second, the worst that can happen tackling somebody on a street is that they bang their head on the curb and get brain damage / die. It happens.

Again, a taser causes a person to lose muscle control. That's literally its intended function. What happens when a person who is walking or running suddenly loses the ability to control the muscles in their legs..

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:
Happens when tasering people as well. Hell, there was a thread in Off-Topic some years back about a police officer shooting a fleeing handcuffed suspect and permanently paralysing them. IIRC, the taser prongs penetrated their skull or spine, but it was a long time ago it could have been the impact with the street.

I'm not saying it doesn't - you are still falling, and shit still has a habit of happening. The speed involved is likely to be considerably less, though.

Both have their risks - that's why force should only be used at the appropriate time. Which this quite likely was not.

erttheking:
Novel suggestion. If you can't handle an eleven year old child without tasering or tackling them to the ground, you're an incompetent police officer and you need to turn in your badge.

Yes, because restraining is so much safer and there isn't a record of people dying through that at all.

Criminals have to be apprehended in some manner. This will always involve some form of risk to apprehender and apprehendee.

People who do a poor job of restraining people without tazers doesn't justify people who do a poor job of deciding who deserves to be tazed.

Catnip1024:
Yes, because restraining is so much safer and there isn't a record of people dying through that at all.

People are injured in the process of being restrained because when an adult fights back, the police officer needs to exert a much greater amount of their own strength, and with that greater exertion they have reduced control (that is, the window between minimum force and maximum force is much greater). That isn't the case with a child because it would take so little of an adult's strength to restrain them that there should be no risk of applying excessive force. It's basically an insistent hug.

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:
Happens when tasering people as well. Hell, there was a thread in Off-Topic some years back about a police officer shooting a fleeing handcuffed suspect and permanently paralysing them. IIRC, the taser prongs penetrated their skull or spine, but it was a long time ago it could have been the impact with the street.

I'm not saying it doesn't - you are still falling, and shit still has a habit of happening. The speed involved is likely to be considerably less, though.

Both have their risks - that's why force should only be used at the appropriate time. Which this quite likely was not.

erttheking:
Novel suggestion. If you can't handle an eleven year old child without tasering or tackling them to the ground, you're an incompetent police officer and you need to turn in your badge.

Yes, because restraining is so much safer and there isn't a record of people dying through that at all.

Criminals have to be apprehended in some manner. This will always involve some form of risk to apprehender and apprehendee.

Lot safer than a taser, and I think cops can restrain a child without hurting them seriously.

Or can they not because our police force is that fucking pathetic?

Lykosia:

Catnip1024:

OT: Do you peeps really think an 18st police officer tackling an 11 year old girl to the ground is less dangerous than a stun gun? Seriously, it's far more likely to do serious harm, particularly if she was moving away.

Tasers can kill people. Especially if it's shot at the chest, it can cause a cardiac arrest. A worst thing that can happen when tackling is a broken bone neck/spine.

Fixed that for you.

Catnip1024:

Lykosia:

Catnip1024:

OT: Do you peeps really think an 18st police officer tackling an 11 year old girl to the ground is less dangerous than a stun gun? Seriously, it's far more likely to do serious harm, particularly if she was moving away.

Tasers can kill people. Especially if it's shot at the chest, it can cause a cardiac arrest. A worst thing that can happen when tackling is a broken bone.

Well first, that mahoosive oversimplification neglects frequencies. A 1 in 10,000 chance of a cardiac arrest, for instance, is probably less harmful overall than a 1 in 10 chance of serious injury.

Second, the worst that can happen tackling somebody on a street is that they bang their head on the curb and get brain damage / die. It happens.

When one is shot with a taser he loses all control of his body. He can't protect himself while falling down. It's much more likely that he'll hit his head then than when someone physically wrestles him down, and in latter case the officer can also protect his target from serious injuries when falling if the officer is trained properly in take down techniques. There's no way you can make tasers more safe.

bastardofmelbourne:
There should probably be a minimum estimated age rule regulating the use of tasers. A taser hitting an 11-year-old kid is a heck of a lot more dangerous than a taser hitting a healthy adult. You really shouldn't be using it on anyone who looks younger than 14.

