Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Aug 13, 2013.
No, its been reported on though by witnesses....and one of the police officers
Point being, anybody trying to turn this into an intentional homicide is speaking from a place of total ignorance.
I have no doubt the intention wasnt to kill. But I do imagine these tasers are typically calibrated to take down rather large men, and are probably a bit more dangerous to use on someone 5-6 and 150 pounds, which is a rather smallish adult. I would assume they are adjustable as far as the power is concerned, but maybe that's not something people think about in the heat of the moment. Seems like if you are going to use tasers in a one-size fits all maner, you might have things like this happen.
I'm assuming, then, you would have preferred the police officers physically (tackle to the ground, etc.) apprehend him instead?
And if that had led to injuries that had led to death, we wouldn't be having this conversation, right?
Move the target?
"You are being incredibly obtuse and dismissive of the circumstances that this guy put himself in."
That's exactly the point...situations where drawing a gun wouldn't be reasonable have had Tazers involved and there are reasonable questions if Tazers are appropriate either.
What has organizations like Amnesty International calling for a moratorium on police use of Tasers is the scarcity of training for officers nationwide and lack of uniform protocol about how and when to use them.
The Miami Beach Police Department protocol for use of the M-26 Taser, for example, requires officers to use it only “in an arrest situation when a subject fails to comply with verbal commands and [emphasis theirs] physically resists efforts to effect an arrest, or to debilitate a subject to prevent serious injury to others.” Taser use isn’t warranted for “passive physical resistance or a single act of verbal non-compliance.”
The policy prohibits using a Taser if flammable gases or liquids are nearby, or if it could trigger a fall from an elevated location or into deep water. Also banned are Taser use on a pregnant woman, young children, or the elderly, “unless deadly force is justified.” The policy says nothing about avoiding the chest.
That element is critical, said Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist at Indiana University whose research has linked Taser deaths to cardiac arrest.
“The whole concept is so concretely established in what we already know,” he said.
Tasers fired at the chest can operate just like a defibrillator—by stimulating the organ through the skin. The difference with a Taser, though, is that the barbed hooks on the end of the device puncture the skin and can deliver a jolt to the heart 10 times more powerful than a defibrillator.
What Zipes said he finds remarkable is that anyone disputes that idea. While Tuttle acknowledged that Taser Inc. recommends avoiding the chest “when possible,” he also added that “it’s not a ‘shall not.’” Asked why that recommendation exists, he cited “a theory several years ago out there that shots to the chest may have some cardiac implications. We put this out in a warning. Like any good company, we’ve got to be concerned about litigious behavior.”
In other words, it’s not that Tasers cause heart attacks. It’s just that the company doesn’t want to get sued if someone has a heart attack after being Tased.
But that litigation threat—and the filing of multiple lawsuits in the wake of Taser-related deaths—has begun to have an effect in the law enforcement community, said Chuck Drago, a former police chief and law enforcement consultant in Florida.
“In the beginning, with any amount of resistance you could use a Taser,” he said. “That’s why you heard about cases where the officer says, ‘You’re under arrest,’ and somebody goes, ‘You can’t arrest me!’ and bam. They’d hit him with a Taser. That’s a lot less likely to happen today.”
Now police have begun using the Taser only as a response to physical violence. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued guidelines that suggest Tasers should be used not just in the case of a person running from police but when a person is “either using physical force or it appears to be imminent,” Drago said. “Departments are toning it back, as they realize the Taser may not be as innocent a weapon as it was broadcast to be in the beginning.”
This issue is about appropriate force....
And without anything to back it up there have been many here who claim many things about Tazers...
Take a look at the daily beast citation I just provided...
I'm not even sure the Miami Beach PD even followed their own rules in this case....
They knew the kid...
Never reported anything about justifiable lethal force conditions...
Witnesses says the cops were busy hi-fiving themselves while the kid was reacting to the tazer hit...
Why do you keep debating points that no one is making?