Why is it more dangerous for a child to be tazed? Serious question. The kid is more likely to have a healthy heart than an adult, and is less likely to break their neck from the fall due to being shorter and having less mass.

I see some guys in this thread going full-force on the "it's okay to tase people if they're running away" position. Firstly: this is not an adult we're talking about, this is a child. Police are meant to use the minimum force necessary to effect an arrest in the circumstances. It does not require much force to effect an arrest on an 11-year-old. It certainly doesn't require a taser.

I THINK police are allowed to use force +1. If you punch an officer, he can tase/baton you. If you pull a knife, they can shoot you.

Secondly, what this normalises is the very disturbing trend of cops being a heck of a lot more willing to use a taser than they really ought to be. You hand a cop something that is effectively a magic wand that incapacitates people with blistering pain, then what you get is lazy cop syndrome. Lazy cop syndrome is where the cop sees an 11-year-old running away, thinks "eh, fuck it," and tases them instead of bothering to use their goddamn legs. If you can't chase people - a task that is literally part of your job description - then you shouldn't be on the police force.

I won't lie; cops using tasers without justification is a much better problem to have than cops using guns without justification. But I definitely think cops should be using these things more circumspectly. They do have a very small chance of killing a person. They're less-lethal, not non-lethal.

I agree that there is a risk of laziness, but over the past few years people have been screaming why dont police officers use tasers more often, and that tasers are non-lethal. They are not, like you said, nor are they always effective (they work best against people who are calm and relaxed....which is kinda the opposite scenario that tasers are actually used in) but that is the public perception.

I think this is part of the US cultural problem where we always try to find the next "silver bullet" that will solve all problems with one solution rather than "the right tool for the right job" sort of approach

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
Novel suggestion. If you can't handle an eleven year old child without tasering or tackling them to the ground, you're an incompetent police officer and you need to turn in your badge.

Yes, because restraining is so much safer and there isn't a record of people dying through that at all.

Criminals have to be apprehended in some manner. This will always involve some form of risk to apprehender and apprehendee.

A reminder that this was an 11 year old girl. What risk do you think she posed to a trained police officer exactly?

Ryotknife:
Why is it more dangerous for a child to be tazed? Serious question. The kid is more likely to have a healthy heart than an adult, and is less likely to break their neck from the fall due to being shorter and having less mass.

A taser functions by sending electrical shocks through the parts of the target's nervous system that send electrical signals to the muscles, causing something called neuromuscular incapacitation. In terms of incapacitating people as intended, this means that it counter-intuitively works best when deployed against large areas of muscle mass, such as the thighs, biceps, or flank. This is because applying the shock to those areas causes the most muscular incapacitation with as little risk to the target as possible, because the electrical charge is (painfully) spread through the muscle mass, rather than hitting a sensitive area like the sternum, throat or spine where it could cause cardiac arrest, asphyxiation or paralysis.

By the same token, if you use the taser on a person with low muscle mass - a very thin person or a pre-pubescent child - the taser is both less effective at incapacitating the target (not that it'll matter) and much more hazardous to that target's health. Striking a hard area of bone rather than an area of flesh muscle prevents the taser from incapacitating the target as effectively and - if the bone is located over something vital, such as the heart - brings with it a much greater risk of causing cardiac arrest. Prepubescent children have lower overall mass than adults, but have all the same vital organs. This increases the risk that the taser will strike a particularly dangerous location, and therefore also the risk that the taser will cause more serious damage than intended.

As for the risk of secondary-effect injuries (falling and hitting your head) - everyone is susceptible to that, because it's a very broad spectrum of potential injuries that result from the situation you're in when you're incapacitated. The mass of the target might make a person fall harder, but so will the momentum of a person in mid-stride, as this child was. So too will a person who's standing near a window, or next to a stack of paint cans, or if they're near traffic or climbing a ladder - those are all situations when using a taser carries a risk of serious secondary-effect injury that is irrelevant to the mass of the target.

As a rule of thumb, the application of any kind of incapacitating agent or force needs to be regulated by the size of the target. Anaesthetics such as tranquilizer darts, for example, are not used in riot control because the dose needs to be carefully measured in proportion to the body mass of the target; if you hit a child with an adult-sized tranquilizer dart, you will just kill them. Similarly, the amount of physical force necessary to put a healthy adult male in a headlock would easily break a child's neck. This rule - judging the correct proportion of force to defend oneself without risking manslaughter - is a very basic self-defence lesson that all police (and security guards, bodyguards and bouncers) should really be aware of.

Ryotknife:
I THINK police are allowed to use force +1. If you punch an officer, he can tase/baton you. If you pull a knife, they can shoot you.

It does actually vary depending on which police jurisdiction you're in. One of the reasons American policing is so dysfunctional is because America has something like thirteen thousand separate police jurisdictions.

In any case, the scenario in this thread wouldn't meet the force+1 standard, because the kid didn't present any threat at all. They were just running away. A person running away, independent of other factors, does not pose a threat. It's hard for a cop to justify using physical force on an unarmed person fleeing on foot without some extenuating circumstances that aren't present here.

Ryotknife:
I agree that there is a risk of laziness, but over the past few years people have been screaming why dont police officers use tasers more often, and that tasers are non-lethal. They are not, like you said, nor are they always effective (they work best against people who are calm and relaxed....which is kinda the opposite scenario that tasers are actually used in) but that is the public perception.

I should clarify; tasers are great. As a means of incapacitating people, they're a heck of a lot safer than shooting them, choking them, or whacking them on the head with a nightstick. Every time I hear about a cop shooting an unarmed man in the back over a pack of gum, I think "man, why aren't these guys just using tasers?" Here in Victoria, we had a minor outcry about the potential risks of tasers about ten years ago, so cops just went back to using revolvers - which in my mind is something of an own goal for those concerned about police violence.

But it's also important to remember that just because a taser is an easy and relatively safe way of incapacitating someone doesn't mean they ought to be used casually. It's safer than whacking someone in the head, but if a cop finds himself in a situation that wouldn't merit a head-whack, it probably doesn't merit a taser.

Silentpony:
Well the cops seem to be getting better. 5 years ago they would have shot her 87 times in the back and then ruled it a suicide, and then bought the shooter a new car.

You forgot planting drugs and a gun on them.

Though is it necessarily getting better when they don't even need to bother now that when they tazer children and they get off with restricted duties for maybe a few weeks?

Kids often pinch stuff ... I've seen a kid absentmindedly grab some lollies and eat them becauset he parent said they could have a treat, but didn't specify they should wait until after paying for it.

I can't imagine a cop tazing their seven year old is justified.

It was thoughtlessness on behalf of the child, but kids are often thoughtless. Adults are often thoughtless. As a kid I used to store stuff I was carrying on the inside of my jacket like books, or my yoyo, or gameboy, or stuff like that when I didn't have a bag. Without thinking of how that might look to a security guard when I was in a store.

One security guard stopped me thinking I was thieving, and to be fair so would I have stopped someone like me because I had something lumpy in my jacket or had been seen putting stuff inside my jacket ... but then again a tazer is a bit much don't you think?

If someone ran up to me and pointed something vaguely gun shaped in my general direction and screaming at the top of their voice, I would have fucking run as well. By the sounds of it that kid wasn't running fast enough away from the scary man and his weapon designed for use on adults.

I know for a fact that I would teach my kids to run away or hide where possible from weapons being brandished by people. Find cover, hide or try to remove yourself from the situation if possible, and ring up the police. What can I say? I don't want my kids hanging around people brandishing weapons in their general vicinity ... horrible parenting, I know.

I'd also teach my kids to do all sorts of horrible stuff like not getting in the car with strangers, not playing with fireworks without supervision, and not to muck around with my motorbike.

Glad to know there are posters on this thread that would tell me I deserve possibly attending my child's funeral because apparently telling them to avoid armed, shouty men was incredibly bad advice. Would totally ameliorate the fact that you have a system that gives a slap on the wrist for endangering minors for no reason whatsoever.

Christ ...

Tazing children ... for no reason ... see, in my naive brain I would have assumed that would be indefensible. Kind of like carbombing a school ... indefensible. The internet continues to disappoint (and terrify) me.

None of you are cops, right? If you are can you tell me where your beat is?