Whatever. Art, like many things, is often less about talent than getting noticed and, IMO, his success was due, in great part, to his Robin-Hood-with-a-spraycan hook. As for the punishment, that is just a fluke, IMO. The whole point of tazing is to; 1. Subdue without deadly force and, 2. Avoid physical contact with the perp (which can be dangerous for both sides). Call it irony, but the fact he was particularly susceptible to the effects of a tazer is not the fault of the cops in this case.
Again, didn't the guy in Gainesville get tazed? And did he not survive? And do not most of those who get tazed survive?
Sorry, but the positioning and spin in this story is laughable. It was tragic, but it was also a fluke. However, we're led to believe (in the story and by 996) that the Sheriff of Nottingham killed Robin Hood. Baloney.
So, AGAIN, if he was tackled, concussed and died as a result of those injuries, we're not having this conversation, right?
"Robin Hood with a spray can hook"?
Where did you get that from?
"Call it irony, but the fact he was particularly susceptible to the effects of a tazer is not the fault of the cops in this case."
that's what the article is about ...it may not be that he was "particularly susceptible " but that these weapons are more lethal than as advertised.
You seem to be caught in a story that isn't being discussed...which is whether or not they intentionally killed him.
I just don't know how you got to that conclusion.
You keep ignoring my responses in this thread about this. Perhaps you just don't have an answer that suits your point. Tasers and stun guns are advertised as less-lethal options, not non-lethal. If they were marketed as non-lethal it would open up a world of litigation, as plenty of deaths have occurred.
1. My vast powers of deduction. Or, that it's pretty obvious. And, based on the spin in the story, it worked pretty well.
2. So AGAIN (and for what seems like the hundredth time) you would prefer a physical confrontation in this case rather than a tazer? And, AGAIN, if he had died as a result of injuries from said physical confrontation, we would not be having this conversation, correct?
Until you address 2., this conversation is over.
I already did....
Please, show me.
This issue is about appropriate force...."
We would not be having this conversation....
According to this article there have been at least 500 deaths in the US since 2001, and 65 in Florida. That's about 6 deaths a year in FL (2001-2012) It can't really be called a "fluke" or "freak" occurance. Rare, perhaps, but also somewhat alarming.
Cool. So this is all about tazers for you and has nothing to do with overall excessive force (which the cops would have also been accused of under the physical scenario).
That's great. Then let's debate the pros and cons of tazers without the emotional baggage of positioning it as excessive force by police. Again, and IMO, I'm still not sure engaging in physical confrontation is a better option, for either party.
Here is why you will find little sympathy for the artist/victim.
Bad decision #1. He was vandalizing a building, private property not belonging to him without approval from the owner of said property. Had he not done this he would not have been tazed!
Bad decision #2. When confronted by police, he decided to evade and flee to escape. Had he not done this he would not have been tazed!
Very Bad decision #3. When cornered, he decided to charge the officers. Had he not done this he would have not been tazed!
Statistically there are 43 million police officer - civilian interactions per year in the US. Approximately 1% of them are violent, which is about 1,100 per day. If suspects didn't create the issues by whatever form of resistance or action that makes these encounters go violent, many would not be tazed, shot, group tackled, bit by police dogs, whatever.
Please realize that in life you make choices, everybody does, many of them will alter or end your life possibly. It is your decision to make and only yours to make, the outcome is yours to live with. As a society we give youths a little room in holding them responsible, but make no mistake some of these decisions will hold them responsible whether law enforcement is involved or not.
This guy was many things according to the article you posted. Don't dismiss the criminal running from the police! Many of those that are tazered bring it on themselves. Not every tazer use is justified, but most crimes aren't justifiable either!
Yes, if the cops killed the kid it should be investigated regardless of the method because it isn't a case where deadly force seems to have been warranted.
What's wrong in investigating it?
Anytime the state kills someone it should be investigated IMHO.
The point of the article is that this is one method of police operation that needs to be reviewed....especially if the "lazy cop" syndrome is right.