Thaluikhain:

vallorn:
And these are the people some want to take all the guns away. It's kind of obvious that the police don't deserve to have the monopoly on force when they regularly abuse asset forfeiture to steal, shoot people and dogs seemingly whenever they want (that's not hyperbole, the police have a long record of shooting people's dogs even when the dog is chained up or locked in a room), etc.

If the police think the person they are going after is armed, they still shoot them. Just not with a tazer. Carrying a gun does not make you more safe from police officers.

Every single time police in the US shoot someone, they will claim it's because they were in fear of their lives. Usually they thought the person was going for a gun or about to attack them. Every single time. Often, of course, this is a lie, but panicking trigger cops kill people they think are armed.

not to mention, kill a cop in the US and the best case scenario is life in prison. Ever since republicans adopted the 'tough on crime' stance they have been steadily increasing sentences for that

CyanCat47:

Thaluikhain:

vallorn:
And these are the people some want to take all the guns away. It's kind of obvious that the police don't deserve to have the monopoly on force when they regularly abuse asset forfeiture to steal, shoot people and dogs seemingly whenever they want (that's not hyperbole, the police have a long record of shooting people's dogs even when the dog is chained up or locked in a room), etc.

If the police think the person they are going after is armed, they still shoot them. Just not with a tazer. Carrying a gun does not make you more safe from police officers.

Every single time police in the US shoot someone, they will claim it's because they were in fear of their lives. Usually they thought the person was going for a gun or about to attack them. Every single time. Often, of course, this is a lie, but panicking trigger cops kill people they think are armed.

not to mention, kill a cop in the US and the best case scenario is life in prison. Ever since republicans adopted the 'tough on crime' stance they have been steadily increasing sentences for that

Not to mention-not to mention, I don't want to arm 11 year olds to protect against clearly violent cops? When you can, I don't know ... actually charge cops with crimes when they break the law? Seems like a thing that you could do.

But then again perhaps I don't have the insight necessary to see the non-satirical genius of Cohen's Gunimals and Kinderguardians programs.

To be fair, the Uzicorn is incredibly cute.

image

Here's a novel idea: let the child run away. Don't use a taser. Don't chase her. Just fuck off.

Thaluikhain:

If the police think the person they are going after is armed, they still shoot them. Just not with a tazer. Carrying a gun does not make you more safe from police officers.

Every single time police in the US shoot someone, they will claim it's because they were in fear of their lives. Usually they thought the person was going for a gun or about to attack them. Every single time. Often, of course, this is a lie, but panicking trigger cops kill people they think are armed.

Eh, most police shootings are justified. Some criminals would rather not spend 10 years for illegal possession of a firearm and die trying.

If you legally carry, do not ever attempt to resist arrest. That is suicide. If you do not surrender immediately and they see a gun, they can just shoot you. It may go to court, but they'll win anyways, because the speed at which someone can draw does not leave much time for thought and contemplation. The police officer who is already pointing a gun at you will win 99% of the time to who shoots first, unless they hesitate for a split second. If they don't see a gun or it turns out you were unarmed, then it's a court case for them and national news. Not that it matters because you are dead.

CyanCat47:
not to mention, kill a cop in the US and the best case scenario is life in prison. Ever since republicans adopted the 'tough on crime' stance they have been steadily increasing sentences for that

You can use deadly force in defense from a police officer, but such a case would be ridiculously rare. Unless there is a specific stature that says, "You cannot use deadly force against a peace officer", if a police officer was trying to straight up maim, murder, or rape you then yes you can. If you are trying to use deadly force to resist arrest, and they are using lawful and necessary force (things like batons are legally deadly weapons, and getting beaten while on your back is considered deadly force, but for the police it's normal), then you have no chance of being found not guilty.

I don't like my name anymore:

Eh, most police shootings are justified. Some criminals would rather not spend 10 years for illegal possession of a firearm and die trying.

If you legally carry, do not ever attempt to resist arrest. That is suicide. If you do not surrender immediately and they see a gun, they can just shoot you. It may go to court, but they'll win anyways, because the speed at which someone can draw does not leave much time for thought and contemplation. The police officer who is already pointing a gun at you will win 99% of the time to who shoots first, unless they hesitate for a split second. If they don't see a gun or it turns out you were unarmed, then it's a court case for them and national news. Not that it matters because you are dead.

But that's already problematic. I'm not sure how U.S. police are trained, but in any Western military you're supposed to secure positive ID first. You'll notice in video footage of firefights, it's often one or two people in a squad that are shooting, and yelling instructions at the rest of the squad exactly what they're shooting at, where, and why... and if you can't confirm that you're supposed to ask.

You don't just shoot (at) people in general. Unless you can specifically identify a target as;

A: A member of a declared hostile entity (dangerous or not).

B: Whether they represent a clear danger.

In video footage of police officers, they already have their rifles or pistols levelled at someone, fingers on triggers, and yet no weapon in sight.

There's zero margin for error between deciding to take a shot or recognizing that maybe ... well they're just slow, or deaf, or don't speak English, or they're injured/stressed/distraught/otherwise not with it, or any one of a million reasons why they are displaying erratic behaviour.

You're absolutely right that someone can't actually beat a person with a draw when they've already got a gun in their hands. Which is all the more reason why you don't have three police officers each with fingers on triggers when the target has no visble weapon and there is zero confirmation they are even hostile, or even the appropriate target to apprehend.

In one video a guy was drunk, got shot because his pants were falling down.

Three police officers each opointing their weapons at a solitary individual otherwise co-operating with police to the best of their apparent cognizance, not one police made moves to arrest him, or ascertain the actual situation.

None of those concerns seemed to arise, because the guy was dead 56 seconds later because he was drunk and pants were falling down.

No police offcers disciplined, all of it caught on camera, no internal investigation of misconduct...

In one particularly grievous video the police officer ran this terrified 20 something year old through a myriad of bizarre fucking commands when at four times he could have apprehended the suspect and ended a quite dangerous situation with negligible risk to himself.

The only answer I can come up with why he didn't is U.S. cops are badly trained, or the guy was getting off on it.

And apparently there was no reason to even apprehend him to begin with. He was just in the general vicinity.

No police training of making an arrest I have ever seen in Australia is that demeaning, that purposefully obtuse, and that intentionally dangerous to the suspect. And we have our fair share of problem cops, but we don't have them on a near daily basis commiting tazer and firearm violations against unarmed suspects.

And no, this is not just a gun proliferation thing. Because even when Australia was gun nut central we still didn't have these levels of accidental shootings beyond raids that had gone badly.

Being a cop is not that dangerous. Being a grain farmer (or farmhand) or a forward observer are still the two most dangerous jobs in existence (and the latter only when deployed, though hella fucking dangerous when they are)... And both those jobs don't often pay as well as being a cop does. A forward observer gets about 30 grand a year in the U.S. Army.

It's downright shameful for a country that treats such a job with such a high casualty rate so poorly but that's neither here nor there.

It's a job for adrenaline junkies.

A cop doesn't even rank in the top 20. I think nurses have a more dangerous job than cops, and that's partly because they're often the first people who meet methheads stumbling into a hospital.

Also, apparently lawyers... criminal public defence lawyers and prosecutors are apparently a really dangerous job to go into. Which makes sense, because you're often failing to get your client a decent sentence due to time constraints and overwork, and on the flipside you're also the person that ruthlessly sends them to prison.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

thanks for that, must have taken awhile to type that.

image

bastardofmelbourne:

Ryotknife:
Why is it more dangerous for a child to be tazed? Serious question. The kid is more likely to have a healthy heart than an adult, and is less likely to break their neck from the fall due to being shorter and having less mass.

A taser functions by sending electrical shocks through the parts of the target's nervous system that send electrical signals to the muscles, causing something called neuromuscular incapacitation. In terms of incapacitating people as intended, this means that it counter-intuitively works best when deployed against large areas of muscle mass, such as the thighs, biceps, or flank. This is because applying the shock to those areas causes the most muscular incapacitation with as little risk to the target as possible, because the electrical charge is (painfully) spread through the muscle mass, rather than hitting a sensitive area like the sternum, throat or spine where it could cause cardiac arrest, asphyxiation or paralysis.

By the same token, if you use the taser on a person with low muscle mass - a very thin person or a pre-pubescent child - the taser is both less effective at incapacitating the target (not that it'll matter) and much more hazardous to that target's health. Striking a hard area of bone rather than an area of flesh muscle prevents the taser from incapacitating the target as effectively and - if the bone is located over something vital, such as the heart - brings with it a much greater risk of causing cardiac arrest. Prepubescent children have lower overall mass than adults, but have all the same vital organs. This increases the risk that the taser will strike a particularly dangerous location, and therefore also the risk that the taser will cause more serious damage than intended.

As for the risk of secondary-effect injuries (falling and hitting your head) - everyone is susceptible to that, because it's a very broad spectrum of potential injuries that result from the situation you're in when you're incapacitated. The mass of the target might make a person fall harder, but so will the momentum of a person in mid-stride, as this child was. So too will a person who's standing near a window, or next to a stack of paint cans, or if they're near traffic or climbing a ladder - those are all situations when using a taser carries a risk of serious secondary-effect injury that is irrelevant to the mass of the target.

As a rule of thumb, the application of any kind of incapacitating agent or force needs to be regulated by the size of the target. Anaesthetics such as tranquilizer darts, for example, are not used in riot control because the dose needs to be carefully measured in proportion to the body mass of the target; if you hit a child with an adult-sized tranquilizer dart, you will just kill them. Similarly, the amount of physical force necessary to put a healthy adult male in a headlock would easily break a child's neck. This rule - judging the correct proportion of force to defend oneself without risking manslaughter - is a very basic self-defence lesson that all police (and security guards, bodyguards and bouncers) should really be aware of.

Sounds like we need to make child-safe tasers for cops, so that they can tase children with more reckless abandon. Hell, give child tasers to parents too. Next time little Timmy is throwing a tamper tantrum in the ice cream section *zap*.

Dirty Hipsters:

Sounds like we need to make child-safe tasers for cops, so that they can tase children with more reckless abandon. Hell, give child tasers to parents too. Next time little Timmy is throwing a tamper tantrum in the ice cream section *zap*.

Or, you know ... not taser children. The rest of the world has prepubescent thieves and we seem to be doing okay of not potentially murdering them.

Do you really want to create a law enforcement weapons line designed specifically for adults to torture children with? I feel like that's taking one giant moral step back for humanity. I feel like all these sorts of moral problems could be solved by people asking; "Well, we know we can ... but does that mean we should? ..."

Of which if you actually have to ask yourself that question, the answer is more than likely 'no'.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Dirty Hipsters:

Sounds like we need to make child-safe tasers for cops, so that they can tase children with more reckless abandon. Hell, give child tasers to parents too. Next time little Timmy is throwing a tamper tantrum in the ice cream section *zap*.

Or, you know ... not taser children. The rest of the world has prepubescent thieves and we seem to be doing okay of not potentially murdering them.

Do you really want to create a law enforcement weapons line designed specifically for adults to torture children with? I feel like that's taking one giant moral step back for humanity. I feel like all these sorts of moral problems could be solved by people asking; "Well, we know we can ... but does that mean we should? ..."

Of which if you actually have to ask yourself that question, the answer is more than likely 'no'.

I was clearly being facetious, but if you want to have an actual discussion on the subject of child safe tasers, here's a funny (not really) story:

When I was in college I toured a juvenile detention center for one of my classes. There were children there aged 12 to 18. The person giving us the tour was the head of the child counselors (I can't remember what the exact job title was), and she was in charge of overseeing the children's mental health an development. The main thing that I remember about her was how excited she was about this new pepper spray that they had just received.

Instead of normal pepper spray it sprayed a sticky gel (sort of like silly string). The point was that it was easier to use indoors, since it would stick to the face of the person you're spraying it at, unlike an aerosol spray, which would stay in the air and be a huge inconvenience in an enclosed space (you know, like what prisons are).

So the person in charge of child mental health was super excited about the prospect of pepper spraying children in the face (super fucked up right?).

The point of the story is that law enforcement weapons are ALREADY used on children, and fairly regularly in some circumstances (like when they're in child prison). If we know that these things are going to be used on children, and in some cases their use would even be appropriate (some of the kids in those juvenile facilities are gang-bangers and will fuck you up regardless of being children), wouldn't it be better if there were specific child-safe versions of them to reduce the risk?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here